Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lukster on July 31, 2006, 10:13:49 AM
-
Just got mine in my Action Pack. Wouldn't install on my AMD 64 3000+ but did on my dual core Pentium 3.2. No Audigy drivers yet but it's pretty slick, I like.
-
At this point I have zero interest in Vista.
I've yet to hear anything good about the integrated DRM.
-
From what I've read it seems that the biggest complaint about DRM is in regards to playback of high definition DVDs. I don't watch movies on my PC so it's a non-issue for me. Still many months from release so who knows what it will or won't be shipped with.
-
DRM = ?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
DRM = ?
Digital rights managment...
For example somone can sell you a music video or an Mp3 on the internet and sell it to you on the condition that you can only watch or burn it once. They'd be assisted directly with the confines of the operating system itself on your computer.
-
Have they announced when Vista will be out of beta testing and expected to ship for purchase?
-
DRM also prevents you from making a copy of a CD/DVD, unless the publisher has allowed it. That's right. Buy a legitimate CD/DVD and there will be a good chance Vista will not allow you to make a copy.
Or how about how bloated the OS is? People are going to be shocked when they are forced to install 4GB of RAM in order to play a game. The same game which would run fine under XP with 1GB of RAM.
MS has moved the date around, but they are trying to get it out the door in the first quarter of 2007. I hope they do not make it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Or how about how bloated the OS is? People are going to be shocked when they are forced to install 4GB of RAM in order to play a game. The same game which would run fine under XP with 1GB of RAM.
How else will they be able to convince us to buy those 64bit machines....
:)
after all we need e-mail....
:rofl
-
Well, email will only need 3GB of RAM, if that is all you are going to do. Wait until MS Offce 2007 is released. 4GB will not be enough RAM to all you to do what you can do today with 1GB of RAM.
Why anyone would *choose* to install this OS is quite beyond me.
-
Unix or a lindows type OS looks better and better every day.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Why anyone would *choose* to install this OS is quite beyond me.
Maybe this is why Bill Gates is retiring... I think he sees the writing on the wall...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Unix or a lindows type OS looks better and better every day.
So how would you play Aces High on a Unix system? What is *lindows*?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Unix or a lindows type OS looks better and better every day.
I've been eyeballing Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).
One of these days in the fuzzy distant future, Windows will be behind me.
-
I was careful about using the word *choose*.
Corporate America will have no choice, if they want to continue to get support. But you can bet they will be wailing to the Moon about the upgrade costs. Then wailing again as there is no real reason for the upgrade. It does not do a thing for anyone.
And in the areas where small benefits occur, they could have been easily added to XP.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So how would you play Aces High on a Unix system? What is *lindows*?
Not sure.....Skuzzy?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I've been eyeballing Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/).
One of these days in the fuzzy distant future, Windows will be behind me.
I have an extra hardrive sitting around, I might just DL that tonight and give it a try. THANKS!
-
You really could not do it. Even with the WineX emulation, the game performance (any game actually) is rather poor.
Linux still has a very long road in front of them. They need to standardize the various interfaces in order to garner more support. The biggest issues are input devices, and sound support (talking specifically about games).
-
hi skuzzy :)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You really could not do it. Even with the WineX emulation, the game performance (any game actually) is rather poor.
Linux still has a very long road in front of them. They need to standardize the various interfaces in order to garner more support. The biggest issues are input devices, and sound support (talking specifically about games).
So if we play games we are still stuck with Windows......someone needs to come up with an OS that can legitimately compete with Windows. Better yet, an OS that blows Windows out of the water.
-
Welp,
I had to be drug kicking and screaming into windows from DOS. I didn't change until I couldn't get any games to run on DOS anymore. By then win 98 was out. This XP version is the first version of winblows I have not had crash on my system every 6 months or less.
As to any others I will stay with xp until forced to do so. Unforunately MS (mega scams) is good at setting up the situation where you must upgrade.
-
Yes, like DirectX10 will only be available on Vista. If a game has been written for DX10, then it will only run on Vista.
There are a couple of big game titles scheduled to roll out with Vista, which are DX10 only.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So if we play games we are still stuck with Windows......someone needs to come up with an OS that can legitimately compete with Windows. Better yet, an OS that blows Windows out of the water.
Go one step further and develop an OS just for gamer applications. SOmthing that isn't bloated and doesn't use up so much system resources in the backround.
-
I have 2GB of memory and everything seems to run fine. I tried World of Warcraft on Vista and could tell no difference from it running on the same machine on XP. Vista does come in a 32 bit version also. I haven't installed the Office 2007 beta yet but will do it now.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Yes, like DirectX10 will only be available on Vista. If a game has been written for DX10, then it will only run on Vista.
There are a couple of big game titles scheduled to roll out with Vista, which are DX10 only.
Bummer :(
-
I'll install Vista only when I have to and not before.
Just like I have done since windows 3.1
Im typically 3-4 years behind everyone else in upgrading OS.
So long and AH remains playable in XP
I will probably nevr have a reason to move to Vista.
I havent bought another game for myself for the computer since.
And most of the newer games that come out that my son plays he gets for his XBox360.
Near as I can tell fromn what officework I have seen the coorperate wolrd use computers for.
They already have more OS then they need with Windows 98 let alone XP or Vista
-
Well, I bought 2 new OEM copies of XP. I figure I will build a couple more computers in the next 5 to 7 years. Those copies should hold me.
I already have all the updates on CD's, so I will not have to depend on MS yanking them.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, I bought 2 new OEM copies of XP. I figure I will build a couple more computers in the next 5 to 7 years. Those copies should hold me.
I already have all the updates on CD's, so I will not have to depend on MS yanking them.
Well, I may be old but I'm still a kid when it comes to new toys and I'm liking Vista more and more.
I installed the Office 2007 beta and it starts fast and the memory gadget only shows a 1% increase in memory usage when I run Outlook or Word.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, I bought 2 new OEM copies of XP. I figure I will build a couple more computers in the next 5 to 7 years. Those copies should hold me.
I already have all the updates on CD's, so I will not have to depend on MS yanking them.
I thought windows update was the only way to upgrade/update XP..
-
Nope soda. You can get all the MS updates manually still.
-
Oh Skuzzy, you are always the Chicken Little yelling "The sky is falling!" with any new technology :)
Toms Hardware had a good, thorough introduction to Vista Beta a few weeks ago.
Im pretty curious to see what it, and DirectX 10 bring to the gaming world.
-
I just really don't like the idea of DRM.
Imagine if you where working in your garage and your screwdriver or powerdrill refused to work because the weed-eater you are trying to take apart and fix won't let it.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Oh Skuzzy, you are always the Chicken Little yelling "The sky is falling!" with any new technology :)
Umm I'm usually pretty MS-neutral, but vista has me scratching my head about where I'll be going. Even the local MS reps seem nervous about vista.
There are questions however about how MS will stick to its DRM guns. Some of the features in vista could be illegal in some countries, particular europe. Look at the way the euro's are going MS over XP and Win 2003 at the moment...
Either way, I foresee a trainwreck with vista.
-
If more game developers ported their games to Linux, users would fill in any hardware support holes. Those fixes could then be integrated into the OS, or as part of the game download. Chicken or egg?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
If more game developers ported their games to Linux, users would fill in any hardware support holes. Those fixes could then be integrated into the OS, or as part of the game download. Chicken or egg?
Pffft, dude, that wont help bring average users into Linux.
I mean, Windows is Windows.
Linux? Can you hear the support department now.."Hi, which build? Which Kernel? KDE? Gnome? "
Linux may be a lot of things...but ready for the average noobs...no way.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
DRM also prevents you from making a copy of a CD/DVD, unless the publisher has allowed it. That's right. Buy a legitimate CD/DVD and there will be a good chance Vista will not allow you to make a copy.
this alone is enough to make me stick with XP
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Linux may be a lot of things...but ready for the average noobs...no way.
Years ago, Windows 3.1 wasn't ready for the average noob either.
Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/) looks pretty easy.
-
The 'average noob' can't handle installing Windows either, LePaul.
Aren't you a little young to be stuck in a rut already? ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Well, I may be old but I'm still a kid when it comes to new toys and I'm liking Vista more and more.
I installed the Office 2007 beta and it starts fast and the memory gadget only shows a 1% increase in memory usage when I run Outlook or Word.
just wait a few days ... your mind will change ...
ive been beta beating vista since it was longhorn ... the 2nd beta is better but its got more processes then you can shake a stick at .. they renamed all the kernel ext. so its harder then hell to get used to ... it frelling sits and thinks for 10 mins sometimes ... shall i go on ... Half of my fav stuff doesnt work ...
I'm waiting for the GoogleOS .. I wont give M$ anymore $$$ if I can help it.
Btw have you seen what Paul Allen did to 1/4er of seattle ??? He turned it into a vacant getto by buying up lots ...
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The 'average noob' can't handle installing Windows either, LePaul.
Aren't you a little young to be stuck in a rut already? ;)
Young?
Oh well how can I dislike someone who says Im young! Aww!
Nice tactic...cant convince...confuse!
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Oh Skuzzy, you are always the Chicken Little yelling "The sky is falling!" with any new technology :)
Toms Hardware had a good, thorough introduction to Vista Beta a few weeks ago.
Im pretty curious to see what it, and DirectX 10 bring to the gaming world.
That's just it. There is no *new* technology anyone needs in Vista. The only thing new about it is how it will restrict you from doing many things you take for granted right now.
I already looked into the latest Beta. The only thing I see of benefit is how the hardware manufacturer's are going to make a killing selling the hardware needed to run this pig of an OS.
DX10 is being streamlined for Vista (Cod knws they have to do something to get some performance out of it running under Vista). Part of that streamlining is dropping backward compatibility for several versions of DirectX. It appears DX8 is the oldest they will support. That could change as it seems many things about Vista are still flopping around and being thrashed,
The only reason review sites are being kind about Vista is to protect themselves from the wrath of MS.
If you are willing to herald anything MS does as great, then you can ignore me. I have nothing against new technology. But when there is no benefit to it, and it is not solving a problem, then what is the point?
Yes, you can buy into all the marketing hype you like and use that as an argument for something *new*. It does not mean it is better.
Instead of attempting to beat my head against the wall, why don't you tell me what is so beneficial to Vista as it pertains to how it improves the overall productivity of the user? Tell me what technology it has which makes using a computer so much easier to manage?
You know what I get whan I ask these questions? "It looks pretty." "It's cool." "I can make my desktop look better". Yeah, that is some compelling stuff right there.
-
imo an operating system should only be a stable and secure enabler of the software you are using... It should never be the most demanding piece of software on your system.
in the background...only doing the very basic is were i like it.
-
Everyone loves to bash Microsoft (me included). A year within it's release and you'll all be running it. :p
-
I bet not.
-
I don't care for the DRM but the system does not appear bloated to me. It starts faster than XP and so do all of the Office products. I don't know if the new file system is still on hold for the release but I think it sounds like a worthwhile improvement. Of course the jury will be out on the effectiveness of the new security until it's been out for a while. If effective, that alone would be reason enough for many to upgrade.
Lemme qualify that statement about Vista starting faster. They actually start in the same amount of time (45 seconds) but XP is starting on a sata2 drive while I installed Vista on a sata1.
Gaming performance is definitely lagging in Vista but I'll be surprised if it isn't at least the same as XP by release.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2780&p=11
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I bet not.
Quoted for truth. There is no compelling reason to upgrade at all. lukster, how long does your Vista system take to boot? From the time my XP boot record starts, to the time I am at the desktop, is 22 seconds. And that is on a 1.8Ghz P4 w/512MB of RAM and an IDE HD.
My home system boots even faster.
By the way, I ran Vista on both, and it booted slower.
The system requirements for Windows XP said 256MB of RAM. Vista is 512MB (1GB recommended). Now, if you really need to run something, you better have at least 1GB of RAM. You can easily get away with 512MB of RAM in XP for most situations.
If you ran a game on XP, and found it to run better when 1GB of RAM is installed, then it will take 2GB of RAM on Vista to get the same performance.
You already said games run slower. Maybe your computer do not have enough RAM.
Bloat. It is a fat sinking **** and there is simply no reason for it to exist. That is not MS bashing. You want MS bashing? Ok,..why don;t those turds sit on an operating system long enough to get it right? Why re-invent the wheel when the old wheel still needs work?
No, let's find more ways to prevent people for using thier computer. Let's obstruct the playing of high definition DVD's just because we can. Let's not let people actually make useful copies of thier software. Let's make sure everyone has to buy new computers to run this operating system. Let's make it more difficult to administer the operating system. Let's open and create new ways for spyware/malware/viruses/hackers to screw it up.
I could go on all day long bashing, but it is not particularly helpful.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Quoted for truth. There is no compelling reason to upgrade at all. lukster, how long does your Vista system take to boot? From the time my XP boot record starts, to the time I am at the desktop, is 22 seconds. And that is on a 1.8Ghz P4 w/512MB of RAM and an IDE HD.
My home system boots even faster.
By the way, I ran Vista on both, and it booted slower.
Both take 45 seconds on my pc. Both load windows defender and xp loads norton av while vista loads pc-cillin. As I mentioned, XP boots from a sata2 and Vista from a sata1 drive. This is on a dual core 3.2 pentium system with 2GB memory. The review I linked benchmarked Vista as booting slower than XP. I'm just reporting my results.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Everyone loves to bash Microsoft (me included). A year within it's release and you'll all be running it. :p
I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Both take 45 seconds on my pc. Both load windows defender and xp loads norton av while vista loads pc-cillin. As I mentioned, XP boots from a sata2 and Vista from a sata1 drive. This is on a dual core 3.2 pentium system with 2GB memory. The review I linked benchmarked Vista as booting slower than XP. I'm just reporting my results.
Uh, Norton AV is highly bloated and can more than double boot times. It is not part of the OS. So you really do not know how fast XP can boot, versus Vista.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm still running Windows 2000 Pro.
I run it on my work system, and one of my home systems.
-
Good to hear Skuzzy. My $15 a month should keep me hooked up with you and I'll be able to use you to help me keep it (2000 Pro) running for quite some time.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
My home system boots even faster.
Only a couple of years ago I discovered the "standby" mode and have used it ever since. No more boot up. (except on reboot)
Now when I first go to use the puter after being on standby, it is all ready to go in about 10 sec
Anyone else use this feature?
-
I shut my machine down completely. AFAIK, if it's on, the fans are running and if the fans are running, the machine is ingesting dust and if the machine is ingesting dust, I'll have to open it up and clean it more often. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
-
I should mention that I am running 64 bit versions of both. I know Norton adds significanlty to the boot time but I don't know that it adds more than pc-cillin. The machine is fast enough that I can do whatever I want and not wish for more horsepower.
Well, maybe that last isn't completely true. ;)
-
My Mac system takes about 10 seconds from power on to desktop - literally - about 1 minute on my XP machine.......
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
My Mac system takes about 10 seconds from power on to desktop - literally - about 1 minute on my XP machine.......
My commodore 64 takes less than that. :p
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
My Mac system takes about 10 seconds from power on to desktop - literally - about 1 minute on my XP machine.......
Mine takes abit longer, but still faster than the XP
What mac do you have?
-
BTW, my mouse has 8 buttons and I use them all in games. How many does the MAC have?
-
Just FYI: You cannot run Windows XP longer than 43 consecutive days. The system clock gets whacked if you do. You have to reboot at least once every 42 days.
Windows 2000 does not suffer this problem. Vista does not appear to either.
MAC's boot faster due to the OS being in ROM, rather than loading from the disk drive. It is also UNIX based now, which accounts for even faster booting. My Linux box boots a heck of a lot faster than any Windows box would.
-
Picked up a Linux magazine at the bookstore right down the road today and it has the latest build (at press time) of Ubuntu. Its been a long time since I played with Linux in any version but I am going to give this one a shot. Maybe it will work for what I want which is to make it easier on the wife to have her own system that won't get fugged up when she starts doing stuff on it.
-
All of my windows PC's boot real fast. Most of the time I simply hibernate. No reason for a complete shutdown.
Nilsen watchout for some major mac announcements in the next week, apparently something is brewing. All the channel managers from around the globe are attending some big announcement at a conference in San-somewhere this weekend.
-
Just FYI: You cannot run Windows XP longer than 43 consecutive days. The system clock gets whacked if you do. You have to reboot at least once every 42 days.
What happens on day 43?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What happens on day 43?
The system clock gets whacked. Duh.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What happens on day 43?
no one has lived to tell
:O
-
Originally posted by lukster
BTW, my mouse has 8 buttons and I use them all in games. How many does the MAC have?
OSX supports multi-button mice natively. Just plug it in and it works - all contextual menus work. You need all those buttons for Windows because it takes that many more steps to do the same thing in OSX. :D
BTW, OSX can change to any language without even rebooting. How many languages does any MS OS have? It's a rhetorical question, so no answer is expected. No OS is perfect, but OSX is not inferior to Windows.
It seems like you don't own or are familiar with OSX. Making comparisons without that knowledge is like discussing a book never read, or a movie never seen, reducing your credibility.
Anyway, I'm not going to continue any MS vs. Apple conversation in this thread. I use both, but I'm am not evangelical about either.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
What happens on day 43?
Isnt that when the infected scorpion bite finally kills you?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The system clock gets whacked. Duh.
I dunno what that means, or what happens to the OS. /shrug
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I dunno what that means, or what happens to the OS. /shrug
In all honesty, neither do I. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
In all honesty, neither do I. ;)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It seems like you don't own or are familiar with OSX. Making comparisons without that knowledge is like discussing a book never read, or a movie never seen, reducing your credibility.
Exactly. Like when you posted that I said the Skyraider and the Skyhawk were the same airplane when in fact I did not.
-
??
The thread was about the prop-driven A-1 delivering a tactical device - a very unusual and little known part of history.
You posted info about the A-4 delivery, which was well known and not unusual at all.
That is why I said the A-1 is not the A-4. That's all. I thought you made a mistake since you didn't preface it with something like, "Here is info about the A-4 delivery,' or some other intro.
It seems that neither of us are adept at guessing what the other is thinking, but not writing. ;)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
OSX supports multi-button mice natively. Just plug it in and it works - all contextual menus work. You need all those buttons for Windows because it takes that many more steps to do the same thing in OSX. :D
BTW, OSX can change to any language without even rebooting. How many languages does any MS OS have? It's a rhetorical question, so no answer is expected. No OS is perfect, but OSX is not inferior to Windows.
It seems like you don't own or are familiar with OSX. Making comparisons without that knowledge is like discussing a book never read, or a movie never seen, reducing your credibility.
Anyway, I'm not going to continue any MS vs. Apple conversation in this thread. I use both, but I'm am not evangelical about either.
I'm certainly no Microsoft evangelist. Just thought some might be interested in the latest iteration of an o/s many have been using for the last 20 years.
I never used used a Mac myself but I did think the Amiga was a superior system to both the Mac and the PC in it's day.
-
Rolex, the Skyraider was known as the AD-1, then later the A-1. That's where I think you got the wires crossed. It's all good. ;)
-
I'm sure that was your intent, lukster. I think many of us are interested in what MS has planned for our futures.
P.S.
I was not implying that you were an evangelist. I said that I was not. I am not a sarcastic or cynical person by nature. If I write with sarcasm, I try to make it so obvious that it can't possibly be construed as anything but sarcasm. I'm not always successful, though...
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
no one has lived to tell
:O
I heard an urban legand that a windows computer starts working right on that day.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Rolex, the Skyraider was known as the AD-1, then later the A-1. That's where I think you got the wires crossed. It's all good. ;) [/QUOTE
Ou at the main gate of Oceana theres a a-4 Skyhawk, and a AH1-D Skyraider, the Skyhawk is a jet, the Skyraider is a prop plane, but I bet you could hang a Skyhawk under each wing of the Skyraider, and still fly.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Rolex, the Skyraider was known as the AD-1, then later the A-1. That's where I think you got the wires crossed. It's all good. ;)
I'm really confused now. :huh
What you posted was about AD-4s, not AD-1s or A-1s. :D
"The AD-4B was a version of the AD-4 designed to carry and deliver nuclear weapons. The airframe was strengthened to make it possible for the airplane to deliver nuclear weapons by the over-the-shoulder toss bombing technique. It was also armed with 4 20-mm cannon in the wings.
28 AD-4s were converted to AD-4B standards, whereas 165 AD-4Bs were built from scratch. Tests were carried out with an externally-carried dummy atomic bomb, but no AD-4B ever dropped an actual atomic bomb in a test. It may very well be the case that the AD-4B never flew with an actual atomic weapon slung underneath it. The AD-4B was apparently used as a political tool in the Navy's battle with the Air Force over the B-36 bomber. The Navy eagerly wanted a nuclear role for its fleet of carriers."
It is still all good even though I think we're in parallel universes. ;) Cheers!
-
Man...have we 'jacked this thread. Sorry.
Back to Window's bashing!!!!!!!
-
Skyraider A-1:
(http://hells-angels.us/datas/users/1-skyraider.jpg)
Skyhawk A-4:
(http://hells-angels.us/datas/users/1-skyhawk.jpg)
You brought it up, DiabloTX.
If you made a mistake reading a "4" as a "1" then just say so. Don't just dismiss it as my confusion or error and say, "Sorry for hijacking the thread."
Either way, I'm done.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Skyraider A-1:
(http://hells-angels.us/datas/users/1-skyraider.jpg)
Skyhawk A-4:
(http://hells-angels.us/datas/users/1-skyhawk.jpg)
You brought it up, DiabloTX.
If you made a mistake reading a "4" as a "1" then just say so. Don't just dismiss it as my confusion or error and say, "Sorry for hijacking the thread."
Either way, I'm done.
Skyraider derivatives: (notice AD-4B)
XBT2D-1 - Single-seat dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber prototype for the US Navy.
XBT2D-1N - Three-seat night attack prototypes. Only three aircraft built.
XBT2D-1P - Photographic reconnaissance prototype. Only one built.
XBT2D-1Q - Two-seat electronics countermeasures prototype. One aircraft only.
AD-1 - The AD-1 was the first production model. 242 built. (statistics in table)
AD-1Q - Two-seat electronic countermeasures version of the AD-1. 35 built.
AD-1U - AD-1 with radar countermeasures and tow target equipment, no armament and no water injection equipment.
XAD-1W - Three-seat airborne early warning prototype. AD-3W prototype, one aircraft only.
XAD-2 or BT2D-2 - Upgraded attack aircraft, one prototype only.
AD-2 - Improved model, powered by 2,700 hp (2,000 kW) Wright R-3350-26W engine. 156 built.
AD-2D - Unofficial designation for AD-2s used as remote-control aircraft, to collect and gather radioactive material in the air after nuclear tests.
AD-2Q - Two-seat electronics countermeasures version of the AD-2. 21 built.
AD-2QU - AD-2 with radar countermeasures and target towing equipment, no armament and no water injection equipment. One aircraft only.
XAD-2 - Similar to XBT2D-1 except engine, increased fuel capacity.
AD-3 - Proposed turboprop version, initial desigantion of A2D.
AD-3 - Stronger fuselage, improved landing gear, new canopy design. 125 built.
AD-3S - Anti-submarine warfare model, only two prototypes were built.
AD-3N - Three-seat night attack version. 15 built.
AD-3Q - Electronics countermeasures version, countermeasures equipment relocated for better crew comfort. 23 built.
AD-3QU - Target towing aircraft, but most were delivered as the AD-3Q.
AD-3W - Airborne early warning version. 31 built.
XAD-3E - AD-3W modified for ASW with Aeroproducts propellor
AD-4 - Strengthened landing gear, improved radar, G-2 compass, anti-G suit provisions, four 20 mm cannon and 14 Aero rocket launchers, capable of carrying up to 50 lb (23 kg) of bombs. 372 built.
AD-4B - Specialised version designed to carry nuclear weapons, also armed with four 20 mm cannon. 165 built plus 28 conversions.
AD-4L - Equipped for winter operations in Korea. 63 conversions.
AD-4N - Three-seat night attack version. 307 built.
AD-4NA - Designation of 100 AD-4Ns without their night-attack equipment, but fitted with four 20 mm cannon, for service in Korea as ground-attack aircraft.
AD-4NL - version of the AD-4N. 36 conversions.
AD-4Q - Two-seat electronic countermeasures version of the AD-4. 39 built.
AD-4W - Three-seat airborne early warning version. 168 built.
Skyraider AEW. Mk 1 - 50 AD-4Ws were transferred to the Royal Navy.
AD-5 (A-1E) - Side by side seating for pilot and co-pilot, without dive brakes. 212 built.
AD-5N (A-1G) - Four-seat night attack version, with radar countermeasures. 239 built.
AD-5Q (EA-1F) - Four-seat electronics countermeasures version. 54 conversions.
AD-5S - One prototype to test MAD anti-submarine equipment.
AD-5W (EA-1E) - Four-seat airborne early warning version.
AD-6 (A-1H) - Single-seat attack aircraft with three dive brakes, centerline station stressed for 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) of ordnances, 30 inches (760 mm) in diameter, combination 14/30 inch (360/760 mm) bomb ejector and low/high altitude bomb director. 713 built.
AD-7 (A-1J) - The final production model, powered by a R3350-26WB engine, with structural improvements to increase wing fatigue life. 72 built.
UA-1E - Utility version of the AD-5.
Why is that so hard to understand???????
-
You are correct. It was a numerical designation I was unaware of.
I apologize.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just FYI: You cannot run Windows XP longer than 43 consecutive days. The system clock gets whacked if you do. You have to reboot at least once every 42 days.
Windows 2000 does not suffer this problem. Vista does not appear to either.
MAC's boot faster due to the OS being in ROM, rather than loading from the disk drive. It is also UNIX based now, which accounts for even faster booting. My Linux box boots a heck of a lot faster than any Windows box would.
Is there a reputable link for that information on the time XP can run consecutavely?
I'd like to to show some folks this here at work who seem to think some of our machines never need to be rebooted and get upset when they do get rebooted because their pager started going off while they was busy doing something they didnt want to get bothered while doing.
-
it gets worse
Skyhawk:
(http://skyhawk.cessna.com/hero_images/qUoLEdrWX856o58cIfOGYmRQY87VR7.jpg)
Mescalero:
(http://www.rgvwingcaf.com/airplanes/c17201.jpg)
Skyhawk:
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/img003/a4-skyhawk-03.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Nilsen watchout for some major mac announcements in the next week, apparently something is brewing. All the channel managers from around the globe are attending some big announcement at a conference in San-somewhere this weekend.
Its the WWDC.
They will be presenting OSX Leopard, new powermacs, maybe the iPhone and any other stuff. I would not be suprised if they will show macs with core2 cpus