More likely that Apple discovers how dominant that Nintendo is in this market. Just because Apple is the gleam in every fanboy's eyes and just because iTunes is the most successful music distribution system doesn't mean they are going to hold a candle to Nintendo when it comes to a game system with an online distribution system for games. Nintendo's been doing it a lot longer and is making a profit while doing so. This gaming device, if handheld, would have to battle the DS for supremecy in this market. And while the iPod is dominant in music and video players, the DS is king supreme in portable gaming systems.
How do you figure? Because of memory costs? Memory is dirt cheap. Graphics card? I'd have gotten the same graphics card with Vista or XP, because as a gamer my graphics card needs will far outreach the UI requirements for either system. You are right that maybe I'd not necessarily need a quad core processor with XP, but if it was supported I'd get it anyways. No, I'm pretty sure that I'd spend about the same either way. My point wasn't that I'd save tons of money with Vista over XP. My point is that hardware is so cheap now that it really doesn't make a huge difference if I'm building even a half assed system.
It cost me virtually the same for my Vista Laptop (an FX Series system with an 8800 GTS and 3GB of RAM a year ago) as it did to build my high end gaming XP system (a desktop) with 2GB of RAM and a CPU that was a single core years ago. Maybe it was $400 more in hardware cost at the time you got your XP system, but you do realize that the cost of hardware has gone down significantly over the past few years, right?
Research how radio works. Unless you are talking about someone broadcasting on their own, any radio station that wants to broadcast music has to pay royalties to the owner of the songs (Generally paid through a PRO or Performance Rights Organization such as BMI). Many factors are taken into account when they determine how much is paid, but yeah, this establishment has been around for a while and makes the RIAA member companies a good chunk of change.
The only problem with your analysis is that Gamefly can and will charge you for the cost of games if they are lost in transit. It says so in the ToA. Granted, they don't always do so, but I'm willing to bet if by game 2 or 3 that gets "lost" that you will be forking over cash. Oh, and Gamefly does not cost $10.00 a month. I tried it out for a month, and I distinctly remember it costing me nearly $30.00 per month.
Well part of the problem there most likely pertains to your seldom use of Windows. That info is determined once AFAIK, and then iTunes won't prompt for it again unless you request it. Maybe you aren't using Windows enough:p
Let me note that by iTunes startup time not being performance specific, I say this because it takes about as long on my high end system as on my wife's cheapo system to start up and be ready for use. I'd blame that on Apple moreso than Vista or your computer though. Both WMP and Winamp boot up a lot faster and are ready to use at a much quicker pace on either system than iTunes.
Not trying to troll by any means, but I have a hard time believing that even on a system that isn't booted often and has those specs that you'd take ten minutes to close iTunes or have firefox with a dozen or so tabs slow the system that much, unless you had a lot else running in the background. Now I will say that I personally don't care for how long iTunes takes to start up, but that doesn't seem to be system performance specific. Also, I'd like it if you could run it in offline mode, a la Steam, so that it doesn't have to load the iTunes Store before using. But my wife has a cheap day after thanksgiving Toshiba laptop that has similar if not worse specs than your system and while I'd never attempt to do a gross amount of multi-tasking on that computer, it runs firefox with at least ten tabs at once fine, as well as iTunes (I know this because when my gaming laptop was in the shop to fix an overheating issue, it was my primary computer for about a week).
I would highly recommend a virus and spyware scan. While it might not be blazing fast, that system should be able to handle what you indicated without a problem. So either It's simple BS, or there's something going on with your computer you either left out of your post, or don't know about.
I mean, it's pretty much a brand new install, and I've done as much as possible to reduce running services and apps, but still...it can barely handle a single browser on this computer.
What are the specs of that computer, because unless it's an older set of hardware designed to run nothing beyond Windows 98, then I call bs. I've got a system that's got 3 gigs of ram, a 5000 series core 2 duo (only a 1.67GHz cpu) and a 9800 GTS, and I regularly run both IE and Firefox at the same time, run pretty much any current game, as well as your normal productivity software, and experience none of the dragging performance that you describe. If I set up a Celeron system with 512MB of ram and integrated graphics, I bet I could reproduce your slowness.
Of course, I understand that Linux will run well on systems that are lower on specs than what you will need to run Vista, but that's not my point, and don't take this as a "Windows is better than Linux" rant, because it isn't. But your rant is slanted because of the fact that you obviously aren't running on a system that meets the recommended specs for Vista. I could just as easily complain about the fact that I have trouble running Firefox with 15 tabs open on the latest build of Ubuntu on my 233 P3 w/MMX and 64MB of RAM, but that doesn't make it a fair rant.
Assuming you are coming from San Antonio, the trip prices out to about $38 (just checked, but obviously you are probably coming from a closer city like Austin). Like you said however, the trip is longer. SA -> Dallas can be driven in about 4 hours, maybe 5 counting for construction, traffic, etc. (less than 4 if you are really hauling ass and dont get pulled over, but I digress).
The train ride takes over 8 hours. That being said, that train fare doesn't include food (which I'd imagine you'd need after riding the rails for 8 hours) and food on Amtrak trains tends to be expensive. Driving by car, and assuming an average of 25 miles per gallon in a small SUV or big car on the interstate, the round trip driving of about 550 miles would cost about $44.00 in gas (assuming average gas prices at around $2.00 a gallon, not sure what the average in Texas is at the moment, but I'm sure that's close enough for government work). Round trip on Amtrak costs almost $80.00, not counting food. So you can have a nice steak dinner, get there and back in the time that a one way trip via Amtrak takes, and still have saved money. Doesn't really seem like a great benefit to me.
The big problem is greed. Amtrak could probably become incredibly profitable if they did not overcharge for the service. It's like this toll bridge near where I live. They keep increasing the toll because people don't use it enough and the state still owes a huge chunk of money on it. The problem is, the more they increase the price of the toll, the less people use it, opting to drive the long way around that takes 20-30 minutes longer but ends up costing less in gas than using the bridge. Raising prices to increase revenue more often than not just ends up costing you in customers.
A National Rail system, while theoretically feasible, is not realistic. I think High Speed Rail would be good for some things (such as a high speed system that connects major cities in large states such as California) but regional rail systems are more likely to actually be a success. The problem with that is, it already exists in many areas (Amtrak) and it's already proven to be a disaster. The main reason is cost to ride (as has been said, options such as AirTran generally prove to be faster and cheaper) but also the fact that it's inefficient for city to city travel over short distances. I can get the to nearest larger city from where I live (about a 30 minute drive in I-10) faster than an Amtrak train could get me there, and of course, at a huge fraction of the cost. Would I like it if I could ride leisurely and read a book while I travel? Of course, but I'd be bankrupt within a year for all of the cost.
How about we focus on a real solution, like improving the local transit across the country (only cities like Boston, Los Angeles, and New York have very good public transportation, whereas cities with less than a million people tend to have a piss-poor bus system and no subway/public-rail system to speak of. When I can get to a major city in the next state over faster than I can get to a friends house in the same city I live, there are definite problems.
I think you are right in that Amazon needs to have some sort of "Disable Safe Search" feature and I think it would help appease both sides. But that feature would also have to filter the book rankings as well.
I like your idea on the filters, as many people also object to books that describe violence in great detail (or have pictures that depict violence in great detail, such as graphic novels).
I guess I should have rephrased it. It's not censoring anyone else when you are censoring your own authored document. In other words, they are censoring only themselves, no one else. And really, they are not breaking any laws, not committing any contract violations that I am aware of (I'm pretty sure that in their contracts with authors and publishers that they retain the right to remove a book from their listings at any time for any reason). In other words, the people who care can boycott, the people who don't care can move on with life. This isn't a "Big Brother silences the little guy." This is "Big business ignores a segment of their customer base in favor of another segment of their customer base."
I'd also like to point out that it is ironic that you lump Bill and Anne Coulter together, when Bill himself lambasts Coulter on a regular basis for her baseless rants. He doesn't spend too much time on her mostly because she's relatively harmless as no one really takes her seriously other than zealots on the far right and fearful idiots on the far left.
You lost me at O'Reilly. Coulter and Beck I can see lumped in that category, but while you may dislike Bill, the fact that you say that he promotes hatred, racism, or religious intolerance means you have probably not listened to him on a consistent basis. He regularly defends people of all different backgrounds, even people that he may have disagreements over things like religion and lifestyle choices, and calls to task people who O'Reilly haters would say that Bill is in cahoots with. Dislike the guy for not liking his message, but at least don't completely butcher the truth because of your own ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
It apparently only sold about 60,000 units. That's a far cry from successful.
More likely that Apple discovers how dominant that Nintendo is in this market. Just because Apple is the gleam in every fanboy's eyes and just because iTunes is the most successful music distribution system doesn't mean they are going to hold a candle to Nintendo when it comes to a game system with an online distribution system for games. Nintendo's been doing it a lot longer and is making a profit while doing so. This gaming device, if handheld, would have to battle the DS for supremecy in this market. And while the iPod is dominant in music and video players, the DS is king supreme in portable gaming systems.
How do you figure? Because of memory costs? Memory is dirt cheap. Graphics card? I'd have gotten the same graphics card with Vista or XP, because as a gamer my graphics card needs will far outreach the UI requirements for either system. You are right that maybe I'd not necessarily need a quad core processor with XP, but if it was supported I'd get it anyways. No, I'm pretty sure that I'd spend about the same either way. My point wasn't that I'd save tons of money with Vista over XP. My point is that hardware is so cheap now that it really doesn't make a huge difference if I'm building even a half assed system.
It cost me virtually the same for my Vista Laptop (an FX Series system with an 8800 GTS and 3GB of RAM a year ago) as it did to build my high end gaming XP system (a desktop) with 2GB of RAM and a CPU that was a single core years ago. Maybe it was $400 more in hardware cost at the time you got your XP system, but you do realize that the cost of hardware has gone down significantly over the past few years, right?
Research how radio works. Unless you are talking about someone broadcasting on their own, any radio station that wants to broadcast music has to pay royalties to the owner of the songs (Generally paid through a PRO or Performance Rights Organization such as BMI). Many factors are taken into account when they determine how much is paid, but yeah, this establishment has been around for a while and makes the RIAA member companies a good chunk of change.
The only problem with your analysis is that Gamefly can and will charge you for the cost of games if they are lost in transit. It says so in the ToA. Granted, they don't always do so, but I'm willing to bet if by game 2 or 3 that gets "lost" that you will be forking over cash. Oh, and Gamefly does not cost $10.00 a month. I tried it out for a month, and I distinctly remember it costing me nearly $30.00 per month.
Well part of the problem there most likely pertains to your seldom use of Windows. That info is determined once AFAIK, and then iTunes won't prompt for it again unless you request it. Maybe you aren't using Windows enough :p
Let me note that by iTunes startup time not being performance specific, I say this because it takes about as long on my high end system as on my wife's cheapo system to start up and be ready for use. I'd blame that on Apple moreso than Vista or your computer though. Both WMP and Winamp boot up a lot faster and are ready to use at a much quicker pace on either system than iTunes.
Not trying to troll by any means, but I have a hard time believing that even on a system that isn't booted often and has those specs that you'd take ten minutes to close iTunes or have firefox with a dozen or so tabs slow the system that much, unless you had a lot else running in the background. Now I will say that I personally don't care for how long iTunes takes to start up, but that doesn't seem to be system performance specific. Also, I'd like it if you could run it in offline mode, a la Steam, so that it doesn't have to load the iTunes Store before using. But my wife has a cheap day after thanksgiving Toshiba laptop that has similar if not worse specs than your system and while I'd never attempt to do a gross amount of multi-tasking on that computer, it runs firefox with at least ten tabs at once fine, as well as iTunes (I know this because when my gaming laptop was in the shop to fix an overheating issue, it was my primary computer for about a week).
I would highly recommend a virus and spyware scan. While it might not be blazing fast, that system should be able to handle what you indicated without a problem. So either It's simple BS, or there's something going on with your computer you either left out of your post, or don't know about.
I mean, it's pretty much a brand new install, and I've done as much as possible to reduce running services and apps, but still...it can barely handle a single browser on this computer.
What are the specs of that computer, because unless it's an older set of hardware designed to run nothing beyond Windows 98, then I call bs. I've got a system that's got 3 gigs of ram, a 5000 series core 2 duo (only a 1.67GHz cpu) and a 9800 GTS, and I regularly run both IE and Firefox at the same time, run pretty much any current game, as well as your normal productivity software, and experience none of the dragging performance that you describe. If I set up a Celeron system with 512MB of ram and integrated graphics, I bet I could reproduce your slowness.
Of course, I understand that Linux will run well on systems that are lower on specs than what you will need to run Vista, but that's not my point, and don't take this as a "Windows is better than Linux" rant, because it isn't. But your rant is slanted because of the fact that you obviously aren't running on a system that meets the recommended specs for Vista. I could just as easily complain about the fact that I have trouble running Firefox with 15 tabs open on the latest build of Ubuntu on my 233 P3 w/MMX and 64MB of RAM, but that doesn't make it a fair rant.
As an added plus, the soldiers can kill downtime with Hannah Montana sing-offs. Just attach external speakers and throw down!
Assuming you are coming from San Antonio, the trip prices out to about $38 (just checked, but obviously you are probably coming from a closer city like Austin). Like you said however, the trip is longer. SA -> Dallas can be driven in about 4 hours, maybe 5 counting for construction, traffic, etc. (less than 4 if you are really hauling ass and dont get pulled over, but I digress).
The train ride takes over 8 hours. That being said, that train fare doesn't include food (which I'd imagine you'd need after riding the rails for 8 hours) and food on Amtrak trains tends to be expensive. Driving by car, and assuming an average of 25 miles per gallon in a small SUV or big car on the interstate, the round trip driving of about 550 miles would cost about $44.00 in gas (assuming average gas prices at around $2.00 a gallon, not sure what the average in Texas is at the moment, but I'm sure that's close enough for government work). Round trip on Amtrak costs almost $80.00, not counting food. So you can have a nice steak dinner, get there and back in the time that a one way trip via Amtrak takes, and still have saved money. Doesn't really seem like a great benefit to me.
God, I can only imagine how much that costs.
The big problem is greed. Amtrak could probably become incredibly profitable if they did not overcharge for the service. It's like this toll bridge near where I live. They keep increasing the toll because people don't use it enough and the state still owes a huge chunk of money on it. The problem is, the more they increase the price of the toll, the less people use it, opting to drive the long way around that takes 20-30 minutes longer but ends up costing less in gas than using the bridge. Raising prices to increase revenue more often than not just ends up costing you in customers.
- I can read or sleep on the train. Can't do either when driving!
That's not true, of course you can read or sleep while driving. You just won't like the destination.
A National Rail system, while theoretically feasible, is not realistic. I think High Speed Rail would be good for some things (such as a high speed system that connects major cities in large states such as California) but regional rail systems are more likely to actually be a success. The problem with that is, it already exists in many areas (Amtrak) and it's already proven to be a disaster. The main reason is cost to ride (as has been said, options such as AirTran generally prove to be faster and cheaper) but also the fact that it's inefficient for city to city travel over short distances. I can get the to nearest larger city from where I live (about a 30 minute drive in I-10) faster than an Amtrak train could get me there, and of course, at a huge fraction of the cost. Would I like it if I could ride leisurely and read a book while I travel? Of course, but I'd be bankrupt within a year for all of the cost.
How about we focus on a real solution, like improving the local transit across the country (only cities like Boston, Los Angeles, and New York have very good public transportation, whereas cities with less than a million people tend to have a piss-poor bus system and no subway/public-rail system to speak of. When I can get to a major city in the next state over faster than I can get to a friends house in the same city I live, there are definite problems.
You were doing great until you snuck a MS bashing in there. Off topic, here I come!
I think you are right in that Amazon needs to have some sort of "Disable Safe Search" feature and I think it would help appease both sides. But that feature would also have to filter the book rankings as well.
I like your idea on the filters, as many people also object to books that describe violence in great detail (or have pictures that depict violence in great detail, such as graphic novels).
Perhaps Amazon needs to have a separate sales indicator just for adult books. Could solve both problems in one.
Paper, no matter how much it turns yellow, will still be readable if the information on it is holes through the paper.
Unless your dog gets a hold of it.
I guess I should have rephrased it. It's not censoring anyone else when you are censoring your own authored document. In other words, they are censoring only themselves, no one else. And really, they are not breaking any laws, not committing any contract violations that I am aware of (I'm pretty sure that in their contracts with authors and publishers that they retain the right to remove a book from their listings at any time for any reason). In other words, the people who care can boycott, the people who don't care can move on with life. This isn't a "Big Brother silences the little guy." This is "Big business ignores a segment of their customer base in favor of another segment of their customer base."
I'd also like to point out that it is ironic that you lump Bill and Anne Coulter together, when Bill himself lambasts Coulter on a regular basis for her baseless rants. He doesn't spend too much time on her mostly because she's relatively harmless as no one really takes her seriously other than zealots on the far right and fearful idiots on the far left.
You lost me at O'Reilly. Coulter and Beck I can see lumped in that category, but while you may dislike Bill, the fact that you say that he promotes hatred, racism, or religious intolerance means you have probably not listened to him on a consistent basis. He regularly defends people of all different backgrounds, even people that he may have disagreements over things like religion and lifestyle choices, and calls to task people who O'Reilly haters would say that Bill is in cahoots with. Dislike the guy for not liking his message, but at least don't completely butcher the truth because of your own ignorance.