Actually Star Trek is far less about action and more about being a parallel to humanity. If you were to watch, most episodes have a bit of action but out of a season of 26 there's usually only 3 or 4 "action shows". The majority are other things like dramas, comedies, and also some "classic sci-fi" episodes. This is one of the biggest min-nomers. Trek is NOT about action like Star Wars is, and when people watch it expecting lots of action and then don't see any, they assume something is wrong (which it isn't).
Really what would be nice would be if companies would include both Windows and Linux versions on the same disc. The two versions can share most of their data files and resources -- only the executable portions of the applications need be modified. If both versions sit on the same disc, would that not solve the problems and lower long-term production costs? Plus it would force companies to make the two versions more similar.
Nope. First off, as you say, remember that region is irrelevent as far as the actual MPEG stream. But PAL/NTSC is not. The MPEG stream still has to be encoded at the right framerate and resolution, which means -- yep, the MPEG stream for PAL is different from that of NTSC. Some players are capable of translating one type of stream to another, but don't think for a minute that all MPEG streams are the same.
As far as HDTV, that's even more different. DVDs are not HDTV, and no DVD player can be made to produce an HD signal from one. If a HDTV gets a SDTV signal (NTSC or PAL), it can still display it, but it aidn't HDTV! The specification for HD-DVD hasn't been finalized yet.
All I can say is that I echo most Trek fans' request for a Director's edition DVD that restores most of that footage back into the movie, and puts everything that's still cut in a deleted scenes gallery on the supplemental disc.
I'm talking about Winamp 3 -- it's almost totally different from Winamp 2, and pretty much everything that Winamp 2 didn't do well, Winamp 3 does. I guess I shouldn't pass judgement until I see WA 3 Final on Linux. At that point, it'll be a better time to compare players.
Well if what you care about is having everything opensource, then no, you won't want to use Winamp. But if what you care about is a good feature-set, expandibility, and functionality, I'd lean twoards WA3. When it's released, I'll compare them side by side and choose the one that works better, but from what I've seen, Winamp will probably edge XMMS out.
I've used XMMS, yes. I use both Windows and Linux regularly. If the Linux version of Winamp3 is anything like the Windows version, it will be far better than XMMS. I'm not saying that XMMS will be BAD...just that I don't think it will perform as well as Winamp3.
It's too bad that now with Winamp 3 being released really really soon, all those old Winamp 2 plugins will be outdated (I do belive it will be backwards compatible, though....correct me if I'm wrong), and people will stop making them. Winamp 3's entire architecture changed, and on top of that there will be a Linux version of it. So, really no need for XMMS. It was a fine player, but I believe it's life will be coming to an end.
Amen to that! When I purchased this Dell notebook, one of the first things I did was partition my hard drive to get both Linux and Windows installed. Linux installed fine, but X wouln't work, because there was some video driver incompatibility. It turns out that I had to find and manually install drivers, recompile my kernel, and manually tweak XFree86 settings to get it to work. While I was able to eventually get it, it took me several hours and WAY more pain than it should have. If a similar problem had occured in Windows (and with XP's driver database, it's pretty much impossible except with the very newest devices), I would simply reboot in safe mode, which would nearly guarentee video compatibility, go to the Dell website, download the drivers, and install them. The whole process wouldn't take more than 10 minutes tops. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux isn't ready for widespread "home user" deployment, and probably won't be ready anytime soon.
You people talk of choice and alternatives, but the simple fact of the matter is that for 90% of the common users out there, Windows *IS* the better choice. Linux is fine for hackers, techies, programmers, and special purpose users, but frankly it's almost not worth considering for your average Joe. Windows isn't perfect either, but it sure seemes to do a better job making it easy for the user than Linux. While you guys spend all of your time badmouthing Microsoft and using tactics just as questionable as theirs (e.g. pushing for making it illegal for government agencies purchase from MS...that seems just as criminal to me...shouldn't they purchase the best software for the job?), I will be sticking with Windows because I don't have time to spend fighting Linux every step of the way. While I do program, most of the time when I'm using the computer, I need to get stuff done, and ever since Windows 2000, I haven't had a problem doing that.
DVHS is a digital format. This means that as time goes on and you keep viewing the tape, the picture stays pristine. Of course, if the tape does develope flaws, the picture will either artifact or drop out completely, but it will always remain at the full HD resolution. Now, if if only we could get a good HD-DVD standard, with the capability to store 4 hours of HD video with 6.1 channel DTS sound, then we would be set for a good long time. But let's face it: nobody wants a tape format.
In my old high school, some departments would hold one huge one or two day LAN party right after finals were over, after each semester. In order to come, you had to do only two things: 1) Get a "C" or better in all classes, and 2) Not be caught using the computers for games during class times during the year. That way, students had a good reason not to mess around with things they shouldn't be during the school year, and then the students (and even a few teachers) would go all out at the end of the year. Having games installed didn't matter because the computers would all be reimaged at the end of the week from the images downtown (the entire district ran on a Gigabit network where the central office downtown had a huge NOC, which connected to the 5 middle and high schools, which in turn each connected to 4 or 5 smaller elementary schools).
You are right. I did some Cisco, A+, and some MCSE. Frankly, the MCSE was all theory (very outdated theory at that) and absolutely zero practical knowledge. With A+, although the certification is slightly more useful than MCSE, is still mostly devoid of practical knowldege, though I did take an A+ prep class that really filled in that gap. Cisco, on the other hand, REQUIRES that you pass certain tests along the way like programming a router or cabling a room. If you can't do those things, you can't even think about taking the final certification test. So yes, I would have far more respect for somewith with a CCNA (or even better, a CCNP) than an MCSE.
It doesn't matter. Just because you don't like the MPAA or you didn't like Episode I, that doesn't give you *ANY* right to assume that it's them infringing on your rights. In reality, you're the one infringing on their rights. Maybe you don't like it. That's too bad, because you don't have to. I'm not saying I like the MPAA and RIAA or anything. Previewing a song before you buy it or watching a video clip from your favorite movie is quite different from getting a full, pirated version with no intentions of purchasing it.
I would if I had any points, but I don't. This is a GREAT analogy. Face it: it's the entertainment industry that needs to change here, not the consumers. They are almost completely at fault for charging so much, not releasing singles at a fair price, acting that any digital music should have per-use charges, etc.
I truly believe that if people could purchase single tracks online for maybe $1 to $2 per track, in a loseless format, that doesn't restrict how and when they can be listened to, piracy wouldn't be what it is today. The simple fact of the matter is that if I want one song, I am NOT going to purchase an entire CD for it. If I like the bulk of the music on a CD, and the CD is reasonably priced (Price less than about $17), I purchase it. The music industry has to regognize two things:
1) The importance of their role as it currently is is becomming obselete. It's FAR easier for artists to go directly to the consumer today than it was even 5 years ago.
2) Consumers demand more flexibility and portability and more reasonable prices today than they did 5 years ago. All of a sudden, the RIAA isn't the only source of music. Unless the RIAA can meet the demands of the consumers, they WILL go out of buisness, eventually.
Now, I believe that the RIAA is aware of but in denial about these issues. Now, they are waking up and realize that the only way to keep their role as it currently is is to strong-arm Congress into legally protecting it. I've not news: the consumers won't stand for it.
Maybe I missed it in the article, but I couldn't find any mention of the assult type of gameplay. Everything else seemed to be covered. Personally, that was my favorite style of game in UT 1 mainly because it was like Deathmatch with an actual purpose. Of course, pure free-for-alls are fun, but Assult brought a bit more strategy and (in my opinion) replayability. I truly hope they have something like it, except with more missions than UT 1 had. But, this was still an Alpha, so I'm willing to wait and see.
There are really only three major components that people are concerned about when it comes to the anti-trust issue: IE, WMP, and Outlook Express. Solitare is completely and totally irrelevent. You're going to complain about Paint? Every single consumer OS in the last umpteen years has had a bundled paint program.
Movie Maker isn't designed to be a production piece of software, and I think pretty much anyone -- even those without video experiance would realize that. I should know for sure; I work part time in a video production studio.
With Quicktime, I see ads begging for me to upgrade. And for some select (albeit popular) videos you're required to have the Pro version. That's strange, because I've never had either of those problems with WMP. You may be right that there are better media players, but I haven't tried every single player out there. I've tried all the popular ones, and a few of the less popular ones. For Audio, I use Winamp (though version 3 will support video, but it just creates a Media Player object, so it's really WMP playing the video and Winamp playing the audio) and for video I use WMP.
Oh, and although it's not a direct response to you, Windows already has the ability to remove all Icons and shortcuts for IE via Add/Remove Components.
Well, turning off popups is one thing I would like to see in IE. In that spirit, I can't say I've tried the latest couple (and just a couple) releases of Mozilla, mainly because I had been so dissapointed with previous versions. I suppose it's only fair that I do, but since IE 5.0 I've been mostly happy with it. I used to be a hardcore Netscape user, through the end of 4.x series. I tried each major release of 6, and tried Mozilla every now and then too, and was not convinced that I should stay with either one. Of course, when I'm in Linux, which is probably 1/4 of the time (and I spend a lot of time on my computers), I do use mozilla, because on the Linux platform, I like it best, personally.
I suggested as much and was modded way down (maybe because I claimed IE 6 was the best Windows based browser out there). I agree; it would be a huge disadvantage to consumers to require them to download every little utility. Frankly, I don't see how Microsoft including a web browser and media player is any different than Apple or a Linux distro doing the same. There is nothing keeping a person from using a 3rd party product, so I don't see what the problem is. Indeed, opening up certain parts of the source and of course making file formats and APIs completely open is the best solution.
Well, they wouldn't be able to remove IE itself, but changing desktop icons is exactly what needs to be done. It won't break Windows, and it will let OEMs choose which browser they want to be default. And of course, changing the default app for handling.htm and.html files to whatever browser the OEM wants.
Actually, there is more integration than you think. Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer are intertwined and their functions overlap.
As much as they might want to complain about wanting to remove Microsoft's components, the fact of the matter is that there simply aren't competing products that work as well as Microsoft's products. (Note: I'm not talking about Office or anything like that...I'm talking about components that come with Windows).
Take IE. It used to be a pretty lousy program, but anyone who says that IE 6 isn't a good program (with the exception of some security issues) is delusional. I have yet to see a comparable program for the Windows platform that can do things as fast and as well as IE can. Even if someone didn't want to use it, there's nothing stopping them from using a different browser. I used Netscape and Mozilla along side IE for years without problems. The simple fact of the matter is that Netscape lost the Windows browser war because it failed to stay up to date. It crashed. It didn't support as many standards as IE did. It was slower. Also, think about this: as we see more and more online storage services, ftp repositories, etc. popping up on the Internet, is it not logical that one would ususally want to browse through these remote sites, as well as Intranets in the same way they browse through their local computer? It only makes sense that eventually the Internet would have to become seamlessly integrated with the OS. And when push came to shove, IE won out because it was just better.
Take Windows Media Player. Tell me, what program is better? Real is full of ads, Quicktime isn't free, and Winamp is only good for audio. Again, the exact same situation applies. WMP is simply the better program in most cases. And, of course, there's NOTHING stopping consumers from installing 3rd party software if they so choose.
Short of driving down prices on Windows, I fail to see how requiring them to strip it down will be of benefit to consumers. It'll just mean more hassle - you've got to search for and download all those things by yourself. And the average newbie can't do that. Look, allowing OEMs to include alternate programs and changing the desktop to have the icons point to those by defalt is one thing, but requiring Windows to be stripped down to a point where it would actually have LESS capabilities than competing OSs won't solve anything. What WILL make a difference is more closely monitoring Microsoft's buisness practices, and maybe making select parts of their code open source. This is to the point where I think some of these states are just on a rampage, blowing the problem out of proportion and failing to understand the real issues at stake.
It seems to me that many people here have no idea what a true supercomputer (or more specifically, a Cray) is or what makes it different from a simple cluster. Here's a few things to think about:
- Crays do not have monitors. They do not have keyboards, or mice.
- Crays do not run Windows. Crays do not run Linux. Crays usually run UNICOS, a special *nix designed specifically for Crays.
- Crays communicate with the outside world through a host terminal, like a SGI workstation, or something similar to that. Crays DON'T HAVE CD-ROM DRIVES!
- Nobody but those with 8-9 figure incomes get to buy a Cray. They cost MILLIONS, and the higher end ones can cost many many tens of millions.
- Pretty much the type of people that WOULD buy a Cray would be the government, and very very large corporations. Sorry, guys.
- Simply connecting 30 PCs together in a cluster will result in a nice, fast supercluster, but it won't come close to a Cray, because Crays are designed from the beginning to be as parallel as possible. Face it: beowulf clusters really can't make the best use of the contained hardware because the hardware wasn't designed to be so distributed.
- Be impressed with Crays. Be very impressed.
The digital TV signal you get is NOT HDTV. In fact, it is probably worse than analog cable, depending on how greedy your provider is. HDTV looks MUCH better.
Out of the four things you mentioned, only one really has any long term consequences:
1) You are correct. The Best Buy HDTV sets are actually *NOT* showing an HDTV signal (unless it got changed recently). It's just a widescreen DVD shown on an HDTV - it definetly looks better than DVD on a standard TV but it's still not HDTV resolution. From what I've been reading here, nearly everybody is getting digital cable and DVDs mixed up with HD content - digital cable is not HD! In fact, digital cable usually looks WORSE than analog cable, because companies try to cram more channels through the pipe without using more bandwith.
2) You're forgetting about movies, action dramas, etc. Sure, for a sitcom or soap opera, HD is really kind of pointless, but if you're watching the NFL, or LOTR, or Star Trek, HD is only a good thing. Of course, in order to take advantage of HDTV, the show must be broadcast in HDTV. Note that nearly all pre-recorded (i.e. not "live") shows are shot on either 16 or 35 mm film, so those can already take advantage of HDTV's resolution. Shows like the newscasts, however, are show using video cameras, so those will have to be produced differently.
3) Today, this is true. But if there's one constant in technology, it's the fact that prices drop with time. By 2006, I would think that HDTVs (which by then should have built in tuners) shouldn't cost more than normal TVs do today.
4) This one does worry me. While I don't watch a *lot* of TV (Enterprise, JAG, and South Park), once a week), I would *not* like having to pay each time I turned the TV on. For broadcast material, this would be easy to implement, and with the way the industry is headed, this WILL be the case. The only way to stop it is through public education - beyond the scope of the geeks, who already know what's going on anyway.
As far as governmental regulations, while I don't normally like it, in this case I do agree with it. The industry is just fragmenting standards. The industry is totally incapable of creating a decent standard and then implementing it on it's own, and the market is totally incapable of putting pressure on the industry because 99% of the market has no clue what HDTV is anyway. Look, the NTSC/PAL standards have been around for about half a century. It's time for a SERIOUS change. Having the government require a single, unified standard (though God knows the industry is having a tough enough time with doing it), and then setting a day by which it must be implemented, consumers will be spared the unfair jerking around by the industry as they slowly muck around, not being decisive about anything. If it's done right, it will be a great benefit to consumers in the long run. In the meantime, just because there has to be HDTV signals by 2006 doesn't mean there won't be any SDTV signals. There will be overlap (or am I getting my dates mixed up, and 2006 is the date when SDTV broadcasts must cease?). And even when the old broadcasts cease, don't worry. There will be converter boxes to hold you over until you DO have a HDTV.
I know. The point was that myself (the consumer) demands more than the record companies are willing to give, and they know this. They KNOW that unless they put tight restrictions on how consumers can use their product, and back that up with law, the record companies will become obsolete, except for promotion.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Star Trek is far less about action and more about being a parallel to humanity. If you were to watch, most episodes have a bit of action but out of a season of 26 there's usually only 3 or 4 "action shows". The majority are other things like dramas, comedies, and also some "classic sci-fi" episodes. This is one of the biggest min-nomers. Trek is NOT about action like Star Wars is, and when people watch it expecting lots of action and then don't see any, they assume something is wrong (which it isn't).
Really what would be nice would be if companies would include both Windows and Linux versions on the same disc. The two versions can share most of their data files and resources -- only the executable portions of the applications need be modified. If both versions sit on the same disc, would that not solve the problems and lower long-term production costs? Plus it would force companies to make the two versions more similar.
Nope. First off, as you say, remember that region is irrelevent as far as the actual MPEG stream. But PAL/NTSC is not. The MPEG stream still has to be encoded at the right framerate and resolution, which means -- yep, the MPEG stream for PAL is different from that of NTSC. Some players are capable of translating one type of stream to another, but don't think for a minute that all MPEG streams are the same.
As far as HDTV, that's even more different. DVDs are not HDTV, and no DVD player can be made to produce an HD signal from one. If a HDTV gets a SDTV signal (NTSC or PAL), it can still display it, but it aidn't HDTV! The specification for HD-DVD hasn't been finalized yet.
All I can say is that I echo most Trek fans' request for a Director's edition DVD that restores most of that footage back into the movie, and puts everything that's still cut in a deleted scenes gallery on the supplemental disc.
I'm talking about Winamp 3 -- it's almost totally different from Winamp 2, and pretty much everything that Winamp 2 didn't do well, Winamp 3 does. I guess I shouldn't pass judgement until I see WA 3 Final on Linux. At that point, it'll be a better time to compare players.
Well if what you care about is having everything opensource, then no, you won't want to use Winamp. But if what you care about is a good feature-set, expandibility, and functionality, I'd lean twoards WA3. When it's released, I'll compare them side by side and choose the one that works better, but from what I've seen, Winamp will probably edge XMMS out.
I've used XMMS, yes. I use both Windows and Linux regularly. If the Linux version of Winamp3 is anything like the Windows version, it will be far better than XMMS. I'm not saying that XMMS will be BAD...just that I don't think it will perform as well as Winamp3.
It's too bad that now with Winamp 3 being released really really soon, all those old Winamp 2 plugins will be outdated (I do belive it will be backwards compatible, though....correct me if I'm wrong), and people will stop making them. Winamp 3's entire architecture changed, and on top of that there will be a Linux version of it. So, really no need for XMMS. It was a fine player, but I believe it's life will be coming to an end.
Still...this is an interesting project.
Amen to that! When I purchased this Dell notebook, one of the first things I did was partition my hard drive to get both Linux and Windows installed. Linux installed fine, but X wouln't work, because there was some video driver incompatibility. It turns out that I had to find and manually install drivers, recompile my kernel, and manually tweak XFree86 settings to get it to work. While I was able to eventually get it, it took me several hours and WAY more pain than it should have. If a similar problem had occured in Windows (and with XP's driver database, it's pretty much impossible except with the very newest devices), I would simply reboot in safe mode, which would nearly guarentee video compatibility, go to the Dell website, download the drivers, and install them. The whole process wouldn't take more than 10 minutes tops. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux isn't ready for widespread "home user" deployment, and probably won't be ready anytime soon.
You people talk of choice and alternatives, but the simple fact of the matter is that for 90% of the common users out there, Windows *IS* the better choice. Linux is fine for hackers, techies, programmers, and special purpose users, but frankly it's almost not worth considering for your average Joe. Windows isn't perfect either, but it sure seemes to do a better job making it easy for the user than Linux. While you guys spend all of your time badmouthing Microsoft and using tactics just as questionable as theirs (e.g. pushing for making it illegal for government agencies purchase from MS...that seems just as criminal to me...shouldn't they purchase the best software for the job?), I will be sticking with Windows because I don't have time to spend fighting Linux every step of the way. While I do program, most of the time when I'm using the computer, I need to get stuff done, and ever since Windows 2000, I haven't had a problem doing that.
DVHS is a digital format. This means that as time goes on and you keep viewing the tape, the picture stays pristine. Of course, if the tape does develope flaws, the picture will either artifact or drop out completely, but it will always remain at the full HD resolution. Now, if if only we could get a good HD-DVD standard, with the capability to store 4 hours of HD video with 6.1 channel DTS sound, then we would be set for a good long time. But let's face it: nobody wants a tape format.
In my old high school, some departments would hold one huge one or two day LAN party right after finals were over, after each semester. In order to come, you had to do only two things: 1) Get a "C" or better in all classes, and 2) Not be caught using the computers for games during class times during the year. That way, students had a good reason not to mess around with things they shouldn't be during the school year, and then the students (and even a few teachers) would go all out at the end of the year. Having games installed didn't matter because the computers would all be reimaged at the end of the week from the images downtown (the entire district ran on a Gigabit network where the central office downtown had a huge NOC, which connected to the 5 middle and high schools, which in turn each connected to 4 or 5 smaller elementary schools).
You are right. I did some Cisco, A+, and some MCSE. Frankly, the MCSE was all theory (very outdated theory at that) and absolutely zero practical knowledge. With A+, although the certification is slightly more useful than MCSE, is still mostly devoid of practical knowldege, though I did take an A+ prep class that really filled in that gap. Cisco, on the other hand, REQUIRES that you pass certain tests along the way like programming a router or cabling a room. If you can't do those things, you can't even think about taking the final certification test. So yes, I would have far more respect for somewith with a CCNA (or even better, a CCNP) than an MCSE.
It doesn't matter. Just because you don't like the MPAA or you didn't like Episode I, that doesn't give you *ANY* right to assume that it's them infringing on your rights. In reality, you're the one infringing on their rights. Maybe you don't like it. That's too bad, because you don't have to. I'm not saying I like the MPAA and RIAA or anything. Previewing a song before you buy it or watching a video clip from your favorite movie is quite different from getting a full, pirated version with no intentions of purchasing it.
Actually, aside from the fact that the government would never allow it, they could.
I would if I had any points, but I don't. This is a GREAT analogy. Face it: it's the entertainment industry that needs to change here, not the consumers. They are almost completely at fault for charging so much, not releasing singles at a fair price, acting that any digital music should have per-use charges, etc.
I truly believe that if people could purchase single tracks online for maybe $1 to $2 per track, in a loseless format, that doesn't restrict how and when they can be listened to, piracy wouldn't be what it is today. The simple fact of the matter is that if I want one song, I am NOT going to purchase an entire CD for it. If I like the bulk of the music on a CD, and the CD is reasonably priced (Price less than about $17), I purchase it. The music industry has to regognize two things:
1) The importance of their role as it currently is is becomming obselete. It's FAR easier for artists to go directly to the consumer today than it was even 5 years ago.
2) Consumers demand more flexibility and portability and more reasonable prices today than they did 5 years ago. All of a sudden, the RIAA isn't the only source of music. Unless the RIAA can meet the demands of the consumers, they WILL go out of buisness, eventually.
Now, I believe that the RIAA is aware of but in denial about these issues. Now, they are waking up and realize that the only way to keep their role as it currently is is to strong-arm Congress into legally protecting it. I've not news: the consumers won't stand for it.
Maybe I missed it in the article, but I couldn't find any mention of the assult type of gameplay. Everything else seemed to be covered. Personally, that was my favorite style of game in UT 1 mainly because it was like Deathmatch with an actual purpose. Of course, pure free-for-alls are fun, but Assult brought a bit more strategy and (in my opinion) replayability. I truly hope they have something like it, except with more missions than UT 1 had. But, this was still an Alpha, so I'm willing to wait and see.
There are really only three major components that people are concerned about when it comes to the anti-trust issue: IE, WMP, and Outlook Express. Solitare is completely and totally irrelevent. You're going to complain about Paint? Every single consumer OS in the last umpteen years has had a bundled paint program.
Movie Maker isn't designed to be a production piece of software, and I think pretty much anyone -- even those without video experiance would realize that. I should know for sure; I work part time in a video production studio.
With Quicktime, I see ads begging for me to upgrade. And for some select (albeit popular) videos you're required to have the Pro version. That's strange, because I've never had either of those problems with WMP. You may be right that there are better media players, but I haven't tried every single player out there. I've tried all the popular ones, and a few of the less popular ones. For Audio, I use Winamp (though version 3 will support video, but it just creates a Media Player object, so it's really WMP playing the video and Winamp playing the audio) and for video I use WMP.
Oh, and although it's not a direct response to you, Windows already has the ability to remove all Icons and shortcuts for IE via Add/Remove Components.
Well, turning off popups is one thing I would like to see in IE. In that spirit, I can't say I've tried the latest couple (and just a couple) releases of Mozilla, mainly because I had been so dissapointed with previous versions. I suppose it's only fair that I do, but since IE 5.0 I've been mostly happy with it. I used to be a hardcore Netscape user, through the end of 4.x series. I tried each major release of 6, and tried Mozilla every now and then too, and was not convinced that I should stay with either one. Of course, when I'm in Linux, which is probably 1/4 of the time (and I spend a lot of time on my computers), I do use mozilla, because on the Linux platform, I like it best, personally.
I suggested as much and was modded way down (maybe because I claimed IE 6 was the best Windows based browser out there). I agree; it would be a huge disadvantage to consumers to require them to download every little utility. Frankly, I don't see how Microsoft including a web browser and media player is any different than Apple or a Linux distro doing the same. There is nothing keeping a person from using a 3rd party product, so I don't see what the problem is. Indeed, opening up certain parts of the source and of course making file formats and APIs completely open is the best solution.
Well, they wouldn't be able to remove IE itself, but changing desktop icons is exactly what needs to be done. It won't break Windows, and it will let OEMs choose which browser they want to be default. And of course, changing the default app for handling .htm and .html files to whatever browser the OEM wants.
Actually, there is more integration than you think. Internet Explorer and Windows Explorer are intertwined and their functions overlap.
As much as they might want to complain about wanting to remove Microsoft's components, the fact of the matter is that there simply aren't competing products that work as well as Microsoft's products. (Note: I'm not talking about Office or anything like that...I'm talking about components that come with Windows).
Take IE. It used to be a pretty lousy program, but anyone who says that IE 6 isn't a good program (with the exception of some security issues) is delusional. I have yet to see a comparable program for the Windows platform that can do things as fast and as well as IE can. Even if someone didn't want to use it, there's nothing stopping them from using a different browser. I used Netscape and Mozilla along side IE for years without problems. The simple fact of the matter is that Netscape lost the Windows browser war because it failed to stay up to date. It crashed. It didn't support as many standards as IE did. It was slower. Also, think about this: as we see more and more online storage services, ftp repositories, etc. popping up on the Internet, is it not logical that one would ususally want to browse through these remote sites, as well as Intranets in the same way they browse through their local computer? It only makes sense that eventually the Internet would have to become seamlessly integrated with the OS. And when push came to shove, IE won out because it was just better.
Take Windows Media Player. Tell me, what program is better? Real is full of ads, Quicktime isn't free, and Winamp is only good for audio. Again, the exact same situation applies. WMP is simply the better program in most cases. And, of course, there's NOTHING stopping consumers from installing 3rd party software if they so choose.
Short of driving down prices on Windows, I fail to see how requiring them to strip it down will be of benefit to consumers. It'll just mean more hassle - you've got to search for and download all those things by yourself. And the average newbie can't do that. Look, allowing OEMs to include alternate programs and changing the desktop to have the icons point to those by defalt is one thing, but requiring Windows to be stripped down to a point where it would actually have LESS capabilities than competing OSs won't solve anything. What WILL make a difference is more closely monitoring Microsoft's buisness practices, and maybe making select parts of their code open source. This is to the point where I think some of these states are just on a rampage, blowing the problem out of proportion and failing to understand the real issues at stake.
It seems to me that many people here have no idea what a true supercomputer (or more specifically, a Cray) is or what makes it different from a simple cluster. Here's a few things to think about:
- Crays do not have monitors. They do not have keyboards, or mice.
- Crays do not run Windows. Crays do not run Linux. Crays usually run UNICOS, a special *nix designed specifically for Crays.
- Crays communicate with the outside world through a host terminal, like a SGI workstation, or something similar to that. Crays DON'T HAVE CD-ROM DRIVES!
- Nobody but those with 8-9 figure incomes get to buy a Cray. They cost MILLIONS, and the higher end ones can cost many many tens of millions.
- Pretty much the type of people that WOULD buy a Cray would be the government, and very very large corporations. Sorry, guys.
- Simply connecting 30 PCs together in a cluster will result in a nice, fast supercluster, but it won't come close to a Cray, because Crays are designed from the beginning to be as parallel as possible. Face it: beowulf clusters really can't make the best use of the contained hardware because the hardware wasn't designed to be so distributed.
- Be impressed with Crays. Be very impressed.
The digital TV signal you get is NOT HDTV. In fact, it is probably worse than analog cable, depending on how greedy your provider is. HDTV looks MUCH better.
Out of the four things you mentioned, only one really has any long term consequences:
1) You are correct. The Best Buy HDTV sets are actually *NOT* showing an HDTV signal (unless it got changed recently). It's just a widescreen DVD shown on an HDTV - it definetly looks better than DVD on a standard TV but it's still not HDTV resolution. From what I've been reading here, nearly everybody is getting digital cable and DVDs mixed up with HD content - digital cable is not HD! In fact, digital cable usually looks WORSE than analog cable, because companies try to cram more channels through the pipe without using more bandwith.
2) You're forgetting about movies, action dramas, etc. Sure, for a sitcom or soap opera, HD is really kind of pointless, but if you're watching the NFL, or LOTR, or Star Trek, HD is only a good thing. Of course, in order to take advantage of HDTV, the show must be broadcast in HDTV. Note that nearly all pre-recorded (i.e. not "live") shows are shot on either 16 or 35 mm film, so those can already take advantage of HDTV's resolution. Shows like the newscasts, however, are show using video cameras, so those will have to be produced differently.
3) Today, this is true. But if there's one constant in technology, it's the fact that prices drop with time. By 2006, I would think that HDTVs (which by then should have built in tuners) shouldn't cost more than normal TVs do today.
4) This one does worry me. While I don't watch a *lot* of TV (Enterprise, JAG, and South Park), once a week), I would *not* like having to pay each time I turned the TV on. For broadcast material, this would be easy to implement, and with the way the industry is headed, this WILL be the case. The only way to stop it is through public education - beyond the scope of the geeks, who already know what's going on anyway.
As far as governmental regulations, while I don't normally like it, in this case I do agree with it. The industry is just fragmenting standards. The industry is totally incapable of creating a decent standard and then implementing it on it's own, and the market is totally incapable of putting pressure on the industry because 99% of the market has no clue what HDTV is anyway. Look, the NTSC/PAL standards have been around for about half a century. It's time for a SERIOUS change. Having the government require a single, unified standard (though God knows the industry is having a tough enough time with doing it), and then setting a day by which it must be implemented, consumers will be spared the unfair jerking around by the industry as they slowly muck around, not being decisive about anything. If it's done right, it will be a great benefit to consumers in the long run. In the meantime, just because there has to be HDTV signals by 2006 doesn't mean there won't be any SDTV signals. There will be overlap (or am I getting my dates mixed up, and 2006 is the date when SDTV broadcasts must cease?). And even when the old broadcasts cease, don't worry. There will be converter boxes to hold you over until you DO have a HDTV.
I know. The point was that myself (the consumer) demands more than the record companies are willing to give, and they know this. They KNOW that unless they put tight restrictions on how consumers can use their product, and back that up with law, the record companies will become obsolete, except for promotion.