Someone in the comments section recently asked me to post the link to the inventor of the mouse, hypertext, etc. It is actually a whole team, led by a visionary, Doug Englebart, that came up with the idea of the mouse (and another weird device that did not remain, the chord keyset), cut-copy-paste, computer-assisted team work, a screen that can display graphics, and more.
And all this was demonstrated... in 1968! When you watch his complete demo, you just cannot stop thinking how much all of this still applies to what we have gotten to expect from our computers today.
The YouTube video above is just the first part of the demo (since YouTube limits the size of uploads). You may go to this page on YouTube for to have the other parts shown in succession automatically, or to that one on Google Video for the whole enchilada (but it does not always work).
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
OK, OK, OK!
OK is probably one of the most widely used term (and not only in English). But where does it come from?
The official word is that it appeared in 1839, in some Boston newspapers, as an abbreviation for Oll Korrect (they liked to play with words in Boston then). But it really became popular during the 1840 American election, as one of the candidate's nickname, Martin Van Buren, was Kinderhook (since he was born in the town of Kinderhook, in the state of New York): he was then called Old Kinderhook.
But there are many, many more theories about the etymology of OK.
The official word is that it appeared in 1839, in some Boston newspapers, as an abbreviation for Oll Korrect (they liked to play with words in Boston then). But it really became popular during the 1840 American election, as one of the candidate's nickname, Martin Van Buren, was Kinderhook (since he was born in the town of Kinderhook, in the state of New York): he was then called Old Kinderhook.
But there are many, many more theories about the etymology of OK.
The story of the Amiga
If you are old enough to remember the Amiga, you might be interested in that very good write-up of the history of that astonishing computer, brought to us by Ars Technica:
- Part 1: Genesis
- Part 2: The birth of Amiga
- Part 3: The first prototype
I am eagerly waiting for more on this...
By the way, if you are interested in what Carl Sassenrath does these days, check out Rebol.
The twilight zune?
The new Zunes are coming out in November. If you have a Mac, this is of no interest to you. But if you have a PC, and don't like iTunes, it seems to me that these players are a good competition for the iPods (excluding the iPod Touch and iPhone).
In particular, I like the flash-based Zunes (just as I like the iPod Nano). Zunerama gives us a nice feature-by-feature comparison of the two.
One thing that striked me actually (and that did not show up in the early videos of the Zune) was the actual size of the beast: the iPod Nano and the flash-based Zunes are both really small.
In particular, I like the flash-based Zunes (just as I like the iPod Nano). Zunerama gives us a nice feature-by-feature comparison of the two.
One thing that striked me actually (and that did not show up in the early videos of the Zune) was the actual size of the beast: the iPod Nano and the flash-based Zunes are both really small.
Good series on Leopard features
AppleInsider is currently running a good series of articles on Mac OS X Leopard features (including some bits of history about them, which is what makes them really interesting). The series is called The Road to Mac OS X Leopard:
Monday, September 17, 2007
Drain it, baby!
I had the shivers this week-end: my HP dv6000-series laptop would refuse to charge the battery. I kept begging it, but to no avail: it gave me the blue blinking light. And this is, how should I put it, bad. It means that the battery needs to be replaced.
For heaven's sake, that battery was less than a year old! This is the 21st century! That stuff was invented in the 19th! And they still can't make those work reliably?
That's when I remembered of some obscure procedure one person at HP tech support told me about 9 months ago: The Power Drain (tm). Yes, believe it or not, there is a way to drain whatever power may be left out of your HP laptop...
The draining goes like this: unplug the AC, remove the battery, and then press the power button for 20s or more (the first time HP made me do this, I thought it was a joke!).
I tried it this time. Then I placed the battery back in its compartment, plugged the AC back in, and lo! the battery started charging again. Everything seems to work fine now.
As to why some drainage was necessary...
For heaven's sake, that battery was less than a year old! This is the 21st century! That stuff was invented in the 19th! And they still can't make those work reliably?
That's when I remembered of some obscure procedure one person at HP tech support told me about 9 months ago: The Power Drain (tm). Yes, believe it or not, there is a way to drain whatever power may be left out of your HP laptop...
The draining goes like this: unplug the AC, remove the battery, and then press the power button for 20s or more (the first time HP made me do this, I thought it was a joke!).
I tried it this time. Then I placed the battery back in its compartment, plugged the AC back in, and lo! the battery started charging again. Everything seems to work fine now.
As to why some drainage was necessary...
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Mac OS X applications
I used to be a huge fan of Apple stuff. My first Apple system was an Apple II (because the Mac was too expensive at the time). Eventually I got myself a Mac LC, right after that almost-unknown Apple IIGS (which was an Apple II that looked like a Mac --it had a mouse, it had QuickDraw and all). And then, at work, everyone had Macs. There were also a couple of PCs lying around.
Then one day, I needed to compile something on one of those PCs (it was running NT 3.51beta at the time). And, oh my god, the compilation of that C program took just a few seconds. Why did it take 10 minutes on my Mac? It was, at the time, a good-enough reason for a divorce. Windows was going to be my love, and it has been ever since.
Fast-forward to 2007. I still use Windows systems at work (XP SP2). I still use Windows systems at home (we have a Media Center, a laptop running XP, and another running Vista). And life is great. But... for some reason unknown to me (nothing new in the near future? the new iMacs?), I started looking at Macs, and at OS X for the first time in years. I am even thinking of finding good reasons to actually go and buy one.
So here is one thing I discovered recently, after watching a nice demo of Mac OS X Tiger (thanks to Google Video, although for some reason that video is not available anymore today): it is much more natural to deal with applications on the Mac than it is on Windows!
An application is usually installed by launching a package (this is similar to what you have on Windows with the Windows Installer). Once the application has been installed it usually appears in you Applications folder. You may create aliases (shortcuts in the Windows world) that you may put anywhere (including the Dock) to launch that application. Deleting those aliases does not delete the application (exactly as on Windows).
You may also move the application from the Applications folder to any other location, and its aliases will still run properly. Deleting the application only involves putting it in the trash can.
In that description, one thing stands out: the application is just one file.
On Windows, an application usually consists of several files: an executable, a few DLLs, and more (plus a few registry entries). On the Mac, it's just a file. Which means people cannot screw it up.
This is where I started thinking: how can it be just a file? On Windows, with .net, you get to something very similar: no need for registry entries, an executable or a DLL may actually contain resources (i.e. other files, like icons or strings of text), so an installation just means copying those files, and they should presumably be movable without any issue. But you still have a few files though (if only as a packaging convenience for the developers).
How do they do it on the Mac? Either it's the same as .net, but taken to the extreme (one file contains everything), or the Finder fakes it...
This article gave me the solution: indeed, the Finder fakes it. And it's very nicely done.
Then one day, I needed to compile something on one of those PCs (it was running NT 3.51beta at the time). And, oh my god, the compilation of that C program took just a few seconds. Why did it take 10 minutes on my Mac? It was, at the time, a good-enough reason for a divorce. Windows was going to be my love, and it has been ever since.
Fast-forward to 2007. I still use Windows systems at work (XP SP2). I still use Windows systems at home (we have a Media Center, a laptop running XP, and another running Vista). And life is great. But... for some reason unknown to me (nothing new in the near future? the new iMacs?), I started looking at Macs, and at OS X for the first time in years. I am even thinking of finding good reasons to actually go and buy one.
So here is one thing I discovered recently, after watching a nice demo of Mac OS X Tiger (thanks to Google Video, although for some reason that video is not available anymore today): it is much more natural to deal with applications on the Mac than it is on Windows!
An application is usually installed by launching a package (this is similar to what you have on Windows with the Windows Installer). Once the application has been installed it usually appears in you Applications folder. You may create aliases (shortcuts in the Windows world) that you may put anywhere (including the Dock) to launch that application. Deleting those aliases does not delete the application (exactly as on Windows).
You may also move the application from the Applications folder to any other location, and its aliases will still run properly. Deleting the application only involves putting it in the trash can.
In that description, one thing stands out: the application is just one file.
On Windows, an application usually consists of several files: an executable, a few DLLs, and more (plus a few registry entries). On the Mac, it's just a file. Which means people cannot screw it up.
This is where I started thinking: how can it be just a file? On Windows, with .net, you get to something very similar: no need for registry entries, an executable or a DLL may actually contain resources (i.e. other files, like icons or strings of text), so an installation just means copying those files, and they should presumably be movable without any issue. But you still have a few files though (if only as a packaging convenience for the developers).
How do they do it on the Mac? Either it's the same as .net, but taken to the extreme (one file contains everything), or the Finder fakes it...
This article gave me the solution: indeed, the Finder fakes it. And it's very nicely done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
