Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment I was thinking of "high end" in terms of (Score 1) 130 130

what consumers had access to by walking into a retail computer dealership (there were many independent white box makers at the time) and saying "give me your best."

You're probably right about me underestimating the graphics, though it's hard to remember back that far. I'm thinking 800x600 was much more common. If you could get 1024x768, it was usually interlaced (i.e. "auto-headache") and rare if I remember correctly to be able to get with 24-bit color—S3's first 16-bit capable chips didn't come out until late-1991, if I remember correctly, though I could be off.

SCSI was possible, but almost unheard of as stock, you either had to buy an add-on card and deal with driver/compatibility questions or one of the ESDISCSI bridge boards or similar. Same thing with ethernet, token, or any other dedicated networking hardware and stack. Most systems shipped with a dial-up "faxmodem" at the time, and users were stuck using Winsock on Windows 3.1. It was nontrivial to get it working. Most of the time, there was no real "networking" or "networking" support in the delivered hardware/software platform; faxmodems were largely used for dumb point-to-point connections using dial-up terminal emulator software.

And in the PC space, the higher-end you went, the less you were able to actually use the hardware for anything typical. Unless you were a corporate buyer, you bought your base platform as a whitebox, then added specialized hardware matched with specialized software in a kind of 1:1 correspondence—if you needed to perform task X, you'd buy hardware Y and software Z, and they'd essentially be useful only for task X, or maybe for task X1, X2, and X3, but certainly not much else—the same is even true for memory itself. Don't forget this is pre-Windows95, when most everyone was using Win16 on DOS. We can discuss OS/2, etc., but that again starts to get into the realm of purpose-specific and exotic computing in the PC space. There were, as I understand, a few verrry exotic 486 multiprocessors produced, but I've never even heard of a manufacturer and make/model for these—only the rumor that it was possible—so I doubt they ever made it into sales channels of any kind. My suspicion (correct me if I'm wrong) was that they were engineered for particular clients and particular roles by just one or two orgnaizations, and delivered in very small quantities; I'm not aware of any PC software in 1992 timeframe that was even multiprocessor-aware, or any standard to which it could have been coded. The Pentium processor wasn't introduced until '93 and the Pentium Pro with GTL+ and SMP capabilities didn't arrive until 1995. Even in 1995, most everything was either Win16 or 8- or 16-bit code backward compatible to the PC/XT or earlier, and would remain that way until around the Win98 era.

The UNIX platforms were standardized around SCSI, ethernet, big memory access, high-resolution graphics, and multiprocessing and presented an integrated environment in which a regular developer with a readily available compiler could take advantage of it all without particularly unusual or exotic (for that space) tactics.

Comment Re:Ouya? Razer? (Score 1) 82 82

Tegra 3 in the Ouya is still faster than a Raspberry Pi 2. (RPi2 is faster than a Tegra 2 though)

My hope was they would release an update of Ouya with the Tegra K1. But that never happened. The SHIELD console has a Tegra X1, but the base unit costs twice what Ouya did, so it's a bit hard to justify the purchase. It's certainly more than twice the performance, but is it twice the fun?

Comment So funny, but yeah, totally true. (Score 1) 130 130

The 386 box that I installed Linux on my first time around was 4MB (4x1MB 30-pin SIMMs). 4MB! I mean, holy god, that's tiny. It seemed sooooo big compared to the 640kb of 8-bit PCs, and yet it's basically the same order of magnitude. Not even enough to load a single JPG snapshot from a camera phone these days.

Comment Wow, end of an era. (Score 4, Interesting) 130 130

For more than just a couple of us here, I suspect, there was a time when "Sparc," "UNIX," "graphics," "Internet," and "science" were all nearly synonymous terms.

Simpler times. Boy did that hardware last and last and last in comparison to the hardware of today.

Well, I suppose it can finally no longer be said that the Sparcstation 10 I keep here just for old times' sake can still run "current Linux distributions." But it's still fun to pull it out for people, show them hundreds of megabytes of RAM, 1152x900 24-bit graphics, gigabytes of storage, multiple ethernet channels, and multiple processors, running Firefox happily, and tell them it dates to 1992, when high-end PCs were shipping with mayyybe 16-32GB RAM, a single 486 processor, 640x480x16 graphics, a few dozen megabytes of storage, and no networking.

It helps people to get a handle on how it was possible to develop the internet and do so much of the science that came out of that period—and why even though I don't know every latest hot language, the late '80s/early '90s computer science program that I went to (entirely UNIX-based, all homework done using the CLI, vi, and gcc, emphasis on theory, classic data structures, and variously networked/parallelized environments, with labs of Sparc and 88k hardware all on a massive campus network) seems to have prepared me for today's real-world needs better than the programs they went to, with lots of Dell boxes running Windows-based Java IDEs.

Comment Re: Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 4, Insightful) 520 520

The problem with subsiding solar is that it causes the market to compete for subsidies instead of produceing a good product.

Funny, never once heard that complaint about oil, but renewables come along and all of a sudden it's all hand-wringing and embarrassed shrugs...

Comment Re: Won't allow forwarding? (Score 1) 193 193

It is not possible to take copies with a copy machine of money, because of restrictions in the machine, not because some magic in the money.

Take away that restriction and you will be able to copy money.

So if the program does not have this restriction, it will be able to do it. Gimp?

Comment Re:I don't care anymore (Score 1) 151 151

Ads cut into corporate profits, they are an investment, when they pay off with more sales, they are a good investment. When everyone blocks the ads, then they are simply a drain on profits and ought to be eliminated or fixed. Companies are not likely to blindly pay for ads if they are projected to lose them money.

If you think not watching ads will make everything cheaper, that seems unlikely. But if you think not watching ads will get businesses to think of different ways to promote products and stop interrupting your day with their bullshit, that seems more feasible.

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...