Re: NadaNet 3.1 Released

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Jun 4, 12:56 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> > I see what you mean. As a long time Unix user, I found the Mac
> > compelling as a laptop since it offered me the best of both worlds -
> > a high degree of out-of-box Unix compatibility + MS Office and Adobe.
> > Prior to 2008 I never bothered owning a laptop, preferring my
> > computing 'tethered', but the 4-5 year lifespan made the cost equation
> > pretty compelling, even when considering the Mac price difference.
> > $1500 over 4 years is cheap enough for me, and the machine will
> > probably have resale value to boot.
>
> I understand that Apple always marks up their hardware by a goodly
> factor, and that it supports their R&D--which is a good thing.
>
> But I still resist paying such a premium for essentially comparable
> hardware.  (I can always just sent Apple a contribution if I want to
> support their R&D.  ;-)

:-) It's been that way since the Apple II first shipped - I saw an old
price list recently and was astounded by the cost difference of a 4k
Apple II vs a 48k ...

Of course, the software the machine can run and the community around
it is a part of the value equation. Happily, there exists again the
commitment to quality that the Apple II market had, which is quite
refreshing.

Depending on who you ask, OS X is worth from nothing to quite a bit
more than the Apple hardware mark up. My own view is that Apple is a
software company that makes its own hardware, rather than a hardware
company making value added software if you see what I mean ...

> >>I'm a bit overdue for a new desktop system (my main machine is still
> >>a 3GHz Pentium 4 ;-), and I lean toward building a quad core machine
> >>in the $700 range, which I expect will hold me for another 5 years.
>
> > Likewise. Mine's a little newer (a dual core AMD) but it'll probably
> > get the rebuild treatment as I want to consolidate desktop computing
> > to a single host - DVI and USB over ethernet means I can have a 'head'
> > at my desk, and at the TV for media, and bury the box in the cupboard
> > with the network kit.
>
> Nice.  As someone once said, "Hell is having more than one computer."
> ;-)

> I have five to take care of, counting my wife's, so I can really
> appreciate the simplicity of your solution.
>
> So far, network backups and syncs, combined with more procedural
> discipline than I enjoy, is keeping me sane (but busy ;-).

Ouch. Our house currently has 4  - Two Mac laptops, a (Linux) PC and
an Apple IIe. Only the PC requires maintenance as it backs up the
others, but I've mostly got that automated. If you choose the right
Linux distro, you get a 5 year support cycle so software upgrades tend
to match my current hardware cycle nicely.

Electricity is getting expensive enough here that I'm considering
adding a solar panel to offset the cost of the constantly running
household server, but I'm not sure we'll keep the house long enough to
break even.

> >>>Given how many people use computers for just the small list of
> >>>utilitarian tasks you mention, it will be interesting to see how
> >>>successful the iPad is at capturing that market. It certainly closes
> >>>the cost gap, and the "closed + less flexible" perspective can also be
> >>>a "simpler + more reliable" perspective. My mother for instance barely
> >>>touches her laptop, but is literally drooling over the iPad. Her
> >>>eyesight is failing her and the "pinch zoom scroll" touch interface
> >>>for reading books is a *huge* drawcard.
>
> >>I was reading my Kindle on a train recently, and a woman sitting next
> >>to me asked about *exactly* that feature!  Enlarged type clearly meets
> >>a real user need.
>
> >>>My prediction is that iPad-alike devices will destroy the market for
> >>>cheap generic laptops over time and if Apple capture even 1/4" of that
> >>>market, they'll be a lot better positioned than they are now.
>
> >>Well, my laptop is my "desktop replacement" for months at a time,
> >>including video encoding, so I doubt that an iPad will be more than
> >>an "access device" to more computing horsepower.  Still, I'm looking
> >>forward to the next version.  (One of "Mahon's Laws" is:  Never get
> >>version 1.x or version n.0 of anything.  ;-)  (I should really credit
> >>Pope:  "Be not the first by which the new is tried/nor yet the last
> >>to lay the old aside.")
>
> > :-) My setup is similar, except I travel less often at the moment. I
> > suspect a next generation iPad to breed a few more ARM cores and make
> > encoding bearable, then power them all off afterward.
>
> I'm ready for that!  Until then, I can use the iPad to orchestrate my
> growing "server farm" to do the heavy lifting.  ;-)

:-)

> >>>>If concurrency is implemented by message passing, then queue depth
> >>>>makes a bottleneck quite obvious.
>
> >>>Absolutely. It's my favourite way of implementing parallelism for
> >>>exactly that reason, and it's proven itself over time to be scalable
> >>>as long as you find the right intercept point for the queue :-)
>
> >>It certainly makes it clear where faster or more servers are useful.
>
> > Yes, and in professional development being able to scale out
> > horizontally at the queue points is a boon; boxes are cheaper than
> > programmers.
>
> And with AppleCrate's, too.  ;-)

Indeed. That's where the distributed assembler idea tempts me. We
could get almost all of the advantages of cross development and do it
*on* the Apple II. Of course, the compromise is that you won't be able
to emulate the 'farm' and take your development environment on the
road :-(

...

Matt