Then you had a great offer, or a less-specced device. I just did a quick google search on 10" netbooks (the iPad is 9.7") and prices were $290-$420 depending on specs. I'm sure you can find cheaper and more expensive models too.
I'm using Cyrus myself for this exact purpose (e-mail from the last 7 years about; estimate 20 GB worth of mails; I have many mails that come with attachments). No specific reason to use that one; seemed to be the easiest to set up at the time; it works fine for me.
Main reason for me to use an imap server is that it is client-independent, and as it's open source it's not some weird proprietary format. So great to store mails, easy to retrieve mail remotely, easy to set up webmail, no problems with syncing between clients.
However it does not help much with search. This is an issue I'm running into now and then as Evolution simply sucks at searching through a large mail base. Afaik Cyrus does not support server-side mail searches; other imap servers may do so. So if you need fast search Cyrus doesn't seem to be the server of choice. Personally I'd look into storing the mail in an SQL database if search is a major issue.
Until they start selling that information about you to third parties. Google having a profile about me that's used in house to target ads to me, is OKish acceptable. Them selling this info to third parties is a definite no-go. And there is nothing that I am aware of preventing them doing just that, other than their own ethics.
I actually think that this are two points where Apple got it right. At least the market at large thinks so.
Price: the iPad not really expensive. Price of an iPad is not far from a netbook.
It's not a general purpose computer. That may be a weak point, may also be a strong point. The weak point being that it has limited functionality; the strong point being that it can focus on being really good at the functions it can do. Sounds a bit like the Unix philosophy of having many bits and pieces of software that each do one thing, and do that one thing well. And considering the success of the iPad it's doing what many people want it to do, and it's doing that well.
I agree with the "walled garden" issue. I would love to see Apple have an official app store where only vetted apps are available, but also leaving the door open to third-party "use at your own risk" app stores.
These competitors may fall in between: not specialised enough to do without a keyboard, not general purpose enough to buy one instead of a cheaper netbook.
I'm afraid that you belong to such a minute minority that your needs will never be catered for, or only by super special vendors. I'm willing to bet that >99% of the buyers of say, an tablet PC, want the device to work and be usable out of the box. Even if they were keen to install something else on it later. And that means having an OS and some applications pre-installed is a must. Having to download drivers, to download all the software, whatever is not just a chore, you can't even do it with your device if it doesn't come with anything installed.
Linux is not high profile enough for that, and by the time it gets sufficiently high profile it will be so ingrained that, like Windows and established ISPs, this argument is considered too ridiculous to work. I see it typically used against high-profile newcomers.
Not so long ago in a/. discussion I got the complaint "how could you have missed the article about smartphone xyz?!". The replier even gave a link to said article. The headline was " releases iPhone competitor". No "new Android-based smartphone", no, an "iPhone competitor".
It's been like that since the iPhone resp. iPad were released. Not just on/., but all over the media. Also in my local daily.
Since the iPad was released I have been receiving spam from Chinese manufacturers offering '7" iPad' tablets - usually running Andriod, offered at prices of US$50-80 each. Called iPad in the subject of the e-mail, for the rest they are no-brand as usual.
I've seen the iPhone, and it looks great. I've played a bit with it, it's really easy. I've talked to people who own an iPad, all positive. I have seen a link claiming some 90% satisfaction ratio with the iPhone - very high. So yes Apple is doing something right, because with just marketing they can't do this. Microsoft can't outmarket them in this respect, and MS's marketing team is very good at their job, yet MS's products are not a golden standard.
Still it's getting irritating. iPad competitor. iPhone alternative. iPod killer. The actual brand or manufacturer the story is about is not mentioned; Apple's product however IS mentioned, giving it free marketing, effectively promoting it. After all who wants to buy an "alternative" that has not yet been released, when you can get the "real thing" now?
TFA is short on details on how it could be financed. How they planned to make money out of it, other than "advertising". Putting ads in existing web pages was the suggestion. I wonder how they do that: a top frame with M2Z's ads? Interstitials between every visited page? They probably do not want to give too many details as otherwise an FF extension to filter those ads would be ready before the network could start operating.
On the other hand it goes to show how cheap data connections really are, and how cheap wireless really is to roll out.
The article mentions that one of the early complains against the proposed free network operation was that it can be used to watched porn.
Well of course it can be used for that. It can also be used to plan terrorist attacks. Or even more nefarious things: people may us it to discuss whether to plant yellow or pink flowers in their garden.
Interesting how this "but it can be used to watch porn!" argument pops up any time someone proposes a free or cheap new way to connect to the Internet.
It makes one wonder why this is never used seriously against established operators. Why this is never used against proposals to providing cheap Internet to poor families (supplied by established ISPs of course). It couldn't be something political, or could it?
I get the idea - works if all you do is looking straight forward, up or down. Not if you start looking left or right, then it breaks down horribly with both eyes effectively having different lenses through which to look.
Not sure what the headaches come from really (I didn't have this issue when watching Avatar nor with some earlier 3D movies), but I would guess parallax may be a problem. Difference in distance between the eyes, some people may have their eyes so far apart or close together that the two images are impossible to convert properly by the brain, something like that.
Let's call this a very interesting business model. Or should I say bizarre business model. Maybe one should start making a list of companies with bizarre business models, this should be on the top.
Also the Review-Journal publication should be careful to keep track of which articles they have sold off the rights, otherwise they may end up on the receiving end of a law suit.
Otoh as this troll appears to only handle Review-Journal articles, and obviously can easily buy copyrights from this journal (I can't think of many papers that are so happy to sell the copyrights on their articles - this must be a complete transfer of copyright, not just a license), it sounds like they are a related company one way or another, and basically suing on behalf of Review-Journal just under a different name.
At first I misread the headline as "patent troll". This is not too different. But at least these copyright trolls sue people that really should know better - it is after all much easier to unknowingly infringe on patents than copyrights. Copying stuff verbatim without asking permission is silly, especially when done by a public figure.
To me this looked like one of the "rough edges" of 3D tech of today. It looked like a 2D movie with 3D effects added to it. Those floating subtitles (I watched a Chinese subtitled version - not that I can read Chinese but that's how English movies are shown in Hong Kong) were also really weird. But reasonably easy to ignore.
And Avatar also has a 2D version (if only to be able to release them on DVD/BR). So that would basically require them to make two movies, as a 2D movie with everything in focus will look horrible.
I think 3D needs a lot of experimentation, and technical development of the display part.
I know about those "glasses", visors, whatever that are worn like a helmet and completely cover your eyes. Can be great for immersion in game play but I wouldn't want that for watching TV. Interaction with whatever happens around you is hard, and pouring a beer wearing such a helmet is hard to do.
The glasses like we had to wear for Avatar also will have their limitations. I didn't check at the time but I do wonder how people wearing glasses handle it. Again this may be acceptable for playing games (generally requiring full attention to the screen), but not for TV.
Which gives very strange effects sometimes, when the creator decides to make parts out of focus. I had this when watching Avatar. Often they use the 2D technique of focussing on a person while blurring the background (to make it stand out). This looks natural - when you focus on something close by the background naturally becomes blurred (due to depth of vision and the double-image issue). However when you decide to have a look at the background instead, it suddenly remains blurred. While in reality your eyes will focus on the further away object, changing the lens and the angle of your eyes.
For a more realistic 3D experience the display would have to follow your eyes, and see what you focus on. As bonus such a tech would allow the rest of the screen to run in lower resolution (less work to render an image) as what you do not focus on you can not see so well anyway. That's simply how our eyes work. But I think it will need a long time to get to such a stage. A very long time.
I'm no gamer, won't be playing anytime soon, but this is why I do follow these stories. The user interfaces. Lots of interesting stuff is being developed for games that may trickle down to the desktop interfaces.
Mind share may be a problem there. You need lots of people that know about the site, that go and look at stuff, and tell their friends about it.
I'm afraid not many people know about the existence of the web site, or know about the mere idea, the possibility of indie TV/movie releases, the idea of legally downloading stuff and being able to actually make some payment for it.
I do think that this will be one of the main ways to distribute/promote stuff in the future. But that future is not near at all. Too much has to change for it to take off. But as soon as critical mass has been built up, it may just work and work very well.
If you want to pay the artists for the missions they HAVE already created, there's no-one stopping you.
Well... as a matter of fact, many publishers do stop me from paying them. By either simply refusing to sell to me (for not being in the correct locality), or releasing it in what are to me useless and obsolete formats (e.g. CD, DVD).
E.g. I like Japanese anime - but the only way to pay is to buy overpriced DVDs, and then only if they are released in your locality. Usually not, or only after long waits. And when buying a DVD you know that Music I'm out at the moment, I used to listen to a lot of music. Lost it a bit. There again to pay the artist the only option was/is to buy CDs. I'm done with CDs. I bought a fair share, often at concerts (then the artist actually gets money for them - mainly unknown acts).
And if you really want to buyer CDs then you're limited to what your local store happens to stock. And that's often limited to the current charts, and golden oldies.
My music money is to go to artists that I like. Plain and simple. That are the artists that I want to continue playing.
Yes that's egoistic. But I couldn't care less if Britney Spears ran out of money and stopped producing music.
However my taste is not everyone else's taste. Other people may want to support other artists, which is also fine with me. There are a lot of other people who do like Britney and are happy to support them with their money.
Nothing wrong with that either.
And in the end we have a huge field of musicians. Some make lots of money, as they have many fans. Others can come by nicely because they make some interesting innovative music that appeals to quite some people. Others maybe don't make much, maybe they are not that good, or just not well known (yet), still they will continue to play because they like it. And that's good too. Maybe they are good musicians, then good chance they will get known and start receiving more income. If only from ticket sales for their concerts.
And incidentally it's this last and largest group of musicians that can benefit most from file sharing, as that's how they can gain an audience.
I have a preference to pay for what has been created, not for what they are going to create (or not). Movie ticket, concert ticket (basically reproduction as they play pre-written music), etc. Donation also as in "I like what you have created now" not as in "please go and create more".
Yes you are very right. Hollywood budgets are crazy.
Have a look at Hong Kong cinema. Admittedly what comes out of this city these days is mostly crap (they're on par with Hollywood on that matter), though quite some good movies as well. And budgets that are way smaller than in Hollywood, like a factor 10 or more.
The biggest differences:
much less use of special effects (especially much less CG effects, that seems to be very expensive still, big fireball explosions are also almost non-existent),
less exorbitant salaries for the actors,
often simply shot on the street instead of in a studio (always interesting to try and figure out where exactly they shot a scene - once I came home and right outside the village where I live they were busy shooting some movie scenes, and I have witnessed movie making in progress at various locations where I happened to walk by) - that saves a lot of budget on studios and even on extras, as the accidental passers-by are the extras in the movie. Can look quite funny.
Hollywood movies do in general look more polished, but whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of taste/style.
Hollywood accounting not withstanding, I still wonder how this really translates in profits.
They're talking about "gross takings", I assume that is full income from ticket sales. And of that I may assume a large part goes to the cinemas: pay for rent, equipment, staff, etc. just to run the theatre itself. That also costs money.
And production budget was $15m, but how about marketing budgets, is that included already? Probably not as that's the easiest to inflate so at least your movie won't run the risk of actually booking a profit.
How can they do one trial for 5000 defendants? For starters I doubt there is a court room big enough. Secondly I may assume every individual will have to be judged separately, if only to determine liability.
Impressive how the US legal system lets you sue that many unrelated people in one go.
Producer in China makes product, ships it out a week later, another month or so later it arrives in the US, yet another few weeks to arrive on store shelves. That's already at least two months between manufacturing and arrival in the stores (which is exactly why high season for production is Jul-Oct, to make it in time for the Christmas season - ordering is done even earlier). All in all for most products up to a year between design/tooling/mould making and hitting the shelves.
This not taking into account time taken to actually sell the product. Plenty of time to have your patents expire, and still have it on your products, without any bad intention.
Oh and of course after selling a product for >10 years (a patent lasts for up to 20 years) it's easy to forget about an expiry date...
Often these patents are for just a part of the product - and it's generally easier to figure out how to make it for yourself by looking carefully at the actual product, than to try to learn it from the patents. Patents tend to be quite obfuscated.
Besides I do recall the Internet has specifically been designed to NOT have a single point of failure. A "kill switch" indicates such as single point exists.
Are all root DNS servers still under direct US control? If so that must be fixed really soon. As that's the only "kill switch" that I can imagine. And even then using local DNS caches the Internet will continue to function. Heck even without DNS we can still use it, just not so conveniently as it used to be.
For the rest I can not think of anything remotely like a single point of failure, that could be used to implement a "kill switch".
Windows doesn't come with H.264 codecs installed out of the box? I know in Linux you always have to go through some clicks to get it installed (non-free codecs or so it's called) but besides that minor inconvenience it just works.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you had a great offer, or a less-specced device. I just did a quick google search on 10" netbooks (the iPad is 9.7") and prices were $290-$420 depending on specs. I'm sure you can find cheaper and more expensive models too.
For storage, IMAP is definitely the way to go.
I'm using Cyrus myself for this exact purpose (e-mail from the last 7 years about; estimate 20 GB worth of mails; I have many mails that come with attachments). No specific reason to use that one; seemed to be the easiest to set up at the time; it works fine for me.
Main reason for me to use an imap server is that it is client-independent, and as it's open source it's not some weird proprietary format. So great to store mails, easy to retrieve mail remotely, easy to set up webmail, no problems with syncing between clients.
However it does not help much with search. This is an issue I'm running into now and then as Evolution simply sucks at searching through a large mail base. Afaik Cyrus does not support server-side mail searches; other imap servers may do so. So if you need fast search Cyrus doesn't seem to be the server of choice. Personally I'd look into storing the mail in an SQL database if search is a major issue.
Until they start selling that information about you to third parties. Google having a profile about me that's used in house to target ads to me, is OKish acceptable. Them selling this info to third parties is a definite no-go. And there is nothing that I am aware of preventing them doing just that, other than their own ethics.
I actually think that this are two points where Apple got it right. At least the market at large thinks so.
Price: the iPad not really expensive. Price of an iPad is not far from a netbook.
It's not a general purpose computer. That may be a weak point, may also be a strong point. The weak point being that it has limited functionality; the strong point being that it can focus on being really good at the functions it can do. Sounds a bit like the Unix philosophy of having many bits and pieces of software that each do one thing, and do that one thing well. And considering the success of the iPad it's doing what many people want it to do, and it's doing that well.
I agree with the "walled garden" issue. I would love to see Apple have an official app store where only vetted apps are available, but also leaving the door open to third-party "use at your own risk" app stores.
These competitors may fall in between: not specialised enough to do without a keyboard, not general purpose enough to buy one instead of a cheaper netbook.
I'm afraid that you belong to such a minute minority that your needs will never be catered for, or only by super special vendors. I'm willing to bet that >99% of the buyers of say, an tablet PC, want the device to work and be usable out of the box. Even if they were keen to install something else on it later. And that means having an OS and some applications pre-installed is a must. Having to download drivers, to download all the software, whatever is not just a chore, you can't even do it with your device if it doesn't come with anything installed.
Linux is not high profile enough for that, and by the time it gets sufficiently high profile it will be so ingrained that, like Windows and established ISPs, this argument is considered too ridiculous to work. I see it typically used against high-profile newcomers.
I agree.
Not so long ago in a /. discussion I got the complaint "how could you have missed the article about smartphone xyz?!". The replier even gave a link to said article. The headline was " releases iPhone competitor". No "new Android-based smartphone", no, an "iPhone competitor".
It's been like that since the iPhone resp. iPad were released. Not just on /., but all over the media. Also in my local daily.
Since the iPad was released I have been receiving spam from Chinese manufacturers offering '7" iPad' tablets - usually running Andriod, offered at prices of US$50-80 each. Called iPad in the subject of the e-mail, for the rest they are no-brand as usual.
I've seen the iPhone, and it looks great. I've played a bit with it, it's really easy. I've talked to people who own an iPad, all positive. I have seen a link claiming some 90% satisfaction ratio with the iPhone - very high. So yes Apple is doing something right, because with just marketing they can't do this. Microsoft can't outmarket them in this respect, and MS's marketing team is very good at their job, yet MS's products are not a golden standard.
Still it's getting irritating. iPad competitor. iPhone alternative. iPod killer. The actual brand or manufacturer the story is about is not mentioned; Apple's product however IS mentioned, giving it free marketing, effectively promoting it. After all who wants to buy an "alternative" that has not yet been released, when you can get the "real thing" now?
TFA is short on details on how it could be financed. How they planned to make money out of it, other than "advertising". Putting ads in existing web pages was the suggestion. I wonder how they do that: a top frame with M2Z's ads? Interstitials between every visited page? They probably do not want to give too many details as otherwise an FF extension to filter those ads would be ready before the network could start operating.
On the other hand it goes to show how cheap data connections really are, and how cheap wireless really is to roll out.
The article mentions that one of the early complains against the proposed free network operation was that it can be used to watched porn.
Well of course it can be used for that. It can also be used to plan terrorist attacks. Or even more nefarious things: people may us it to discuss whether to plant yellow or pink flowers in their garden.
Interesting how this "but it can be used to watch porn!" argument pops up any time someone proposes a free or cheap new way to connect to the Internet.
It makes one wonder why this is never used seriously against established operators. Why this is never used against proposals to providing cheap Internet to poor families (supplied by established ISPs of course). It couldn't be something political, or could it?
I get the idea - works if all you do is looking straight forward, up or down. Not if you start looking left or right, then it breaks down horribly with both eyes effectively having different lenses through which to look.
Not sure what the headaches come from really (I didn't have this issue when watching Avatar nor with some earlier 3D movies), but I would guess parallax may be a problem. Difference in distance between the eyes, some people may have their eyes so far apart or close together that the two images are impossible to convert properly by the brain, something like that.
Let's call this a very interesting business model. Or should I say bizarre business model. Maybe one should start making a list of companies with bizarre business models, this should be on the top.
Also the Review-Journal publication should be careful to keep track of which articles they have sold off the rights, otherwise they may end up on the receiving end of a law suit.
Otoh as this troll appears to only handle Review-Journal articles, and obviously can easily buy copyrights from this journal (I can't think of many papers that are so happy to sell the copyrights on their articles - this must be a complete transfer of copyright, not just a license), it sounds like they are a related company one way or another, and basically suing on behalf of Review-Journal just under a different name.
At first I misread the headline as "patent troll". This is not too different. But at least these copyright trolls sue people that really should know better - it is after all much easier to unknowingly infringe on patents than copyrights. Copying stuff verbatim without asking permission is silly, especially when done by a public figure.
To me this looked like one of the "rough edges" of 3D tech of today. It looked like a 2D movie with 3D effects added to it. Those floating subtitles (I watched a Chinese subtitled version - not that I can read Chinese but that's how English movies are shown in Hong Kong) were also really weird. But reasonably easy to ignore.
And Avatar also has a 2D version (if only to be able to release them on DVD/BR). So that would basically require them to make two movies, as a 2D movie with everything in focus will look horrible.
I think 3D needs a lot of experimentation, and technical development of the display part.
I know about those "glasses", visors, whatever that are worn like a helmet and completely cover your eyes. Can be great for immersion in game play but I wouldn't want that for watching TV. Interaction with whatever happens around you is hard, and pouring a beer wearing such a helmet is hard to do.
The glasses like we had to wear for Avatar also will have their limitations. I didn't check at the time but I do wonder how people wearing glasses handle it. Again this may be acceptable for playing games (generally requiring full attention to the screen), but not for TV.
Which gives very strange effects sometimes, when the creator decides to make parts out of focus. I had this when watching Avatar. Often they use the 2D technique of focussing on a person while blurring the background (to make it stand out). This looks natural - when you focus on something close by the background naturally becomes blurred (due to depth of vision and the double-image issue). However when you decide to have a look at the background instead, it suddenly remains blurred. While in reality your eyes will focus on the further away object, changing the lens and the angle of your eyes.
For a more realistic 3D experience the display would have to follow your eyes, and see what you focus on. As bonus such a tech would allow the rest of the screen to run in lower resolution (less work to render an image) as what you do not focus on you can not see so well anyway. That's simply how our eyes work. But I think it will need a long time to get to such a stage. A very long time.
I'm no gamer, won't be playing anytime soon, but this is why I do follow these stories. The user interfaces. Lots of interesting stuff is being developed for games that may trickle down to the desktop interfaces.
Mind share may be a problem there. You need lots of people that know about the site, that go and look at stuff, and tell their friends about it.
I'm afraid not many people know about the existence of the web site, or know about the mere idea, the possibility of indie TV/movie releases, the idea of legally downloading stuff and being able to actually make some payment for it.
I do think that this will be one of the main ways to distribute/promote stuff in the future. But that future is not near at all. Too much has to change for it to take off. But as soon as critical mass has been built up, it may just work and work very well.
If you want to pay the artists for the missions they HAVE already created, there's no-one stopping you.
Well... as a matter of fact, many publishers do stop me from paying them. By either simply refusing to sell to me (for not being in the correct locality), or releasing it in what are to me useless and obsolete formats (e.g. CD, DVD).
E.g. I like Japanese anime - but the only way to pay is to buy overpriced DVDs, and then only if they are released in your locality. Usually not, or only after long waits. And when buying a DVD you know that Music I'm out at the moment, I used to listen to a lot of music. Lost it a bit. There again to pay the artist the only option was/is to buy CDs. I'm done with CDs. I bought a fair share, often at concerts (then the artist actually gets money for them - mainly unknown acts).
And if you really want to buyer CDs then you're limited to what your local store happens to stock. And that's often limited to the current charts, and golden oldies.
My music money is to go to artists that I like. Plain and simple. That are the artists that I want to continue playing.
Yes that's egoistic. But I couldn't care less if Britney Spears ran out of money and stopped producing music.
However my taste is not everyone else's taste. Other people may want to support other artists, which is also fine with me. There are a lot of other people who do like Britney and are happy to support them with their money.
Nothing wrong with that either.
And in the end we have a huge field of musicians. Some make lots of money, as they have many fans. Others can come by nicely because they make some interesting innovative music that appeals to quite some people. Others maybe don't make much, maybe they are not that good, or just not well known (yet), still they will continue to play because they like it. And that's good too. Maybe they are good musicians, then good chance they will get known and start receiving more income. If only from ticket sales for their concerts.
And incidentally it's this last and largest group of musicians that can benefit most from file sharing, as that's how they can gain an audience.
I have a preference to pay for what has been created, not for what they are going to create (or not). Movie ticket, concert ticket (basically reproduction as they play pre-written music), etc. Donation also as in "I like what you have created now" not as in "please go and create more".
It sounds indeed like the business model of the future is the business model of the past: from before recordings and copyright existed.
Yes you are very right. Hollywood budgets are crazy.
Have a look at Hong Kong cinema. Admittedly what comes out of this city these days is mostly crap (they're on par with Hollywood on that matter), though quite some good movies as well. And budgets that are way smaller than in Hollywood, like a factor 10 or more.
The biggest differences:
Hollywood movies do in general look more polished, but whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of taste/style.
Hollywood accounting not withstanding, I still wonder how this really translates in profits.
They're talking about "gross takings", I assume that is full income from ticket sales. And of that I may assume a large part goes to the cinemas: pay for rent, equipment, staff, etc. just to run the theatre itself. That also costs money.
And production budget was $15m, but how about marketing budgets, is that included already? Probably not as that's the easiest to inflate so at least your movie won't run the risk of actually booking a profit.
No trial yet, but OK not the point.
How can they do one trial for 5000 defendants? For starters I doubt there is a court room big enough. Secondly I may assume every individual will have to be judged separately, if only to determine liability.
Impressive how the US legal system lets you sue that many unrelated people in one go.
Don't forget old stock.
Producer in China makes product, ships it out a week later, another month or so later it arrives in the US, yet another few weeks to arrive on store shelves. That's already at least two months between manufacturing and arrival in the stores (which is exactly why high season for production is Jul-Oct, to make it in time for the Christmas season - ordering is done even earlier). All in all for most products up to a year between design/tooling/mould making and hitting the shelves.
This not taking into account time taken to actually sell the product. Plenty of time to have your patents expire, and still have it on your products, without any bad intention.
Oh and of course after selling a product for >10 years (a patent lasts for up to 20 years) it's easy to forget about an expiry date...
Often these patents are for just a part of the product - and it's generally easier to figure out how to make it for yourself by looking carefully at the actual product, than to try to learn it from the patents. Patents tend to be quite obfuscated.
Besides I do recall the Internet has specifically been designed to NOT have a single point of failure. A "kill switch" indicates such as single point exists.
Are all root DNS servers still under direct US control? If so that must be fixed really soon. As that's the only "kill switch" that I can imagine. And even then using local DNS caches the Internet will continue to function. Heck even without DNS we can still use it, just not so conveniently as it used to be.
For the rest I can not think of anything remotely like a single point of failure, that could be used to implement a "kill switch".
Windows doesn't come with H.264 codecs installed out of the box? I know in Linux you always have to go through some clicks to get it installed (non-free codecs or so it's called) but besides that minor inconvenience it just works.