Actually IA-32e is something different from what AMD has done (IIRC). IA-32e is a 64-bit mode that defaults to 32-bit operands but still uses 64-bit addressing. This allows you all the benefits that a 64-bit processor would offer, without the unnecessary code bloat from having operands default to 64-bits.
As to your other comment, there are already differences between Intel's and AMD's implementation-- Intel has a CMPXCHG16B instruction while AMD does not. And I'm sure in the days ahead other differences will be revealed. It's unfortunate AMD didn't include a CMPXCHG16B instruction though.
Uhm... x86-64 isn't some modern marvel. It uses a prefix byte to indicate which opcodes are 32-bit and which are 64-bit. Hardly the most original way to tackle the problem. If nothing else, AMD actually ripped off Intel here by using all the original opcodes just with a new REX prefix.
Doesn't look very custom to me. Except for the more exotic stuff (boot loader and such) I don't see why you couldn't just build this in Visual Studio. I mean, do you honestly think the source for progman.exe requires "a very custom process"?
No, that's generally a Nintendo marketing deal. NES games weren't compatible with the SNES, SNES games weren't compatible with the Nintendo 64, and so on. Sega (and I'm no Sega fanboy here, but really, I can't deny history) with the Genesis also had an adapter so you could at least continue to play Sega Master System (SMS) games on the Genesis. They didn't continue that tradition with their future systems unfortunately, but then those probably would have died on their own anyways.
Sony has a good thing going by being compatible though, and Microsoft would do well to stay compatible as well-- people aren't interested in having 50 systems piled in front of their TV's, and if systems start being incompatible again, that's exactly what the consumer will be forced to deal with.
And why aren't more people still going to see ROTK? This is it guys. Support it while you can. I had hopes that it could reach 'Titanic' levels but it won't even come close. You should check out Titanic's box office run over at boxofficemojo.com . It is amazing to see how long it sustained itself. I think it was making somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million per weekend two months after it came out!
IMNSHO, Titanic was rigged. Go to boxofficemojo.com and look up the weekly returns on Titanic-- be sure to note how many theatres it played in each week. Then go look at Return of the King's returns so far. Observe how they basically spoon-fed Titanic to the public, while ROTK (only in it's 5th week now I believe) has lost 1/4 of the theatres it started in. I wonder, if ROTK had been forced into those theatres that wanted to drop it if it wouldn't be doing as well if not better?
I mean, looking and comparing the week by week results of Titanic to Return of the King, it looks to me like studios manufacture "hits" by forcing people who go to the movies to watch them.
You'd think that given the big rant by Sam towards the end of The Two Towers that gosand would have maybe realized that the story wasn't about the ending so much as the journey itself (as you said). To quote from The Two Towers--
Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By right we shouldn't even be here. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end, because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines, it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you that meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding on to, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for.
But why not at least NOMINATE an actor for best supporting from LOTR?
Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.
Well, everything appears setup correctly for the DS to be backwards compatible-- it supposedly uses an ARM CPU (and as we all know, the GBA/SP use ARM CPU's).
In the interview, the Nintendo rep specifically states that they haven't currently announced whether or not it'll be backwards compatible, so it leaves the door open I think.
But the general point still stands-- this'll be Virtual Boy II unless they include backwards compatibility. Nobody wants to buy a *2nd* portable gaming system to be forced alongside the existing GBA/SP.
The only way it'd bomb is if they didn't include backwards compatibilith with GBA and older GB and GB Color titles. If they provide backwards compatibility they can likely just phase out the old GBA and GBA SP and force this onto consumers (since the GB is the #1 hand-held for the moment, barring Sony's new hand-held).
I don't know why I bite for the trolls, but here goes--
Now, answer these questions:
q: When will dvd-r do Dual Layer? a: dvd+r camp: we start selling in Q1 of 2004 a: dvd-r camp: uhm, we will have it eventually
No, actually, this is what happens when you go through a standards process (the DVD Forum) rather than rolling your own (what HP, Sony, etc are doing with the +R/RW formats). Pioneer has submitted a dual layer specification to the DVD Forum, Pioneer is awaiting approval of the format rather than just releasing something into the market without any approval. The DVD Forum, IIRC, was the same group that approved the DVD Video standards we use today.
q: What speed will dvd-r burning be possible at? a: dvd+r camp: is going to be at around 2.4x a: dvd-r camp: once we know something we will say
q: Will Dual Layer be backwards compatibile with
the readers out there? a: dvd+r camp: Yes (you mention problems) a: dvd-r camp: once we know something we will say
Both questions have the same answer as the above-- Pioneer can't commit to speeds and backwards compatibility questions until their specification is approved. You know, cart before the horse kind of thing. I'm betting than the -R/RW format won't be more than 6 months behind the +R/RW format in reaching dual layer however.
q: will it be possible to upgrade single layer
burners to dual layers burners? a: dvd+r camp: technically potentially yes. wait
and see. a: dvd-r camp: once we know something we will say
LOL, so they "potentially yes", and that's some negative against the -R camp that's still going through the standards process? Now, if I was a company trying to maximize sales, would *I* poison the marketplace by telling people that in as little as 3-6 months their shiny new DVD burner will be obsolete because I'll be releasing a new dual layer burner (that can also burn single layer media)? No. I'd put out the carrot and hope the donkey bites by saying that we MIGHT be able to support dual layer media via a firmware upgrade.
Now the thing is, if they're so close to having a drive released, why can't they answer definitely and promise their customers that an upgrade will be available?
oh yeah, I provided links for you doubters, yet all you could do is insult me cuz I posted as AC.
Oh gee, I guess I better provide some URL's too--
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8135 Here's an article discussing Pioneer's dual layer DVD aspirations. Quoting the Pioneer press release: "The new dual-layer recording technology, adopting the dye-recording-film layer method, has realized a 9.34% jitter with a 17.3% reflection rate on the first layer (L0) of a disc, and an 8.08% jitter with a 19.5% reflection rate for the second layer (L1). This shows almost the same performance as that for dual-layer DVD-ROM discs. It means that DVD-R discs supporting this technology can be played back on most existing DVD players, and DVD recorders supporting this technology will be developed easily". As you can see, they're serious about compatibility.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8742 Here it's rumored that Sony's first dual layer DVD+R drive may be available by April of 2004, and that the first dual layer drives could begin appearing by Q2 2004. No firm dates are given.
Who mods uninformed shit like this up? +R just recently got 8x burners (in the past month or so, IIRC, if not more recent). -R will be getting them in less than two weeks (Pioneer DVR-A07).
As far as dual layer DVD+R goes, yet more misinformation. What I've read is that around 70-80% of set top DVD players will be able to play dual layer DVD+R media. I have not heard figures on the forthcoming dual layer DVD-R media and drives, but I can only imagine similar if not better results.
Please keep your misinformation to yourself in the future, AC.
1) Nowdays, no studio will release a movie on DVD with a full 1.5mbps DTS track, they are ALL half-rate DTS.
But the discussion isn't about current DVD's, the discussion is about future DVD-like video disc formats. Presumably with much larger capacity, it'd be fool-hardy not to encode at DTS's highest bitrates.
But getting away from the whole DTS vs. Dolby Digital discussion, I think neither would be ideal for a future disc to begin with: MLP, Meridian Lossless Packing (the same encoding used DVD Audio discs) is a much better candidate. As the name suggests, it's lossless, and it allows for higher bit deptch and a wider frequency range. That's the audio encoding method we should be championing for whatever new video distribution method is ultimately created (or, something similar at least-- lossless audio encoding is something we should strive for in consumer electronics).
And there's plenty more on Google (just do a query for 'Meridian MLP' and you should turn up a ton of hits). I just like the idea of a lossless encoding, vs. what's used today (lossy AC3/DTS). =)
I just hope they don't implement it poorly like it was in DVD-Audio (e.g. - none of this crap with having to have *6* audio cables running from the back of your DVD-Audio player to 6 inputs on the back of your A/V Receiver). See, that was the problem with lossy compression-- the recording industry didn't like the idea of perfect digital copies that were basically as good as their studio copies. So rather than using the optical or coaxial digital outputs offered by DVD players, they use 6 analog outputs (one for each channel) that go into 6 analog inputs on DVD-Audio ready A/V receivers. Supposedly this prohibits piracy. Until someone finds out how to copy DVD-Audio discs ala DeCSS of course.:P
Opinion, not fact. A well encoded DD track will blast away a DTS track. It ALL depends upon the encoding process. A blanket one is better than the other is so far from the truth. Tech specs it might be, but in real life application neither one is always better than the other.
You meant "Fact, not opinion". DTS allows higher bitrates than DD does, so the quality potential for DTS is much higher. Given identical sources and the same quality of encoders, DTS will do better than DD.
First of all, make DTS-ES a standard. The only reason why movies that include DTS soundtracks also include Dolby Digital sountrack is because DTS is not standard. DTS is better than DD, so let's make it standard and forget about DD for movies. (audio commentaries should still be in DD though)
I agree, DTS should be standard. Most current DVD players can decode DTS to a regular audio signal, FWIW, so more discs come with DTS tracks (but usually at the expense of less video bandwidth because the obligatory DD track is also included). But rather than using DTS, why not use the encoding used in DVD-Audio? Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP)? If the media is so much larger and can hold so much more, why not include 24-bit 96 KHz audio if possible? I know there'll be resistance from the studios and engineers because this is as close to the raw material as an end user is ever likely to get, but it'd be a quantum leap forward (if I understand MLP correctly anyways).
In future DVD media (whatever name it ends up having) I sincerely hope that creating menus and such is vastly simpler than it is with the DVD format we have today. Honestly, it should be as simple as HTML with some minor scripting thrown into the mix to navigate the actual movies placed onto the disc. It's dumb that you have to have this convoluted and unnecessary IFO commands. Would the resultant menu be a mess of files (.html,.png,.jpg, etc) ala an HTML webpage? No. It could be compiled into a single binary/flat file (think something along the lines of Microsoft's HTML Help format (those.CHM files)), and to make composition for the author easier, it could even include sub-directories inside the flat file to make representing different parts of the disc easier (e.g. - index.html points to/chapters/index.html and/extras/index.html, and so on and so forth).
But seriously, I hope authoring is something they improve substantially. It's a shame that the method used now is so arcane that only a few ever master it enough to do anything reasonable. (Especially when HTML existed back when DVD was originally being created-- why create a new wheel when the existing one works so well)?
nod, that's what I'd do if I hadn't bought a DVD burner already (I got impatient and the price dropped below my $150 purchase threshold). Since I already did the 4x deal (I think it's like 15 minutes or so to burn a full disc), I'll skip 8x and either wait until they do 12x or faster, or wait until the 2nd generation of dual layer drives hits the market (for those who care, 1st generation is supposed to be sometime in 2004 (later part of 2004 I bet)).
8x should keep you happy well past that and hopefully until dual layer gains a good foothold and has proven itself. =)
nod, but the 8x drives out right now don't do +/- both at 8x, they just DVD+R at 8x and DVD-R at 4x.
I'm pretty sure Pioneer's DVR-A07/107 will be the first DVD-R writer that can burn at 8x. (If I'm wrong, and I'd be happy if I was, please someone post model numbers and such).
Agreed, you can get a Pioneer DVR-A06/106 for $140 with shipping, if not cheaper (I bought one two months ago). There's no reason to get locked in on media choices if the difference is just $40.
FYI-- Pioneer DVR-A06/106 do 4x DVD+/-R and 2.4x DVD+RW and I think 2.4x DVD-RW. There's a newer 8x DVD+/-R drive coming in January from Pioneer (DVR-A07/107) so it might pay to wait another month and check out the pricing on that.
Buffer underrun is the reason why buffers don't have to be huge. At this point I think the buffers mostly serve as an area to offload data to from the PC, and if it's full, great, if not, it can still keep up.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually IA-32e is something different from what AMD has done (IIRC). IA-32e is a 64-bit mode that defaults to 32-bit operands but still uses 64-bit addressing. This allows you all the benefits that a 64-bit processor would offer, without the unnecessary code bloat from having operands default to 64-bits.
As to your other comment, there are already differences between Intel's and AMD's implementation-- Intel has a CMPXCHG16B instruction while AMD does not. And I'm sure in the days ahead other differences will be revealed. It's unfortunate AMD didn't include a CMPXCHG16B instruction though.
Uhm... x86-64 isn't some modern marvel. It uses a prefix byte to indicate which opcodes are 32-bit and which are 64-bit. Hardly the most original way to tackle the problem. If nothing else, AMD actually ripped off Intel here by using all the original opcodes just with a new REX prefix.
Doesn't look very custom to me. Except for the more exotic stuff (boot loader and such) I don't see why you couldn't just build this in Visual Studio. I mean, do you honestly think the source for progman.exe requires "a very custom process"?
No, that's generally a Nintendo marketing deal. NES games weren't compatible with the SNES, SNES games weren't compatible with the Nintendo 64, and so on. Sega (and I'm no Sega fanboy here, but really, I can't deny history) with the Genesis also had an adapter so you could at least continue to play Sega Master System (SMS) games on the Genesis. They didn't continue that tradition with their future systems unfortunately, but then those probably would have died on their own anyways.
Sony has a good thing going by being compatible though, and Microsoft would do well to stay compatible as well-- people aren't interested in having 50 systems piled in front of their TV's, and if systems start being incompatible again, that's exactly what the consumer will be forced to deal with.
If all you believe is that it's a "shallow story" of "Good vs Evil", then you didn't "get" it.
IMNSHO, Titanic was rigged. Go to boxofficemojo.com and look up the weekly returns on Titanic-- be sure to note how many theatres it played in each week. Then go look at Return of the King's returns so far. Observe how they basically spoon-fed Titanic to the public, while ROTK (only in it's 5th week now I believe) has lost 1/4 of the theatres it started in. I wonder, if ROTK had been forced into those theatres that wanted to drop it if it wouldn't be doing as well if not better?
I mean, looking and comparing the week by week results of Titanic to Return of the King, it looks to me like studios manufacture "hits" by forcing people who go to the movies to watch them.
Agreed, I was incredibly disappointed to hear Sean Astin didn't get a nod for his performance as Sam. Easily the most moving performance I've seen in a long time, and he pulled it off perfectly.
Well, everything appears setup correctly for the DS to be backwards compatible-- it supposedly uses an ARM CPU (and as we all know, the GBA/SP use ARM CPU's).
. 0121.1808.42530.htm
There's also a little more info here--
http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200401/N04
In the interview, the Nintendo rep specifically states that they haven't currently announced whether or not it'll be backwards compatible, so it leaves the door open I think.
But the general point still stands-- this'll be Virtual Boy II unless they include backwards compatibility. Nobody wants to buy a *2nd* portable gaming system to be forced alongside the existing GBA/SP.
The only way it'd bomb is if they didn't include backwards compatibilith with GBA and older GB and GB Color titles. If they provide backwards compatibility they can likely just phase out the old GBA and GBA SP and force this onto consumers (since the GB is the #1 hand-held for the moment, barring Sony's new hand-held).
Funny you should say that, because it goes so well with this-- http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.as p?id=948
No, actually, this is what happens when you go through a standards process (the DVD Forum) rather than rolling your own (what HP, Sony, etc are doing with the +R/RW formats). Pioneer has submitted a dual layer specification to the DVD Forum, Pioneer is awaiting approval of the format rather than just releasing something into the market without any approval. The DVD Forum, IIRC, was the same group that approved the DVD Video standards we use today.
Both questions have the same answer as the above-- Pioneer can't commit to speeds and backwards compatibility questions until their specification is approved. You know, cart before the horse kind of thing. I'm betting than the -R/RW format won't be more than 6 months behind the +R/RW format in reaching dual layer however.
LOL, so they "potentially yes", and that's some negative against the -R camp that's still going through the standards process? Now, if I was a company trying to maximize sales, would *I* poison the marketplace by telling people that in as little as 3-6 months their shiny new DVD burner will be obsolete because I'll be releasing a new dual layer burner (that can also burn single layer media)? No. I'd put out the carrot and hope the donkey bites by saying that we MIGHT be able to support dual layer media via a firmware upgrade.
Now the thing is, if they're so close to having a drive released, why can't they answer definitely and promise their customers that an upgrade will be available?
Oh gee, I guess I better provide some URL's too--
/. article from November 23rd, 2003 stating that Plextor claims to have the first commercial 8x DVD+R drive. I don't know how it is you claim to have seen one in October 2003, let alone e
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8135
Here's an article discussing Pioneer's dual layer DVD aspirations. Quoting the Pioneer press release: "The new dual-layer recording technology, adopting the dye-recording-film layer method, has realized a 9.34% jitter with a 17.3% reflection rate on the first layer (L0) of a disc, and an 8.08% jitter with a 19.5% reflection rate for the second layer (L1). This shows almost the same performance as that for dual-layer DVD-ROM discs. It means that DVD-R discs supporting this technology can be played back on most existing DVD players, and DVD recorders supporting this technology will be developed easily". As you can see, they're serious about compatibility.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/8742
Here it's rumored that Sony's first dual layer DVD+R drive may be available by April of 2004, and that the first dual layer drives could begin appearing by Q2 2004. No firm dates are given.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/23/148208 &mode=thread&tid=137
Here's a
Who mods uninformed shit like this up? +R just recently got 8x burners (in the past month or so, IIRC, if not more recent). -R will be getting them in less than two weeks (Pioneer DVR-A07).
As far as dual layer DVD+R goes, yet more misinformation. What I've read is that around 70-80% of set top DVD players will be able to play dual layer DVD+R media. I have not heard figures on the forthcoming dual layer DVD-R media and drives, but I can only imagine similar if not better results.
Please keep your misinformation to yourself in the future, AC.
But the discussion isn't about current DVD's, the discussion is about future DVD-like video disc formats. Presumably with much larger capacity, it'd be fool-hardy not to encode at DTS's highest bitrates.
But getting away from the whole DTS vs. Dolby Digital discussion, I think neither would be ideal for a future disc to begin with: MLP, Meridian Lossless Packing (the same encoding used DVD Audio discs) is a much better candidate. As the name suggests, it's lossless, and it allows for higher bit deptch and a wider frequency range. That's the audio encoding method we should be championing for whatever new video distribution method is ultimately created (or, something similar at least-- lossless audio encoding is something we should strive for in consumer electronics).
Sure, but in this case DTS allows for larger bandwidth and is the better algorithm.
Well, here's a PDF link to look at--
:P
http://www.dolby.com/trademark/meridian.pdf
And there's plenty more on Google (just do a query for 'Meridian MLP' and you should turn up a ton of hits). I just like the idea of a lossless encoding, vs. what's used today (lossy AC3/DTS). =)
I just hope they don't implement it poorly like it was in DVD-Audio (e.g. - none of this crap with having to have *6* audio cables running from the back of your DVD-Audio player to 6 inputs on the back of your A/V Receiver). See, that was the problem with lossy compression-- the recording industry didn't like the idea of perfect digital copies that were basically as good as their studio copies. So rather than using the optical or coaxial digital outputs offered by DVD players, they use 6 analog outputs (one for each channel) that go into 6 analog inputs on DVD-Audio ready A/V receivers. Supposedly this prohibits piracy. Until someone finds out how to copy DVD-Audio discs ala DeCSS of course.
You meant "Fact, not opinion". DTS allows higher bitrates than DD does, so the quality potential for DTS is much higher. Given identical sources and the same quality of encoders, DTS will do better than DD.
I agree, DTS should be standard. Most current DVD players can decode DTS to a regular audio signal, FWIW, so more discs come with DTS tracks (but usually at the expense of less video bandwidth because the obligatory DD track is also included). But rather than using DTS, why not use the encoding used in DVD-Audio? Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP)? If the media is so much larger and can hold so much more, why not include 24-bit 96 KHz audio if possible? I know there'll be resistance from the studios and engineers because this is as close to the raw material as an end user is ever likely to get, but it'd be a quantum leap forward (if I understand MLP correctly anyways).
In future DVD media (whatever name it ends up having) I sincerely hope that creating menus and such is vastly simpler than it is with the DVD format we have today. Honestly, it should be as simple as HTML with some minor scripting thrown into the mix to navigate the actual movies placed onto the disc. It's dumb that you have to have this convoluted and unnecessary IFO commands. Would the resultant menu be a mess of files (.html, .png, .jpg, etc) ala an HTML webpage? No. It could be compiled into a single binary/flat file (think something along the lines of Microsoft's HTML Help format (those .CHM files)), and to make composition for the author easier, it could even include sub-directories inside the flat file to make representing different parts of the disc easier (e.g. - index.html points to /chapters/index.html and /extras/index.html, and so on and so forth).
But seriously, I hope authoring is something they improve substantially. It's a shame that the method used now is so arcane that only a few ever master it enough to do anything reasonable. (Especially when HTML existed back when DVD was originally being created-- why create a new wheel when the existing one works so well)?
Wow, good call.
nod, that's what I'd do if I hadn't bought a DVD burner already (I got impatient and the price dropped below my $150 purchase threshold). Since I already did the 4x deal (I think it's like 15 minutes or so to burn a full disc), I'll skip 8x and either wait until they do 12x or faster, or wait until the 2nd generation of dual layer drives hits the market (for those who care, 1st generation is supposed to be sometime in 2004 (later part of 2004 I bet)).
8x should keep you happy well past that and hopefully until dual layer gains a good foothold and has proven itself. =)
nod, but the 8x drives out right now don't do +/- both at 8x, they just DVD+R at 8x and DVD-R at 4x.
I'm pretty sure Pioneer's DVR-A07/107 will be the first DVD-R writer that can burn at 8x. (If I'm wrong, and I'd be happy if I was, please someone post model numbers and such).
You can read about the DVR-A07 here--
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/company_news_pressr elease.jsp?category=news_121103_DVRA07
Agreed, you can get a Pioneer DVR-A06/106 for $140 with shipping, if not cheaper (I bought one two months ago). There's no reason to get locked in on media choices if the difference is just $40.
FYI-- Pioneer DVR-A06/106 do 4x DVD+/-R and 2.4x DVD+RW and I think 2.4x DVD-RW. There's a newer 8x DVD+/-R drive coming in January from Pioneer (DVR-A07/107) so it might pay to wait another month and check out the pricing on that.
Surprised they weren't modded down too. Since when does this fool think that only members of the press get copyright protection?
Buffer underrun is the reason why buffers don't have to be huge. At this point I think the buffers mostly serve as an area to offload data to from the PC, and if it's full, great, if not, it can still keep up.