Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:06:33 05/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 13:10:16, Roy Eassa wrote:
>On May 26, 2002 at 23:28:38, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 2002 at 15:55:00, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>I'm exagerating a little bit, but do you disagree completely?
>
>
>
>From reading what you wrote below, no I don't disagree. You are talking about
>all the unnecessary extras and with that topic I agree 100%. I mentioned two
>other points: 1) *some* additions are really useful and do require some
>upgrades, and 2) most people are free to (and often DO) stop upgrading and
>continue to use their older hardware/software. If you concur on those two
>points then I guess we have no disagreement at all! :-)
Yes I agree.
I would not say that some applications do not need more power. It's just that
I'm a little bit upset by all the computing resources wasted by the OS, which
then lead people to believe that they need a faster computer, when in fact they
need a slimer OS.
I'm using Windows Millennium Edition. I could not use it without an utility
called 98lite that allows me to remove unwanted modules from the OS (for example
the stupid "system restore" option which makes the system extremely slow and
which fills the hard disk in no time).
Windows ME is rather slim and fast with 98lite. I have no idea how people can
use it without 98lite.
On the subject of people delaying their upgrade, well unfortunately I have tried
to do this and did not succeed. There is such a pressure on the consumer that it
is hard to resist.
I have been using Windows 95B as long as possible. Unfortunately in 2000 I had
to give up: it does not support USB. Then I have been using 98SE, but found
WinME to be quite better, so I gave up too.
I don't know how long I will manage to keep it. I guess that lack of support for
new peripherals will force me to move.
Christophe
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.