Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:55:00 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 01:34:59, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 25, 2002 at 19:30:29, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On May 24, 2002 at 14:16:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2002 at 07:54:52, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On May 23, 2002 at 21:44:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 23, 2002 at 20:51:23, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>When should it be released? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What are you refering to? >>>>> >>>>>To a native StrongARM version of Chess Tiger, or to ARM-based Palms? >>>> >>>> >>>>ARM-based Palms. You already said you will come soon after that! >>>> >>>>> >>>>>The ARM based Palms are going to be released this fall. >>>>> >>>>>PalmOS 5 running on the ARM models is currently being demonstrated in a >>>>>PalmSource conference in London. >>>>> >>>>>PalmOS 5 is able to run most of the existing software designed for existing >Palm >>>>>models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>And I would like to get my ARM when it is perfected, which might not be the >>>>>>first minute the first ones come onto the market. Or WILL it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Not sure what your question means. >>>>> >>>>>The first ARM based models will have PalmOS 5 (current models have PalmOS >4.1). >>>>> >>>>>PalmOS will then evolve to a more StrongARM native version with more >multimedia >>>>>and tralala. >>>> >>>>YES! THAT's IT! The tralala! lalalala >>>> >>>> >>>>>It will be called PalmOS 6. My guess is that it will be possible to >>>>>install PalmOS 6 in the Palms originally shipped with PalmOS 5 that are going <to >>>>>be released this fall. >>>>> >>>>>The ROM in the Palms is a flash ROM. So the system can be updated (I have >>>>>personally updated from PalmOS 3.1 to PalmOS 3.3 on my PalmIIIx). >>>>> >>>>>You will not be able to update to PalmOS 5 (or 6) if you have a DragonBall >Palm >>>>>model (all current models are). >>>>> >>>>>You will most probably be able move to PalmOS 6 if you buy an ARM-based Palm. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>After it comes out, how much better might it get after that (would that be >>near >>>>>>perfection for all handhelds)? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This time I don't understand your question. Maybe you should not use the word >>>>>"perfection" when it comes to computers. >>>> >>>>I'm only human! >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>>But I mean, maybe the speed and space in Palms cannot and need not ever be much >>>>more? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>> >>>There is no difference with the PC world. More speed is not really needed but >>>people will ask for it and so manufacturers will provide it. Or maybe it is the >>>opposite, manufacturers will provide it and people will believe they need it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Yes, that's exactly what I think sometimes. Only in chess, there IS some use for >>it. >>But my 1.4 Ghz. AMD proccessor takes just as much time as did my Pentium 1 on >>100Mhz. to access windows. >>S.Taylor > > > >I couldn't agree more with you. > >Windows is designed to slow down the computer in such a way that when you buy a >new computer most of the tasks will not be executed faster with the new >computer, simply because it has a newer Windows. > >The slowdown is disguised as new flashy features (graphics, sounds, shadow under >the mouse pointer...) but the end result is that you won't work faster with a >new computer (I mean for most people's everyday use). > >They call it "innovation". > >The same applies for memory. 16Mb was enough to work several years ago, now you >need at least 128Mb (or else your computer is sloooooow). But with your 128Mb >you are not going to be more productive than with 16 (I mean for most people). > >That's progress of a sort, especially for computer makers (helped by OS makers). > > I usually agree with most of you opinions on these sorts of things, but I differ somewhat here. The ability to rip MP3, play movies at hi-res, and a hundred other advances, are REAL improvements. They *do* require a faster CPU, more RAM, more disk space, and often a newer OS and a better graphics card. There are millions of users who may not be interested in these advances; for them, sticking with Windows 95 or 3.1 (Or Mac OS 7 or earlier) plus 16 MB of RAM; their old software works fine for them. I know numerous people who have "frozen" their hardware, software, OS, and capabilities at various historical points, ranging from 1994-ish (several friends) to my Mac, which I've purposely frozen at Year 1999-2000 levels (can still play MPEGs & rip MP3s nicely & has FireWire & 100baseTX). Real work gets done on those systems but they do fall behind in some ways as the years go on. It's a tradeoff one can make willingly.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.