I know, 2001 called and want their games back, but my point is that 17" vs. 12" screens do make a difference..
I remember, oh, in 2002 or 2003 I upgraded from my 15" (14 viewable) Sony Trinitron CRT. Part of the reason I was hanging on to it for so long was because it was easy to take to LAN parties (easy, relatively speaking). Me and my friends were diehard Quake III players back then. Most of my friends had at least 17" monitors, and a couple had 19" monitors. Let me tell you, I wasn't terrible at Q3A with the Trinitron, but when I upgraded to a 19" Viewsonic CRT, the next LAN was totally a night and day show for me. My rail was spot on!
Too bad the effect seems to have long worn off. Maybe everyone should start practicing on palm pilot or cell phone screens, and then go back to playing on full size monitors... There's a money making formula here, I can smell it..." Four Inch FPS Practice Screen - only $499!"
The only way to review this thing properly is to give it to someone in the Walmart crowd who doesn't use a PC very much now, and see how they do with it. Unfortunately, I don't know of a magazine that does that sort of review. I'm sure I'm being redundant, but this is exactly the problem with the kinds of people who review Linux machines. For example, give a Windows machine to someone who isn't familiar with computers and see how much easier it is than with the equivalent Linux machine. After all, Linux isn't ready for the desktop because it isn't "easy enough," right? Since when was anything on Windows easy and intuitive to the uninitiated? I know we all know this here on Slashdot, but come on, PC Magazine is written by people who use Windows, see Mac users as a cult, and see Linux as Satanism; the target audience is people who don't know better.
I'm not saying that the author didn't make ANY good points, but the overall tune of the article just floors me. With all the problems that have come about with Vista, somehow they still manage to be sympathetic, after all, it's "the next big thing." But for a Linux machine? Of course not. I'm not saying Linux deserves special treatment for being the underdog, but Microsoft certainly doesn't deserve any for being the top dog.
I do listen to music a lot, and let me tell you, I buy more music than ever - all on CDs - I have an extensive mp3 collection but its all stuff I ripped myself or stuff I pirated off p2p; I have not bought digital music online. There remains no real music service with quality and compatibility worth paying for, as far as I'm concerned - no compressed garbage for me, except what I made myself or got for free!
How can I stand to buy CDs any more? Simple: buy used, buy from garage sales, buy from wherever, as long as its not new. That way, I can afford to take a risk on bands I don't know, and if I get burned, well hell, I only lost maybe $5, not $15-20 you can spend on a brand new disc from most chain retail stores. I scored copies of Nirvana/Nevermind, Voivod/Nothingface, and this neat-o A Tribute To Bauhaus disc (still in the shrink wrap!) for a grand total of $3 last weekend, but that was from a particularly lucky garage sale run. Even still, I swear, every time I walk in to FYE, I walk out with two or three, sometimes four or five used albums. I can't remember the last time I spent over $20 in one trip, though! (but I would if I shopped anywhere but the metal section in that store!) Used CDs are cheaper than any digital music service and you get the best quality, too (and the freedom to do whatever the hell you want with it!).
Those of you buying new are really missing out! Zo0ok brings up a good point with live365, though, and I just may have to check it out! Thanks!
I happen to have the Discman featured in the article a little below where it mentions the CDP-102. I second GizmoToy's remarks about how back then they were built like tanks and that "they don't make them like that anymore," (Especially Sony!). Seriously, with the "docking station" the thing probably weighs about 3 pounds with batteries. Try carrying that around in your pocket, kids! But it works perfectly and is in near-mint condition - I purchased it at a garage sale for $2 a couple of years ago. I'd love to see some of the cheap-o portables you can buy today around in another 20+ years.
On another note, it certainly sounds better than any of the other portable CD players I've listened to as of late, and when using the line output to a real stereo it's at least comparable to most relatively decent CD players out there. I would say it royally outclasses anything you can buy in any Wal-Mart/Target/K-Mart/whatever. I sure isn't up to my Harman/Kardon, but for the price I can't argue a bit. In another 20 years, I'd say it would be a wicked collector's item, but I don't know if a CD player could really last for over 40 years...or could it?
Decent voice stream requiring 128kb? Toll-grade voice is only about 64kbps. Granted, thats not anywhere close to a "decent voice stream" in a true audio sense, but it's just a telephone call. The whole point of VOIP is that it saves bandwidth, i.e. most VOIP codecs use a lot less per second than traditional phone calls. If carriers were going to waste 128kbps on VOIP calls, there would be absolutely no sense to migrate to VOIP. It's all about the bandwidth.
IIRC, G.729A voice codec = 8kbps. Granted you might not want to use G.729A but here we go: 2,000,000,000,000 (TB) / 8kbps = 250,000,000,000 or 250 BILLION concurrent VOIP calls. Now we're cooking with gas!
Maybe my sound card needs some help then. I'm sure with a setup like that you're not running any sort of Sound Blaster...
Although child's play compared to a $30k system, I'm certain my Onkyo receiver isn't the weakest link in my setup. My sound card probably is, though.
I guess the level of exaggeration would vary from listener to listener...but then again, so does the equipment that the kind of listener who doesn't notice the difference when compared to someone who actually cares about audio quality. If you were to play a CD and an MP3 of the same track on a cheap Durabrand shelf stereo from Wally World, I'm sure there would be a negligible (if any, for that matter) difference between a CD and a reasonably high encoded MP3 or other file using a lossy codec. But, if you bring it up to any sort of component stereo with real brand-name speakers, a decent amplifier, and a nice CD player, the difference is much more profound. I wouldn't call it night and day, but there's definitely a noticable difference, and I don't exactly consider myself an audiophile.
MP3's that are properly done *might* be superior to vinyl, but any compressed codec like mp3 will never be bit-for-bit perfect like a CD, or DVD-Audio, or SACD for that matter. I jumped on mp3 years ago when I was still but a young pup...well, hell, I still am, but I now realize that my ears DO notice a distinct difference between even high bitrate mp3 recordings and a real CD, and the CD wins hands down. Now if only college tuition allowed for the purchase of $10-$20 CDs...
For my mother, at least...I was looking for an excuse to ditch 98 on her old Dell Latitude with a p2-400, 256mb ram, integrated (Neomagic) video - she wasn't really unhappy with Windows 98, but boy is she happier with Dapper. She tells all her coworkers that her son's got her using Linux and she loves it. All she does is use aMSN to talk to me, and browse the web, pay bills, e-mail, etc. Basic stuff, no doubt.
Do I think that Linux seriously has a chance of picking up users in search of a replacement for 98/ME? No, and obviously my example is a special case. Honestly, Apple would have a great time picking up ex-9X users, if prices on Macs weren't so exclusive compared to PCs. I think linux's best chance in the market for "users" is to get a big vendor like Dell or HP to start including a mainstream distro like Ubuntu or SuSE on their low-to-midrange desktops, make it, say $50 less than the same Windows PC, guarantee it to work with their hardware, and support it in the rare occasion that a user breaks the install. If users looking for a ~$500 PC to replace their old 98 box see an alternative like that, maybe they would take a chance.
Sorry, I was dreaming of a perfect world.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, 2001 called and want their games back, but my point is that 17" vs. 12" screens do make a difference..
I remember, oh, in 2002 or 2003 I upgraded from my 15" (14 viewable) Sony Trinitron CRT. Part of the reason I was hanging on to it for so long was because it was easy to take to LAN parties (easy, relatively speaking). Me and my friends were diehard Quake III players back then. Most of my friends had at least 17" monitors, and a couple had 19" monitors. Let me tell you, I wasn't terrible at Q3A with the Trinitron, but when I upgraded to a 19" Viewsonic CRT, the next LAN was totally a night and day show for me. My rail was spot on!
Too bad the effect seems to have long worn off. Maybe everyone should start practicing on palm pilot or cell phone screens, and then go back to playing on full size monitors... There's a money making formula here, I can smell it..." Four Inch FPS Practice Screen - only $499!"
Thats because Marantz slays foul sound http://www.adspast.com/store/customer/product.php?productid=16608&cat=0&page=1 !
I'm not saying that the author didn't make ANY good points, but the overall tune of the article just floors me. With all the problems that have come about with Vista, somehow they still manage to be sympathetic, after all, it's "the next big thing." But for a Linux machine? Of course not. I'm not saying Linux deserves special treatment for being the underdog, but Microsoft certainly doesn't deserve any for being the top dog.
I do listen to music a lot, and let me tell you, I buy more music than ever - all on CDs - I have an extensive mp3 collection but its all stuff I ripped myself or stuff I pirated off p2p; I have not bought digital music online. There remains no real music service with quality and compatibility worth paying for, as far as I'm concerned - no compressed garbage for me, except what I made myself or got for free!
How can I stand to buy CDs any more? Simple: buy used, buy from garage sales, buy from wherever, as long as its not new. That way, I can afford to take a risk on bands I don't know, and if I get burned, well hell, I only lost maybe $5, not $15-20 you can spend on a brand new disc from most chain retail stores. I scored copies of Nirvana/Nevermind, Voivod/Nothingface, and this neat-o A Tribute To Bauhaus disc (still in the shrink wrap!) for a grand total of $3 last weekend, but that was from a particularly lucky garage sale run. Even still, I swear, every time I walk in to FYE, I walk out with two or three, sometimes four or five used albums. I can't remember the last time I spent over $20 in one trip, though! (but I would if I shopped anywhere but the metal section in that store!) Used CDs are cheaper than any digital music service and you get the best quality, too (and the freedom to do whatever the hell you want with it!).
Those of you buying new are really missing out! Zo0ok brings up a good point with live365, though, and I just may have to check it out! Thanks!
I happen to have the Discman featured in the article a little below where it mentions the CDP-102. I second GizmoToy's remarks about how back then they were built like tanks and that "they don't make them like that anymore," (Especially Sony!). Seriously, with the "docking station" the thing probably weighs about 3 pounds with batteries. Try carrying that around in your pocket, kids! But it works perfectly and is in near-mint condition - I purchased it at a garage sale for $2 a couple of years ago. I'd love to see some of the cheap-o portables you can buy today around in another 20+ years.
On another note, it certainly sounds better than any of the other portable CD players I've listened to as of late, and when using the line output to a real stereo it's at least comparable to most relatively decent CD players out there. I would say it royally outclasses anything you can buy in any Wal-Mart/Target/K-Mart/whatever. I sure isn't up to my Harman/Kardon, but for the price I can't argue a bit. In another 20 years, I'd say it would be a wicked collector's item, but I don't know if a CD player could really last for over 40 years...or could it?
In soviet russia, google buys you!
Decent voice stream requiring 128kb? Toll-grade voice is only about 64kbps. Granted, thats not anywhere close to a "decent voice stream" in a true audio sense, but it's just a telephone call. The whole point of VOIP is that it saves bandwidth, i.e. most VOIP codecs use a lot less per second than traditional phone calls. If carriers were going to waste 128kbps on VOIP calls, there would be absolutely no sense to migrate to VOIP. It's all about the bandwidth.
IIRC, G.729A voice codec = 8kbps. Granted you might not want to use G.729A but here we go: 2,000,000,000,000 (TB) / 8kbps = 250,000,000,000 or 250 BILLION concurrent VOIP calls. Now we're cooking with gas!
Maybe my sound card needs some help then. I'm sure with a setup like that you're not running any sort of Sound Blaster... Although child's play compared to a $30k system, I'm certain my Onkyo receiver isn't the weakest link in my setup. My sound card probably is, though.
I guess the level of exaggeration would vary from listener to listener...but then again, so does the equipment that the kind of listener who doesn't notice the difference when compared to someone who actually cares about audio quality. If you were to play a CD and an MP3 of the same track on a cheap Durabrand shelf stereo from Wally World, I'm sure there would be a negligible (if any, for that matter) difference between a CD and a reasonably high encoded MP3 or other file using a lossy codec. But, if you bring it up to any sort of component stereo with real brand-name speakers, a decent amplifier, and a nice CD player, the difference is much more profound. I wouldn't call it night and day, but there's definitely a noticable difference, and I don't exactly consider myself an audiophile.
MP3's that are properly done *might* be superior to vinyl, but any compressed codec like mp3 will never be bit-for-bit perfect like a CD, or DVD-Audio, or SACD for that matter. I jumped on mp3 years ago when I was still but a young pup...well, hell, I still am, but I now realize that my ears DO notice a distinct difference between even high bitrate mp3 recordings and a real CD, and the CD wins hands down. Now if only college tuition allowed for the purchase of $10-$20 CDs ...
For my mother, at least...I was looking for an excuse to ditch 98 on her old Dell Latitude with a p2-400, 256mb ram, integrated (Neomagic) video - she wasn't really unhappy with Windows 98, but boy is she happier with Dapper. She tells all her coworkers that her son's got her using Linux and she loves it. All she does is use aMSN to talk to me, and browse the web, pay bills, e-mail, etc. Basic stuff, no doubt. Do I think that Linux seriously has a chance of picking up users in search of a replacement for 98/ME? No, and obviously my example is a special case. Honestly, Apple would have a great time picking up ex-9X users, if prices on Macs weren't so exclusive compared to PCs. I think linux's best chance in the market for "users" is to get a big vendor like Dell or HP to start including a mainstream distro like Ubuntu or SuSE on their low-to-midrange desktops, make it, say $50 less than the same Windows PC, guarantee it to work with their hardware, and support it in the rare occasion that a user breaks the install. If users looking for a ~$500 PC to replace their old 98 box see an alternative like that, maybe they would take a chance. Sorry, I was dreaming of a perfect world.