Why not? It's a DIGITAL tape, you can do all sorts of data encoding on regular DV tapes, why not on this DV tape? Does it say you can't? I mean, I'm sure it HAS to have multiple audio tracks, because otherwise they'd piss off the home theatre folks... There are a few competing surround sound standards, I believe.
I agree, retail isn't going anywhere, for a lot of reasons. I think the most successful e-retailers so far have been the niche markets - people that sell stuff you can't find easily, and the mail order catalog-style companies. These trends will probably continue.
I can't see Amazon dissappearing, but I also can't see them becoming a Wal-Mart level retailer. Maybe I'm just short-sighted.
They told me it (the 3G service) was more like 40-56kbps when I asked about the speed.
Thanks for the info, now I'm not so sure if I want to invest the money for a 9600 baud connection - I think I may skip on it for now. You saved me some $, and some teeth gnashing - I appreciate it!
It's not umlimited. I talked to them this morning about it, I saw it in the Post. It's $30 extra on top of your current cellphone calling plan (which they make you sign up for). It draws off your pool of minutes.
I guess, it might be unlimited night time minutes though, if you have a plan that has that.
I called earlier this morning, as I've been looking for a wireless provider. Verizon makes you sign up for a calling plan (though you dont actually have to have a phone, interestingly enough), the Express Network service uses the plan's minutes and costs an additional $30 a month. The person I spoke with said speeds were around 56k.
They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does, the person I spoke with said the Internet Express service is currently more limited (though I expect that to change).
Both have contracts, though there is only a $100 fee for early cancellation. I think I'm gonna get the CDPD service, as it's cheaper and the the constant connection is important to me. If they change the new service to constant connection, I'll just pay the fee and upgrade. Also, both offer a two week grace period where you can cancel with no fee. I'm gonna test my connection out in places i usually go, to make sure I can get a good signal. If not, I'm cancelling.
Then my original arguement stands. I stated that this motherboard will not lead to any sort of threat to Apple's market share, or "opening up" of their market.
I might have been confused about what aspect of the product is proprietary, but it looks like my statement was correct - you can't just make a Mac clone and sell it (unless you only want to run PPC Linux which wouldn't be a very profitable business to be in).
Why assume something is a troll when someone may just be incorrect?
I had always been told that some of MacOS booted from a ROM. So, if there are no proprietary parts or software involved, why did all the clone companies give up? Or did Apple wait until they all cleared town before opening the standard?
The problem with your arguement is that MacOS won't run on these motherboards. You have to have special, Apple-provided ROMs to run it. Apple isn't going to give them out. They've already won this battle, the Mac clone companies closed up shop.
They mean rendering/capturing/editing video, like in After Effects or Final Cut Pro (or iMovie). You have noticed how much they are pushing this whole Digital Video thing, right? It's a big market for them.
I just don't quite understand who Apple is going after with this. One would think that they need to expand more into the desktop arena since they have no chance in the server or production world.
Graphic designers, video editors, other creative types. 98% of the graphic designers and video people I know use Macs. Most of the wanna-be filmmaker types do too... Or always talk about how they want one.
No, I was not. I don't understand the problem you are having comprehending this thread.
The poster stated that the only way to counter a company with control of a market is by offering competition. He also implied that he thought the concept of a monopoly is spurious and that goverments need not interceed, ever- the market will take care of it. That monopolies ONLY exist because they have better products than the other companies.
I replied with a list of actions MS took to hinder competition, actions that made it almost impossible for competitors to compete, and asked him if he thought this was still fair competition, best-product wins. I never said "why doesn't something do something about Microsoft". I wanted to know if the poster thought that any action by a company should be permissable, even if it hindered competition.
Since most shoe companies already had these machines and the provider only leased them, they could take them away if the companies bought a competing machine.
Say your factory has 30 USM machines it's gathered over the years. USM was the first company to make shoe machines. A new company, Company X, has just come out with a great new machine. You want one. But USM will take away the 30 you already have if you buy the one from CX. This doesn't sound sketchy to you?
It'd be impossible for you to buy the machine from CX, because you'd lose everything you have. If you could afford to get 30 new machines you don't need from CX, it would still stop your production for the year or so it would take to totally refit your factory to put the new machines it... Not to mention retraining all your employees on the new machines, changing your product line to fit the new machines... Killing your business, pretty much. A year without revenue, without product would kill almost any business.
Not even touching on the maintenence, you don't think that is an "artificial barrier to entry"?
if a Pentium 4 can't render a 1-second long cg scene within 5 seconds, that would make for a very long movie. "The second frame of the film was beautiful, but I missed the third frame because I had to use the bathroom, because of that large soft drink I had during the rendering of the first frame." I guess I'm reading it wrong, because it seems you should be able to render a 5 second scene in 5 seconds.
It can take a computer hours to render a CG scene-How long do you think it took to render "the Spirits Within", the same as length of the movie? Please. For the really big stuff, it takes a render farm.
I'm sure the same holds true for heavy math calculations for science applications, though I don't do that sort of thing myself.
I think you think I'm talking about in-game cut scenes, or something. I'm not. I'm talking about rendering CG for output to film or video. I know I'd like to be able to "freeze" a render, or set a machine to just work on rendering when I'm not at the computer... I'd imagine high-end set ups can already do this, but I don't have access to a render farm.
Yeah, but the poster is talking about a solution for the end user, not the developer of the original software product(s). If the software he's using had that built in, he wouldn't have posed the question.
The problem with your arguement that MS HAS tried to prevent other people from competing. The courts have decided that already.
They used their position to try and prevent competition many times, a few that I can remeber are:
charging OEMs for a copy of windows for every machine sold, even if that machine didn't ship with windows
developing IE and releasing it at a loss, just to try to put Netscape out of business
threating OEMs that install Navigator on their machines
binding IE to the OS, or actually claiming it was bound and could not be separated - even though it wasn't "bound" to the OS when they were originally sued
They have even tried to hurt their competion in their settlement offers. Instead of paying the states and accepting changes to Windows/IE, they offered to "donate" hordes of computers running Windows to schools... Which has the useful effect of getting kids used to MS products in one of the few markets where Apple has a somewhat strong foothold.
What about policies that I would consider monopolistic, for example, MS' past practice of charging OEMs for one copy of Windows per computer sold, even if all those machines didn't have windows on them? If the OEMs complained, there was the ever-present threat of MS not selling them Windows at all. Thus, the OEMs were encouraged to stop carrying other OSes.
How could a smaller company compete in a situation like that? If an OEM wanted to offer an alternative os, such as OS/2, it would have to pay for both OS/2 and Windows! Smells like a monopoly to me.
They haven't been up to as much mischief lately, but remeber the mid-nineties, man? Every week, almost, they were doing some insanely sketchy business move. I don't really blame them, though... If I was in their shoes, I'd be trying to do the same things to manipulate the market, but that's why there are a certain amount of rules in place.
I think the original poster was referring to a process which takes weeks to calculate, such as a complicated 3D render, or a statistical analysis. Not a term paper.
You can't just hit "save" halfway through in either of these situations, because the application is busy.
Slashdot Mirror
Divx the product is not the same as DivX the codec. Do some homework.
Why not? It's a DIGITAL tape, you can do all sorts of data encoding on regular DV tapes, why not on this DV tape? Does it say you can't? I mean, I'm sure it HAS to have multiple audio tracks, because otherwise they'd piss off the home theatre folks... There are a few competing surround sound standards, I believe.
What makes you think he was talking about the PC gaming market anyway?
My ex bought clothes online constantly, as well.
I agree, retail isn't going anywhere, for a lot of reasons. I think the most successful e-retailers so far have been the niche markets - people that sell stuff you can't find easily, and the mail order catalog-style companies. These trends will probably continue.
I can't see Amazon dissappearing, but I also can't see them becoming a Wal-Mart level retailer. Maybe I'm just short-sighted.
People still want to be able to touch/feel/try-on what they buy; not to mention group shopping trips.
Depends on the product - I certainly don't need to touch/feel/try on a DVD, or video game. However, I'd NEVER buy clothes online.
They told me it (the 3G service) was more like 40-56kbps when I asked about the speed.
Thanks for the info, now I'm not so sure if I want to invest the money for a 9600 baud connection - I think I may skip on it for now. You saved me some $, and some teeth gnashing - I appreciate it!
Unlimited minutes UNTIL March 15th. After then, it goes back to normal. I asked about that.
It's not umlimited. I talked to them this morning about it, I saw it in the Post. It's $30 extra on top of your current cellphone calling plan (which they make you sign up for). It draws off your pool of minutes.
I guess, it might be unlimited night time minutes though, if you have a plan that has that.
I called earlier this morning, as I've been looking for a wireless provider. Verizon makes you sign up for a calling plan (though you dont actually have to have a phone, interestingly enough), the Express Network service uses the plan's minutes and costs an additional $30 a month. The person I spoke with said speeds were around 56k.
They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does, the person I spoke with said the Internet Express service is currently more limited (though I expect that to change).
Both have contracts, though there is only a $100 fee for early cancellation. I think I'm gonna get the CDPD service, as it's cheaper and the the constant connection is important to me. If they change the new service to constant connection, I'll just pay the fee and upgrade. Also, both offer a two week grace period where you can cancel with no fee. I'm gonna test my connection out in places i usually go, to make sure I can get a good signal. If not, I'm cancelling.
Then my original arguement stands. I stated that this motherboard will not lead to any sort of threat to Apple's market share, or "opening up" of their market.
I might have been confused about what aspect of the product is proprietary, but it looks like my statement was correct - you can't just make a Mac clone and sell it (unless you only want to run PPC Linux which wouldn't be a very profitable business to be in).
Why assume something is a troll when someone may just be incorrect?
I had always been told that some of MacOS booted from a ROM. So, if there are no proprietary parts or software involved, why did all the clone companies give up? Or did Apple wait until they all cleared town before opening the standard?
The problem with your arguement is that MacOS won't run on these motherboards. You have to have special, Apple-provided ROMs to run it. Apple isn't going to give them out. They've already won this battle, the Mac clone companies closed up shop.
Sigh.
They mean rendering/capturing/editing video, like in After Effects or Final Cut Pro (or iMovie). You have noticed how much they are pushing this whole Digital Video thing, right? It's a big market for them.
I just don't quite understand who Apple is going after with this. One would think that they need to expand more into the desktop arena since they have no chance in the server or production world.
Graphic designers, video editors, other creative types. 98% of the graphic designers and video people I know use Macs. Most of the wanna-be filmmaker types do too... Or always talk about how they want one.
Most graphic design and video programs use both. Those are two of Apple's biggest markets.
No, I was not. I don't understand the problem you are having comprehending this thread.
The poster stated that the only way to counter a company with control of a market is by offering competition. He also implied that he thought the concept of a monopoly is spurious and that goverments need not interceed, ever- the market will take care of it. That monopolies ONLY exist because they have better products than the other companies.
I replied with a list of actions MS took to hinder competition, actions that made it almost impossible for competitors to compete, and asked him if he thought this was still fair competition, best-product wins. I never said "why doesn't something do something about Microsoft". I wanted to know if the poster thought that any action by a company should be permissable, even if it hindered competition.
Since most shoe companies already had these machines and the provider only leased them, they could take them away if the companies bought a competing machine.
Say your factory has 30 USM machines it's gathered over the years. USM was the first company to make shoe machines. A new company, Company X, has just come out with a great new machine. You want one. But USM will take away the 30 you already have if you buy the one from CX. This doesn't sound sketchy to you?
It'd be impossible for you to buy the machine from CX, because you'd lose everything you have. If you could afford to get 30 new machines you don't need from CX, it would still stop your production for the year or so it would take to totally refit your factory to put the new machines it... Not to mention retraining all your employees on the new machines, changing your product line to fit the new machines... Killing your business, pretty much. A year without revenue, without product would kill almost any business.
Not even touching on the maintenence, you don't think that is an "artificial barrier to entry"?
if a Pentium 4 can't render a 1-second long cg scene within 5 seconds, that would make for a very long movie. "The second frame of the film was beautiful, but I missed the third frame because I had to use the bathroom, because of that large soft drink I had during the rendering of the first frame." I guess I'm reading it wrong, because it seems you should be able to render a 5 second scene in 5 seconds.
It can take a computer hours to render a CG scene-How long do you think it took to render "the Spirits Within", the same as length of the movie? Please. For the really big stuff, it takes a render farm.
I'm sure the same holds true for heavy math calculations for science applications, though I don't do that sort of thing myself.
I think you think I'm talking about in-game cut scenes, or something. I'm not. I'm talking about rendering CG for output to film or video. I know I'd like to be able to "freeze" a render, or set a machine to just work on rendering when I'm not at the computer... I'd imagine high-end set ups can already do this, but I don't have access to a render farm.
Learn to read better. Note the phrase "MS' past practice'.
You think you can render broadcast (or film) quality CG scenes in 5 seconds on a Pentium 4?
Think again.
Yeah, but the poster is talking about a solution for the end user, not the developer of the original software product(s). If the software he's using had that built in, he wouldn't have posed the question.
They used their position to try and prevent competition many times, a few that I can remeber are:
They have even tried to hurt their competion in their settlement offers. Instead of paying the states and accepting changes to Windows/IE, they offered to "donate" hordes of computers running Windows to schools... Which has the useful effect of getting kids used to MS products in one of the few markets where Apple has a somewhat strong foothold.
What about policies that I would consider monopolistic, for example, MS' past practice of charging OEMs for one copy of Windows per computer sold, even if all those machines didn't have windows on them? If the OEMs complained, there was the ever-present threat of MS not selling them Windows at all. Thus, the OEMs were encouraged to stop carrying other OSes.
How could a smaller company compete in a situation like that? If an OEM wanted to offer an alternative os, such as OS/2, it would have to pay for both OS/2 and Windows! Smells like a monopoly to me.
They haven't been up to as much mischief lately, but remeber the mid-nineties, man? Every week, almost, they were doing some insanely sketchy business move. I don't really blame them, though... If I was in their shoes, I'd be trying to do the same things to manipulate the market, but that's why there are a certain amount of rules in place.
I've tried for years to find a product that runs better, faster, and is easier to use than Office, and I have yet to find one.
It just keeps getting worse though... Word 6.0 was better than 97, which was better than 2000, etc...
Netscape over IE? Netscape was a P.O.S., on ANY OS I ran it under.
I'd argue that, until Netscape was forced (by MS) to offer Netscape for free, Netscape was better. After that, the company went into free fall.
I think the original poster was referring to a process which takes weeks to calculate, such as a complicated 3D render, or a statistical analysis. Not a term paper.
You can't just hit "save" halfway through in either of these situations, because the application is busy.