You leave you car sitting in your drive way for 30 months.
WTF?
So you say that car manufactures should put self-destruction in there because you could store your car in a bad way? I mean the self-destruction mechanism doesn't care wether the car is in a climatized garage or somewhere in the open.
Your arguments are getting stranger and weaker with each post.
Its your own for not using the damn thing for its intended purpose when you purchased it.
Its a fact of life these days that just about every consumer product you purchase has a built in life cycle.
You are obviously confused.
Let's take another example: I usually change toothbrushes about once per month. However I have a couple of cheap toothbrushes stashed for vacations and business trips (I tend to forget the toothbrush, so I don't take my electrical).
So while the toothbrush has a life cycle of about 1 month, it's not unusual for me to use toothbrushes that are 2 years old.
So according to your sick logic, you would find it perfectly OK, if the toothbrush "expires" and becomes unusuable after maybe 6 months, right?
It sucks but thats the way it is
No, it's normally not the way it is. Even if it were, it wouldn't be OK.
What would you say when you park your car somewhere for longer than 2 weeks and I smash your windshild and say "If you didn't drive that car, you don't need one anyway"?
First, it's 4.5 years after manufacturing date or 30 months in the printer whitchever comes first.
That means if a store sells you a 4 year old cartridge, you only have 6 months left.
But that doesn't matter, it's about principles. Where do you draw the line? If 99% of users are unaffected it's OK to purposely breake products? 95%? 90? 80? 60? By your logic, HP could dower these times a bit just for kicks and some morons would still defend their decision.
Purposely breaking products is vandalism. And just because there are not that many affected, doesn't change a thing. HP is not better than somebody trashing public phones, smashing windows or keying cars.
Suppose WineX becomes perfect. Suppose Linux gamers by thousands load up their games and enjoy the latest Windows games. Suppose as a result Windows game developers see incrementally better sales (less than 5%, probably closer to 1-2%). Now, why in the world would they suddenly throw away all the code, tools, and experience they have on their current platform to grab some tiny extra percentage by learning, developing for, and testing on a new platform?
Why should they do it without WineX? I don't see any negative effect of WineX here. Quite to the contrary, Wine or WineX will help Linux building a gaming community which will lead to Linux support from vendors (and I don't give a shit if it's supported via Wine or via a(nother) cross-platform toolset, it just doesn't matter. If the vendor supports it via Wine and tests accordingly, it will work as well and as stable as via some other toolset.)
After all they can happily tell those Linux people "You're unsupported. But try WineX!" When it fails, they simply say "You're unsupported!" They already have your money, after all, and it's your own fault for trying it on an unsupported platform.
Cut down the bs. Either it's supported (then they will say "try WineX" and will help you with installation problems) or it's not supported (status quo). The only way to get support is a gaming community and WineX is the only way to get one in the near future.
Let's be honest: Isn't WineX just a bandage for all those Linux users (former Windows users) that can't give up Windows games? It isn't bloody likely to convince anyone to leave Windows, the platform for which those games were made in the first place.
Well, no. If WineX is really good enough and runs almost all games (like any Windows install), a lot of people will switch - why not? Win32-compatibility is the only thing that is missing in Linux.
Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 1
Umm, as a musician and music lover, I can say with certainty that if you couldn't distinguish a 64kbps OGG from an original recording, then you have no credibility and shouldn't be making bold statements like "AAC is very weak".
Well, over 3000 other testers came to the same conclusion, so I think I'm not far off.
That said, the fact the the "expert test" yielded better results for AAC isn't surprising.
The experts still rated ogg above aac, sorry.
Re:You have no idea what you are talking about
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
if you can hear any dropoff of information in a cd then you are superhuman because studies have been done with audio engineers using blind tests between DAT and cd and not one could consistantly pick one over the other.
Finally we are progressing.
So:
Why is the non-audible loss on CD accepted but but some are hysterically telling that the equally non-audible loss on a good ogg-rip (or even mp3-rip at higher bitrates) are sooooo terrible?
Re:You have no idea what you are talking about
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 1
Exactly - and now you explain how to get a lossless copy out of a lossy digital representation which is found on CD.
Re:AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change tha
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 1
I've analyzed OGG, MP3, etc, and NONE of them come close to WMV.
Well, an audio analyst would know that WMV is a Video codec.
Also, 3000 random users and 8 real audio analysts/experts disagree with you and rate OGG consistently above WMA at all tested bitrates: (64kbps, 128kbps and 160kbps):
As much as I love ogg, I have to say that they made a truely moronic decision about naming.
It doesn't matter what container format it is. If the file is named ".ogg" it's an ogg-file, period, end of discussion.
If they wanted the people to call them vorbis they should have named the files accordingly.
Theora, a video codec.
Unfortunately, the idiotic naming conventions will make it very hard for Theora. Nobody wants video files with audio-extensions, that's just not practicable.
Re:But what does it actually sound like???
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 1
Beating MP3 is not that hard - ogg beats WMA in double-blind tests at all bitrates.
Actually, a double-blind listening test with over 3000 participants revealed that OGG beats all other (mp3, mp3pro, wma, aac & realaudio were tested) codecs at all bitrates (64kbps, 128kbps, 160kbps)
The test samples were distributed as wav-Files and had 3 different music genres on them, the tests were made by a German computer magazine with no affiliation with any of the codecs.
Look here
If you don't accept that as proof of the superiority of ogg in general (there might be special cases where ogg might be worse, but this test shows that in general ogg beats them all) what else do you accept?
You have no idea what you are talking about
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I wish lossless compression was at a point that it would be practical for this.
And I wish you would get a clue.
There is no such thing as lossless and there never will be.
A 128kbps ogg-vorbis file mastered directly from the source will be closer to the "original" than what you find on CD today if used with a higher sampling rate.
Of course it would be useless because nobody could hear the difference anyway, so why bother.
There is only lossless compression if you define the CD as the original, which of course is pure nonsense, because the CD is also just a digital approximation, no more no less.
AAC is pretty weak, no marketing can change that.
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
And it's more efficient than MP3
At low bitrates, AAC is very weak, at 128kbps it was the worst of all:
I was one of the 3000 participants, btw. And my ranking which I gave (blind, I did not know which sample was which) confirms pretty much the results, at 64kbps, AAC was unbearable, while ogg was not distinguishable (by me anyway) to the original.
The only test where AAC didn't fail miserably was the "expert test" with only 8 listeners.
OGG has beaten all other codecs consitently at all bitrates.
What the audiophiles deny and music shops won't tell you is that headphones are one of the most primitive things out there, speaking of "sound quality" a 5$ headphone is on par with a $100 headphone.
The only difference is that the bigger the headphone, the less outside noise gets through, but the headphone itself is just a primitive membrane.
Actually AG also gets a lot of exposure because of this action, maybe some marketing experts are already analysing the pros and cons of "filing stupid suit to get the media's attention"...
Slashdot Mirror
The road-net must be illegal because it competes with private airlines.
Pretty much everything the government does would be illegal.
No, that's not sick. Suggesting HP has the right to destroy my property ( in this case printer cartridges) at will is sick.
You leave you car sitting in your drive way for 30 months.
WTF?
So you say that car manufactures should put self-destruction in there because you could store your car in a bad way? I mean the self-destruction mechanism doesn't care wether the car is in a climatized garage or somewhere in the open.
Your arguments are getting stranger and weaker with each post.
Its your own for not using the damn thing for its intended purpose when you purchased it. Its a fact of life these days that just about every consumer product you purchase has a built in life cycle.
You are obviously confused.
Let's take another example: I usually change toothbrushes about once per month. However I have a couple of cheap toothbrushes stashed for vacations and business trips (I tend to forget the toothbrush, so I don't take my electrical).
So while the toothbrush has a life cycle of about 1 month, it's not unusual for me to use toothbrushes that are 2 years old.
So according to your sick logic, you would find it perfectly OK, if the toothbrush "expires" and becomes unusuable after maybe 6 months, right?
It sucks but thats the way it is
No, it's normally not the way it is. Even if it were, it wouldn't be OK.
The point is not wrong usage at all.
The point is purposely breaking stuff. Meaning doing it on purpose.
When you buy a cartridge it becomes your property. HP doesn't have the right to destroy or break your property, period.
Does this give HP the right to burn down his house "because of the fact that its owner is just not using it"?
Timesprout, you are sick. Seriously, you should think about what you are advocating, here.
And I didn't even start to talk about people buying several printer cartridges which of course will be on the shelf quite a while.
What would you say when you park your car somewhere for longer than 2 weeks and I smash your windshild and say "If you didn't drive that car, you don't need one anyway"?
That means if a store sells you a 4 year old cartridge, you only have 6 months left.
But that doesn't matter, it's about principles. Where do you draw the line? If 99% of users are unaffected it's OK to purposely breake products? 95%? 90? 80? 60? By your logic, HP could dower these times a bit just for kicks and some morons would still defend their decision.
Purposely breaking products is vandalism. And just because there are not that many affected, doesn't change a thing. HP is not better than somebody trashing public phones, smashing windows or keying cars.
This doesn't work because these tactics take effect a long time after the customer made his buying decision.
And they can make better games native on Linux (most 3D games get higher framerates on Linux).
Why should they do it without WineX? I don't see any negative effect of WineX here. Quite to the contrary, Wine or WineX will help Linux building a gaming community which will lead to Linux support from vendors (and I don't give a shit if it's supported via Wine or via a(nother) cross-platform toolset, it just doesn't matter. If the vendor supports it via Wine and tests accordingly, it will work as well and as stable as via some other toolset.)
After all they can happily tell those Linux people "You're unsupported. But try WineX!" When it fails, they simply say "You're unsupported!" They already have your money, after all, and it's your own fault for trying it on an unsupported platform.
Cut down the bs. Either it's supported (then they will say "try WineX" and will help you with installation problems) or it's not supported (status quo). The only way to get support is a gaming community and WineX is the only way to get one in the near future.
Let's be honest: Isn't WineX just a bandage for all those Linux users (former Windows users) that can't give up Windows games? It isn't bloody likely to convince anyone to leave Windows, the platform for which those games were made in the first place.
Well, no. If WineX is really good enough and runs almost all games (like any Windows install), a lot of people will switch - why not? Win32-compatibility is the only thing that is missing in Linux.
Well, over 3000 other testers came to the same conclusion, so I think I'm not far off.
That said, the fact the the "expert test" yielded better results for AAC isn't surprising.
The experts still rated ogg above aac, sorry.
Finally we are progressing.
So:
Why is the non-audible loss on CD accepted but but some are hysterically telling that the equally non-audible loss on a good ogg-rip (or even mp3-rip at higher bitrates) are sooooo terrible?
Exactly - and now you explain how to get a lossless copy out of a lossy digital representation which is found on CD.
IIRC it was the Frauenhofer codec.
Well, an audio analyst would know that WMV is a Video codec.
Also, 3000 random users and 8 real audio analysts/experts disagree with you and rate OGG consistently above WMA at all tested bitrates: (64kbps, 128kbps and 160kbps):
lookie here
It doesn't matter what container format it is. If the file is named ".ogg" it's an ogg-file, period, end of discussion.
If they wanted the people to call them vorbis they should have named the files accordingly.
Theora, a video codec.
Unfortunately, the idiotic naming conventions will make it very hard for Theora. Nobody wants video files with audio-extensions, that's just not practicable.
Test with over 3000 participants
It will take a very long time, but in the end ogg will become the standard (unless something even better comes along the way ;-)
Well, I do and a lot of others, including a lot of gaming companies, do also.
proof
About twice the compression ratio at equal quality or much better quality at the same ratio.
Hell, why don't we all use wavs? According to your logic, compression offers nothing, right?
The test samples were distributed as wav-Files and had 3 different music genres on them, the tests were made by a German computer magazine with no affiliation with any of the codecs.
Look here
If you don't accept that as proof of the superiority of ogg in general (there might be special cases where ogg might be worse, but this test shows that in general ogg beats them all) what else do you accept?
And I wish you would get a clue.
There is no such thing as lossless and there never will be.
A 128kbps ogg-vorbis file mastered directly from the source will be closer to the "original" than what you find on CD today if used with a higher sampling rate.
Of course it would be useless because nobody could hear the difference anyway, so why bother.
There is only lossless compression if you define the CD as the original, which of course is pure nonsense, because the CD is also just a digital approximation, no more no less.
At low bitrates, AAC is very weak, at 128kbps it was the worst of all:
Study
I was one of the 3000 participants, btw. And my ranking which I gave (blind, I did not know which sample was which) confirms pretty much the results, at 64kbps, AAC was unbearable, while ogg was not distinguishable (by me anyway) to the original.
The only test where AAC didn't fail miserably was the "expert test" with only 8 listeners.
OGG has beaten all other codecs consitently at all bitrates.
The only difference is that the bigger the headphone, the less outside noise gets through, but the headphone itself is just a primitive membrane.
Actually AG also gets a lot of exposure because of this action, maybe some marketing experts are already analysing the pros and cons of "filing stupid suit to get the media's attention"...