The Different Versions of the Enterprise
- Thread starter Devon
- Start date
It's a real nice rendering of the Enterprise, and does have some pretty additional detail.
Nice if it's the Abrams version, but that certainly would beg the question of where it came from. And it's ridiculously close to the production version of the ship in detail of markings, right down to the hull font. I don't think it's very likely.
It looks like one of Vektor's customarily excellent modeling/rendering efforts.
Nice if it's the Abrams version, but that certainly would beg the question of where it came from. And it's ridiculously close to the production version of the ship in detail of markings, right down to the hull font. I don't think it's very likely.
It looks like one of Vektor's customarily excellent modeling/rendering efforts.
I find it rather sad that instead of talking about what was in the story at SyFy Portal, you have to attack the site. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Take a minute or two and actually read the entire story, the link was provided to you and a single quote was provided. There is more information. No, no details of what the changes and such are, but at least it's the first confirmation about whether or not there will be some major changes to the interior and exterior of the ship. This was an on-the-record interview with a production designer from the movie.
Just like any other Web site, we simply try to serve our readers. If you feel that our news has any more "spin" than anyone else, then that's an issue that you have and I'm real sorry to hear it. We can't please everyone. But just like the fine folks who bring you TrekToday and TrekBBS, we are staffed by volunteers who also are fans, and we are dedicated to bringing readers -- new and old -- the information they are looking for.
Even if I had negative opinions about TrekToday or TrekBBS (which I don't, actually), I wouldn't go on message boards and slam them every time they have a story mentioned.
SyFy Portal was the only site reporting details of the original Star Trek XI production. Unfortunately, the Viacom split didn't do us well, and we lost some good sources. Plus, the original script writer (who was only really talking to us) was replaced with the J.J. Abrams team when new management took over Paramount. So we try to get original material when we can, and this was something we worked real hard to get -- as volunteers.
So please don't spit on our work or the fans who volunteer to make SyFy Portal because of some negative feelings you have. The early days of SyFy (before we merged with Star Trek Portal) were spent right here at Trek Nation, and we'll always be proud to share that as part of our history now that we're in our 10th year.
Thanks.
Take a minute or two and actually read the entire story, the link was provided to you and a single quote was provided. There is more information. No, no details of what the changes and such are, but at least it's the first confirmation about whether or not there will be some major changes to the interior and exterior of the ship. This was an on-the-record interview with a production designer from the movie.
Just like any other Web site, we simply try to serve our readers. If you feel that our news has any more "spin" than anyone else, then that's an issue that you have and I'm real sorry to hear it. We can't please everyone. But just like the fine folks who bring you TrekToday and TrekBBS, we are staffed by volunteers who also are fans, and we are dedicated to bringing readers -- new and old -- the information they are looking for.
Even if I had negative opinions about TrekToday or TrekBBS (which I don't, actually), I wouldn't go on message boards and slam them every time they have a story mentioned.
SyFy Portal was the only site reporting details of the original Star Trek XI production. Unfortunately, the Viacom split didn't do us well, and we lost some good sources. Plus, the original script writer (who was only really talking to us) was replaced with the J.J. Abrams team when new management took over Paramount. So we try to get original material when we can, and this was something we worked real hard to get -- as volunteers.
So please don't spit on our work or the fans who volunteer to make SyFy Portal because of some negative feelings you have. The early days of SyFy (before we merged with Star Trek Portal) were spent right here at Trek Nation, and we'll always be proud to share that as part of our history now that we're in our 10th year.
Thanks.
Oh, and sorry, Jimmy C. I noticed that the post seems to be in reply to you. It's not (I just used quick reply). Sorry about that.
I wanna see a huge cgi engineering. It's a big ship, and now they have a way to show it. Just because they're using some cgi sets doesn't mean it's gonna be like Star Wars or anything. George A. Romero's Land of the Dead was filmed almost entirely on greensreen sets, it didn't look like it. I imagine greenscreened Star Trek will probably look like Star Trek with balls.
I can't even use the page due to banners taking over the screen and disrupting my attempts to scroll down. There is no reason I shouldn't be able to browse a web page comfortably, ANY web page, with the hardware I have and the bandwidth I'm downloading it with.Michael Hinman said:
I find it rather sad that instead of talking about what was in the story at SyFy Portal, you have to attack the site. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Take a minute or two and actually read the entire story, the link was provided to you and a single quote was provided. There is more information. No, no details of what the changes and such are, but at least it's the first confirmation about whether or not there will be some major changes to the interior and exterior of the ship. This was an on-the-record interview with a production designer from the movie.
Just like any other Web site, we simply try to serve our readers. If you feel that our news has any more "spin" than anyone else, then that's an issue that you have and I'm real sorry to hear it. We can't please everyone. But just like the fine folks who bring you TrekToday and TrekBBS, we are staffed by volunteers who also are fans, and we are dedicated to bringing readers -- new and old -- the information they are looking for.
Even if I had negative opinions about TrekToday or TrekBBS (which I don't, actually), I wouldn't go on message boards and slam them every time they have a story mentioned.
SyFy Portal was the only site reporting details of the original Star Trek XI production. Unfortunately, the Viacom split didn't do us well, and we lost some good sources. Plus, the original script writer (who was only really talking to us) was replaced with the J.J. Abrams team when new management took over Paramount. So we try to get original material when we can, and this was something we worked real hard to get -- as volunteers.
So please don't spit on our work or the fans who volunteer to make SyFy Portal because of some negative feelings you have. The early days of SyFy (before we merged with Star Trek Portal) were spent right here at Trek Nation, and we'll always be proud to share that as part of our history now that we're in our 10th year.
Thanks.
Back on topic, I like the minimal changes of the ship vector posted, but I am really not a big fan of swept nacelles and I hope that is just a trick of perspective.
Well, I guess when someone who matches that description joins in they'll have fair warning then.Starship Polaris said:
I can understand why people who don't know how to use or maintain computers or weren't using them professionally prior to the early 1990s might have a higher comfort level with Apple. That they need to challenge others about it, given that the vast majority of the productive computer use in the world is done - by choice of every major organization and most individuals - on more flexible and expansive systems than Apple can offer is mildly off-putting.
I'd be interested in seeing what you were doing with PCs in the 80s and 90s though. The only people I knew who were using PCs back then were secretaries and some home users. Everyone I worked with during those years were using Apple, NeXT, Sun or SGI systems. When I worked at the National Science Foundation's Geometry Center in 1994 the only PC in the place was one kept in one of the back rooms so we could see what progress Linux was making at the time.
And how did you deal with limited memory capacity and drive space of early PCs? I bought a DEC dual processor workstation that was the top of the line in 1996, and it was limited to drives of 2 GB or less and maxed out at 64 MB of memory. My 1992 Quadra 950 currently has a 9 GB hard drive (with no fixed size limit) and 136 MB of memory (with a max of 256 MB)... granted, it was $10,000 new, but the Macintosh SE/30 I owned back in 1992 (and was already almost 3 years old by then) could handle 128 MB of memory.
And then what did you do for apps? Illustrator was on Apple, NeXT and SGI before the first PC compatible version was released in 1992, and Freehand wasn't around for Windows until 1992 either. The first version of Photoshop for Windows was 2.5 (also around 1992). PageMaker was on Windows by 1987, but FrameMaker didn't show up until around 1991 and QuarkXPress until 1992. The first version of Premiere didn't show up on Windows until 1994 as I recall, and MacroMind (Macromedia) Director wasn't available until 1992. I'm sure you made a lot of apps for yourself, but it is hard to see what sort of creative stuff you would have been doing (above and beyond writing) on PCs in the 80s and early 90s without some of these types of apps.
For me it was pretty straight forward. At the end of the 1980s Windows didn't have the apps that I was using. The primary app I used on my Mac was Theorist, which was Mac only until 1995. Mathematica worked especially well with NeXT systems (though I also used it on my Mac) and Geomview was only available for SGI and NeXT systems. While there may have been better software for doing 3D animation (I was more interested in research than presentation back then), Geomview was still good enough to garner some preys (including at SIGGRAPH 1994).
And even the web took a while before showing up on Windows PCs. The first browser (and hypertext transfer protocol) was developed on a NeXT system and then quickly followed by browsers on Unix and Macs, but I remember all the headaches of having to go back and change filename standards on the web in order to make sure that Windows users could see your pages (changing .html to .htm, and .jpeg to .jpg, and so on). And that isn't even counting the issues Microsoft created deliberately in an attempt to shut down Netscape.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen the great stuff you've put out since the turn of the century (that I know of), but how would you fair on a 10 year old system using ten year old software today?
I ask this because I don't see anyone talking about doing modern computing types of stuff on old PCs running old versions of Windows and old Windows software. The PowerBook I'm typing this on (and use for most of my web browsing) is 10 years old. One of my primary systems is a 1997 PowerBook filled with tons of old software that works just as good today as it did when it was new, and there is almost nothing I can't do on that system. I've been hunting around for a few months to see if anyone is (or even can) make use of old Windows PCs in the same way. In theory, I would guess you could... but why hasn't anyone done it in practice?
I know it can be done with Macs, as well as NeXT, Sun and SGI systems... because I do it myself. I use a Sun Microsystems SPARCstation 10 (from 1992) running OPENSTEP 4.2 (from 1996), I also use an SGI Indy (from 1993) running IRIX 6.2 (from 1996). And I still make use of an IBM ThinkPad 760ED (from around 1996) running Apple's Rhapsody 5.1 (from 1998).
I assume that what you said was not a boast, so I'd be very interested in at least hearing your thoughts on the subject... maybe even an outline of the types of things you think could be accomplished using such a setup (doesn't have to be in this thread... PM would do also).
I have a real distain for planned (or forced) obsolescence of hardware and software. So far most Windows users I've come across seem ready to shed old hardware, software and operating systems as soon as something better appears on the horizon. You're one of the first to even hint that maybe older Windows systems could still be useful.
If that is what we can look forward to, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
I still believe that the limited sets of The Cage could be used to nicely display advanced technology. The changes made to the bridge for WNMHGB and the series may have helped making it seem more realistic in the 1960s, but most of what was seen in The Cage would work great today.
Then you presumably didn't work for the DoD. The PCs weren't anything unusual in terms of capabilities, other than being Tempestized.
Vector just admitted the image linked earlier was actually his and not something officially associated with the real production. Here's the "confession" post:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8442889#Post8442889
He states it wasn't an attempt to openly deceive, just a way to hopefully get a better reaction to the design if people thought it may have been the real deal instead of immediately knowing it was a "fan" design.
Well, pooh!
Sincerely,
Bill
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8442889#Post8442889
He states it wasn't an attempt to openly deceive, just a way to hopefully get a better reaction to the design if people thought it may have been the real deal instead of immediately knowing it was a "fan" design.
Well, pooh!
Sincerely,
Bill
No, I didn't work for the DoD, and even though I received funding from the DoE I didn't do any direct work for them either. But DoD related contracts were the largest sources of income for both Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems throughout the 1990s, and the very backbone of the internet was founded as a DoD project (first as the ARPAnet, and by the mid 1970s it was being based on TCP/IP).
While I'm sure that the DoD had DOS and Windows systems in use, I sure can't imagine them using them for anything mission critical until the mid to late 1990s. Microsoft didn't have it's own implementation of TCP/IP networking until very late, and most corporate PCs had to use third party software from venders like Novell to enable PCs to network.
And not to rub this in too much, but the DoD was also one of Apple's biggest customers for their version of Unix called A/UX. While Apple based A/UX on System V Unix (just like Sun and SGI), they took the additional step in implementing networking via BSD's version of the TCP/IP stack (which was far better than System V's version). While A/UX was expensive for the average user (a single user license was around $900), the fact that it ran on most Mac hardware (minimum requirements were a Macintosh II with FPU) made it the least expensive way to do large scale Unix setups. A/UX was widely used by the DoD, DoE and NASA in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The drop in relative prices of workstations by HP, IBM, Sun, SGI, NeXT and DEC killed off future development of A/UX by 1994 (Apple even started selling workgroup servers with IBM's AIX operating systems by 1995).
On the PC side of things, networking was part of what forced Microsoft to start joint work on OS/2 with IBM. In 1991 Microsoft spun off their part of the project which would eventually led to Windows NT 3.1... which if I am not mistaken was the first Microsoft OS to include built-in TCP/IP support. I don't believe (and I may be wrong) that consumers got built-in TCP/IP until Windows 95 (I seem to recall Novell being rather upset about it's inclusion).
While Windows NT was a major step forward for Microsoft, places like the DoD wouldn't invest in it until they could see it running in mission critical situations. This was why Microsoft bought Hotmail. Unfortunately, Windows NT 4.0 wasn't up to the challenge and Microsoft was force to switch to using FreeBSD for their servers until Windows 2000 was ready to handle the task.
And that doesn't even take into consideration things like MS-DOS's memory address limitations. Intel was quite unhappy that Microsoft didn't upgrade DOS for the 80386's 32 bit architecture. This meant that users of 386 and 486 systems running DOS never got to take full advantage of what those systems could have done. It was the release of the 386 processor that inspired the creation of Linux, so that people would have access to a Unix-like 32 bit operating system on relatively inexpensive PCs.
But no, I didn't work for the DoD. Nor do I have a strong background in computing.
Re: The Different Versions of the Enterprise <<SPOILER>>
Look, I don't judge other people's personal sexual preferences... but I'm really not interested. Hate to disappoint you...
Guys can you please take this up with each other over PM please? Thanks.
*Akiraprise, trying to keep some order in the wild west Trek 11 forum*
Similar threads
