 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 2010 20:09:00 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
> technically sophisticated.
Actually, that's quite pragmatic more than sad; often you find that the
requirements come down to the lowest common denominator. Implementing
things that are more esoteric tend to not happen because they aren't
likely to be widely utilized.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> What IP does is provide a single language for networking.
So does every network. And the IP stack doesn't support all sorts of stuff
that other networks do. You're just expressing a tautology.
> Any networking
> technology that has a standardised way of carrying IP can potentially be
> interconnected with any other such technology.
And any networking technology that has a standardized way of carrying SONET
can be interconnected with any other such technology. Any networking
technology that has a standardized way of carrying ISDN can be
interconnected with any other such technology. Any networking ... X.25 ...
Etc etc etc.
> From what little I remember, before that we had IPX and SPX and
> AppleTalk and Ethernet and Token Ring and none of it worked together.
Yet, at the same time we had X.25, voice dialing over *analog connections*
using *human beings* as routers worked just fine worldwide.
Something which IP still doesn't support well. Along with roaming. And
address portability.
> And besides, why waste time and energy laying a dozen sets of cables
> when one will do?
Money. Why waste time and energy with multiple search engines?
> So if the post office hadn't been a monopoly, and there had been a dozen
> different postal companies all start at the same time, they would have
> all used the same postcodes?
No. But over a fairly short time, that would have sorted itself out.
>> Why would post codes need a monopoly if phone numbers, IP addresses,
>> and MAC addresses don't?
>
> Are you telling me that IP addresses don't involve a monopoly?
Yes. Who served the IP address to your machine? Time Warner San Diego? I
doubt it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
> technically sophisticated.
Oh, and this is also wrong. It's just that the technology that gets picked
isn't always emphasizing the qualities you want.
GSM is inferior technologically to CDMA. But what people *want* is that SIM
card, and the ability to roam easily, so enforcing a standard with a lower
technological quality earlier is better than waiting for the best invention
before standardizing.
If you're talking about the VCR tapes, VHS was technically superior in
recording time, while BetaMax was technically superior in picture quality.
Niether was inferior to the other per se.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>> Heh. Makes me chuckle when I think about how many seconds it takes for a
>> C64 to bootstrap.
>
>> About 0.2.
>
> Yeah, with all that hardware it has to initialize and the boot loaders it
> has to load from hard disks, it's a miracle.
What, that it takes as long as 200 ms, and not 20 ms? ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
>> technically sophisticated.
>
> Actually, that's quite pragmatic more than sad; often you find that the
> requirements come down to the lowest common denominator. Implementing
> things that are more esoteric tend to not happen because they aren't
> likely to be widely utilized.
I'm thinking about things like VHS vs Betamax. One has automatic
tracking, the other needlessly forces you to do it manually. Guess which
one won?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What IP does is provide a single language for networking.
>
> So does every network. And the IP stack doesn't support all sorts of
> stuff that other networks do. You're just expressing a tautology.
>
>> Any networking technology that has a standardised way of carrying IP
>> can potentially be interconnected with any other such technology.
>
> And any networking technology that has a standardized way of carrying
> SONET can be interconnected with any other such technology. Any
> networking technology that has a standardized way of carrying ISDN can
> be interconnected with any other such technology. Any networking ...
> X.25 ... Etc etc etc.
Take token ring, for example. Token ring is inherantly designed around
the idea that you will only be connecting, say, maybe 100 nodes
together. Nodes are referred to by their position in the ring; add a new
node and all the addresses change. You can't even connect a token ring
to another token ring, never mind any other type of technology. It
doesn't work.
IP is different. It's designed to work for large networks.
>> So if the post office hadn't been a monopoly, and there had been a
>> dozen different postal companies all start at the same time, they
>> would have all used the same postcodes?
>
> No. But over a fairly short time, that would have sorted itself out.
Oh yeah? You recon??
>>> Why would post codes need a monopoly if phone numbers, IP addresses,
>>> and MAC addresses don't?
>>
>> Are you telling me that IP addresses don't involve a monopoly?
>
> Yes. Who served the IP address to your machine? Time Warner San Diego?
> I doubt it.
AFAIK, IP addresses are assigned by a central allocation agency.
Sure, you don't usually talk to them directly; usually you use one of
the IP addresses from the block assigned to your ISP. But my point is,
you can't just pick a random number out of the air and try to use that
as your IP address. It won't work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
>> technically sophisticated.
>
> Oh, and this is also wrong. It's just that the technology that gets
> picked isn't always emphasizing the qualities you want.
You mean qualities like cheapness, design simplicity, ability to force
people to pay more money for it, that kinda thing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/14/2010 3:08 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about things like VHS vs Betamax. One has automatic
> tracking, the other needlessly forces you to do it manually. Guess which
> one won?
Would it not be easier to implement manual tracking at a slight
inconvenience to the user?
Of course, that's not why beta lost out. We all know the real reason
why... (hint: it's the reason the internet got so popular...)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/13/2010 1:57 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Yeah, it astounded a friend of mine who was a VAX-head when I hit the
> reset switch on the back of a Kaypro CP/M machine. "Was that an
> interrupt? That was quick." "No, that was a cold boot."
Your Kaypro had a reset switch? Ours only had a power switch. I didn't
do much with it at the time, but I do remember fondly a game that came
on it called Ladder, The game was entirely in text mode.
A friend of mine and I both wrote independent copies of the game on our
respective PC platforms. His was a Tandy1000 mine was a PC-XT clone.
Interestingly, his had a couple problems:
He double-buffered the screen, which was fine on the Tandy, but due to
the design of the CGA on the XT, when the program flipped pages it would
cause interminable snow.
With my version I only erased what changed and redrew it. Flicker wasn't
apparent. His would keep an empty copy of the background, then draw the
characters on it.
The collision detection on his version had a minor bug: if you
approached a block at the correct angle, it would fail to detect it and
your character would become stuck in that block. Mine didn't do that.
In other ways, his was vastly superior to mine. He had actually coded
enemies. Mine was more of a puzzle you had to work through.
I wish I still had program... was written entirely in QuickBasic.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:08:42 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> The sad part is that the format that wins is usually the least
>>> technically sophisticated.
>>
>> Actually, that's quite pragmatic more than sad; often you find that the
>> requirements come down to the lowest common denominator. Implementing
>> things that are more esoteric tend to not happen because they aren't
>> likely to be widely utilized.
>
> I'm thinking about things like VHS vs Betamax. One has automatic
> tracking, the other needlessly forces you to do it manually. Guess which
> one won?
The one that had the largest adoption by the consuming public.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
