I think this is a shame because the Flight Simulator was one of the oldest personal computer programs still being actively developed. Although some sources (including Microsoft) state that the first version was for the IBM PC in 1982, the program actually dates back further than that.

The original version, known as A2-FS1, was created for the Apple II by Bruce Artwick and published by subLOGIC in 1980. A TRS-80 Model I version, known as T80-FS1, soon followed also in 1980 (this was the version I first used). subLOGIC continued to develop the Apple II version and also created new versions for the TRS-80 Color Computer, Commodore 64, Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, and others up until 1988.

In 1982, Microsoft licensed from subLOGIC a version of the Flight Simulator for the IBM PC, which they renamed the Microsoft Flight Simulator. It became enormously successful, selling 21 million copies by 1999 according to the Guinness Book of World Records. By being both very popular and very demanding on the computer hardware, the Microsoft Flight Simulator became a de-facto test of IBM PC compatibility; if a computer could run Flight Simulator, then it could be considered IBM PC compatible.

Bruce Artwick left subLOGIC in 1988 but retained rights to the Flight Simulator and continued developing it for Microsoft through his own company. In 1996, Microsoft bought the Flight Simulator outright and developed the subsequent versions internally. The final version was Microsoft Flight Simulator X, released in 2006.

Now DISH Network has released the DTVPal Plus, which costs $20 more than the DTVPal. This time, the DTVPal Plus seems to be a different unit from the DTVPal and the TR-40 CRA. The main advantage of the DTVPal Plus seems to be an improved tuner for weak digital signals.

I think it is safe to say that the DISH Network’s strategy for converter box releases could be described as haphazard at best. If you’re interested in the DTVPal Plus, you can order it at the official DTVPal site.

Their fusion reactors, or fusors, aren’t used for power generation. That’s because a fusor consumes more energy than it produces. Fusors have been used commercially as neutron sources, but the interest among these researchers seems to be improving the device itself.

I am amazed that so many people would have the dedication necessary to build such an unusual device. I’m also amazed that fusors haven’t been banned by authorities frightened by the idea of a homemade nuclear reactor. In reality, the dangers would be limited to the extremely high voltages used and the possible production of x-rays.

If you’re interested, there are a number of web pages devoted to the topic, including Fusion is Easy and Fusor. Thanks to Scott Haley for the pointer.

That didn’t make much sense to me. The ROMs inside an Apple II are very important for compatibility and they are still copyrighted. I would consider it unlikely that Apple would license them, even at this late date. Not only that, but the Applesoft BASIC ROM is owned by Microsoft, not Apple, making that idea even less likely. Any computer with copied ROMs would be illegal, making the whole project suspect.

But a later Computerworld article gave more details: $12 Indian ‘TV computer’ a knockoff of ’80s Nintendo system, not Apple II. According to that article, the computer mentioned is manufactured by Victor and named the Victor-70. It is actually a Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) clone. Both the Apple II and the NES used a 6502 processor, which was probably the basis for the confusion. I don’t know how large a boot ROM the NES used, but it would probably have been easier to reverse engineer than the Apple II. Of course, that assumes that the Victor-70 doesn’t just include a copy of the NES ROM.

All of the information available is somewhat contradictory, but you can see a wiki with more details here: The $10 TV Computer Project. I would have thought that NES clones are rare, but there seem to be at least three of them available for sale in the United States:

• Generation NEX
• Neo Fami System Silver/Black US Version
• FC Mobile

When I recently tried to buy some replacement nickel-cadmium batteries, I was surprised that I couldn’t find them anywhere. Nickel-cadmium batteries must have gone out of favor while I wasn’t paying attention. Environmental concerns may have played a role because cadmium is a heavy metal and difficult to dispose of safely.

Rechargeable Alkalines

Another option used to be rechargeable alkaline batteries. I’ve never used any rechargeable alkalines myself, but I have read some accounts suggesting that they weren’t very reliable. That might explain why they disappeared from stores not too long after their introduction.

I have had several people tell me that the best idea is to recharge ordinary alkaline batteries, despite the fact that every battery manufacturer warns you not to. But I’ve seen too many electronic items damaged or destroyed by leaking alkaline batteries to seriously consider that option. I don’t want to encourage batteries to burst.

Nickel-Metal Hydride Batteries

Now the stores are full of nickel-metal hydride and lithium-ion batteries. Consumer lithium-ion batteries seem to be quite new (some sources still say that they don’t exist). But I already use nickel-metal hydride batteries in a number of items. Many high-powered devices, such as digital cameras, require nickel-metal hydride batteries and won’t work properly with alkaline batteries.

But nickel-metal hydride batteries have two related disadvantages:

• they need to be charged before they can be used
• they discharge a good deal of their capacity in storage.

The need to charge the batteries before use doesn’t bother me. But the rapid loss of charge does make them unsuitable for the very applications for which nickel-cadmium batteries are best suited. Some of my nickel-metal hydride batteries lose half of their charge in just a matter of days.

Low Self Discharge Nickel-Metal Hydride Batteries

Fortunately, there seem to have been some advancements in nickel-metal hydride battery technology since I last purchased any. There is a new class of batteries called low self discharge (which has an unfortunate acronym). They address the two disadvantages of nickel-metal hydride batteries:

• they come precharged when you buy them
• they discharge much more slowly

Some of the low self discharge batteries appear to discharge even slower than nickel-cadmium batteries, and are advertised to keep nearly their full charge if stored for six months or a year.

There are so many weblogs out there that no one person could possibly follow them all. You have to narrow it down, and I have some definite ideas of what I am looking for. I want to read weblogs by people who are doing interesting things, or at least people who are talking about people who are doing interesting things. I want to read weblogs by people who express creative ideas that challenge the status quo. I want a weblog to be different, not just the same as what I can find from a dozen other sources.

A Seemingly Unrelated Story

Many excellent early computer magazines were produced by people who had little or no magazine experience. You might say that they were too ignorant of the accepted wisdom of the magazine business to realize that what they were attempting couldn’t work. So sometimes they went ahead in their ignorance and created a great magazine anyway.

One way they did this was by actively soliciting reader contributions and building up a community around their magazine.  The end result was a magazine that catered to their readers better than any other could. This was a brilliant approach, but it’s not the way you’re supposed to run a “professional” magazine.

Once the magazines lost sight of that approach and tried to imitate their peers, they lost their focus. They started to use more staff writers, switched to printing only in-house reviews, and reduced the amount of reader-created content. They turned their backs on their community of readers, which was the very thing that made their magazine special in the first place.

The Moral

So what is the moral of this story? The crucial mistake they made was changing their focus to try to impress their peers rather than serve their readers. I frequently see the criticism of weblogs that they need to “grow-up” and become more like magazines or newspapers. But this is completely wrong. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it doesn’t make for very interesting reading. It would be a grave mistake for weblogs to give up the very qualities that make them unique in an ill-fated attempt to mimic their more “professional” brethren.

Wired ran an article reviewing four atomic watches. The “atomic” part of the name means that the watches set their time using the atomic clock at the WWVB time station in Colorado. Some of them can also use time stations in England, Germany, Japan, and China. The watches are filled with unusual features, but with prices to match.

Of the watches they featured in the article, I liked the Casio Pathfinder, which perhaps not coincidentally is the only one I have ever seen in person. According to the Casio Pathfinder site, the watch has these features:

• Atomic timekeeping
• Tough solar power
• Digital compass
• Altimeter
• Barometer
• Thermometer
• Tide graph
• Depth gauge
• Diving log
• Auto EL backlight

I notice that they don’t mention a stopwatch, countdown timer, or alarms, even though the Pathfinder does have all three. The Casio Pathfinder is a pretty impressive watch and it really should be, when you consider the retail price of $350.