I did have the idea of trying to download the actual stream that iPlayer uses, but it seems the streams are DRM protected MP4 files and don't play outside of the player.
Sorry but that's totally wrong. Although you CAN stream low quality versions over the web, BBC iPlayer is PRIMARILY a peer to peer content delivery service. You can download programmes using the iPlayer download manager and you can even watch them totally offline if you want to. You don't need a fast broadband connection at all. If you want you can queue a load of stuff to download overnight or while you're at work.
So, far from "impossible" as you say - the only thing you don't get are the low quality online versions, which is NOT what iPlayer is all about.
I'm feel sorry now that people are seeing the low quality online videos on the iPlayer website and thinking that they're using iPlayer! I hope everyone realises the extra quality you can get when you download the full resolution version using the iPlayer software.
> How do we expect those who buy smaller systems with Atom based processors to use a browser as bloated
Err, you don't.
If you're going to buy a cheap-ass netbook like the AspireOne, then you need to accept the fact that your web browsing experience is going to be more similar to that of mobile phone rather than a proper laptop computer. Most netbook type computers like the Asus EEE PC come with a lightweight OS and browser (usually a cut down version of Linux) and I'm sure they don't intend you to upgrade it as usually these machines targetted at kids are pretty damn slow even when they're brand new.
> Why? The only extra RAM used by each process would be the amount used to render and display its page
Sorry but that's rubbish! How you can start a process which ONLY contains the webpage and no executable code? How would it render? If you're using Google Chrome's model, every new tab has to have the entire rending engine and user interface in it - the complete browser. Looks to me like you haven't RTFA or you'd understand how it works.
If you don't believe this approach will use more RAM, try it yourself: Open 10 tabs in one instance of IE7. Then open the same 10 websites in 10 separate instances of IE7 and tell me it's not using way more RAM. It's hard to use Firefox for this test as it doesn't seem to easily allow you to start multiple Firefox processes, but it's easily demoed in IE7.
If you can't be bothered to try: You'll find that each new IE process uses about 21MB of RAM, whereas creating a new tab under an existing process, only uses about 5MB. The short answer therefore is that you will use 4 times more RAM if you load each new tab in a new browser - and that's now Google Chrome will behave, but hopefully a bit more efficiently.
Google have even *admitted* that the browser will use more RAM! RTFComic.
We'll discover later today/tomorrow when it's released, exactly how well Google's implementation of this model works.
Don't get me wrong though - this is a *great* idea and I will happily use Chrome if it is more stable. I can't stand how often Firefox 3 crashes (taking down all tabs at once) and would gladly ditch it for something better, as soon as something better becomes available.
I think you'll find Google Chrome will have the same problem. It creates a new entire browser PROCESS for each tab. What could be more bloaty than that? That will mean LOTS more RAM. Stop worrying and just buy more RAM - it's dirt cheap and the Google Chrome model of creating a new process for each new site will mean we have a much more stable browser. Google Chrome and IE8 are designed for modern multi-core systems with plenty of RAM - not for running on your 7 year old Pentium 3. Deal with it. They're not forcing you to upgrade, so if you don't have lots of RAM, stick with a memory efficient browser such IE6 and avoid memory hog browsers like Firefox and IE7-8.
I never get why people are so worried when apps USE their RAM. That's what it's for. As long as it's not due to leak (ie ram usage after a point, remains constant rather than growing infinitely) then I don't get the problem.
I'm using: Adblock Plus British English Dictionary Check4Change (but is disabled) Firebug 1.2.0 Free Download Manager 1.3.2 (but I've eliminated that from my enquiries!) Google Toolbar 3.1.20080605W PicLens 1.8 Tab Mix Plus 0.3.6 Web Developer 1.1.6
None of those are particularly unusual plugins apart from Check4Change (disabled ATM). They will all have thousands of users each.
Usually Firefox crashes on exit (suggesting perhaps, the session manager or perhaps a plugin's cleanup code) or when navigating to a new site. It doesn't usually crash on my own sites - mainly on content heavy portal type sites (possibly containing Flash). However I find any Flash blockers quite often cause LOTS of Javascript errors or crashes in their own right, so please don't suggest blocking all Flash.
It *is* a bad thing. Usually built in features work - extensions in my experience, often don't and can easily be incompatible with each other.
I've only got a handful of extensions (5) installed and Firefox 3 crashes about 12 times a week according to the logs. According to the same logs, IE has only crashed twice EVER since I built the machine 6 months ago and I use it almost as often (I'm a web developer).
I think it's the extension-heavy approach which makes Firefox the least stable piece of software I've ever used. I doubt it crashes if you don't install any extensions. More basic features should be built in in my opinion - so you don't need to install an extension to get an extremely rudimentary feature like a close button on each tab.
I've long since learnt that photographs and video are a totally RUBBISH way of experiencing a new place.
If you want to see something cool, physically go there. No amount of photos or video will ever give you the feeling or atmosphere of most cool things in the world. The biggest problem has to be the lack of perception of scale that photos provide (even with ample references within picture).
Get out there and see stuff.
Remember: the best thing about real life is that it's ALL in glorious high definition with surround sound!
Unfortunately I missed this app when it was on the App Store and I've been looking for a way to install it, but I suspect now that even if I succeed, that it will get disabled by Apple in the coming weeks/months.
iPhone newbie question: Is there a way to install apps which have been removed from the App Store by somehow getting the binary?
Stories keep getting posted about the number of networks which are unsecured like it's some kind of problem. The vast majority of those networks are SUPPOSED to be unsecured. They're probably open networks designed for free public use - like the ones you get around New York parks which have been installed by Google or the hotpots in coffee shops such as Starbucks.
In the UK, all BT Openworld public access hotspots are unsecured as well. You can't actually use them though, unless you log in as they have an HTTP intercept until you log in.
Unless they can differentiate between intentionally open public hotspots in Starbucks (etc) and unsecured home access points in naive people's houses, then any figures are totally meaningless.
Here in the UK we use an online backup company called Perfect Backup. You just install a bit of software on each machine and it backups according to your own schedule. The best thing is, it does a binary diff of each file and only sends the changed parts of the file so conserving bandwidth. It's pretty configurable. The pricing seems pretty good too compared to some other providers. It's more expensive than people like Carbonite, but then this is a *business* grade product with support for things like Exchange, SQL Server etc and if you ring them, they pick up the phone after a couple of rings!
I know it begins with the same letter but you must realise by now, the difference between open source and open standards. The latest Microsoft Office uses open standards, but it's not exactly open source now is it.
> This could change if it becomes the standard that the user first buys a > computer and then buys the OS to run on it as a separate purchase.
That will never happen. The vast majority of people do not WANT to install their own OS. That's about as likely to happen as people selling cars without engines so you can choose your own engine if you want an engine from a different manufacturer. It's just too difficult and most people can't be bothered - it's easier to buy a PC which already has an OS on it.
Note that if you buy an Eee PC, it's available with Linux preinstalled. I think Linux will therefore get a lot more publicity and exposure due to the prevalence of the ultra-cheap laptop market expanding.
Inferior don't you mean? - Hence the fact that they're hardly used. They're really expensive and only last a few thousand hours before fading. They also bring back the burn-in problems which we thought we'd long since forgotten from phosphor based displays. Hence, if I walk into a local shop, they have NO OLED screens at all.
They tend to only be used in things with an inherently short lifespan, eg mobile phones, which are rarely used after a 2-3 years. Nobody would buy a TV which is quarter as bright after 2 years and has a channel logo burnt into the top left.
> once Windows is no longer the defacto preloaded OS it's all over.
It's NOT! Why do people keep saying that?! It's only preloaded if you buy a Windows PC. If you buy a Mac, then Mac OS is preloaded. If people actually didn't WANT Windows, then everyone would be buying Apple Macs, but they're not. Deal with it.
The article has been written in a massively biassed anti-MS tone for seemingly no reason (quelle suprise).
However I don't see why it's Vista's or MS's fault that the SSD manufacturers can't make a reliable SSD! Vista has no problems using a crappy old mechanical drive (30 year old tech), yet somehow MS are being blamed for Vista wearing out or 'not being optimised for' solid state drives! I fail to see how that's IN ANY WAY the fault of Vista or MS.
SSD makers need to simply catch up with modern operating systems and not blame them for writing too much data or writing data in funny patterns.
It's NOT Vista's fault that it wants to actually USE your operating system hard drive. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement!
Cue "you must be new here" and "it's slashdot, what did you expect" type posts.
Slashdot Mirror
> With Windows software?
Yes... What else do you suggest? Linux is crap for battery life.
You get way better battery life with Windows than you do with Linux - read pretty much any review.
25 years ago I would have been reading a book while waiting for Elite to load off the tape.
> Any other ideas?
I did have the idea of trying to download the actual stream that iPlayer uses, but it seems the streams are DRM protected MP4 files and don't play outside of the player.
Brick wall. :(
Sorry but that's totally wrong. Although you CAN stream low quality versions over the web, BBC iPlayer is PRIMARILY a peer to peer content delivery service. You can download programmes using the iPlayer download manager and you can even watch them totally offline if you want to. You don't need a fast broadband connection at all. If you want you can queue a load of stuff to download overnight or while you're at work.
So, far from "impossible" as you say - the only thing you don't get are the low quality online versions, which is NOT what iPlayer is all about.
I'm feel sorry now that people are seeing the low quality online videos on the iPlayer website and thinking that they're using iPlayer! I hope everyone realises the extra quality you can get when you download the full resolution version using the iPlayer software.
> How do we expect those who buy smaller systems with Atom based processors to use a browser as bloated
Err, you don't.
If you're going to buy a cheap-ass netbook like the AspireOne, then you need to accept the fact that your web browsing experience is going to be more similar to that of mobile phone rather than a proper laptop computer. Most netbook type computers like the Asus EEE PC come with a lightweight OS and browser (usually a cut down version of Linux) and I'm sure they don't intend you to upgrade it as usually these machines targetted at kids are pretty damn slow even when they're brand new.
I was referring to CURRENT browsers like Firefox 3 and IE7 - not decade old browsers like IE6!
Internet Explorer 6 is 7 years old for god's sake!
Firefox 3 on my system right now: 220MB.
IE 7 with the same tabs open: 102MB
Google Chrome has now been released
Hot off the press - page changed in the last couple of minutes.
> Why? The only extra RAM used by each process would be the amount used to render and display its page
Sorry but that's rubbish! How you can start a process which ONLY contains the webpage and no executable code? How would it render? If you're using Google Chrome's model, every new tab has to have the entire rending engine and user interface in it - the complete browser. Looks to me like you haven't RTFA or you'd understand how it works.
If you don't believe this approach will use more RAM, try it yourself: Open 10 tabs in one instance of IE7. Then open the same 10 websites in 10 separate instances of IE7 and tell me it's not using way more RAM. It's hard to use Firefox for this test as it doesn't seem to easily allow you to start multiple Firefox processes, but it's easily demoed in IE7.
If you can't be bothered to try: You'll find that each new IE process uses about 21MB of RAM, whereas creating a new tab under an existing process, only uses about 5MB. The short answer therefore is that you will use 4 times more RAM if you load each new tab in a new browser - and that's now Google Chrome will behave, but hopefully a bit more efficiently.
Google have even *admitted* that the browser will use more RAM! RTFComic.
We'll discover later today/tomorrow when it's released, exactly how well Google's implementation of this model works.
Don't get me wrong though - this is a *great* idea and I will happily use Chrome if it is more stable. I can't stand how often Firefox 3 crashes (taking down all tabs at once) and would gladly ditch it for something better, as soon as something better becomes available.
Firefox 2 would EASILY use 300MB plus for me - and I rarely go to more than 5-6 tabs.
Firefox 3 is better and tends to stay below 250MB most of the time. Right now with 2 tabs, it's using 230MB of actual ram, and 264MB of VM.
I think you'll find Google Chrome will have the same problem. It creates a new entire browser PROCESS for each tab. What could be more bloaty than that? That will mean LOTS more RAM. Stop worrying and just buy more RAM - it's dirt cheap and the Google Chrome model of creating a new process for each new site will mean we have a much more stable browser. Google Chrome and IE8 are designed for modern multi-core systems with plenty of RAM - not for running on your 7 year old Pentium 3. Deal with it. They're not forcing you to upgrade, so if you don't have lots of RAM, stick with a memory efficient browser such IE6 and avoid memory hog browsers like Firefox and IE7-8.
I never get why people are so worried when apps USE their RAM. That's what it's for. As long as it's not due to leak (ie ram usage after a point, remains constant rather than growing infinitely) then I don't get the problem.
I'm using:
Adblock Plus
British English Dictionary
Check4Change (but is disabled)
Firebug 1.2.0
Free Download Manager 1.3.2 (but I've eliminated that from my enquiries!)
Google Toolbar 3.1.20080605W
PicLens 1.8
Tab Mix Plus 0.3.6
Web Developer 1.1.6
None of those are particularly unusual plugins apart from Check4Change (disabled ATM).
They will all have thousands of users each.
Usually Firefox crashes on exit (suggesting perhaps, the session manager or perhaps a plugin's cleanup code) or when navigating to a new site. It doesn't usually crash on my own sites - mainly on content heavy portal type sites (possibly containing Flash). However I find any Flash blockers quite often cause LOTS of Javascript errors or crashes in their own right, so please don't suggest blocking all Flash.
> You say that like it is a bad thing.
It *is* a bad thing. Usually built in features work - extensions in my experience, often don't and can easily be incompatible with each other.
I've only got a handful of extensions (5) installed and Firefox 3 crashes about 12 times a week according to the logs. According to the same logs, IE has only crashed twice EVER since I built the machine 6 months ago and I use it almost as often (I'm a web developer).
I think it's the extension-heavy approach which makes Firefox the least stable piece of software I've ever used. I doubt it crashes if you don't install any extensions. More basic features should be built in in my opinion - so you don't need to install an extension to get an extremely rudimentary feature like a close button on each tab.
But you can't patent *software* or algorithms, so how is this relevant? (not here in the UK anyway)
I've long since learnt that photographs and video are a totally RUBBISH way of experiencing a new place.
If you want to see something cool, physically go there. No amount of photos or video will ever give you the feeling or atmosphere of most cool things in the world. The biggest problem has to be the lack of perception of scale that photos provide (even with ample references within picture).
Get out there and see stuff.
Remember: the best thing about real life is that it's ALL in glorious high definition with surround sound!
Or make it round - so it can go in any way up?
That idea is already quite prevalent and many programs such as BuddyBackup already use this idea.
So how long before Net Share gets disabled?
Unfortunately I missed this app when it was on the App Store and I've been looking for a way to install it, but I suspect now that even if I succeed, that it will get disabled by Apple in the coming weeks/months.
iPhone newbie question:
Is there a way to install apps which have been removed from the App Store by somehow getting the binary?
Stories keep getting posted about the number of networks which are unsecured like it's some kind of problem. The vast majority of those networks are SUPPOSED to be unsecured. They're probably open networks designed for free public use - like the ones you get around New York parks which have been installed by Google or the hotpots in coffee shops such as Starbucks.
In the UK, all BT Openworld public access hotspots are unsecured as well. You can't actually use them though, unless you log in as they have an HTTP intercept until you log in.
Unless they can differentiate between intentionally open public hotspots in Starbucks (etc) and unsecured home access points in naive people's houses, then any figures are totally meaningless.
Here in the UK we use an online backup company called Perfect Backup. You just install a bit of software on each machine and it backups according to your own schedule. The best thing is, it does a binary diff of each file and only sends the changed parts of the file so conserving bandwidth. It's pretty configurable. The pricing seems pretty good too compared to some other providers. It's more expensive than people like Carbonite, but then this is a *business* grade product with support for things like Exchange, SQL Server etc and if you ring them, they pick up the phone after a couple of rings!
> uses open standards
I know it begins with the same letter but you must realise by now, the difference between open source and open standards. The latest Microsoft Office uses open standards, but it's not exactly open source now is it.
> This could change if it becomes the standard that the user first buys a
> computer and then buys the OS to run on it as a separate purchase.
That will never happen. The vast majority of people do not WANT to install their own OS.
That's about as likely to happen as people selling cars without engines so you can choose your own engine if you want an engine from a different manufacturer. It's just too difficult and most people can't be bothered - it's easier to buy a PC which already has an OS on it.
Note that if you buy an Eee PC, it's available with Linux preinstalled. I think Linux will therefore get a lot more publicity and exposure due to the prevalence of the ultra-cheap laptop market expanding.
Inferior don't you mean? - Hence the fact that they're hardly used. They're really expensive and only last a few thousand hours before fading. They also bring back the burn-in problems which we thought we'd long since forgotten from phosphor based displays. Hence, if I walk into a local shop, they have NO OLED screens at all.
They tend to only be used in things with an inherently short lifespan, eg mobile phones, which are rarely used after a 2-3 years. Nobody would buy a TV which is quarter as bright after 2 years and has a channel logo burnt into the top left.
> once Windows is no longer the defacto preloaded OS it's all over.
It's NOT! Why do people keep saying that?! It's only preloaded if you buy a Windows PC. If you buy a Mac, then Mac OS is preloaded. If people actually didn't WANT Windows, then everyone would be buying Apple Macs, but they're not. Deal with it.
The article has been written in a massively biassed anti-MS tone for seemingly no reason (quelle suprise).
However I don't see why it's Vista's or MS's fault that the SSD manufacturers can't make a reliable SSD! Vista has no problems using a crappy old mechanical drive (30 year old tech), yet somehow MS are being blamed for Vista wearing out or 'not being optimised for' solid state drives! I fail to see how that's IN ANY WAY the fault of Vista or MS.
SSD makers need to simply catch up with modern operating systems and not blame them for writing too much data or writing data in funny patterns.
It's NOT Vista's fault that it wants to actually USE your operating system hard drive. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement!
Cue "you must be new here" and "it's slashdot, what did you expect" type posts.
Am I missing something? How the hell is the 02-O2 confusion in ANY WAY related to Piclens - a plugin for viewing images???
It's not even related to the actual story either (MMS on O2).
Mod parent down.