What would make computing better?

[Sympology]

We keep getting told that everything will be convereged, this will happen, that will happen. But as end users, what would people like to happen within realistic timescales?(Please don't turn this into a x vs y thread). These tiems may exist, but are to expensive or rare.

I'm on about the sort of things that you think "That would be great".

For example, Universal connections? Take my Laptop, drop it into a dock and it uploads content from the PVR and set the alarm clock to remind me that I have to get up early to get to the airport. I've set my diary to say I'm on holiday for two weeks, so all the lights go into "security mode".

Stu..


Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[pmonett]

Ahh, Grenage, but I've tried Linux.

I tried in University back in 1994 (yikes!). It was in its infancy for sure, but quite powerful already. Had to go to a special club (back then PCs were almost black market property, Linux even worse) to have it installed. I remember that they opened the case of my desktop and were overjoyed to find that it had a few ISA slots free. So they slotted in a BNC network card and had me install Linux from the network. They set it up in a jiffy (less than 90 minutes), and I was on my way. It was quite useful for my Uni math and programming tests.

Much later, when I got Internet connection at home (around 1999), I downloaded a distro and never managed to make the graphical interface work.

In 2001 I tried another distro and got graphics, but never got my mouse to work.

In 2003 I tried yet again and the graphics came up fine, the network was OK but, for some reason, I couldn't get on Internet. I was on a modem attached to another PC (under Win 98 SE) via a home router, so I guess there's a lot of room for issues there.

And there we are, I haven't tried since.

What have I learned about Linux ? It gets better and better every time, but you still have to be a geek to get it working the way you want it to. It is way more powerful than Windows, runs things way more stable, but it still cannot run Battlefield 2142, or Supreme Commander, or Evil Genius, or most other games that are out there. Sure, any game that gets an OpenGL patch has a chance of running under Linux, but not many do.

I'm a gamer at the core, when I start my home PC it's to play more than anything else. So it follows that I need an OS that runs the games I can buy, and at this point in time that OS is, to my deepest regret, Windows .

One thing is for sure, though : when the time comes where I can no longer play the games I want because XP cannot run them anymore, that will be the day I say a definitive Good Bye and Good Riddance to Microsoft and set myself to learning how to run a Linux computer. I know I can learn, I just don't have the time at the moment.

Unless Linux obtains the ability to run DirectX games from the disk. Can happen, but not before 2056 I reckon.

Pascal.


I've got nothing to hide, and I'd very much like to keep that away from prying eyes.

 

[Sympology]

I believe the classic "Wargames" is up for a remake.

The film will last 2 minutes. 1 Minute 45 seconds will be the system booting, 14 seconds for the simulations and launch procedures then with ONE SECOND TO GO !!!!!!!!! The system blue screens and the world is saved...

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[dgrewe]

Debating on what would make computeing better is like the Senate debating the resolution to end the Iraq war now. YOUR PISSING INTO THE WIND.

Microsoft will determine the future of computing the way THEY want it. They do not give a grap about what you think or want. So all the talking about what you want on this subject is useless.


David W. Grewe Dave

 

[Grenage]

Aye, Pascal; I can truly appreciate where you are coming from regarding games. My only disagreement would be regarding Linux accessing directx. There is no need for it, the games manufacturers could easily code their games to work on Linux and Windows. The reason they don't is simply lack of demand.

I've been lucky in that all the games I've wanted to play recently have worked flawlessly under 'wine'.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[Sympology]

Dave,
maybe you should of read the first post. The idea of the thread was to see what people wanted, not was being dictated to us.

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Opieo]

I crave for the programmers of games to code in OpenGL.
I really do.
I think they don't understand so its a catch 22 situation.
The gamers use Windows because thats where the games are made for, and the game makers make for windows because thats what the gamers currently use.
If they could just use OpenGL instead of DirectX, it would be a huge step towards the gamers being able to choose Linux or Windows.
Then we will see a far more accurate representation of what gamers want.
I really need to look into Wine and other programs of the same sort.
I have run into problems before though when I tried because some of my games are far more off the wall.
Mmm Sword of the Stars. =P

~
Give a man some fire, he will be warm for a day, Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.

 

[Grenage]

Aye, not all games work in it. At least you can find out what to expect by checking the appDB on the wine website.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[harebrain]

Microsoft will determine the future of computing the way THEY want it. They do not give a grap about what you think or want. So all the talking about what you want on this subject is useless.

Been drinking the Microsoft Kool-aid?

If the above were true, we wouldn't have this conversation, topic, or even this forum right now. Microsoft didn't invent the Internet, but they sure latched onto it. Regardless of what Microsoft says and wants you to believe ("Microsoft = innovation") innovations will always originate with individual wants and needs, regardless of corporate sponsorship. It doesn't matter whether Microsoft or any other company gives a "grap" [sic]. If there's money to be made from it, our dreams will come true.

 

[burtsbees]

You should check out some of the videos (on Youtube, for example) of Microsoft demos getting the blue screen in front of a televised crowd. It happened to Gates on Conan O' Brien---well, not a blue screen, but a technical difficulty nonetheless...

Burt

 

[dilettante]

The new internet will help.

Maybe, but help whom?

One of the biggest drums the IPv6 crowd has beat over the years is "the death of NAT."

Of course most of us are aware of the problems NAT causes us. And the IPv6 crowd raises legitimate concerns about the distortions of the Internet's fundamental P2P model caused by the various types of NAT out there. But who stands to gain and who stands to lose here?


When the Internet went public adoption ramped up quickly. Soon public ISPs went into business supplementing the non-IP services who provided IP gateways into the Internet. Later those providers went all-IP (or died, or were gobbled up).

Demand for bandwidth led to cable television operators experimenting with cable modems. For the average person this was the only broadband option, since xDSL had not been deployed yet. Early broadband adopters often had their own internal networks, and came to desire Internet access for all of their internal machines.

At the low end, home and SOHO users, you typically got a single fixed IP address in your base broadband rate. They charged for more IP addresses. NAT was a wonderful (if "illegal" according to most Terms of Service) solution. Over time broadband providers have slowly caved in and relaxed their TOS, it was an uphill battle anyway and for a time the market was competitive (in a surrealistic fashion based on Madison Avenue firms trumping up an illusion of competition to continue gaining broadband advertising contracts).

The parallels with analog cable TV are obvious.

The cable TV industry fought back with "digital cable" which is meant to get consumers to pay multiple times for multiple TV sets once again.

IPv6 is the same thing for broadband Internet providers: a way to charge you for every PC you have in your home.

Anyone else remember "shotgun" modems? Anyone else still have these? Or {shudder} still use them?

These were PC modem cards that had two integrated 56K modems. You used them with two telephone lines and a cooperating ISP. The PC had software that could dial one or both lines and and bond them for a "112K" connection. Usually if the lines supported "call waiting" the modem and software could detect an incoming call and drop one line allowing the call to come in to a telephone. Picking up a phone on one of these lines was also detected, and the line would be dropped allowing an outgoing telephone call to be placed. You didn't lose Internet connectivity because the other line was kept active.

Often load detection was used so that most of the time only one line stayed in use by your network.