And Quake4 for Linux become available just days after the Windows version did (I haven't looked into a Mac version yet for me, but I'm sure there will be one since id is quite good about offering multiplatform executables).
What drives me the most nuts about their claiming a browser to be part of the OS is that they were caught admitting faked evidence into court and seemingly never got punished for it; I certainly never saw them offer a patch for Windows that would actually remove the browser. I know their "program access and defaults" crap (I do tech support at work; I have to deal with Windows all the time, ugh) just removes the icon, not the app.
I at first thought you meant to say that you think I'm dishonest (I'm not), but on a second reading, I think you mean Microsoft. In which case, I agree! I'm a Mac user due to software needs that aren't met yet by Unix derivatives (plus, FreeBSD lurks under the GUI, which I love) but I look forward very much to the days when Linux does become a wholly viable desktop OS. I see that creeping closer all the time and I cheer it. Now if only vendors would be more proactive about providing Linux drivers -- and Mac drivers! A lot of stuff out there would be easily dual- or tri-platform if only the vendors would include the extra files on the driver CDs!
Yes, I understand the need for copy protection. I use software that has copy protections. However, Microsoft's methods are far too invasive and I don't agree with them, so I refuse to fund them and development and use of invasive methods by purchasing their software.
There are methods that are acceptable and fair. Methods that treat your customers the way Microsoft's do are not acceptable and I feel that they're ethically wrong.
I also know Apple's history, why they do what they do, and I don't have a problem with their methods. They haven't crossed that line into invasiveness that Microsoft has.
Nobody HAS to treat their customers like thieves. Who put a gun to their heads and forced them to do that? No one. So no one HAS to. I am not willing to accept automatic assumptions that I'm a cheat and a liar. I'm proud of who I am, and I'd rather be treated with respect. So I don't use their crap, in large part because of their unacceptable attitudes, just like I told the anonymous rep who got snotty on a discussion forum. It may have been a different unacceptable attitude, but it's not any better.
Yes, but I specifically had OSes in mind. An OS made for a specific type of computer (which isn't necessarily unusual or bad) isn't the same thing as one that assumes by default that you are a thief. I stand by what I said when I said that no other OS does that. All the others just install and leave you alone once they're running.
I'm sorry... but MS has burned us all so many times that no matter what they say, I will never trust them again. I also don't like their attitude and the attitude of their staff (one of their reps described a tech support policy I find abominable, I said I'd never do business with their employer, the rep snottily said 'okay, remove all MS software from your computer', I responded that I long since quit using their crap and that I'm a Mac user... never got a reply. How predictable).
They ignore antitrust rules (most recently, Microsoft Pulls Its Head Out), they make software that ignores standards (IE), they assume their customers are thieves and demand all kinds of crap from us to prove we aren't when no other major OS vendor does that, and they are a convicted abusive monopolist and should have been broken up but are still operating.
Sorry, Ballmer. Sorry, Bill. You lost me a long time ago. You had lots of chances, and that time is way past over. You dug your own hole. Rot in it.
Something, such as a product, that is derived from something larger and more or less unrelated; a byproduct.
So yes, it is a spinoff. It is derived from but not "related to" the HMMWV.
And GM did not come up with the H1/HMMWV, so no, they are not really the same product. By the way, it's not GM that makes either model. It's AM General LLC, but GM markets and distributes them.
I don't know WHY it's so important for you to argue with me over this, but I've obviously fallen into the trap of having to explain myself to someone who doesn't even bother to read the definitions of words that I use (are they too big?) and can't be bothered to research the history of the object the discussion is about.
I am ending this discussion now. All further posts will be ignored because I'm tired of having to explain myself. Have a nice life.
I am not delusional. I am talking about THE CIVILIAN VERSION so no, you can't buy that stuff, and I did say that there were changes for the civ version, which of course includes military stuff not being options, however, I refer to the vehicle by its correct name, not marketing bullshit designed to make it friendlier to stupid masses. "The civilian version of the HMMWV" is correct when used to refer to the vehicle being discussed. You are just trying to find a lame excuse to bitch at me. The vehicle in question is the "High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle".
OK then, if you want to nitpick and ignore the fact that the correct name is HMMWV, fine. Not my problem. The "Hummer" "H2" doesn't have any other names.
I think we're a little confused about what I was talking about.
The Tahoe derivative is the H2, the "Hummer". The H1 is the "HMMWV". They are NOT the same vehicle. The differences I mentioned (interior, paint, no snorkel) are definitely there. I never said the drivetrain, the clearance, etc. were different. Where did I say that?
I never said the civilian HMMWV was significantly different from the military version. I said that the "Hummer" (which is the H2, says Hummer on the grille) is different.
Some rockets actually have run on alcohol. The V-2/A-4, for instance, was fueled by ethanol (ethyl alcohol) -- the same main ingredient in most liquor. It's an easily storable fuel, it isn't hypergolic, and it burns very cleanly.
I doubt that will happen. People are annoyingly two-faced about this. They want the prestige and coolness factor of having a space program even as they whine that it's not safe enough or cheap enough. (I hate to break it to them, but it's never gonna be as safe as airline flights, at least not for a few decades at least).
The space program will continue, even if it isn't at the pace that you and I would like, or the pace that the grand claims keep saying. Kennedy was the only one who was able to pull it off right.
The "Hummer" is not the same thing as the HMMWV (high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle). It is a civilian spinoff of the military design that is merely designed to resemble what AM General came up with as a result of the Army's needs. The Hummer is a modified Tahoe, which wasn't originally designed with the military in mind even though there may be some modified ones in military service.
The HMMWV is not a civilian vehicle at all. To make it usable by civilians, it received a great many changes, the most obvious of which are the use of different paint (colors and gloss) and a revamped interior (military vehicles are very basic and don't use key locks on the ignition or doors, and have different tow hooks) but other less-obvious changes include things like the deletion of the snorkel. It is awkward, and even all the changes made to make it palatable for civilians don't hide its military utilitarian origins.
The next generation of the general-purpose vehicle (the first was the "Jeep", which also exists in a civilian incarnation) will however be designed with more efficiency in mind. Even the military is finally realizing that you can't just ignore high fuel consumption as it costs too much in money and environmental damage to do otherwise.
And yet, it's been the case over and over again that those better materials, those little things that improve lifestyles, those smaller and better computers, have all come about directly because of space programs. Composites, circuit miniaturization, freeze-dried food, powdered drink mixes, fly-by-wire avionics, cooling suits for those who can't sweat, better fabrics, and so on are examples of things that were originally developed for a specific use -- space programs.
Often it is the case that developing something for a specific use will result in its becoming usable much more quickly than is the case when open-ended "someone will eventually figure out a use for this" funding.
Nikon doesn't. They make a point of this fact that they won't make their lenses obsolete, making it safe to continue to buy new Nikon bodies without fear of "losing" your lens collection.
The F mount is so named for the original Nikon F, and lenses made for the F are compatible, for the most part, with F-mount cameras to the present day all the way through the D50/D70/D2X. (There are some exceptions; be extra careful if you're using pre-AIS lenses and check to make sure the metering system in the old lenses won't physically damage the newest bodies; and some lenses require the camera to be set in manual mode, but they will fit).
Canon, on the other hand, is split in two: pre-EOS mount and post. They don't have the long track record of deliberate compatibility that Nikon does.
So if Sigma makes a compliant F mount lens this week, it's not likely to be unusable in the near to mid term future because if Nikon wants to ruin those thirdparty lenses, they have to break their promise to their users. Now, they aren't legally obligated to keep the promise, but given the big deal they make of it, it'd be a terrible idea for them to do it.
And yet, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina (among others) have a thriving business selling aftermarket lenses for camera bodies made by other manufacturers. I have, for example, a Sigma lens for my Nikon D70 that is available in Canon EOS, Sigma, and Pentax mounts. In fact, Tokina was started by Nikon engineers who wanted to advance the state of zoom lens technology (as told in The Tokina AT-X M100AF Macro lens (1)).
Are they pirating anything? No. They might have to pay a licensing fee to use the F mount or the EOS mount (I am not sure; I've never checked to see if the mount is patented, or if any fees are required to use it if it is) but they are offering a perfectly valid service. They sell quality lenses that don't always have equivalents available from Nikon or Canon, and they offer good pricing (Sigma's 80-400mm OS lens is $1000 while Nikon's equivalent is several hundred more, and I've evaluated both and both are very good).
It's a lot like how, if I want to upgrade my VW Golf, I can buy a VW-made-or-sourced part for, say, $500, or an aftermarket one that works as well or (often) better for $300.
The availability of thirdparty lenses for SLR bodies helps drive sales of those bodies just as a thriving aftermarket for VWs helps to sell them, or helps to sell Hondas.
They settled out of court and agreed to change their name. You can agree to do anything you want and it doesn't necessarily have any merit on whether you were right or not. They were also using what basically amounts to a generic word (Lindows and high-tech trademark troubles) and could have pursued their case. They chose not to.
If their entire industry is based on the existance of the iPod, doesn't Apple have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales?
Not at least the way I see it. I'm not using their logo or anything; I'm just making something for users to use with their item after they've purchased it, and once the item is purchased, the maker can no longer control what users do with it.
Neuspeed doesn't have to pay VW a royalty for every stress bar they sell for the Golf, nor do owners have to pay VW for the "right" to modify the car. Once title is transferred, and first sale has occurred, it's out of the maker's hands. VW can't stop Neuspeed from selling them, either. The only thing that it can do is to refuse to cover via warranty any problems that arise specifically as a result of that modification.
This law is called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and I believe it doesn't just apply to cars.
So, if you replace your iPod's battery and the iPod dies as a result (this happened to me) your warranty will be void, but if it died as a result of your plugging in speakers, it wouldn't be because speakers can't cause a battery failure or the PCB to be damaged (I think I scratched it even though I tried hard to not cause any damage. The iPod was out of warranty anyway, so I just bought a new one).
It's not. I'm a VW buff and I mod my car. When buying aftermarket parts, you'll find that the sites that sell them have categories that you click on subesequently - make, then model, then things like body style (2/4 doors), engine type, etc. The site uses this to show you items that you can make use of.
The makes and models are always spelled out with no apparent problems that I've ever seen. Sometimes, there will be a disclaimer somewhere that says "Not affiliated with Volkswagen" or "These items are not manufactured by or warranted by Volkswagen" or something along those lines. However, because the items are made to fit specific vehicles, the sites have to use the names of the make, model, engines, etc., in order to be useful to you.
They do not use the VW logo as they aren't authorized to, which makes sense, but because they need to refer to the cars in the course of their business, they do so, and it's a necessary use.
An example would be Parts4vws.com Virtual World Parts. (The company is named Virtual World, so they can't be drug into court for using "VW" in the domain name. Yes, I'm pretty sure it was designed that way, but it does protect them while allowing them to have a descriptive URL. There is no law that says that two companies in the same industry can't have the same abbreviation, and it's up to them to make sure they're differentiated from each other).
In other words, it's OK to say "Product X" if you're selling things made for Product X since you need to be able to describe your item and its design use to your buyers, but you can't use the product maker's logo or any manufacturer-designed or trademarked "made for product X" logos.
What I care about is not being tied to another night of TV. I'm pinned down on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and refuse to add any more mandatory/appointment based viewing to my schedule.
I do the same with TiVo, which isn't quite the same thing as downloading or video on demand, but it has the same effect: I can plop down on the couch with my laptop and pull up whatever I want to when I want to, and through one drive failure and replacement and one drive addition I have 350+ hours (at low quality; I use medium, so it's less in actual fact) of capacity.
I find TiVo easier because I don't have to pay per show but just a flat fee for the service (and I bought the equipment, once; you can get it for less than I paid these days). It's cheaper in the long run for people like me who tend to record a lot (I love documentaries and crime shows and sci-fi, so I have heaps of PBS, History Channel, CSI, Nature, Nova, and the like).
But I really do think that on-demand, through one method or another, be it DVR, VoD, downloads (legit and not) are going to be the way it works in the future. The networks' ability to dictate what we want and when we want is gone. (And I think they dug their own hole with their ceaseless oversaturation of ads and the like, but that's a whole other discussion).
In what way? I have thousands of MP3s in my collection, some from my personal CD collection, some live performances, and some imported from the music store. I have always found iTunes to be very easy to use with this large library. I can easily search for a string and have the display restricted to matches, I can click on the little arrow icons to see that artist or album in the music store, or I can option click them to switch to the browse mode that also makes it possible to restrict what tracks will play, etc.
Then there's smart playlists. I can on-the-fly create compilations of the sort of stuff I want (for instance I have one that auto-excludes classical and Christmas music, the one I use most often) and I don't have to make a new playlist every time I change the library, because there's live updating.
If you think iTunes is bad for large libraries, tell us why. I've just described why it's GOOD for large libraries.
Slashdot Mirror
And Quake4 for Linux become available just days after the Windows version did (I haven't looked into a Mac version yet for me, but I'm sure there will be one since id is quite good about offering multiplatform executables).
What drives me the most nuts about their claiming a browser to be part of the OS is that they were caught admitting faked evidence into court and seemingly never got punished for it; I certainly never saw them offer a patch for Windows that would actually remove the browser. I know their "program access and defaults" crap (I do tech support at work; I have to deal with Windows all the time, ugh) just removes the icon, not the app.
I at first thought you meant to say that you think I'm dishonest (I'm not), but on a second reading, I think you mean Microsoft. In which case, I agree! I'm a Mac user due to software needs that aren't met yet by Unix derivatives (plus, FreeBSD lurks under the GUI, which I love) but I look forward very much to the days when Linux does become a wholly viable desktop OS. I see that creeping closer all the time and I cheer it. Now if only vendors would be more proactive about providing Linux drivers -- and Mac drivers! A lot of stuff out there would be easily dual- or tri-platform if only the vendors would include the extra files on the driver CDs!
Yes, I understand the need for copy protection. I use software that has copy protections. However, Microsoft's methods are far too invasive and I don't agree with them, so I refuse to fund them and development and use of invasive methods by purchasing their software.
There are methods that are acceptable and fair. Methods that treat your customers the way Microsoft's do are not acceptable and I feel that they're ethically wrong.
I also know Apple's history, why they do what they do, and I don't have a problem with their methods. They haven't crossed that line into invasiveness that Microsoft has.
Nobody HAS to treat their customers like thieves. Who put a gun to their heads and forced them to do that? No one. So no one HAS to. I am not willing to accept automatic assumptions that I'm a cheat and a liar. I'm proud of who I am, and I'd rather be treated with respect. So I don't use their crap, in large part because of their unacceptable attitudes, just like I told the anonymous rep who got snotty on a discussion forum. It may have been a different unacceptable attitude, but it's not any better.
Yes, but I specifically had OSes in mind. An OS made for a specific type of computer (which isn't necessarily unusual or bad) isn't the same thing as one that assumes by default that you are a thief. I stand by what I said when I said that no other OS does that. All the others just install and leave you alone once they're running.
I'm sorry ... but MS has burned us all so many times that no matter what they say, I will never trust them again. I also don't like their attitude and the attitude of their staff (one of their reps described a tech support policy I find abominable, I said I'd never do business with their employer, the rep snottily said 'okay, remove all MS software from your computer', I responded that I long since quit using their crap and that I'm a Mac user... never got a reply. How predictable).
They ignore antitrust rules (most recently, Microsoft Pulls Its Head Out), they make software that ignores standards (IE), they assume their customers are thieves and demand all kinds of crap from us to prove we aren't when no other major OS vendor does that, and they are a convicted abusive monopolist and should have been broken up but are still operating.
Sorry, Ballmer. Sorry, Bill. You lost me a long time ago. You had lots of chances, and that time is way past over. You dug your own hole. Rot in it.
Definition 2 of "spinoff" in dictionary.com:
Something, such as a product, that is derived from something larger and more or less unrelated; a byproduct.
So yes, it is a spinoff. It is derived from but not "related to" the HMMWV.
And GM did not come up with the H1/HMMWV, so no, they are not really the same product. By the way, it's not GM that makes either model. It's AM General LLC, but GM markets and distributes them.
I don't know WHY it's so important for you to argue with me over this, but I've obviously fallen into the trap of having to explain myself to someone who doesn't even bother to read the definitions of words that I use (are they too big?) and can't be bothered to research the history of the object the discussion is about.
I am ending this discussion now. All further posts will be ignored because I'm tired of having to explain myself. Have a nice life.
I am not delusional. I am talking about THE CIVILIAN VERSION so no, you can't buy that stuff, and I did say that there were changes for the civ version, which of course includes military stuff not being options, however, I refer to the vehicle by its correct name, not marketing bullshit designed to make it friendlier to stupid masses. "The civilian version of the HMMWV" is correct when used to refer to the vehicle being discussed. You are just trying to find a lame excuse to bitch at me. The vehicle in question is the "High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle".
There's plenty of add-ons out there for Civics that aren't stereotypical ricer.
OK then, if you want to nitpick and ignore the fact that the correct name is HMMWV, fine. Not my problem. The "Hummer" "H2" doesn't have any other names.
I think we're a little confused about what I was talking about.
The Tahoe derivative is the H2, the "Hummer". The H1 is the "HMMWV". They are NOT the same vehicle. The differences I mentioned (interior, paint, no snorkel) are definitely there. I never said the drivetrain, the clearance, etc. were different. Where did I say that?
I never said the civilian HMMWV was significantly different from the military version. I said that the "Hummer" (which is the H2, says Hummer on the grille) is different.
Some rockets actually have run on alcohol. The V-2/A-4, for instance, was fueled by ethanol (ethyl alcohol) -- the same main ingredient in most liquor. It's an easily storable fuel, it isn't hypergolic, and it burns very cleanly.
I doubt that will happen. People are annoyingly two-faced about this. They want the prestige and coolness factor of having a space program even as they whine that it's not safe enough or cheap enough. (I hate to break it to them, but it's never gonna be as safe as airline flights, at least not for a few decades at least).
The space program will continue, even if it isn't at the pace that you and I would like, or the pace that the grand claims keep saying. Kennedy was the only one who was able to pull it off right.
Minor clarification on what you say:
The "Hummer" is not the same thing as the HMMWV (high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle). It is a civilian spinoff of the military design that is merely designed to resemble what AM General came up with as a result of the Army's needs. The Hummer is a modified Tahoe, which wasn't originally designed with the military in mind even though there may be some modified ones in military service.
The HMMWV is not a civilian vehicle at all. To make it usable by civilians, it received a great many changes, the most obvious of which are the use of different paint (colors and gloss) and a revamped interior (military vehicles are very basic and don't use key locks on the ignition or doors, and have different tow hooks) but other less-obvious changes include things like the deletion of the snorkel. It is awkward, and even all the changes made to make it palatable for civilians don't hide its military utilitarian origins.
The next generation of the general-purpose vehicle (the first was the "Jeep", which also exists in a civilian incarnation) will however be designed with more efficiency in mind. Even the military is finally realizing that you can't just ignore high fuel consumption as it costs too much in money and environmental damage to do otherwise.
And yet, it's been the case over and over again that those better materials, those little things that improve lifestyles, those smaller and better computers, have all come about directly because of space programs. Composites, circuit miniaturization, freeze-dried food, powdered drink mixes, fly-by-wire avionics, cooling suits for those who can't sweat, better fabrics, and so on are examples of things that were originally developed for a specific use -- space programs.
Often it is the case that developing something for a specific use will result in its becoming usable much more quickly than is the case when open-ended "someone will eventually figure out a use for this" funding.
Nikon doesn't. They make a point of this fact that they won't make their lenses obsolete, making it safe to continue to buy new Nikon bodies without fear of "losing" your lens collection.
The F mount is so named for the original Nikon F, and lenses made for the F are compatible, for the most part, with F-mount cameras to the present day all the way through the D50/D70/D2X. (There are some exceptions; be extra careful if you're using pre-AIS lenses and check to make sure the metering system in the old lenses won't physically damage the newest bodies; and some lenses require the camera to be set in manual mode, but they will fit).
Canon, on the other hand, is split in two: pre-EOS mount and post. They don't have the long track record of deliberate compatibility that Nikon does.
So if Sigma makes a compliant F mount lens this week, it's not likely to be unusable in the near to mid term future because if Nikon wants to ruin those thirdparty lenses, they have to break their promise to their users. Now, they aren't legally obligated to keep the promise, but given the big deal they make of it, it'd be a terrible idea for them to do it.
And yet, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina (among others) have a thriving business selling aftermarket lenses for camera bodies made by other manufacturers. I have, for example, a Sigma lens for my Nikon D70 that is available in Canon EOS, Sigma, and Pentax mounts. In fact, Tokina was started by Nikon engineers who wanted to advance the state of zoom lens technology (as told in The Tokina AT-X M100AF Macro lens (1)).
Are they pirating anything? No. They might have to pay a licensing fee to use the F mount or the EOS mount (I am not sure; I've never checked to see if the mount is patented, or if any fees are required to use it if it is) but they are offering a perfectly valid service. They sell quality lenses that don't always have equivalents available from Nikon or Canon, and they offer good pricing (Sigma's 80-400mm OS lens is $1000 while Nikon's equivalent is several hundred more, and I've evaluated both and both are very good).
It's a lot like how, if I want to upgrade my VW Golf, I can buy a VW-made-or-sourced part for, say, $500, or an aftermarket one that works as well or (often) better for $300.
The availability of thirdparty lenses for SLR bodies helps drive sales of those bodies just as a thriving aftermarket for VWs helps to sell them, or helps to sell Hondas.
They settled out of court and agreed to change their name. You can agree to do anything you want and it doesn't necessarily have any merit on whether you were right or not. They were also using what basically amounts to a generic word (Lindows and high-tech trademark troubles) and could have pursued their case. They chose not to.
If their entire industry is based on the existance of the iPod, doesn't Apple have the authority to ask for a cut of the sales?
Not at least the way I see it. I'm not using their logo or anything; I'm just making something for users to use with their item after they've purchased it, and once the item is purchased, the maker can no longer control what users do with it.
Neuspeed doesn't have to pay VW a royalty for every stress bar they sell for the Golf, nor do owners have to pay VW for the "right" to modify the car. Once title is transferred, and first sale has occurred, it's out of the maker's hands. VW can't stop Neuspeed from selling them, either. The only thing that it can do is to refuse to cover via warranty any problems that arise specifically as a result of that modification.
This law is called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and I believe it doesn't just apply to cars.
So, if you replace your iPod's battery and the iPod dies as a result (this happened to me) your warranty will be void, but if it died as a result of your plugging in speakers, it wouldn't be because speakers can't cause a battery failure or the PCB to be damaged (I think I scratched it even though I tried hard to not cause any damage. The iPod was out of warranty anyway, so I just bought a new one).
It's not. I'm a VW buff and I mod my car. When buying aftermarket parts, you'll find that the sites that sell them have categories that you click on subesequently - make, then model, then things like body style (2/4 doors), engine type, etc. The site uses this to show you items that you can make use of.
The makes and models are always spelled out with no apparent problems that I've ever seen. Sometimes, there will be a disclaimer somewhere that says "Not affiliated with Volkswagen" or "These items are not manufactured by or warranted by Volkswagen" or something along those lines. However, because the items are made to fit specific vehicles, the sites have to use the names of the make, model, engines, etc., in order to be useful to you.
They do not use the VW logo as they aren't authorized to, which makes sense, but because they need to refer to the cars in the course of their business, they do so, and it's a necessary use.
An example would be Parts4vws.com Virtual World Parts. (The company is named Virtual World, so they can't be drug into court for using "VW" in the domain name. Yes, I'm pretty sure it was designed that way, but it does protect them while allowing them to have a descriptive URL. There is no law that says that two companies in the same industry can't have the same abbreviation, and it's up to them to make sure they're differentiated from each other).
In other words, it's OK to say "Product X" if you're selling things made for Product X since you need to be able to describe your item and its design use to your buyers, but you can't use the product maker's logo or any manufacturer-designed or trademarked "made for product X" logos.
As a VW buff, I have to wonder why the hell people can't spell "Volkswagen" correctly. It's not THAT HARD.
Oh, heaven forbid anyone answer someone else's questions! Shame on you.
Bravo, I was waiting for someone to spell "Einstein" correctly in that argument. ;)
What I care about is not being tied to another night of TV. I'm pinned down on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and refuse to add any more mandatory/appointment based viewing to my schedule.
I do the same with TiVo, which isn't quite the same thing as downloading or video on demand, but it has the same effect: I can plop down on the couch with my laptop and pull up whatever I want to when I want to, and through one drive failure and replacement and one drive addition I have 350+ hours (at low quality; I use medium, so it's less in actual fact) of capacity.
I find TiVo easier because I don't have to pay per show but just a flat fee for the service (and I bought the equipment, once; you can get it for less than I paid these days). It's cheaper in the long run for people like me who tend to record a lot (I love documentaries and crime shows and sci-fi, so I have heaps of PBS, History Channel, CSI, Nature, Nova, and the like).
But I really do think that on-demand, through one method or another, be it DVR, VoD, downloads (legit and not) are going to be the way it works in the future. The networks' ability to dictate what we want and when we want is gone. (And I think they dug their own hole with their ceaseless oversaturation of ads and the like, but that's a whole other discussion).
In what way? I have thousands of MP3s in my collection, some from my personal CD collection, some live performances, and some imported from the music store. I have always found iTunes to be very easy to use with this large library. I can easily search for a string and have the display restricted to matches, I can click on the little arrow icons to see that artist or album in the music store, or I can option click them to switch to the browse mode that also makes it possible to restrict what tracks will play, etc.
Then there's smart playlists. I can on-the-fly create compilations of the sort of stuff I want (for instance I have one that auto-excludes classical and Christmas music, the one I use most often) and I don't have to make a new playlist every time I change the library, because there's live updating.
If you think iTunes is bad for large libraries, tell us why. I've just described why it's GOOD for large libraries.