fortune(6) lies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

fortune(6) lies

Boudewijn Dijkstra-2
Some of the historic fortune(6) adages are good to have, but I have my
doubts about this one:

=======================================================================
Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer.  It has
a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
What's the first question that the computer community asks?

"Is it PC compatible?"
=======================================================================


--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
(Remove the obvious prefix to reply privately.)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Nick Holland
On 06/24/11 04:44, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:

> Some of the historic fortune(6) adages are good to have, but I have my
> doubts about this one:
>
> =======================================================================
> Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer.  It has
> a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
> storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
> voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
> What's the first question that the computer community asks?
>
> "Is it PC compatible?"
> =======================================================================
>
>

What lie?  Looks dead-on to me.

As someone who's interest in the small computer predates the IBM PC
(0.625M RAM, 10M HD, 4.8MHz proc, 320x200 graphics), I can relate to
everything on that quote, other than an imbalance in the imagined
progress (STILL waiting for my 4096x4096 screen).

yes, there was a time when "Meg" was a woman's name and Gig was
something a band did, and if you said "gigahertz" to someone, they'd
probably look around to see if there were any children or members of the
opposite sex around, and all those numbers were absurdly big.

Long ago (~1989), in a job much closer than where I'm working now, I
worked for Zenith Data Systems.  We had an interesting machine called a
Z-1000 -- an asymetric multi-processor machine (20MHz 80386 work
processors, 16MHz 80386 control processor...or maybe other way around,
I'm not going to swear to those specs), fair amount of RAM for the day
per processor, no video board, lots of serial port concentrators.  Ran
SCO Xenix, about the size of a dorm room fridge, and a lot heavier.

To deal with the questions (which I found annoying), I put a sign on it,
"Zenith Z-1000.  Not PC Compatable.  Will not run Flight Simulator, will
not run Lotus 123, not even at gun point".  I was somewhat horrified to
find out it would boot a PC's version of MSDOS over the serial console,
but fortunately no one noticed my experiment or that it worked.

Didn't sell a single one of them.  That's all people wanted to know.
"Is it PC compatible?  Does it run Flight Simulator?  Does it run Lotus
123?" (FS and 123 were the benchmarks of PC compatibility.  In the
earlier days, there were a few machines which were built to the
benchmarks, ran Lotus 123 and Flight Simulator and little else).

Nick.
(showing his age)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

patrick keshishian
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nick Holland
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 06/24/11 04:44, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>> Some of the historic fortune(6) adages are good to have, but I have my
>> doubts about this one:
>>
>> =======================================================================
>> Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer.  It has
>> a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
>> storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
>> voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
>> What's the first question that the computer community asks?
>>
>> "Is it PC compatible?"
>> =======================================================================
>>
>>
>
> What lie?  Looks dead-on to me.
>
> As someone who's interest in the small computer predates the IBM PC
> (0.625M RAM, 10M HD, 4.8MHz proc, 320x200 graphics), I can relate to
> everything on that quote, other than an imbalance in the imagined
> progress (STILL waiting for my 4096x4096 screen).

that's so square. 4098x2304 would be much superior.


> Long ago (~1989), in a job much closer than where I'm working now, I
> worked for Zenith Data Systems.  We had an interesting machine called a
> Z-1000 -- an asymetric multi-processor machine (20MHz 80386 work
> processors, 16MHz 80386 control processor...or maybe other way around,
> I'm not going to swear to those specs), fair amount of RAM for the day
> per processor, no video board, lots of serial port concentrators.  Ran
> SCO Xenix, about the size of a dorm room fridge, and a lot heavier.
>
> To deal with the questions (which I found annoying), I put a sign on it,
> "Zenith Z-1000.  Not PC Compatable.  Will not run Flight Simulator, will
> not run Lotus 123, not even at gun point".  I was somewhat horrified to
> find out it would boot a PC's version of MSDOS over the serial console,
> but fortunately no one noticed my experiment or that it worked.

picture or didn't happen.

--patrick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Kevin Chadwick-2
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:44:45 -0700
patrick keshishian wrote:

> that's so square. 4098x2304 would be much superior.

What shape are your pupils? Rectangles?

You don't need that high a res on a small screen.

Imax > Widescreen

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

patrick keshishian
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Kevin Chadwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:44:45 -0700
> patrick keshishian wrote:
>
>> that's so square. 4098x2304 would be much superior.
>
> What shape are your pupils? Rectangles?

maybe you are special, but my peripheral vision extends more
horizontally than it does vertically.


> You don't need that high a res on a small screen.

don't presume to tell others what they need.

--patrick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Kevin Chadwick-2
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:53:49 -0700
patrick keshishian wrote:

> >
> > What shape are your pupils? Rectangles?  
>
> maybe you are special, but my peripheral vision extends more
> horizontally than it does vertically.

Actually it is positioned where you are being most alert. If you
expect high vertical movement you will see horizontal vertical movement
first. You are simply and naturally trained to expect horizontal
movements most as that is the plane we live on. Peripheral vision is a
mental marvel. redo the stupid university finger test while
concentrating horizontally. Due to starting martial arts when I was
five, if anything pointy is between what I am focussing on (the screen)
and my eyes then my peripheral vision makes me whince/move my head and
actually hurts my eyes. The other day I leant behind a computer and
caught a glimpse of a shelf above in my peripheral. My natural reaction
was to dip my head and head but that shelf. I laughed so hard.
Peripheral vision has next to nothing to do with an immersive
experience anyway.

Hence Imax (4:3) is better for video. It varies per task.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

LeviaComm Networks NOC
In reply to this post by Kevin Chadwick-2
On 24-Jun-11 12:16, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:44:45 -0700
> patrick keshishian wrote:
>
>> that's so square. 4098x2304 would be much superior.
>
> What shape are your pupils? Rectangles?
>
How do you know that a goat wouldn't be using it?  How do you know that
goats aren't its targeted demographic?
> You don't need that high a res on a small screen.
>
> Imax>  Widescreen
>
>
>


And Cray does make a desktop, while it certainly doesn't fit in your
pocket, it is more than capable of outputting to much higher resolutions
than 4096x4096

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

David Coppa
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM, LeviaComm Networks <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And Cray does make a desktop, while it certainly doesn't fit in your pocket,
> it is more than capable of outputting to much higher resolutions than
> 4096x4096

http://www.cray.com/Products/CX/Systems.aspx

ciao,
David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Boudewijn Dijkstra-2
In reply to this post by Boudewijn Dijkstra-2
Op Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:12:44 +0200 schreef Nick Holland  
<[hidden email]>:

> On 06/24/11 04:44, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>> Some of the historic fortune(6) adages are good to have, but I have my
>> doubts about this one:
>>
>> =======================================================================
>> Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer.  It has
>> a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
>> storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
>> voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
>> What's the first question that the computer community asks?
>>
>> "Is it PC compatible?"
>> =======================================================================
>>
>>
>
> What lie?  Looks dead-on to me.

Taken out of its unspecified context into the present day, the computer  
community won't ask that.

> As someone who's interest in the small computer predates the IBM PC
> (0.625M RAM, 10M HD, 4.8MHz proc, 320x200 graphics), I can relate to
> everything on that quote, other than an imbalance in the imagined
> progress (STILL waiting for my 4096x4096 screen).

That the 'computer community' would ask that question, is based entirely  
on the assumption that the PC platform is and will be the only platform  
that has a decent choice in "apps".  Did the 'computer community' worry  
about app availability when the iPhone came out?  Hardly.  The gradual  
miniaturization of computer platforms has expanded the 'computer  
community' to almost every consumer.  The above phrase "imagine that" not  
only includes technological progress, but also sociological changes.  
Granted, the latter is much harder to predict.

> yes, there was a time when "Meg" was a woman's name and Gig was
> something a band did, and if you said "gigahertz" to someone, they'd
> probably look around to see if there were any children or members of the
> opposite sex around, and all those numbers were absurdly big.
>
> Long ago (~1989), in a job much closer than where I'm working now, I
> worked for Zenith Data Systems.  We had an interesting machine called a
> Z-1000 -- an asymetric multi-processor machine (20MHz 80386 work
> processors, 16MHz 80386 control processor...or maybe other way around,
> I'm not going to swear to those specs), fair amount of RAM for the day
> per processor, no video board, lots of serial port concentrators.  Ran
> SCO Xenix, about the size of a dorm room fridge, and a lot heavier.
>
> To deal with the questions (which I found annoying), I put a sign on it,
> "Zenith Z-1000.  Not PC Compatable.  Will not run Flight Simulator, will
> not run Lotus 123, not even at gun point".  I was somewhat horrified to
> find out it would boot a PC's version of MSDOS over the serial console,
> but fortunately no one noticed my experiment or that it worked.
>
> Didn't sell a single one of them.  That's all people wanted to know.
> "Is it PC compatible?  Does it run Flight Simulator?  Does it run Lotus
> 123?" (FS and 123 were the benchmarks of PC compatibility.  In the
> earlier days, there were a few machines which were built to the
> benchmarks, ran Lotus 123 and Flight Simulator and little else).
>
> Nick.
> (showing his age)

I often seem to somehow get old people to tell good stories.  ;)


--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
(Remove the obvious prefix to reply.)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Claudio Jeker
In reply to this post by patrick keshishian
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:44:45AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Nick Holland
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 06/24/11 04:44, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> >> Some of the historic fortune(6) adages are good to have, but I have my
> >> doubts about this one:
> >>
> >> =======================================================================
> >> Imagine that Cray computer decides to make a personal computer.  It has
> >> a 150 MHz processor, 200 megabytes of RAM, 1500 megabytes of disk
> >> storage, a screen resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels, relies entirely on
> >> voice recognition for input, fits in your shirt pocket and costs $300.
> >> What's the first question that the computer community asks?
> >>
> >> "Is it PC compatible?"
> >> =======================================================================
> >>
> >>
> >
> > What lie?  Looks dead-on to me.
> >
> > As someone who's interest in the small computer predates the IBM PC
> > (0.625M RAM, 10M HD, 4.8MHz proc, 320x200 graphics), I can relate to
> > everything on that quote, other than an imbalance in the imagined
> > progress (STILL waiting for my 4096x4096 screen).
>
> that's so square. 4098x2304 would be much superior.
>

You can buy 4096x2560 monitors. Only grayscale but the image is awsome.
For color you need to go down 6MP aka 3280x2048 30" screens.
Or there are the 2048x2048 monitors for air traffic management.
Unsure if those displays will work with OpenBSD but if someone gets me on
I will test it :)

--
:wq Claudio

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Miod Vallat
> You can buy 4096x2560 monitors. Only grayscale but the image is awsome.
> For color you need to go down 6MP aka 3280x2048 30" screens.
> Or there are the 2048x2048 monitors for air traffic management.
> Unsure if those displays will work with OpenBSD but if someone gets me on
> I will test it :)

That's not fair! I asked for such a beast years ago in
http://www.openbsd.org/want.html to work on a particular imaging device,
I should be first to test (-:

Miod

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Magnus Rixtorp
On 2011-06-25 14:23, Miod Vallat wrote:

>> You can buy 4096x2560 monitors. Only grayscale but the image is awsome.
>> For color you need to go down 6MP aka 3280x2048 30" screens.
>> Or there are the 2048x2048 monitors for air traffic management.
>> Unsure if those displays will work with OpenBSD but if someone gets me on
>> I will test it :)
> That's not fair! I asked for such a beast years ago in
> http://www.openbsd.org/want.html to work on a particular imaging device,
> I should be first to test (-:
>
> Miod
>

Ask and you might yet receive...
http://en.akihabaranews.com/99029/displays/eizo-introduces-a-36-4%E2%80%9D-4k2k-monitor-in-japan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: fortune(6) lies

Kevin Chadwick-2
In reply to this post by Claudio Jeker
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:35:44 +0200
Claudio Jeker wrote:

> Unsure if those displays will work with OpenBSD but if someone gets me on
> I will test it :)

Do you actually have media for this?