I never said your complaint was invalid, just that it's not as much of a problem as many people are making it out to be. Sematics. You initially said, outright, that "loading a page" on the iPhone was generally faster than on a 3G phone. In saying that, you're essentially saying that my complaint is wrong and invalid. Just because you never used the word doesn't mean that it wasn't lurking in the subtext. This wasn't wordplay, I really don't care to convince you to buy an iPhone, or that your choice was wrong. That's up to you and not for me to say. I really only wanted to point out that network speed isn't the limiting factor on many phones, and a lot of people would be surprised to find out their 3G phone is actually *slower* than an EDGE iPhone. That's why my initial reply to you didn't quote any of the parts about what your needs were, but solely about EDGE being slower than 3G on a Windows smartphone.
As you said yourself, 3G is not ideal for web browsing. I agree. That's why I don't choose to go to something that's even worse. I'll assume that your phone loads pages faster than an iPhone on EDGE, as your test showed. My point really wasn't that *your* phone is slower, just that being EDGE doesn't mean the iPhone is going to be slower than a 3G phone. There are other factors, including the rendering speed of the phones involved. It's possible (but presumably not in your case) that choosing the iPhone over a 3G phone would lead to a *faster* overall experience.
Then there's also the fact that the iPhone works great via WiFi. In your case, WiFi doesn't sound like much of an option, but it's a valid point when considering the iPhone speed in general.
I never said your complaint was invalid, just that it's not as much of a problem as many people are making it out to be.
3G on an iPhone would definitely be faster than EDGE is on an iPhone. You, and those like you, seem to conflate this with, "therefore the iPhone is fatally flawed, useless, and less useful than this here 3G phone".
Let me make this perfectly clear. I have an iPhone, and EDGE is just on the "EDGE" of usable for serious web browsing. WiFi is perfect. 3G would be somewhere in between. I've never had an issue reading email (attachments and >1GB IMAP mail stores) via EDGE. YouTube is lower resolution on EDGE, but very, very usable. I will welcome 3G when it comes. But lacking 3G does not cripple the iPhone even *remotely* as much as some people seem to think.
There's a secondary question, which is, "why wasn't 3G included in the original iPhone?". I think it's fairly clear that it was simply a matter of priorities. I'm quite certain that had Apple decided to go with 3G, the iPhone would have been at least one of the following: released much later, slower, less battery life, larger.
One thing, perhaps you are missing, is that EDGE is *much* faster than many people think. It's around 200-300kbps. The biggest problem is latency. In your email example above, even 200kbps is more than enough in most cases, and even when you want to load an email with a few photos or pdfs, the wait isn't that bad. 10-30 seconds, perhaps a minute max. These sorts of emails are not that annoying to have to wait for. Not like web pages. We're talking within the DSL speed range here. Latency kills that speed advantage on web pages, though, as they often have multiple elements.
I never said 3G isn't better (faster). I'm just saying the lack of 3G isn't as bad as it sounds. This is compounded by the fact that 3G requires concessions which, on the whole, may leave you with a faster cell data connection, but a worse overall phone. This is *exactly* what would have happened had Apple tried to launch a 3G iPhone last summer.
To say people don't really need it or want it is rediculous, and I'd consider anyone spending > $400 on a phone not in the majority of people, but rather someone who wants a powerful mobile experience. The iPhone *is* a powerful mobile experience.
3G is better, you'll admit it when you get there I'll say it now.
An iPhone, exactly like it is now, except being 3G, would be better than the current iPhone, but adding 3G will *not* leave you with an iPhone exactly like it is now, except with 3G. It will have to be at least one of the following things: larger, slower, less battery life, lesser UI, released later.
So, while a 3G iPhone would be nice, and will be nice when it arrives, the current EDGE + WiFi iPhone is better than no iPhone, or a late iPhone, or any of the listed above issues. Lack of 3G isn't the big issue many people seem to think it is.
Well, it's definitely a function of the browser and the CPU (and by extension, the OS and the RAM). I only have two data points. One was the video on Engadget (or maybe it was Gizmodo) that showed a side-by-side comparison. The other was a personal experience with my iPhone vs someone else's Blackberry. It wasn't meant to be a speed test, that was just a side-effect. Mostly I was curious to see how the Blackberry works.
In the end, though, the point stands that being 3G does not necessarily, and often doesn't, mean faster. The iPhone isn't the fastest out there (if you ignore WiFi), but it's definitely faster than its lack of 3G would imply.
On a windows smartphone with 3G, you've got much better data rates. The funny thing about that is that, when it comes to loading a page, the iPhone on EDGE generally shows you the finished page before a 3G phone does. Even though the data is retrieved faster, the actual presentation of the final page is slower. Even more, the iPhone actually shows you a fully desktop-like version of the page, just as it would look in Safari, sans-flash.
So not only does an EDGE iPhone load pages faster than a 3G otherphone, the pages look better as well.
And the tables tilt even further in the iPhone's favor with the interface itself.
Really, the only thing you miss out on not having 3G is when tethering the phone to a computer to use its internet connection (something the iPhone doesn't even officially support anyway). This *is* important to some people, but undoubtedly not for the overwhelming majority of people.
There is probably an entirely different reason Apple "chose" not to include 3G. Yeah, and that reason is pretty obvious once you think about it. This was Apple's first phone. They basically started from scratch, and didn't know ahead of time what sort of choices would be better than others. By all accounts, the iPhone was barely ready for show at MWSF '07, and just barely ready for roll-out in June.
Apple felt it was better to get the parts they had working, working well, than it was to start adding whole new parts into the mix. While I would definitely like 3G, I'd rather have EDGE + the iPhone that's out now than 3G + delayed iPhone + lowered battery life + other aspects of the phone being less finished.
I also don't buy the "other 3G phones don't have battery problems" argument. The chips themselves don't lie, and they *do* require more power. You can't beat physics. What you *can* do is make the necessary concessions. Such as using less power on the rest of the phone, or using aggressive power management, or using a larger battery, or using EDGE chips most of the time and switching over the 3G on demand, etc. But in all of those cases, it would *absolutely and without question* diminish some other feature of the iPhone, making it larger, or later, or less powerful, or more laggy, etc. If the biggest complaint about the iPhone is that it uses EDGE instead of 3G, then given all the other great features of the phone, it's more than a fair trade, *especially* since a 3G iPhone is inevitable.
As for the battery being non-replaceable, the real question for me is, had the iPhone had a removable battery, would I have caved in and bought one by now? And the answer, for me, is a resounding 'no'. This means such an iPhone would have been larger or had a smaller capacity battery, and would have been structurally and aesthetically less solid. In other words, a whole lot of lose for absolutely no win.
Cut the guy some slack. He spray painted his keys black to improve usability by not being able to look at his keys, and also spray painted his screen black to improve his usage of slashdot by not being able to RTFA.
In a physics sense I'll have to stop you right there.
The rest of what you say is mostly true[*], but just because a term has a specific meaning in a specific context does not mean it's wrong when it has a different meaning in a different context. In both cases, the chip is cooled, making them a cooler, i.e., something that cools.
[*] I say "mostly true" because even in an air conditioner, the heat is "flowing downhill", as it were. The difference is that is the "bottom of the hill" is being manipulated through changes in pressure (or more generally, through work)--essentially by also raising the "top of the hill". In both cases, the net temperature is being raised (in compliance with the laws of thermodynamics).
Additionally, I wonder if you are confusing the terms "cooler" and "heat pump". Is a "cooler" something distinct from a "heat pump" in a "physics or thermodynamics" sense? I'm thinking the former is merely an informal term for the latter.
Moore's Law says the number of transistors in a certain area at a certain cost will double about every 18 months. This effectively seems to double computer speed every 18 months.
Doubling the number of transistors on an LCD does not double the resolution (as you pointed out), it only multiplies each dimension by the square root of 2. Doubling the number of transistors on a CRT does nothing (well, maybe it gives you a more impressive OSD). But even limiting it to LCDs, it does not hold up. Display resolution does not follow Moore's Law. If it did, then just three years ago, a 30" LCD would be 1280x800, or that the current MacBook would be around 1900x1200.
The reason for this is not that Moore's Law doesn't apply to LCDs, it probably does. What's happening is that instead of using that technology increase solely to make ever higher resolution displays, it's used to make ever cheaper and higher quality displays at the same, or marginally improved, resolutions.
The thing you can directly measure with LCDs with regards to Moore's Law is dot pitch. Every 18 months or so (let's say 2 years as that's the outside figure), dot pitch would increase by the square root of 2. That means that the display elements in your OS would shrink over time, and something that was 1" square in 2000 would now be 0.25" square. That's just since 2000. Go 8 years back again, and displays would have to be such that those 1" square icons would have to be 4" across and 4" tall!
Display resolutions grow as quickly as the latest games can run smoothly at the leading-edge dimensions. That is outright false, as you are implying that graphic quality is not increasing beyond pixel resolution (since that's the point you are trying to disprove). In other words, if display resolution was keeping up with CPU power, pretty much in-step, then there would be no increase in polygon count, texture quality, etc, as all that would be happening is we'd be playing the original Doom with the same Doom quality, just at a higher resolution (or if you want to start with a 3d card rendered game, UT or take your pick of game from that era). But the fact is, game quality is increasing beyond just increasing the pixel count.
What you're noticing is that high-end games seem to match high-end displays at similar frame rates. This is not because display technology is keeping up with the silicon that drives your games. It's because game companies make use of every available cpu and gpu cycle until a certain approximate frame rate is reached.
Really, Vista is the biggest "meh" in computer history.
And yet we're still talking about it... I appreciate the irony, but the point still stands.
Look at the titles you listed:
Slashdot | Vista SP1 Is Even Less Compatible Slashdot | Microsoft Cuts Vista Price In 70 Countries Slashdot | Did Amazon Induce Vista's Premature Birth? Slashdot | "Vista Capable" Lawsuit Is Now a Class Action Slashdot | Microsoft Internal Emails Show Dismay With Vista Slashdot | Microsoft Had Doubts About the 'Vista Capable' Label Slashdot | Microsoft Pulls Vista SP1 Update Slashdot | Hostile ta Vista, Baby Slashdot | Windows Vista Annoyances Slashdot | Vista SP1 Update Locks Out Some Users There's absolutely no enthusiasm for Vista. Sure, this is Slashdot, so one wouldn't expect a ticker-tape parade or anything, but you're the one who chose Slashdot as your metric.
There was a frenzy leading up to the release of Vista. With all the buzz from the tech media, it's almost like Bill Gates invited everyone to his place where he had this huge firework that was 3' tall and 2' around, he lit the fuse, then ran back, warning everyone "watch out!" and as the fuse enters the firework...
Sizzle! It's the world's biggest and lamest snake.
and that's just the first page of Google results!
In fact, in the past 12 months, there have been 'about 231' slashdot articles with 'Vista' in the title, according to Google. that is vs 'about 339' for linux, and 'about 192' for apple. (also, about 'about 1' for 'a life':) Because Vista is the #1 selling OS (not by virtue of desire for Vista itself, but primarily as a side-effect of buying a PC), it's going to be the subject of loads of stories. The thing is, as pointed out above, there's nary a good thing said about Vista. Even in the comments, the best thing ever said about Vista is "it doesn't suck on my computer!".
There's just no excitement for Vista. Like I said, the tech world's biggest "meh". Even Ginger was better met than Vista (and I'd give it second place for "meh", mostly because of the hype leading up to it). Unlike Vista, however, the Segway is pretty neat, if majorly nerdy.
The class action lawsuit is from people who bought a new PC (hence the "Vista Capable" claim) with Vista. What they wanted was a new PC, not Vista in particular. Vista was probably given very little consideration other than "the newest version of Windows? Sure, sounds good".
Then they got it home and found how bad it runs. Much worse than their last, less powerful PC.
So it's not really so much about them caring that Vista runs like crap, it's them caring that their PC that they just bought runs like crap.
Really, Vista is the biggest "meh" in computer history.
Condemn Apple, too, or lose any creditability you ever had. Apple didn't do what the article headline states, nor did they do what Microsoft has done. In fact, if you read what the actual situation is, you'll find that Apple "secretly" makes non-Apple software *faster*.
And, I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but being a monopoly severely restricts what you are allowed to do. This is for a very good reason, as monopolies generally have the ability to bypass the aspects of the free market that make capitalism the generally superior market system that it is.
To believe the Earth is only around 6,000 years old shows such an extreme ignorance of science and lack of respect for the processes of science that to then expect them to somehow accept the science of evolution would be optimistic to the point of folly.
And, while an Earth of only around 6,000 years old would not disprove evolution, it would *definitely* contradict an enormous swath of observation, much of which informs our understanding of evolution. Not the least of which being fossilized remains from hundreds of millions of years ago (something that would presumably be somewhat less abundant on a 6,000 year old planet).
If I had mod points, and hadn't already posted on this story, I'd have modded you up to counter the reactionary that modded you Offtopic (wtf?).
I do disagree with you on one point, however. The goal isn't to educate the hidebound, it's to educate those who can be reached. Since you brought up Bush as an example, the only reason idiots like him have any power is that he has the support of people who *could* know better, but don't. The only thing that gives people like him power is ignorance. Fight ignorance and you don't *have* to educate Bush as he and his type will be tossed to the lunatic fringes where they belong.
God and evolution can co-exist; it's just Genesis's literal interpretation and evolution that are at odds. They *do* realize this, and that's why they fight evolution so strongly. Once you push god's role to simply that of creating the initial conditions of the universe, you critically damage every organized religion that says you need to go through them to know, and please, (the) god(s).
The Theory of Evolution is still a theory because, by definition, it has yet to be proven by any method. Theories are *never* *ever* proven. Never. No theory in the history of the universe has been proven, and never will be proven. Theories to not graduate to "laws" like many people think.
The only place in science for proofs are math and logic.
Theories are the "hows" for the "facts" of the universe. Take gravity as an example. Gravity is a fact (things fall to the Earth, masses attract each other, etc.). The *theory* of gravity is the "this is how it works". In fact, there are multiple theories of gravity *in use this very day*. Both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity are used, even though Einstein's is significantly more correct more often. But neither theory has been proven correct because you *can't* prove they are correct. All you can do is show how well they match observation.
As for evolution, we know about the fact of evolution. We've seen it happen in real-time. We've seen it happen in the fossil record. We've instigated and directed it ourselves. That's evolution the fact. Evolution the theory (in fact, just like with gravity, theories) are the details, the "how it happens". Exactly *why* do animals evolve? Just *how* does this happen? These are aspect of the *theory* of evolution which all seek to describe the *fact* of evolution.
But Microsoft is currently enjoying the benefits of a free market. What you propose is a regulated market that only allows certain freedoms and not others. That's not a truly free market. Yes, that's what I propose. I use the term free market because that's what others call it. There is, in reality, no such thing as a free market. It's an impossibility, as you will either have to limit it (making it not completely free) or not limit it (and thereby allowing others to limit it, again making it not completely free).
No, I'm saying Microsoft affects the market such that the benefits of a free market are unduly suppressed. The only thing you got right is that MS's freedom needs to be reduced.
1) Faith is a religious term, and merits a religious definition - not one provided by a secular source, such as the dictionary. No, it's a word. Words are best defined in the Dictionary.
2) "Blind Faith" is a subset of "Faith". Sure.
3) Faith is "Substance of things hoped for" or "Evidence of things not seen" I didn't see the word "or" in that quote. I saw a comma, which is usually interpreted as an "and" or "also".
4) Thus we can safely say Faith is "Evidence of things not seen" No, we cannot. I can close my eyes and be just as sure there's a planet beneath my feet as I can with my eyes open and looking right at it.
5) Since "Blind Faith" is a subset of "Faith", then "Blind Faith" also has the property of being "Evidence of things not seen" Not necessarily, but even if we take it to mean that, being a subset means it has additional characteristics, the most important being that "blind faith" means having no direct, rational reason to believe in something. There is no blind faith involved in accepting the existence of gravity.
Q.E.D. Not even close.
You focused on "substance of things hoped for" and ignored the more pertinent "evidence of things not seen". A. Why is it more important? B. I can see the effects of gravity. In fact, one can actually *see* gravity itself. Gravitational Lensing is seeing gravity itself, just as much as seeing light reflected from a statue is seeing the statue.
Actually according to the definition of faith in the Bible that's exactly what it is...
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Heb. 11: 1
By that definition (which I'd say is a reliable source for the religious definition of faith), the EFFECTS of gravity are the evidence of an unseen force.
You can't see gravity; you can only see its effects.
Q.E.D. By that definition (even acceding to the silliness of using the Bible instead of the Dictionary to define a term, not to mention you switching from "blind faith" to merely "faith"), "faith is the substance of things hoped for". Faith (trust) in gravity has nothing to do with whether or not it's "hoped for", and thus is different from "blind faith" (or even just "faith", as defined by that specific Bible quote).
A business tries to appeal to its market. The market changed. MS will change too. Its just long to shift gears of such a behemoth. That's only true for non-monopolies. Monopolies, on the other hand, have the ability to alter the market when the market's desires and the monopolist's desires are in conflict. This is what makes monopolies so problematic and generally either outlawed or strongly regulated.
While Microsoft is no longer as strong a monopoly as it was before, it's still acting like one. Perhaps Microsoft really is trying to change (as you've implied), but given their past behavior, it's insane to believe they are until they can demonstrate that they really have turned a new leaf.
This distrust of MS is fully deserved. It's them reaping what they've sown.
This is not about Microsoft making such great products that others can't compete, it's Microsoft using business practices which *have no bearing whatsoever on the technical quality of their products* to manipulate the market in their favor.
In essence, Microsoft is gaming the system, breaking the free market.
There's a point of view that what Microsoft is doing is completely rational, and that the problem isn't what MS is doing, but that their competitors *don't* do those things, and instead naively try to compete on technical quality and consumer appeal. While I disagree with this point of view, there's one aspect I can agree with, which is that MS is acting rationally. What the EU is doing (or should be doing) is imposing such extreme restrictions and/or fines on MS that it is no longer rational for them to abuse their position the way they do.
That's why the answer to:
isn't 1.4bn rather excessive Is no. In fact, it may by too low, if it's insufficient to get MS to change their ways.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought they were:
3.1
95
98
98sr2
Me
2000
XP
Vista
The 9th Level has yet to be RTM'd.
Then there's also the fact that the iPhone works great via WiFi. In your case, WiFi doesn't sound like much of an option, but it's a valid point when considering the iPhone speed in general.
I never said your complaint was invalid, just that it's not as much of a problem as many people are making it out to be.
3G on an iPhone would definitely be faster than EDGE is on an iPhone. You, and those like you, seem to conflate this with, "therefore the iPhone is fatally flawed, useless, and less useful than this here 3G phone".
Let me make this perfectly clear. I have an iPhone, and EDGE is just on the "EDGE" of usable for serious web browsing. WiFi is perfect. 3G would be somewhere in between. I've never had an issue reading email (attachments and >1GB IMAP mail stores) via EDGE. YouTube is lower resolution on EDGE, but very, very usable. I will welcome 3G when it comes. But lacking 3G does not cripple the iPhone even *remotely* as much as some people seem to think.
There's a secondary question, which is, "why wasn't 3G included in the original iPhone?". I think it's fairly clear that it was simply a matter of priorities. I'm quite certain that had Apple decided to go with 3G, the iPhone would have been at least one of the following: released much later, slower, less battery life, larger.
One thing, perhaps you are missing, is that EDGE is *much* faster than many people think. It's around 200-300kbps. The biggest problem is latency. In your email example above, even 200kbps is more than enough in most cases, and even when you want to load an email with a few photos or pdfs, the wait isn't that bad. 10-30 seconds, perhaps a minute max. These sorts of emails are not that annoying to have to wait for. Not like web pages. We're talking within the DSL speed range here. Latency kills that speed advantage on web pages, though, as they often have multiple elements.
An iPhone, exactly like it is now, except being 3G, would be better than the current iPhone, but adding 3G will *not* leave you with an iPhone exactly like it is now, except with 3G. It will have to be at least one of the following things: larger, slower, less battery life, lesser UI, released later.
So, while a 3G iPhone would be nice, and will be nice when it arrives, the current EDGE + WiFi iPhone is better than no iPhone, or a late iPhone, or any of the listed above issues. Lack of 3G isn't the big issue many people seem to think it is.
...to borrow the 'obvious' tag from FARK.com So, why not just tag it that way yourself? Well, that would be the obvious thing to do...Well, it's definitely a function of the browser and the CPU (and by extension, the OS and the RAM). I only have two data points. One was the video on Engadget (or maybe it was Gizmodo) that showed a side-by-side comparison. The other was a personal experience with my iPhone vs someone else's Blackberry. It wasn't meant to be a speed test, that was just a side-effect. Mostly I was curious to see how the Blackberry works.
In the end, though, the point stands that being 3G does not necessarily, and often doesn't, mean faster. The iPhone isn't the fastest out there (if you ignore WiFi), but it's definitely faster than its lack of 3G would imply.
So not only does an EDGE iPhone load pages faster than a 3G otherphone, the pages look better as well.
And the tables tilt even further in the iPhone's favor with the interface itself.
Really, the only thing you miss out on not having 3G is when tethering the phone to a computer to use its internet connection (something the iPhone doesn't even officially support anyway). This *is* important to some people, but undoubtedly not for the overwhelming majority of people.
Apple felt it was better to get the parts they had working, working well, than it was to start adding whole new parts into the mix. While I would definitely like 3G, I'd rather have EDGE + the iPhone that's out now than 3G + delayed iPhone + lowered battery life + other aspects of the phone being less finished.
I also don't buy the "other 3G phones don't have battery problems" argument. The chips themselves don't lie, and they *do* require more power. You can't beat physics. What you *can* do is make the necessary concessions. Such as using less power on the rest of the phone, or using aggressive power management, or using a larger battery, or using EDGE chips most of the time and switching over the 3G on demand, etc. But in all of those cases, it would *absolutely and without question* diminish some other feature of the iPhone, making it larger, or later, or less powerful, or more laggy, etc. If the biggest complaint about the iPhone is that it uses EDGE instead of 3G, then given all the other great features of the phone, it's more than a fair trade, *especially* since a 3G iPhone is inevitable.
As for the battery being non-replaceable, the real question for me is, had the iPhone had a removable battery, would I have caved in and bought one by now? And the answer, for me, is a resounding 'no'. This means such an iPhone would have been larger or had a smaller capacity battery, and would have been structurally and aesthetically less solid. In other words, a whole lot of lose for absolutely no win.
Cut the guy some slack. He spray painted his keys black to improve usability by not being able to look at his keys, and also spray painted his screen black to improve his usage of slashdot by not being able to RTFA.
The rest of what you say is mostly true[*], but just because a term has a specific meaning in a specific context does not mean it's wrong when it has a different meaning in a different context. In both cases, the chip is cooled, making them a cooler, i.e., something that cools.
[*] I say "mostly true" because even in an air conditioner, the heat is "flowing downhill", as it were. The difference is that is the "bottom of the hill" is being manipulated through changes in pressure (or more generally, through work)--essentially by also raising the "top of the hill". In both cases, the net temperature is being raised (in compliance with the laws of thermodynamics).
Additionally, I wonder if you are confusing the terms "cooler" and "heat pump". Is a "cooler" something distinct from a "heat pump" in a "physics or thermodynamics" sense? I'm thinking the former is merely an informal term for the latter.
Doubling the number of transistors on an LCD does not double the resolution (as you pointed out), it only multiplies each dimension by the square root of 2. Doubling the number of transistors on a CRT does nothing (well, maybe it gives you a more impressive OSD). But even limiting it to LCDs, it does not hold up. Display resolution does not follow Moore's Law. If it did, then just three years ago, a 30" LCD would be 1280x800, or that the current MacBook would be around 1900x1200.
The reason for this is not that Moore's Law doesn't apply to LCDs, it probably does. What's happening is that instead of using that technology increase solely to make ever higher resolution displays, it's used to make ever cheaper and higher quality displays at the same, or marginally improved, resolutions.
The thing you can directly measure with LCDs with regards to Moore's Law is dot pitch. Every 18 months or so (let's say 2 years as that's the outside figure), dot pitch would increase by the square root of 2. That means that the display elements in your OS would shrink over time, and something that was 1" square in 2000 would now be 0.25" square. That's just since 2000. Go 8 years back again, and displays would have to be such that those 1" square icons would have to be 4" across and 4" tall! Display resolutions grow as quickly as the latest games can run smoothly at the leading-edge dimensions. That is outright false, as you are implying that graphic quality is not increasing beyond pixel resolution (since that's the point you are trying to disprove). In other words, if display resolution was keeping up with CPU power, pretty much in-step, then there would be no increase in polygon count, texture quality, etc, as all that would be happening is we'd be playing the original Doom with the same Doom quality, just at a higher resolution (or if you want to start with a 3d card rendered game, UT or take your pick of game from that era). But the fact is, game quality is increasing beyond just increasing the pixel count.
What you're noticing is that high-end games seem to match high-end displays at similar frame rates. This is not because display technology is keeping up with the silicon that drives your games. It's because game companies make use of every available cpu and gpu cycle until a certain approximate frame rate is reached.
And yet we're still talking about it... I appreciate the irony, but the point still stands.
Look at the titles you listed: Slashdot | Vista SP1 Is Even Less Compatible
Slashdot | Microsoft Cuts Vista Price In 70 Countries
Slashdot | Did Amazon Induce Vista's Premature Birth?
Slashdot | "Vista Capable" Lawsuit Is Now a Class Action
Slashdot | Microsoft Internal Emails Show Dismay With Vista
Slashdot | Microsoft Had Doubts About the 'Vista Capable' Label
Slashdot | Microsoft Pulls Vista SP1 Update
Slashdot | Hostile ta Vista, Baby
Slashdot | Windows Vista Annoyances
Slashdot | Vista SP1 Update Locks Out Some Users There's absolutely no enthusiasm for Vista. Sure, this is Slashdot, so one wouldn't expect a ticker-tape parade or anything, but you're the one who chose Slashdot as your metric.
There was a frenzy leading up to the release of Vista. With all the buzz from the tech media, it's almost like Bill Gates invited everyone to his place where he had this huge firework that was 3' tall and 2' around, he lit the fuse, then ran back, warning everyone "watch out!" and as the fuse enters the firework...
Sizzle! It's the world's biggest and lamest snake. and that's just the first page of Google results!
In fact, in the past 12 months, there have been 'about 231' slashdot articles with 'Vista' in the title, according to Google. that is vs 'about 339' for linux, and 'about 192' for apple. (also, about 'about 1' for 'a life'
There's just no excitement for Vista. Like I said, the tech world's biggest "meh". Even Ginger was better met than Vista (and I'd give it second place for "meh", mostly because of the hype leading up to it). Unlike Vista, however, the Segway is pretty neat, if majorly nerdy.
'Elp, 'elp!, I'm being oppressed!
The class action lawsuit is from people who bought a new PC (hence the "Vista Capable" claim) with Vista. What they wanted was a new PC, not Vista in particular. Vista was probably given very little consideration other than "the newest version of Windows? Sure, sounds good".
Then they got it home and found how bad it runs. Much worse than their last, less powerful PC.
So it's not really so much about them caring that Vista runs like crap, it's them caring that their PC that they just bought runs like crap.
Really, Vista is the biggest "meh" in computer history.
And, I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but being a monopoly severely restricts what you are allowed to do. This is for a very good reason, as monopolies generally have the ability to bypass the aspects of the free market that make capitalism the generally superior market system that it is.
To believe the Earth is only around 6,000 years old shows such an extreme ignorance of science and lack of respect for the processes of science that to then expect them to somehow accept the science of evolution would be optimistic to the point of folly.
And, while an Earth of only around 6,000 years old would not disprove evolution, it would *definitely* contradict an enormous swath of observation, much of which informs our understanding of evolution. Not the least of which being fossilized remains from hundreds of millions of years ago (something that would presumably be somewhat less abundant on a 6,000 year old planet).
If I had mod points, and hadn't already posted on this story, I'd have modded you up to counter the reactionary that modded you Offtopic (wtf?).
I do disagree with you on one point, however. The goal isn't to educate the hidebound, it's to educate those who can be reached. Since you brought up Bush as an example, the only reason idiots like him have any power is that he has the support of people who *could* know better, but don't. The only thing that gives people like him power is ignorance. Fight ignorance and you don't *have* to educate Bush as he and his type will be tossed to the lunatic fringes where they belong.
The only place in science for proofs are math and logic.
Theories are the "hows" for the "facts" of the universe. Take gravity as an example. Gravity is a fact (things fall to the Earth, masses attract each other, etc.). The *theory* of gravity is the "this is how it works". In fact, there are multiple theories of gravity *in use this very day*. Both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity are used, even though Einstein's is significantly more correct more often. But neither theory has been proven correct because you *can't* prove they are correct. All you can do is show how well they match observation.
As for evolution, we know about the fact of evolution. We've seen it happen in real-time. We've seen it happen in the fossil record. We've instigated and directed it ourselves. That's evolution the fact. Evolution the theory (in fact, just like with gravity, theories) are the details, the "how it happens". Exactly *why* do animals evolve? Just *how* does this happen? These are aspect of the *theory* of evolution which all seek to describe the *fact* of evolution.
No, I'm saying Microsoft affects the market such that the benefits of a free market are unduly suppressed. The only thing you got right is that MS's freedom needs to be reduced.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
-Heb. 11: 1
By that definition (which I'd say is a reliable source for the religious definition of faith), the EFFECTS of gravity are the evidence of an unseen force.
You can't see gravity; you can only see its effects.
Q.E.D. By that definition (even acceding to the silliness of using the Bible instead of the Dictionary to define a term, not to mention you switching from "blind faith" to merely "faith"), "faith is the substance of things hoped for". Faith (trust) in gravity has nothing to do with whether or not it's "hoped for", and thus is different from "blind faith" (or even just "faith", as defined by that specific Bible quote).
Q.E.D.
While Microsoft is no longer as strong a monopoly as it was before, it's still acting like one. Perhaps Microsoft really is trying to change (as you've implied), but given their past behavior, it's insane to believe they are until they can demonstrate that they really have turned a new leaf.
This distrust of MS is fully deserved. It's them reaping what they've sown.
In essence, Microsoft is gaming the system, breaking the free market.
There's a point of view that what Microsoft is doing is completely rational, and that the problem isn't what MS is doing, but that their competitors *don't* do those things, and instead naively try to compete on technical quality and consumer appeal. While I disagree with this point of view, there's one aspect I can agree with, which is that MS is acting rationally. What the EU is doing (or should be doing) is imposing such extreme restrictions and/or fines on MS that it is no longer rational for them to abuse their position the way they do.
That's why the answer to: isn't 1.4bn rather excessive Is no. In fact, it may by too low, if it's insufficient to get MS to change their ways.