Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Oh for crying out loud. (Score 1) 90

Unfortunately this is the logical conclusion of letting Microsoft dominate desktop computing for a generation and investing too much in software that relies on proprietary data formats. There isn't much effective competition for many of the users who are still using a Windows desktop, because they're locked in by whatever Windows-only software they still rely on. Those who could jump ship to mobile devices, games consoles, Apple desktop or Linux probably already have.

Comment FreeDOS? (Score 2) 79

If Microsoft Open Sources 6.22, it would be best since we don't have access to PC DOS source code either despite having an unlimited license agreement with IBM for PC DOS 2000.

As you seems you need something more modern and with source available:
Have you given FreeDOS a try?
I my limited tests (retrogaming) it seems pretty stable and useful, though your embed use case might have different requirement (complex network stack or dedicated hardware interface on ISA cards that has only been validated against a couple of commercial DOS versions)

Comment LCD (Score 1) 133

(No controllable way to "project black", meaning you need some blocking/filtering;

Passive LEDs have blocked light for decades.

(I think you meant L C D?)

Yeah, that's what I meant by "blocking/filtering".

That's solvable. So in theory, if you combined a projection-style setup like Google Glass used with a 1-bit LCD panel, you might be able to do a passable job.

Passive LCD have poor refresh rate (won't be easy to precisely track a virtual object).

And if you want to have some resolution/precision, when blocking light, the LCD needs to be on a plane that is focused, so you're back at having big clunky optics in front of the eyes which king of defeats the "lightweight normal size glasses," point of the poster above.

Meaning the LCD will most likely be used to shut the whole outside or mask a large part of it (a whole quadrant).

Not black pixels in the view. And thus any virtual layer superimposed on top of the real world is going to be a "floating luminous ghost", unless you go the Magic Leap way and use a special setup room with dim lights (or unless masking the whole outside).

Also, due to how they work (polarization) LCDs will most often block at least 50% (even in pass-through state), so will not be very usable for interacting with the real-world in low-light conditions.

Comment Re:Oh nice... (Score 1) 124

Musical.ly , being another Chinese produced product.
Tiktok doesn't exist in China because it's a western brand.
Douyin is the same product, for the Chinese market.
Both owned by ByteDance.
I doubt they bought Musical.ly for the users. They would have bought it for the licensing agreements they had for music.

Comment No killer app, indeed (Score 1) 133

My personal hope is for something along the lines of the Vision Pro providing me with some really killer virtual monitor arrangements. Or maybe just an iMax like view of my 3D projects or music scores. But it's the only currently available thing I see these being useful for.

And it's not a very well done thing, mostly due to the not so stellar resolution even in the middle of the field of view. Works for workload where one doesn't need super fine resolution (e.g.: video editing), but forget about using this with walls of tiny next (not usable for coding, for example).

Another use that some people have experimented and Apple has touted with their "spacial computing" moniker: leaving multiple windows and applet floating virtually around a large real-world space (e.g.: have various control apps for your widgets in the work area, have browser with receipe and cooking timer in your kitchen, etc.) so as you move between real-world space, you get the revelant stuff already open and floating wating for you.

The problem is that, at the price of that Apple asks for the Vision Pro, and at the price one finds electronics on, e.g., AliExpress: for the 3500 bucks that Apple asks for their "Spacial Computer", one can buy 35x sub 100 bucks no-name tablets, and leave actual tablets lying around the real world to have "already opened and ready to use apps" all-over. Meh.

Comment More like Newton (Score 2) 133

I say this based on experiences like the iPod, the iPad and the iPhone, which while not immediate successes did far better than the alternatives.

My impression is that this is more like the Newton, when Apple utterly failed at making a succesful portable/pocket computer, to the point that they abandoned the form factor, and it took Palm to teach a lesson in how to actually make a success in that form factor before Apple made another somewhat less lackluster attempt with the iPhone and iPod Touch (after having seen a demo of the Handspring + modem Springboard).

Also Vision Pro doesn't have a killer app.
(The "extra screen while on the move" is very limited in practice due to resolution limitation of VR).
It's clearly more of an early prototype to start exploring the platform, that somehow marketing stumbled upon and decided to push through. As you said it:

but in reality the price puts it in the realm of early adopters and businesses with a specific need.

Comment Particality (Score 1) 133

Call me back when AR/VR can be done with a set of lightweight normal size glasses,

Sadly, those pesky physics stand in the way.
(No controllable way to "project black", meaning you need some blocking/filtering;
No practical way to project a picture without at least some optics: all the alternative things - like waveguides - which were tried turned out rather crappy)

There are some attempts at making smaller headsets (e.g.: some like Bigscreen are trying to be as light as an immersive VR can be) or less isolating (e.g.: stuff like Lynx has roughly similar optic to the AVP, but the mask is optional it's also usable with peripheral vision unblocked), but all these are still somewhat clunky, and still cost a lot due to manufacturing scale (compared to, e.g., Quest).
Note that they still cost a fraction of Apple's turd and also weight a lot less.

Comment Not a fuel (Score 1) 332

Low weight is great for things people carry around, but the way EV builders are pac-manning up Lithium from mines, it's surprising it hasn't gone up in price like a rocket.

Because, it's not a fuel?
Yes, demand on lithium is increasing as manufacturer of battery-powered devices ramps-up.

But the lithium in a battery powered device is merely a one time inital affair. Once the battery has been built you don't need any more lithium over the life time of the battery. There's no need to constantly pump more lithium into an EV for it to function.

Contrast this with the fossil fuel pipelines.

That's why switching to EV hasn't had an as dramatic effect on Lithium prices as ICE have had on fossil fuel.
Same reason why even if they EV are more complex to build and manufacturing one has larger climate impact than manufacturing an ICE, ICE's constant guzzling of gas overtakes EV's environmental impact after a couple of years (2 to 3 depending on the local energy mix).

(And similar differences of scale also concern nuclear power generation: yes it needs to "burn" a fissile fuel. But it uses so little of that fissile fuel and it amount for such a minute fraction of the overall cost that even insane fluctuations of prices would barely have any noticeable impact on electricity bills)

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Working...