Many of the older cards use technologies licensed from other companies which would be difficult to open source. They do a lot o this stuff in hardware (S3TC comes to mind).
I'm guessing the the newer cards do this stuff in software (running on the card), as they are a good deal more flexible than older cards. AMD doesn't have to release the drivers with the S3TC licensed code in them; rather, AMD will just release the card API, and if developers implement S3TC without a license its their problem.
nVidia also had the advantage of using a unified codebase - 90% of the driver code is identical between Linux and Windows. That's something AMD hasn't been doing (at least back when I kept up on things, they may have changed in the past few years).
This is no longer true, as I understand it.
nVidia now has several codebases:
1. Windows 2000/XP/Linux/Vista OpenGL 32-bit 2. Windows 2000/XP/Linux/Vista OpenGL 64-bit 3. Windows 2000/XP/Vista DX 9 32-bit 4. Windows 2000/XP/Vista DX 9 64-bit 5. Windows Vista DX 10 32-bit 6. Windows Vista DX 10 64-bit
A lot of the nVidia driver problems with Vista were related to serious architectural changes with Vista, particular with DX 10 stuff. If you notice, when the latest nvidia cards did start to work in vista, DX 9 and 10 came separately. This has complicated the drivers substantially, and has spread around programmer resources.
I wouldn't be surprised if it became significantly easier for ATI/Nvidia/intel to build drivers for Linux than Windows. There's only OpenGL to support, and only one path to doing that.
I know what the "proof" will be; or at least, the start of a trend.
Full AIGLX support in 8.42 (the article is discussing 8.41). The claim at Phoronix is that AMD has claimed AIGLX is going in at 8.42.
Continuing the trend would be MPEG-4/H.264 Xvideo support in 8.4x or 8.5x, preferably within the next 6 months or so (keep in mind that the Radeon 2X00 series have excellent video capabilities).
If they hit those two goals, I'll most likely purchase 2-3 ATI cards for my Linux boxes; the AIGLX and Xvideo things are a big deal to me, and Nvidia cards don't currently accelerate MPEG-4/H.264.
Even though its not "out" yet, there are plenty of benchmarks available. It'll be out soon.
What does this "prove" for me? That AMD's commitment to make ATI a first-class contender on the Linux front was for real. I'm guessing that Windows users will also see improvements in OpenGL performance, and we'll see better adoption of OpenGL on all three major platforms (Windows, OS X, Linux).
I'm happy as hell about this. About time us Linux users got to take advantage of GPU price wars!
I'm still an NVIDIA fan, because they've been good to me for all these years (on Linux), but I'm at least willing to look at ATI these days; particularly because the ATI peripheral GPU software is much better (better control panel, better install program). I wonder if the driver quality is good (not just performance, but does it always compile correctly, does it always fix broken installs (the way NVIDIA's does?)).
(i.e. you distribute it in unmodified form - the law allows you to pass on any copyrighted work you currently possess without an explicit license from the copyright owner).
Pray tell;
Where did you get a copy of Linux without agreeing to the GPL? What gave you the right to acquire said copy?
Is it legal for me to distribute Windows without agreeing to Microsoft's license agreements? If, and only if, every "copy" I acquire is legally acquired.
It is _copyright infringement_ to distribute Linux without agreeing to the terms of the GPL. Period. Nothing gives you the right to generate copies, other than the GPL. Specifically: Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.
You cannot make copies of Windows without Microsoft's explicit permission. Anything else is considered piracy.
Similarly, you must gain the permission of "Linux" authors in order to make copies. Anything else is considered piracy; and the _only_ way to gain this permission is by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
There is nothing that permits you owning, distributing, or modifying GPL'd software other than the GPL. You cannot acquire GPL'd software without agreeing to it; everything else is infringement.
What of that isn't clear? Luckily, you're not a lawyer.
In common law jurisdictions there are three key elements to the creation of a contract. These are offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
Please feel free to verify this with Black's Law, or any other legal dictionary.
Particularly, the ruling in this case specifies that the JMRI project did not expect any sort of consideration; furthermore, there's no creation of legal relations.
Beyond that, the specific license in question, the "Artistic License" does not have a termination clause. Therefore, it's not 100% clear that violating the terms of the license would immediately be defined as copyright infringement. The court left this open for the time being.
Most OS licenses (like the GPL) contain a termination clause. In the case of a violation of license terms, your rights to distribute are immediately canceled. This is then considered copyright infringement.
Termination clauses are not something up for legal debate. If subsequent courts decide to uphold this ruling (which I feel is _very_ unlikely) it will only strengthen the need for termination clauses in OS licenses.
It's not a flawed implementation, its defective by design (and I don't mean DRM'd, I mean literally).
On Linux, with the CFS and/or SD schedulers, if your nice levels are set correctly, sound (MP3) will play just fine with your processor(s) pegged at 100. Heck, forget about sound; you can run multiple Quake 4s with high-speed LAN transfers in the background, and everything works just fine (network transfers slowdown slightly, Quake 4's FPS scales down linearly with the number of sessions running, but there are no "hitches" or "glitches", and everything runs smoothly).
A common Microsoft approach to problems with Windows is to create a new daemon (oh, excuse me, Service) that "regulates" the offending behavior. This is not the correct way to fix these problems; rather, there are underlying issues that need to be resolved.
You say: The MMCSS is for improving multimedia performance on EXTREMELY heavily-loaded processors. I use XP, and my PC is occasionally heavily loaded with a dozen threads, and in those cases I occasionally experience glitches. Thus, I have to manually adjust thread priorities, but it's annoying anyway.
I say it's not about manually adjust thread priorities, or creating a Service that will automatically (dynamically or not) do that for you. Rather, you should have a kernel that better manages multitasking in processor starved scenarios. There's no reason that a particular program running at a particular nice level shouldn't demand a minimum CPU percentage, which for stuff like playing MP3s cannot possibly be much.
There's a better criticism. These "maximum" speeds are NOT sufficient to stream medium-to-high bit rate video, particularly HD stuff, something which should be a strength for a "media center" OS.
Furthermore, in the workplace, many people listen to music and access large files on network shares. Clearly, Vista is *broken* for these uses. Not a good indication of Vista being business ready.
Frankly, I don't know why Windows is considered the best business OS. You're much better off with a unixy OS in any environment where gaming isn't important.
Take a look at US, the so called pioneer of railways, where is the US railway system now? It has a really BAD service area... I think that's mostly because railroads are allowed to be owned by private companies and there is basically no public railways...(I may be really wrong here, so correct me if you know the reality)
Yep, you're wrong.
From Wikipedia: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (AAR reporting marks AMTK and AMTZ), is a quasi-governmental corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971, to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States. "Amtrak" is a portmanteau of the words "American" and "track".[1] All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the Federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. Common stock was issued in 1971 to railroads that contributed capital and equipment; its current holders[1] consider it worthless but declined a 2002 buy-out offer by Amtrak.[2]
The problem with passenger rail service in the U.S. comes from government mismanagement. In the 40s-50s, the private rail carriers were basically pushed under by outdated and difficult rules. This hasn't changed with the creation of Amtrak, and Amtrak is still forced to run all kinds of silly runs with extremely low ridership (it's a form of congressional earmark, Congress often stipulates required train stops in unprofitable places).
That being said, if you can find an Amtrak line that serves your needs it's actually quite a nice ride. If Congress ever gets its head out of its ass, and allows Amtrak to decide which stops it should go to, Amtrak will become a greater success.
Most of these 3rd party digital tuning solutions suck, quiet frankly. Anything that is sold as an add-on for the PS3 is not going to have much market uptake.
The real "long-term" solution to this stuff is IP video, not switched. Content providers *should* go online, and you should have IP boxes that hook up to your TV to access the stuff. Locally cached content should play the same as remote content.
And we're getting there in the U.S. You can go to ABC.com and watch most of the latest shows (unfortunately, they just switched to a currently windows only Flash plugin, but I suspect thats going to change in the near future with H.264 support in Flash). Many other pieces of software support Mac and Linux (Miro, Vuez, Flash, Helix) all of these play HD just fine, and most are just a hair away from being accessable on every brand of game console.
Why? Because all they require are processing power and an IP. And sufficient bandwidth.
Bandwidth is another issue, but some of the providers in the U.S. are finally doing the right thing, and going big. Verizon is in decent shape, and compares well, worldwide. RCN's service is not bad, either. Even Comcast is tolerable, particularly in areas where it competes with Verizon, RCN, and similar next-gen solutions. Sprint's got a nationwide all-you-can-eat (gaming, servers, video) EVDO RevA network, and is deploying WiMax nationwide in the next 6 months.
The only really big laggard is AT&T, and those executive will be first against the wall when the broadband revolution comes.
Hell, it's even become a major discussion in congress.
Either way, however, I don't think the future of commercially distributed video lies with integrated networks, with moderately open end points. I think the future of commercially distributed video must lie with sending content online; the missing parts are a)content provider's approval (this is a problem worldwide), and b)easy to use hardware.
I would *love* to see a 3rd party "cable" provider that plugged into your internet connection, and served up the standard "extended basic" fare.
On my OS of choice (Linux), I get a 30-40% speed boost in video/audio encoding in 64-bit, using 64-bit applications.
Many of these applications that I use are also available for that _other_ OS, Win32. I'm guessing you see a substantial speedup there, too.
If you are using Linux, 64-bit is a non-issue; everything works, and all your 32-bit software works, too, with very minor issues (like being unable to use 32-bit windows drivers in ndiswrapper (64-bit work fine). All the software which is compiled for 64-bit and is math intensive tends to be a lot faster.
If you are using Mac OS X, 64-bit is a non-issue. Most Mac software comes in quad-universal binaries, with 32/64-bit code paths, and PPC/Intel code paths. iTunes, iMovie, and the Apple Studio stuff all work a good 30% faster on Core 2 processors than on Core processors. All 32-bit software works flawlessly, too.
I don't have any experience with Windows 64-bit, but I don't understand why it should be such a problem; Microsoft clearly needs to play some catch up here.
Here's a quote: nspluginwrapper allows you to use Netscape compatible (NPAPI) plugins on platforms that they were not built on - in this instance, using 32bit browser plugins with x86_64 browsers. This is beta software, and licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
They are, after all, issuing refunds. That's pretty classy. Most other companies would have just said, "Sorry, its in the terms of service, nobody ever promised long-term access."
What more could you expect than a full refund? You got to use the content (while the service lasted) and then a refund afterwards?
Actually, I agree with you. My point isn't that MS (and the consumer electronics industry) couldn't beat back DRM, if they wanted to.
My point is that for the most part they are willing accomplices in the DRM scam. Either it a) sells more equipment, or b) they have vested interests in content (MS, Sony, I'm looking at you).
I haven't programmed professionally for either, as I'm just a dabbler, but AFAIK, SDL provides much of the sort of guts that DirectX does.
Also, aren't there dozens and dozens of GPL/X11/BSD libraries which will get you the same sort of network/gui etc functionality that DirectX might provide?
OpenGL and OpenAL are at least comparable to their DirectX equivalents, and most people seem to be pretty happy with SDL otherwise. In many ways, its arguable that OpenAL actually exceeds DirectSound in functionality these days.
Note: I'm not saying DirectX isn't well put together. It is; it provides the tools game programmers need without reinventing the wheel. However, I think that SDL provides you with a good alternative, and the primary reason DirectX is better entrenched is education and corporate culture; people are taught on DirectX, most games are programmed in it, and most shops are built around it.
Taken from Wikipedia, the following Linux ports use SDL:
* Civilization: Call to Power
* Descent
* Doom 3
* FreeSpace 2
* Heavy Metal: F.A.K.K.
* Heretic II
* Heroes of Might and Magic III
* Myth II
* Quake 4
* Rune
* Rune: Halls of Valhalla
* Shogo: Mobile Armor Division
* Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
* Sim City 3000
* Simutrans
* Soldier of Fortune
* Unreal Tournament
* Unreal Tournament 2003
* Unreal Tournament 2004
This doesn't read like a list of OSS reject-games languishing as 1/2 finished projects on Sourceforge.
What makes you think Microsoft isn't in the content production industry, and more over, what makes you think Microsoft doesn't want to be *more* involved in the content production industry?
MS is a champion of HD-DVD. MS makes many console games for the 360, and many games for the PC.
MS also owns a substantial stake in NBC.
Beyond that, MS is heavily involved in distribution of video (through WMV) and audio (through WMA). If MS said, "We aren't doing DRM, Period," they would loose the video/audio market, at least as far as the cartels are concerned (MPAA/RIAA).
MS is very much enfranchised with the current audio/video powers-that-be. Keep in mind this also applies to Sony (Sony Music versus Sony Electronics). The consumer electronics industry is definitely of two minds over DRM; and even the non-content providers somewhat relish the thought of putting consumers on the upgrade treadmill.
Let me quote an AT&T (SBC, so yes, this represents the Cingular side) executive for you on data:
From the Financial Times: "We have to figure out who pays for this bigger and bigger IP network," said Mr Whitacre, who was in New York ahead of AT&T's annual presentation to investors and analysts on Tuesday. "We have to show a return on our investments.?
"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network, obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud.". . . .."They might pass it on to their customers," he says of the fees that he wants to charge the sites.
How does this apply to wireless, and in particular, the iPhone?
Simple. A quote from Ed Whitacre's sucessor (Randall Stepheson, or RS: in the following interview) explains that. From Gigaom : OM: AT&T is a fearsome company now, with a weight of its legacy. Any first day jitters?
RS:... The new AT&T is wireless at the core in terms of great new handsets; in terms of enabling true anytime, anywhere mobility that our customers want and in terms of being innovative and service-oriented. If there are any jitters, it's from the excitement running through this company about our prospects.
OM: There are a lot of challenges facing the company. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing AT&T as a company and you personally?
RS: Our biggest challenge as a company is to ensure that our customers really understand what the new AT&T is all about. We are the most complete communications and entertainment provider for the way people live-and that starts with wireless. When people recognize that, we win. It's the same on the business side.
My personal challenge is to make sure that the pieces we've assembled-industry-leading wireless, TV, broadband, global operations and local service work together as smoothly and efficiently as possible.
OM: How vital is iPhone to your company? I have never seen AT&T push something so hard that wasn't developed internally. Why is that?
RS: The iPhone is a radically innovative new device and it only makes sense that AT&T and Apple would partner to bring it to market. This device is very important to us, it's important to Apple and it is going to do very well with customers. It also reinforces with consumers that AT&T is the place to turn for the latest in wireless devices and services.
How do I read this? AT&T feels that content providers (Google, Yahoo, AOL, CBS, etc . ..) should pay for each individual customer's access on a per-usage basis. AT&T also feels that wireless devices are the cornerstone of their future in ALL realms of connectivity, including business and entertainment.
It only follows naturally that being able to account for *every single packet* a customer uses is part of that billing strategy. You aren't going to be billed by AT&T on that basis; they're going to bill Google et al, and you'll get a bill from the content provider. Let me quote Whitacre again: They might pass it on to their customers," he says of the fees that he wants to charge the sites. .
Clear as day. If you don't see this coming a mile away, there's something wrong with you.
I've got two EVDO lines with sprint. One on a WM5 device, one on a USB card for my laptop.
I literally use 10+ GB in data transfer a month. I'm constantly online.
If they itemized my bill by site, file, KB, MB, whatever; it would be thousands upon thousands of pages. They'd have to ship it to me parcel post.
AT&T does this because AT&T dreams of charging you by the kilobyte. That's it. Just because they're currently giving you "FREE UNLIIMTED" service doesn't mean they don't feel robbed. They're last CEO (Ed Whitacre the Third) was the one who droned on and on about how customers and web companies were getting a free ride over their pipes.
Presumably, FREE UNLIMITED on the iphone is one component of that.
While this is indeed a form of "discrimination", or "selection", this is not illegal discrimination.
Discrimination against the obese is legal. It's legally no different than discrimination against the stupid, or discrimination against the rude.
Frankly, I'm not even entirely sure there's anything wrong with it, either. We're (U.S.) a very fat society. Nearly all of us need to lose weight, and a significant number need to lose a lot of weight. A general societal more against fatness might help.
The only "fat" people who should be protected against weight related discrimination are those who have no hope of a cure (genetic disease, or crippling mental disorder). For the rest of us; lose weight! We're fat, we waste a vast number of government and private dollars on obesity related diseases, and there's no good reason for this other than our complacency.
Get over it; being fat is no different than being messy, and no different from having poor hygiene. These are the small challenges in life we need to overcome.
Whether we're talking about the old, monopoly-that-was AT&T, or the current, Dr. Frankenstein built me a monster AT&T, the moniker AT&T represents a lack of progress. Verizon, although late, is moving in the correct direction. Sprint is deploying WiMax as fast as it can. Some cable companies are exactly where they should be (OptimumOnline, RCN, I'm looking at you), and other, although a little slower, are getting there (Comcast, WOW, Time Warner, Charter).
Notice that in areas where Verizon is competing with Comcast (or other cable companies), broadband is doing *well*. Also notice that in areas where 5-10 mile fixed wireless is implemented, things are good to. In other areas with some competition, things are okay, too: It's a little expensive, but in Chicago I have options for 8 Mbps cable (Comcast), 25 Mbps cable (RCN), 15 Mbps ADSL2+ (Cyberonic), 3 Mbps fixed wireless (multiple WISPs), or 3 Mbps mobile wireless (EVDO, Sprint, Verizon, both RevA).
But areas dominated by AT&T? The *vast* majority of customers are locked in at 3 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. A few (located close to AT&T DSLAMs) can get 6 Mbps down, 768 kbps up. And AT&T's "new" U-verse is limited to 6 Mbps/1 Mbps.
This is unacceptable.
Frankly, AT&T's status as a monopoly provider in the old days fucked up the market so badly that it took decades to recover; and the recover some how involved putting a new AT&T together that is poised to fuck up the market again. The single *best* thing that the FCC can do now is strongly regulate AT&T's capability to strangle other providers, giving time for less-evil companies like Comcast to put up some decent infrastructure.
Anyone who disagrees with me; try and imagine what the U.S. broadband market would look like if AT&T was really pushing the curve in terms of what was possible. They're financial stable, profitable, and have plenty of cash on hand; if AT&T was deploying "true" next gen broadband infrastructure (at least as good as Verizon, or perhaps better), it would fundamentally change the market. The cable cos would be rushing out the door to deploy 25+ Mbps everywhere, and Sprint wouldn't be the only company pushing WiMax.
The U.S. broadband market would be a different place if you could get Verizon FTTP everywhere. Sadly, AT&T is still the dominant company, and until either A) the FCC starts to regulate the hell out of them, or B) Consumers & Businesses wise up and stop purchasing service from them, we'll be stuck with shitty broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
*shrug*
Many of the older cards use technologies licensed from other companies which would be difficult to open source. They do a lot o this stuff in hardware (S3TC comes to mind).
I'm guessing the the newer cards do this stuff in software (running on the card), as they are a good deal more flexible than older cards. AMD doesn't have to release the drivers with the S3TC licensed code in them; rather, AMD will just release the card API, and if developers implement S3TC without a license its their problem.
nVidia also had the advantage of using a unified codebase - 90% of the driver code is identical between Linux and Windows. That's something AMD hasn't been doing (at least back when I kept up on things, they may have changed in the past few years).
This is no longer true, as I understand it.
nVidia now has several codebases:
1. Windows 2000/XP/Linux/Vista OpenGL 32-bit
2. Windows 2000/XP/Linux/Vista OpenGL 64-bit
3. Windows 2000/XP/Vista DX 9 32-bit
4. Windows 2000/XP/Vista DX 9 64-bit
5. Windows Vista DX 10 32-bit
6. Windows Vista DX 10 64-bit
A lot of the nVidia driver problems with Vista were related to serious architectural changes with Vista, particular with DX 10 stuff. If you notice, when the latest nvidia cards did start to work in vista, DX 9 and 10 came separately. This has complicated the drivers substantially, and has spread around programmer resources.
I wouldn't be surprised if it became significantly easier for ATI/Nvidia/intel to build drivers for Linux than Windows. There's only OpenGL to support, and only one path to doing that.
I know what the "proof" will be; or at least, the start of a trend.
Full AIGLX support in 8.42 (the article is discussing 8.41). The claim at Phoronix is that AMD has claimed AIGLX is going in at 8.42.
Continuing the trend would be MPEG-4/H.264 Xvideo support in 8.4x or 8.5x, preferably within the next 6 months or so (keep in mind that the Radeon 2X00 series have excellent video capabilities).
If they hit those two goals, I'll most likely purchase 2-3 ATI cards for my Linux boxes; the AIGLX and Xvideo things are a big deal to me, and Nvidia cards don't currently accelerate MPEG-4/H.264.
Awesome!
Even though its not "out" yet, there are plenty of benchmarks available. It'll be out soon.
What does this "prove" for me? That AMD's commitment to make ATI a first-class contender on the Linux front was for real. I'm guessing that Windows users will also see improvements in OpenGL performance, and we'll see better adoption of OpenGL on all three major platforms (Windows, OS X, Linux).
I'm happy as hell about this. About time us Linux users got to take advantage of GPU price wars!
I'm still an NVIDIA fan, because they've been good to me for all these years (on Linux), but I'm at least willing to look at ATI these days; particularly because the ATI peripheral GPU software is much better (better control panel, better install program). I wonder if the driver quality is good (not just performance, but does it always compile correctly, does it always fix broken installs (the way NVIDIA's does?)).
This is a good day for Linux.
In Illinois, at least, refusing to use a breathalizer is grounds to have your licenses revoked for 2 full years.
(i.e. you distribute it in unmodified form - the law allows you to pass on any copyrighted work you currently possess without an explicit license from the copyright owner).
Pray tell;
Where did you get a copy of Linux without agreeing to the GPL? What gave you the right to acquire said copy?
Is it legal for me to distribute Windows without agreeing to Microsoft's license agreements? If, and only if, every "copy" I acquire is legally acquired.
It is _copyright infringement_ to distribute Linux without agreeing to the terms of the GPL. Period. Nothing gives you the right to generate copies, other than the GPL. Specifically:
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.
You cannot make copies of Windows without Microsoft's explicit permission. Anything else is considered piracy.
Similarly, you must gain the permission of "Linux" authors in order to make copies. Anything else is considered piracy; and the _only_ way to gain this permission is by agreeing to the terms of the GPL.
There is nothing that permits you owning, distributing, or modifying GPL'd software other than the GPL. You cannot acquire GPL'd software without agreeing to it; everything else is infringement.
What of that isn't clear? Luckily, you're not a lawyer.
Nonsense.
This court is "simply wrong". There's nothing about the GPL (or any other open source license) that resembles a contract.
From wikipedia:
In common law jurisdictions there are three key elements to the creation of a contract. These are offer and acceptance, consideration and an intention to create legal relations.
Please feel free to verify this with Black's Law, or any other legal dictionary.
Particularly, the ruling in this case specifies that the JMRI project did not expect any sort of consideration; furthermore, there's no creation of legal relations.
Beyond that, the specific license in question, the "Artistic License" does not have a termination clause. Therefore, it's not 100% clear that violating the terms of the license would immediately be defined as copyright infringement. The court left this open for the time being.
Most OS licenses (like the GPL) contain a termination clause. In the case of a violation of license terms, your rights to distribute are immediately canceled. This is then considered copyright infringement.
Termination clauses are not something up for legal debate. If subsequent courts decide to uphold this ruling (which I feel is _very_ unlikely) it will only strengthen the need for termination clauses in OS licenses.
It's not a flawed implementation, its defective by design (and I don't mean DRM'd, I mean literally).
On Linux, with the CFS and/or SD schedulers, if your nice levels are set correctly, sound (MP3) will play just fine with your processor(s) pegged at 100. Heck, forget about sound; you can run multiple Quake 4s with high-speed LAN transfers in the background, and everything works just fine (network transfers slowdown slightly, Quake 4's FPS scales down linearly with the number of sessions running, but there are no "hitches" or "glitches", and everything runs smoothly).
A common Microsoft approach to problems with Windows is to create a new daemon (oh, excuse me, Service) that "regulates" the offending behavior. This is not the correct way to fix these problems; rather, there are underlying issues that need to be resolved.
You say:
The MMCSS is for improving multimedia performance on EXTREMELY heavily-loaded processors. I use XP, and my PC is occasionally heavily loaded with a dozen threads, and in those cases I occasionally experience glitches. Thus, I have to manually adjust thread priorities, but it's annoying anyway.
I say it's not about manually adjust thread priorities, or creating a Service that will automatically (dynamically or not) do that for you. Rather, you should have a kernel that better manages multitasking in processor starved scenarios. There's no reason that a particular program running at a particular nice level shouldn't demand a minimum CPU percentage, which for stuff like playing MP3s cannot possibly be much.
There's a better criticism. These "maximum" speeds are NOT sufficient to stream medium-to-high bit rate video, particularly HD stuff, something which should be a strength for a "media center" OS.
Furthermore, in the workplace, many people listen to music and access large files on network shares. Clearly, Vista is *broken* for these uses. Not a good indication of Vista being business ready.
Frankly, I don't know why Windows is considered the best business OS. You're much better off with a unixy OS in any environment where gaming isn't important.
Huh?
This has worked in OpenGL for years. I'd be shocked if it DirectX 9 didn't support this kind of thing.
Take a look at US, the so called pioneer of railways, where is the US railway system now? It has a really BAD service area... I think that's mostly because railroads are allowed to be owned by private companies and there is basically no public railways...(I may be really wrong here, so correct me if you know the reality)
Yep, you're wrong.
From Wikipedia:
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (AAR reporting marks AMTK and AMTZ), is a quasi-governmental corporation that was organized on May 1, 1971, to provide intercity passenger train service in the United States. "Amtrak" is a portmanteau of the words "American" and "track".[1]
All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the Federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. Common stock was issued in 1971 to railroads that contributed capital and equipment; its current holders[1] consider it worthless but declined a 2002 buy-out offer by Amtrak.[2]
The problem with passenger rail service in the U.S. comes from government mismanagement. In the 40s-50s, the private rail carriers were basically pushed under by outdated and difficult rules. This hasn't changed with the creation of Amtrak, and Amtrak is still forced to run all kinds of silly runs with extremely low ridership (it's a form of congressional earmark, Congress often stipulates required train stops in unprofitable places).
That being said, if you can find an Amtrak line that serves your needs it's actually quite a nice ride. If Congress ever gets its head out of its ass, and allows Amtrak to decide which stops it should go to, Amtrak will become a greater success.
Huh?
Most of these 3rd party digital tuning solutions suck, quiet frankly. Anything that is sold as an add-on for the PS3 is not going to have much market uptake.
The real "long-term" solution to this stuff is IP video, not switched. Content providers *should* go online, and you should have IP boxes that hook up to your TV to access the stuff. Locally cached content should play the same as remote content.
And we're getting there in the U.S. You can go to ABC.com and watch most of the latest shows (unfortunately, they just switched to a currently windows only Flash plugin, but I suspect thats going to change in the near future with H.264 support in Flash). Many other pieces of software support Mac and Linux (Miro, Vuez, Flash, Helix) all of these play HD just fine, and most are just a hair away from being accessable on every brand of game console.
Why? Because all they require are processing power and an IP. And sufficient bandwidth.
Bandwidth is another issue, but some of the providers in the U.S. are finally doing the right thing, and going big. Verizon is in decent shape, and compares well, worldwide. RCN's service is not bad, either. Even Comcast is tolerable, particularly in areas where it competes with Verizon, RCN, and similar next-gen solutions. Sprint's got a nationwide all-you-can-eat (gaming, servers, video) EVDO RevA network, and is deploying WiMax nationwide in the next 6 months.
The only really big laggard is AT&T, and those executive will be first against the wall when the broadband revolution comes.
Hell, it's even become a major discussion in congress.
Either way, however, I don't think the future of commercially distributed video lies with integrated networks, with moderately open end points. I think the future of commercially distributed video must lie with sending content online; the missing parts are a)content provider's approval (this is a problem worldwide), and b)easy to use hardware.
I would *love* to see a 3rd party "cable" provider that plugged into your internet connection, and served up the standard "extended basic" fare.
That would be *cool*.
If you don't believe me, there are some benchmarks here:/ 24/1747228
http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02
On my OS of choice (Linux), I get a 30-40% speed boost in video/audio encoding in 64-bit, using 64-bit applications.
Many of these applications that I use are also available for that _other_ OS, Win32. I'm guessing you see a substantial speedup there, too.
If you are using Linux, 64-bit is a non-issue; everything works, and all your 32-bit software works, too, with very minor issues (like being unable to use 32-bit windows drivers in ndiswrapper (64-bit work fine). All the software which is compiled for 64-bit and is math intensive tends to be a lot faster.
If you are using Mac OS X, 64-bit is a non-issue. Most Mac software comes in quad-universal binaries, with 32/64-bit code paths, and PPC/Intel code paths. iTunes, iMovie, and the Apple Studio stuff all work a good 30% faster on Core 2 processors than on Core processors. All 32-bit software works flawlessly, too.
I don't have any experience with Windows 64-bit, but I don't understand why it should be such a problem; Microsoft clearly needs to play some catch up here.
nspluginwrapper supports 64-bit firefox with 32-bit plugins.
http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux-amd64.html
Here's a quote:
nspluginwrapper allows you to use Netscape compatible (NPAPI) plugins on platforms that they were not built on - in this instance, using 32bit browser plugins with x86_64 browsers. This is beta software, and licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You're mistaken.
This used to be true, but is not true in the later versions of nspluginwrapper.
Really, I promise; all of us are running 64-bit builds of Firefox, with 32-bit Flash.
Go check it out.
What happens if you use a virtual OS session which resets to the same status each morning?
This technology is monumentally stupid, and there's no way that he'll be "convicted", assuming he has the funding (EFF?) to go to court.
Otherwise, he just has to settle to try and save his finances.
Huh? I think screwed is a bit of a rough word.
They are, after all, issuing refunds. That's pretty classy. Most other companies would have just said, "Sorry, its in the terms of service, nobody ever promised long-term access."
What more could you expect than a full refund? You got to use the content (while the service lasted) and then a refund afterwards?
Actually, I agree with you. My point isn't that MS (and the consumer electronics industry) couldn't beat back DRM, if they wanted to.
My point is that for the most part they are willing accomplices in the DRM scam. Either it a) sells more equipment, or b) they have vested interests in content (MS, Sony, I'm looking at you).
*shrug*
I haven't programmed professionally for either, as I'm just a dabbler, but AFAIK, SDL provides much of the sort of guts that DirectX does.
Also, aren't there dozens and dozens of GPL/X11/BSD libraries which will get you the same sort of network/gui etc functionality that DirectX might provide?
OpenGL and OpenAL are at least comparable to their DirectX equivalents, and most people seem to be pretty happy with SDL otherwise. In many ways, its arguable that OpenAL actually exceeds DirectSound in functionality these days.
Note: I'm not saying DirectX isn't well put together. It is; it provides the tools game programmers need without reinventing the wheel. However, I think that SDL provides you with a good alternative, and the primary reason DirectX is better entrenched is education and corporate culture; people are taught on DirectX, most games are programmed in it, and most shops are built around it.
Taken from Wikipedia, the following Linux ports use SDL:
* Civilization: Call to Power
* Descent
* Doom 3
* FreeSpace 2
* Heavy Metal: F.A.K.K.
* Heretic II
* Heroes of Might and Magic III
* Myth II
* Quake 4
* Rune
* Rune: Halls of Valhalla
* Shogo: Mobile Armor Division
* Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
* Sim City 3000
* Simutrans
* Soldier of Fortune
* Unreal Tournament
* Unreal Tournament 2003
* Unreal Tournament 2004
This doesn't read like a list of OSS reject-games languishing as 1/2 finished projects on Sourceforge.
What makes you think Microsoft isn't in the content production industry, and more over, what makes you think Microsoft doesn't want to be *more* involved in the content production industry?
MS is a champion of HD-DVD. MS makes many console games for the 360, and many games for the PC.
MS also owns a substantial stake in NBC.
Beyond that, MS is heavily involved in distribution of video (through WMV) and audio (through WMA). If MS said, "We aren't doing DRM, Period," they would loose the video/audio market, at least as far as the cartels are concerned (MPAA/RIAA).
MS is very much enfranchised with the current audio/video powers-that-be. Keep in mind this also applies to Sony (Sony Music versus Sony Electronics). The consumer electronics industry is definitely of two minds over DRM; and even the non-content providers somewhat relish the thought of putting consumers on the upgrade treadmill.
Let me quote an AT&T (SBC, so yes, this represents the Cingular side) executive for you on data:
."They might pass it on to their customers," he says of the fees that he wants to charge the sites.
... The new AT&T is wireless at the core in terms of great new handsets; in terms of enabling true anytime, anywhere mobility that our customers want and in terms of being innovative and service-oriented. If there are any jitters, it's from the excitement running through this company about our prospects.
.) should pay for each individual customer's access on a per-usage basis. AT&T also feels that wireless devices are the cornerstone of their future in ALL realms of connectivity, including business and entertainment.
From the Financial Times:
"We have to figure out who pays for this bigger and bigger IP network," said Mr Whitacre, who was in New York ahead of AT&T's annual presentation to investors and analysts on Tuesday. "We have to show a return on our investments.?
"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network, obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud.". . . .
How does this apply to wireless, and in particular, the iPhone?
Simple. A quote from Ed Whitacre's sucessor (Randall Stepheson, or RS: in the following interview) explains that. From Gigaom :
OM: AT&T is a fearsome company now, with a weight of its legacy. Any first day jitters?
RS:
OM: There are a lot of challenges facing the company. What do you think is the biggest challenge facing AT&T as a company and you personally?
RS: Our biggest challenge as a company is to ensure that our customers really understand what the new AT&T is all about. We are the most complete communications and entertainment provider for the way people live-and that starts with wireless. When people recognize that, we win. It's the same on the business side.
My personal challenge is to make sure that the pieces we've assembled-industry-leading wireless, TV, broadband, global operations and local service work together as smoothly and efficiently as possible.
OM: How vital is iPhone to your company? I have never seen AT&T push something so hard that wasn't developed internally. Why is that?
RS: The iPhone is a radically innovative new device and it only makes sense that AT&T and Apple would partner to bring it to market. This device is very important to us, it's important to Apple and it is going to do very well with customers. It also reinforces with consumers that AT&T is the place to turn for the latest in wireless devices and services.
How do I read this? AT&T feels that content providers (Google, Yahoo, AOL, CBS, etc . .
It only follows naturally that being able to account for *every single packet* a customer uses is part of that billing strategy. You aren't going to be billed by AT&T on that basis; they're going to bill Google et al, and you'll get a bill from the content provider. Let me quote Whitacre again: They might pass it on to their customers," he says of the fees that he wants to charge the sites. .
Clear as day. If you don't see this coming a mile away, there's something wrong with you.
I don't believe it.
Why?
I've got two EVDO lines with sprint. One on a WM5 device, one on a USB card for my laptop.
I literally use 10+ GB in data transfer a month. I'm constantly online.
If they itemized my bill by site, file, KB, MB, whatever; it would be thousands upon thousands of pages. They'd have to ship it to me parcel post.
AT&T does this because AT&T dreams of charging you by the kilobyte. That's it. Just because they're currently giving you "FREE UNLIIMTED" service doesn't mean they don't feel robbed. They're last CEO (Ed Whitacre the Third) was the one who droned on and on about how customers and web companies were getting a free ride over their pipes.
Presumably, FREE UNLIMITED on the iphone is one component of that.
While this is indeed a form of "discrimination", or "selection", this is not illegal discrimination.
Discrimination against the obese is legal. It's legally no different than discrimination against the stupid, or discrimination against the rude.
Frankly, I'm not even entirely sure there's anything wrong with it, either. We're (U.S.) a very fat society. Nearly all of us need to lose weight, and a significant number need to lose a lot of weight. A general societal more against fatness might help.
The only "fat" people who should be protected against weight related discrimination are those who have no hope of a cure (genetic disease, or crippling mental disorder). For the rest of us; lose weight! We're fat, we waste a vast number of government and private dollars on obesity related diseases, and there's no good reason for this other than our complacency.
Get over it; being fat is no different than being messy, and no different from having poor hygiene. These are the small challenges in life we need to overcome.
AT&T.
'nuff said.
Whether we're talking about the old, monopoly-that-was AT&T, or the current, Dr. Frankenstein built me a monster AT&T, the moniker AT&T represents a lack of progress. Verizon, although late, is moving in the correct direction. Sprint is deploying WiMax as fast as it can. Some cable companies are exactly where they should be (OptimumOnline, RCN, I'm looking at you), and other, although a little slower, are getting there (Comcast, WOW, Time Warner, Charter).
Notice that in areas where Verizon is competing with Comcast (or other cable companies), broadband is doing *well*. Also notice that in areas where 5-10 mile fixed wireless is implemented, things are good to. In other areas with some competition, things are okay, too: It's a little expensive, but in Chicago I have options for 8 Mbps cable (Comcast), 25 Mbps cable (RCN), 15 Mbps ADSL2+ (Cyberonic), 3 Mbps fixed wireless (multiple WISPs), or 3 Mbps mobile wireless (EVDO, Sprint, Verizon, both RevA).
But areas dominated by AT&T? The *vast* majority of customers are locked in at 3 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. A few (located close to AT&T DSLAMs) can get 6 Mbps down, 768 kbps up. And AT&T's "new" U-verse is limited to 6 Mbps/1 Mbps.
This is unacceptable.
Frankly, AT&T's status as a monopoly provider in the old days fucked up the market so badly that it took decades to recover; and the recover some how involved putting a new AT&T together that is poised to fuck up the market again. The single *best* thing that the FCC can do now is strongly regulate AT&T's capability to strangle other providers, giving time for less-evil companies like Comcast to put up some decent infrastructure.
Anyone who disagrees with me; try and imagine what the U.S. broadband market would look like if AT&T was really pushing the curve in terms of what was possible. They're financial stable, profitable, and have plenty of cash on hand; if AT&T was deploying "true" next gen broadband infrastructure (at least as good as Verizon, or perhaps better), it would fundamentally change the market. The cable cos would be rushing out the door to deploy 25+ Mbps everywhere, and Sprint wouldn't be the only company pushing WiMax.
The U.S. broadband market would be a different place if you could get Verizon FTTP everywhere. Sadly, AT&T is still the dominant company, and until either A) the FCC starts to regulate the hell out of them, or B) Consumers & Businesses wise up and stop purchasing service from them, we'll be stuck with shitty broadband.