Assuming the video encode is a one time thing... wouldn't there be an energy cost if one codec takes a lot more computation on the decode end? I assume there would be an energy savings on the datacenter and bandwidth end... That would be an interesting benchmark.
Here is my take... If anyone cares. MacOS X and from what I gather, all future version of thier OS are based on BSD varients. Apples programer's might or might not be credited in the commented source just like everybody else... ? or not?
How would the OpenSource community feel if Apple took the source and put their programer's names in the credits of a graphical front end? If your code was running something like that would you like to see somebody at Apple taking the credit?
Could this be meant to protect Apple from taking credit where it isn't due?
I sent Motorola(one of their personalities anyway) an angry email to this effect. Why would a company that makes such cool chips, and even their own motherboards, use computers that run on rival chips. Wouldn't there be a certain economy and positive publicity/ morale in using your own product.
I don't buy the argument that the chip design software they use is NT only. They have enough $ pull here to get the software they need ported to any platform they want.
Ya think Dell buys a lot of Compaq computers for their operation? We have a StarMax3000 at work and it is a nifty little box.
1. Motorola, or part of Motorola, was pissed about Apples moves with cloning and decided to punish them by buying Wintel.
2. Motorola and IBM, and possibly Apple have teamed on the CHRP rebirth to grow the market for the G3/G4 chips in PC's.
I am psyched about Generic PPC mobos. Lets see... freeBSD/BSD/Darwin, LinuxPPC, Mac OS X Server and Client, Be(mayBe)... OS/2, others?;) These things are going to ROCK! Any word if AGP, Firewire or even USB are going to be part of this architecture? Is the IBM architecture the same as the CHRP stuff from years ago? Has there been continued development since then?
If there hasn't Apple is still going to have the edge with their io chipsets and bus speeds in the short term.
I'm run Mac OS X Server on my computer at home. While there is QuickTim4 streaming server, the viewer is decidedly not QuickTime4, and not ready for prime time(it's a server, not a client).
Why? Because it is a brand new platform and they haven't even ported the entire Quicktime Viewer to Mac OS X/Darwin. I would expect the Viewer/Authoring version for OS X will ready at the same time as OS X Client.
Why would Apple port Quicktime for Linux before they port Quicktime to Mac OS X? Wouldn't a port from UNIX to Linux be far easier and economical than MacOS/Windows95 to Linux?
I don't expect to see Quicktime Player for Linux any time before Apple gets it running on their own OS.
I took a Compu Sci class called "The history of computing" a few years back. One of the textbooks was "Computer" by Martin Campell-Kelly and WIlliam Aspry. It's not to heavy into benchmarking or graphing performance, but it is a good read, and a nice historical reference on the prehistory and "early" history of computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the video encode is a one time thing... wouldn't there be an energy cost if one codec takes a lot more computation on the decode end? I assume there would be an energy savings on the datacenter and bandwidth end... That would be an interesting benchmark.
This podcast is very good on how outmoded and dysfunctional a our government IT bidding is
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/34-dmv-nation/
Here is my take... If anyone cares. MacOS X and from what I gather, all future version of thier OS are based on BSD varients. Apples programer's might or might not be credited in the commented source just like everybody else... ? or not?
How would the OpenSource community feel if Apple took the source and put their programer's names in the credits of a graphical front end? If your code was running something like that would you like to see somebody at Apple taking the credit?
Could this be meant to protect Apple from taking credit where it isn't due?
Just a thought.
There is a pretty good reason why there a no AGP drivers yet for Macintosh AGP cards... There aren't any currently shipping Macs with AGP.
Don't you think a couple companies will write drivers when Macs have AGP?
G4(450, 500+)= AGP
8Ball iMac= AGP
iBook= AGP
Next Rev of Powerbook= AGP
Next Rev of Servers(the multiprocessor ones)= AGP
It's called Firewire. It makes analog to digital video capture obsolete. Linus doesn't like it.
I sent Motorola(one of their personalities anyway) an angry email to this effect. Why would a company that makes such cool chips, and even their own motherboards, use computers that run on rival chips. Wouldn't there be a certain economy and positive publicity/ morale in using your own product.
;) These things are going to ROCK! Any word if AGP, Firewire or even USB are going to be part of this architecture? Is the IBM architecture the same as the CHRP stuff from years ago? Has there been continued development since then?
I don't buy the argument that the chip design software they use is NT only. They have enough $ pull here to get the software they need ported to any platform they want.
Ya think Dell buys a lot of Compaq computers for their operation? We have a StarMax3000 at work and it is a nifty little box.
1. Motorola, or part of Motorola, was pissed about Apples moves with cloning and decided to punish them by buying Wintel.
2. Motorola and IBM, and possibly Apple have teamed on the CHRP rebirth to grow the market for the G3/G4 chips in PC's.
I am psyched about Generic PPC mobos. Lets see... freeBSD/BSD/Darwin, LinuxPPC, Mac OS X Server and Client, Be(mayBe)... OS/2, others?
If there hasn't Apple is still going to have the edge with their io chipsets and bus speeds in the short term.
I'm run Mac OS X Server on my computer at home. While there is QuickTim4 streaming server, the viewer is decidedly not QuickTime4, and not ready for prime time(it's a server, not a client).
Why? Because it is a brand new platform and they haven't even ported the entire Quicktime Viewer to Mac OS X/Darwin. I would expect the Viewer/Authoring version for OS X will ready at the same time as OS X Client.
Why would Apple port Quicktime for Linux before they port Quicktime to Mac OS X? Wouldn't a port from UNIX to Linux be far easier and economical than MacOS/Windows95 to Linux?
I don't expect to see Quicktime Player for Linux any time before Apple gets it running on their own OS.
Woopse that was dumb! corrected link below :(
Here is a link to that book on Amazon Computer: A History of the Information Machine.
It doesn't spend much time past the "PC Revolution," read, no windows 95 or Linux.
Woopse that was dumb! corrected link below :(
Here is a link to that book on Amazon Computer: A History of the Information Machine.
It doesn't spend much time past the "PC Revolution," read, no windows 95 or Linux.
I took a Compu Sci class called "The history of computing" a few years back. One of the textbooks was "Computer" by Martin Campell-Kelly and WIlliam Aspry. It's not to heavy into benchmarking or graphing performance, but it is a good read, and a nice historical reference on the prehistory and "early" history of computers.