Well, considering that EFI is now 6 years old, why shouldn't it be both ultra modern and industry standard?
Just because you haven't heard of it until now doesn't mean it isn't established. It's been running in Itanium and a handful of x86 systems for over 5 years now.
The only real issue is calling it an "industry standard". More like a "good idea made real", but Apple is known for hyperbole.
Besides regarding Windows, isn't it true that, "running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world?" I would call it due diligence, warning prospective Mac users installing Windows XP that they will be opening their Windows PC to a whole world of vulnerabilities virtually unheard of on a Mac.
"Warning, consumption of alcohol by pregnant women can contribute to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome."
Would you say this statement is off because it is critical of alcohol manufacturers? Apple is stating a known truth and issuing a fair warning. It may not be nice or friendly, but it is true and it is useful for those Mac users who have never had to deal with spyware, viruses, or malware before.
Google could prolly be THE company to set things right in portable music.
Or, you know, Apple with it's iPod is currently setting the stage for portable music.
About the only thing it doesn't do right is universal DRM; on the other hand I would argue that in it's infancy having multiple implementations of DRM is probably going to kill the usability and quality factor of DRM. Not that it excuses Apple, but it does make it reasonable why Apple maintained a tight, single, proprietary implementation of DRM thus far.
The ironic thing about Apple's iTMS is that all those answers are "yes", for $1.99 a show.
As soon as the library opens up and pricing structure catches up to inflation, I really do believe that the iTMS will "kill" PVRs. All Apple would have to do is release some kind of monthly subscription, $100 a month gets you 100 episodes of any and every show a month.
Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.
Except Mac OS X.
Installing an app under OS X will never break another app by design because each app has it's own set of libraries. The only way to break apps in OS X is if you install a framework, which is not an app, and is the equivalent of updating GTK or libgc.
I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.
It's a trade-off anyone can make, but most people except Apple have not.
There have been some pretty neat things in the last three years in Macland: 3d accelerated UI (not Avalon but Quartz) Advanced development libraries (not DirectX, but CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreAudio/CoreData) Deeply integrated search (not Windows File Indexing, but Spotlight) Transparent networking (not UPNP, but Rendezvous/Bonjour) Wireless networking (built into every Mac since 2002 or so) UI enhancements (not Vista, but Aqua) Distributed computing (XGrid, built into every copy of OS X 10.4) Adoption of EFI (Intel tech of course, but similar to the extant Open Firmware)
Of course there were a few things Apple did inherit from NeXT as well: Advanced development environment (Cocoa, not WinFX) Cross platform development/deployment (Fat binaries ne Universal) Self contained application containers (Bundles)
All Microsoft seems to have accomplished in the past few years is managed code in.NET, which doesn't seem to have taken off. If you want new technologies, why wait for the entrenched dominant company to release it? All Microsoft will do is lower the price due to size and inertia
Um, it almost sounds like you're describing an iPod.
1) Doesn't quite make it; the back is stainless steel, but the front is plastic over some kind of magnesium chassis. 2) Already there, charges over a standard Firewire connection for the first two generations when it was discovered a 'universal' dock connector worked better. Now it can charge from anything: Firewire, USB, car charger, wall wart, external battery pack. 3) Already huge; 4gb sans moving platters, 60gb with moving platters. 4) Apple has arguably the best interface on the iPod already. 5) Already done. Apple uses an index file stored in RAM to minimize spin up times for instant ID3 and metadata access, utilizes 32mb or 64mb of RAM to cache songs for instant access to the next handful of songs, and uses a hash table to store all their songs to minimize disk access to any song in your library. 6) What do you think the original iPod did? Straight MP3, then added AAC. You dismiss AAC, yet think OGG and MP3 is okay? If patent encumbered MP3 is okay, what is wrong with similarly patent encumbered AAC? Here's a hint, MP3 stands for ISO MPEG 1 Layer 3, while AAC is ISO MPEG 4 Advanced Audio Codec.
You're essentially asking Microsoft to re-invent the iPod; however why would anyone buy a Microsoft iPod over an Apple iPod?
I think you need a different set of criteria for a true iPod killer: 1) Must have a dock to support all iPod accessories 2) Must 'appear' to be an iPod when plugged into a computer
These first two criteria are similar to what allowed Compaq to originally flourish when they cloned the PC to create the current IBM compatible PC market.
In addition you should have: 2) Transparent codec support; aac, mp3, flac, ale, ogg, wma, etc. If it can support any and all codecs, then it should 3) Built in wireless support for synching + headphones 4) Support for sending cell phone calls, but not receiving them 5) UI should be as simple as possible, and no simpler. Remove any extra button, option, and mode unless it is critical to the core usage 6) Integrate it into HTPC as a remote, especially since it has wireless; upload and download of data, use as a pause/play/FF/RW, etc
My logic is two-fold: First be compatible with everything iPod, to ensure the largest customer base. Second is to improve on the iPod; added wireless support, improved codec support, and the addition of two useful new features that 'come for free' with the addition of it's digital radio technology.
Alright, back to basics. The article claims, "Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them."
There are several ways to test this claim.
They used 128kbps AAC + DRM vs 128kbps MP3, without ALSO testing 128kbps AAC. Why is this important? If they claim it is the DRM that is sucking the battery life, they need to also show proof that it is not the AAC.
If I am right (I am testing this right now with my iPod), it isn't heavy DRM but AAC that sucks the life out of the iPod; with 10 songs, 51.5mb, 44.1 minutes in AAC and 50.7mb in MP3 I am testing overnight. 12 hours and 49 minutes with AAC and by tomorrow I will know how long with MP3.
You believe what you wish, but the article claims it is the DRM, where I believe it is the codec.
Of course if I find, after adjusting for the minute filesize difference, that AAC sucks up 5% battery life, then I will agree that DRM does suck up battery life, but I will claim it is only 3%, which is well within the bounds of normal usage. You can claim all you want that DRM music sucks battery life, but that is YOUR claim, and not the article's claim.
So here's the way I understand it: iTunes:QuickTime Player QuickTime
You can't just delete the QuickTime Player without uninstalling Quicktime? Perhaps that's just a Windows thing, because under OS X I can delete QuickTime Player.app
Then the other point; QuickTime Player itself is only a 10mb app, while the QuickTime framework it closer to 50mb.
So your displeasure with QuickTime Player is understandable, but it really is a small thing. Perhaps Apple should look into eliminating the QuickTime Player altogether and replace it with iTunes... but then you'd find people complaining about, "I only want the QuickTime Player, and I have to get iTunes!"
You are incorrect on many levels. Let me go up layer by layer:
1) If you want to claim that it is DRM, and not the codec, that is draining battery life, you need to test the same song with and without DRM; from the iTMS it is simple to buy a track and then strip it using PlayFair. If both playlists come out the same, then you can't claim the DRM is draining the battery life.
On the other hand if you want to claim, instead, that it is the codec that is draining battery life (which is what I believe), then you need to test the song encoded in 128kbps MP3 vs 128kbps WMA vs 128kbps AAC, without any DRM.
This is regardless of the social context of what is popular, what is common, what is available. It is purely and only to measure the performance hit of DRM. If DRM really is what sucks the battery life, then we should find that all WMA, AAC, and MP3 of the same kbps and of the same song should hit the battery equally. We would also see that the same AAC file from the iTMS would take more battery with DRM than without.
2) Second you claim no one in their right mind would use AAC or WMA. Excuse me? That is like saying no one in their right mind would use MP3. If you don't know, here are several reasons to use AAC or WMA
a) An MP3 encoded at 225kbs is roughly equivalent in quality to an AAC encoded at 160kbps. If you want to increase battery life and storage capacity, you encode at a lower bitrate to reduce song filesize and memory footprint. b) An MP3 encoded at 160kbps will have slightly lower quality than an AAC encoded at 160kbps. If you want to increase sound performance without increasing size, you use a more advanced codec. c) AAC is really the logical successor to MP3. MP3 is ISO MPEG 1 Layer 3, while AAC is ISO MPEG 4 advanced audio codec. Your rejection of AAC is absurd and silly; My DVD player plays MPEG4, DivX, AAC, MP3, and WMA. My iPod (at last count they were roughly 80% of the market) plays MP3, AAC, and MPEG4. All PCs and Macs with iTunes plays AAC, MP3, and MPEG4, and at last count in a previous article it was discussed that iTunes has twice the use rate of WMP. I don't know why you think no one uses AAC has it clearly has two advantages over MP3, listed above.
Because I can't actually get the 'same' song in encrypted vs non encrypted. We're trying to prove that the difference in battery life is due to codec complexity.
If I have a CD of, say, the Bangles, I can rip it twice, once with MP3 and once with AAC at the same bitrate and with the same settings.
If I then perform the overnight test and report the values and they have an 8% hit then we can conclusively say that the 8% hit is not because of DRM but because of the additional complexity of the format/codec. If however I see less of a hit then the difference can be attributed to DRM since we have already seen that DRM vs non DRM has an 8% hit.
That, or the fact that they used computationally simple 128kbps MP3 and 192kbps computationally complex WMA. The 128kbps AAC showed an 8% hit, but that can be explained away with computational complexity and not DRM; an easy way to redo this test is to take a 128kbps MP3 and the same song encoded in non DRM 128kbps AAC and see if the same 8% hit occurrs.
If yes, it is the codec and not the DRM. If no, it is the DRM and not the codec.
Yes but you notice, the game isn't called Final, it is called "Final Fantasy".
This is no more strange than calling some one a fireman. Would you ask, "But does fire not really mean burning? I have often wondered why they are not burning down to the ground."
So just like firemen are not actually on fire, "Final Fantasy" is not actually the last fantasy. Firemen stop fires, and Final Fantasy is a series that was started with a then ailing Square as their last game.
So you're saying that Microsoft has been resting on it's laurels since 2003?;)
Still, I too would prefer that Microsoft improve it's guts, but I'm not sure that I see any evidence that they have. They haven't made their user-land applications such as Outlook, Addressbook, Windows Media Center, Windows Messenger, or Internet Explorer safer by using managed code (.NET), but they have instead focused a lot of effort on developing a new display system ala Quartz in their WPF/Avalon display technology, WinFX ala Cocoa as their new advanced development toolkit, and then there is Indigo, their web foundation that allows applications to act both locally and remotely. I hope they've done a good job with that, because that sounds like a sure recipe for remote exploits!
Apple had it easier though, since they bought NeXT, who had already developed an advanced display library and development toolkit. They were able to use that development toolkit to rapidly add to OS X what was necessary to catch up to XP, and then continue to add features such as Dashboard, Expose, and Spotlight to continue advancing past XP.
Yes, and Objective-C has a perceived performance hit as a message passing language, as compared to C++, that is analogous if not comparable to the performance hit that.NET has compared to Win32, as a managed code library. It isn't 100% analogous, but for the purpose of the comparison it has merits.
What's the point of upgrading to Vista if it doesn't provide new applications or features?
OS X has provided new applications with each release for the past five years: Fontbook Spotlight Dashboard Expose Safari iChat iSync AddressBook Automator
They have all used Cocoa, the equivalent to.NET in Macland, to highlight the strengths of the Cocoa development environment.
In addition they have developed new applications in Cocoa, such as iPhoto, Aperture, and other for sale programs.
Well, then, isn't that the same reason for 3rd party developers to not use.NET? If there is no physical difference, why use.NET over known existing toolkits and libraries? Using.NET chains developers to MS, while at the same time MS is NOT constrained by.NET
On the other hand Vista has NEW products, such as the new Explorer and IE; if.NET really is as powerful as Microsoft claims, why not write them in.NET?
To use an example, analogous (but not the same) to.NET in Mac OS X is Cocoa, the modern development environment on OS X, while Carbon is their modern equivalent to Win32 that is also compatible with the now deprecated Mac OS 9. Apple implements their modern products (Safari, iPhoto, Mail, Aperture, iChat) in Cocoa and their transition products in Carbon (Finder, iTunes). The term, I think, is "eat their own dog food" in terms of promoting these development environments..NET replaces Win32
Of course it doesn't matter. If you choose not to care about details, then all that matters is outcome.
All I'm implying is that you might be able to glean some of the reasons for the iPod's success despite worthy competitors such as the Vision by it's physical design and engineering:
1) Smaller components (such as motherboard and battery) 2) Higher efficiency (same battery life, but smaller battery) 3) Better layout (smaller form factor because of smaller components)
Those just hint at the physical and philosophical differences between the iPod and Vision:M.
There is more of course, but these differences also suggest the differences we see in the software and UI, which for Creative, like their music players, has steadily improved without actually surpassing the iPod, while the iPod's software and UI has been more or less the same since it's inception in 2001. It's now 2006, so it's take Creative about 5 years to 'catch up' in both physical design, UI, and software design, and these pictures still show that Creative is slightly behind, in terms of density, efficiency, and layout.
You will notice, for one thing, that the iPod's PCB is about half the size of the Vision's; this corresponds to the size of the mp3 player, and battery life. 1250mAH for the Vision and 700mAH for the iPod, and they both rate at 14 hours. The size of the mp3 player speaks about the engineering effort placed into designing the components.
Then the size of the batteries tell you about the efficiency of the MP3 player, since they both rate at 14hrs, while one is nearly twice as large.
It is also telling that the Vision:M was released AFTER the iPod with Video; so in that sense the Vision:M is a couple generations behind because isn't as power thrifty, nor as compact. Apple has steadily been making their devices both more power efficient and smaller.
Do you have a wardrobe of various styles and colors, or are all your clothes the exact same material, cut, and design?
Do you happen to have a plain car in tan with grey cloth seats? Wouldn't you rather have a car with more color and style?
The color of the DS-Lite is one factor; the other is the size, since it is smaller than the previous DS, and the previous DS came in three different colors (silver, red, and blue)
Re:The 3 reasons for the iPod's rule
on
iPod Video Dissection
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You forgot one of the reasons for the iPod's rule: Perfect form factor.
Prior to the iPod you had CD sized large capacity MP3 players, or iPod sized low capacity flash players. The iPod bridged that gap quite nicely by providing high density small size players.
Now EVERYONE has a deck of cards sized MP3 player with touch pad and screen. Before the iPod it was a mess of buttons and UI elements.
So the top three, in order of history: 1) Perfect form factor 2) De-geeked interface 3) Marketing
You can't after all, market crap. There has to be something marketable in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking too.
Then there are cars, and clubs, activities, drinking, partying, hobbies, etc.
As kids grow up more of the world becomes available to them.
And then there is still the stigma associated with being a gamer; of being childish or geeky or dorky.
Well, considering that EFI is now 6 years old, why shouldn't it be both ultra modern and industry standard?
Just because you haven't heard of it until now doesn't mean it isn't established. It's been running in Itanium and a handful of x86 systems for over 5 years now.
The only real issue is calling it an "industry standard". More like a "good idea made real", but Apple is known for hyperbole.
Besides regarding Windows, isn't it true that, "running on a Mac is like Windows running on a PC. That means it'll be subject to the same attacks that plague the Windows world?" I would call it due diligence, warning prospective Mac users installing Windows XP that they will be opening their Windows PC to a whole world of vulnerabilities virtually unheard of on a Mac.
"Warning, consumption of alcohol by pregnant women can contribute to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome."
Would you say this statement is off because it is critical of alcohol manufacturers? Apple is stating a known truth and issuing a fair warning. It may not be nice or friendly, but it is true and it is useful for those Mac users who have never had to deal with spyware, viruses, or malware before.
What new games? Aren't they only making new games for the DS, now?
Or, you know, Apple with it's iPod is currently setting the stage for portable music.
About the only thing it doesn't do right is universal DRM; on the other hand I would argue that in it's infancy having multiple implementations of DRM is probably going to kill the usability and quality factor of DRM. Not that it excuses Apple, but it does make it reasonable why Apple maintained a tight, single, proprietary implementation of DRM thus far.
The ironic thing about Apple's iTMS is that all those answers are "yes", for $1.99 a show.
As soon as the library opens up and pricing structure catches up to inflation, I really do believe that the iTMS will "kill" PVRs. All Apple would have to do is release some kind of monthly subscription, $100 a month gets you 100 episodes of any and every show a month.
Installing an app in the stable version of Debian is less likely to break another app then under any other OS.
Except Mac OS X.
Installing an app under OS X will never break another app by design because each app has it's own set of libraries. The only way to break apps in OS X is if you install a framework, which is not an app, and is the equivalent of updating GTK or libgc.
I take your point, but its a trade-off easier to make when you control as much as Apple does - and its not a trade-off that everyone is willing to (or able to) make.
It's a trade-off anyone can make, but most people except Apple have not.
Where are the interesting technologies?
.NET, which doesn't seem to have taken off. If you want new technologies, why wait for the entrenched dominant company to release it? All Microsoft will do is lower the price due to size and inertia
Probably lurking on Macs and Linux boxen.
There have been some pretty neat things in the last three years in Macland:
3d accelerated UI (not Avalon but Quartz)
Advanced development libraries (not DirectX, but CoreImage/CoreVideo/CoreAudio/CoreData)
Deeply integrated search (not Windows File Indexing, but Spotlight)
Transparent networking (not UPNP, but Rendezvous/Bonjour)
Wireless networking (built into every Mac since 2002 or so)
UI enhancements (not Vista, but Aqua)
Distributed computing (XGrid, built into every copy of OS X 10.4)
Adoption of EFI (Intel tech of course, but similar to the extant Open Firmware)
Of course there were a few things Apple did inherit from NeXT as well:
Advanced development environment (Cocoa, not WinFX)
Cross platform development/deployment (Fat binaries ne Universal)
Self contained application containers (Bundles)
All Microsoft seems to have accomplished in the past few years is managed code in
Um, it almost sounds like you're describing an iPod.
1) Doesn't quite make it; the back is stainless steel, but the front is plastic over some kind of magnesium chassis.
2) Already there, charges over a standard Firewire connection for the first two generations when it was discovered a 'universal' dock connector worked better. Now it can charge from anything: Firewire, USB, car charger, wall wart, external battery pack.
3) Already huge; 4gb sans moving platters, 60gb with moving platters.
4) Apple has arguably the best interface on the iPod already.
5) Already done. Apple uses an index file stored in RAM to minimize spin up times for instant ID3 and metadata access, utilizes 32mb or 64mb of RAM to cache songs for instant access to the next handful of songs, and uses a hash table to store all their songs to minimize disk access to any song in your library.
6) What do you think the original iPod did? Straight MP3, then added AAC. You dismiss AAC, yet think OGG and MP3 is okay? If patent encumbered MP3 is okay, what is wrong with similarly patent encumbered AAC? Here's a hint, MP3 stands for ISO MPEG 1 Layer 3, while AAC is ISO MPEG 4 Advanced Audio Codec.
You're essentially asking Microsoft to re-invent the iPod; however why would anyone buy a Microsoft iPod over an Apple iPod?
I think you need a different set of criteria for a true iPod killer:
1) Must have a dock to support all iPod accessories
2) Must 'appear' to be an iPod when plugged into a computer
These first two criteria are similar to what allowed Compaq to originally flourish when they cloned the PC to create the current IBM compatible PC market.
In addition you should have:
2) Transparent codec support; aac, mp3, flac, ale, ogg, wma, etc. If it can support any and all codecs, then it should
3) Built in wireless support for synching + headphones
4) Support for sending cell phone calls, but not receiving them
5) UI should be as simple as possible, and no simpler. Remove any extra button, option, and mode unless it is critical to the core usage
6) Integrate it into HTPC as a remote, especially since it has wireless; upload and download of data, use as a pause/play/FF/RW, etc
My logic is two-fold: First be compatible with everything iPod, to ensure the largest customer base. Second is to improve on the iPod; added wireless support, improved codec support, and the addition of two useful new features that 'come for free' with the addition of it's digital radio technology.
Except that 95% of my files are ripped in AAC for size and quality reasons.
When I download a DRM AAC file, I don't see a performance hit on my iPod.
If other people also used AAC for size and quality reasons, they would see similar battery life.
Of course they could choose to use MP3 too, I'm not denying that.
I don't think you understand my point: AAC and WMA are nowhere near as rare as you make them out to be, even if MP3 is dominant.
Alright, back to basics. The article claims, "Heavy DRM not only slows down an MP3 player but also sucks the very life out of them."
There are several ways to test this claim.
They used 128kbps AAC + DRM vs 128kbps MP3, without ALSO testing 128kbps AAC. Why is this important? If they claim it is the DRM that is sucking the battery life, they need to also show proof that it is not the AAC.
If I am right (I am testing this right now with my iPod), it isn't heavy DRM but AAC that sucks the life out of the iPod; with 10 songs, 51.5mb, 44.1 minutes in AAC and 50.7mb in MP3 I am testing overnight. 12 hours and 49 minutes with AAC and by tomorrow I will know how long with MP3.
You believe what you wish, but the article claims it is the DRM, where I believe it is the codec.
Of course if I find, after adjusting for the minute filesize difference, that AAC sucks up 5% battery life, then I will agree that DRM does suck up battery life, but I will claim it is only 3%, which is well within the bounds of normal usage. You can claim all you want that DRM music sucks battery life, but that is YOUR claim, and not the article's claim.
So here's the way I understand it:
iTunes:QuickTime Player
QuickTime
You can't just delete the QuickTime Player without uninstalling Quicktime? Perhaps that's just a Windows thing, because under OS X I can delete QuickTime Player.app
Then the other point; QuickTime Player itself is only a 10mb app, while the QuickTime framework it closer to 50mb.
So your displeasure with QuickTime Player is understandable, but it really is a small thing. Perhaps Apple should look into eliminating the QuickTime Player altogether and replace it with iTunes... but then you'd find people complaining about, "I only want the QuickTime Player, and I have to get iTunes!"
Funny isn't it?
You are incorrect on many levels. Let me go up layer by layer:
1) If you want to claim that it is DRM, and not the codec, that is draining battery life, you need to test the same song with and without DRM; from the iTMS it is simple to buy a track and then strip it using PlayFair. If both playlists come out the same, then you can't claim the DRM is draining the battery life.
On the other hand if you want to claim, instead, that it is the codec that is draining battery life (which is what I believe), then you need to test the song encoded in 128kbps MP3 vs 128kbps WMA vs 128kbps AAC, without any DRM.
This is regardless of the social context of what is popular, what is common, what is available. It is purely and only to measure the performance hit of DRM. If DRM really is what sucks the battery life, then we should find that all WMA, AAC, and MP3 of the same kbps and of the same song should hit the battery equally. We would also see that the same AAC file from the iTMS would take more battery with DRM than without.
2) Second you claim no one in their right mind would use AAC or WMA. Excuse me? That is like saying no one in their right mind would use MP3. If you don't know, here are several reasons to use AAC or WMA
a) An MP3 encoded at 225kbs is roughly equivalent in quality to an AAC encoded at 160kbps. If you want to increase battery life and storage capacity, you encode at a lower bitrate to reduce song filesize and memory footprint.
b) An MP3 encoded at 160kbps will have slightly lower quality than an AAC encoded at 160kbps. If you want to increase sound performance without increasing size, you use a more advanced codec.
c) AAC is really the logical successor to MP3. MP3 is ISO MPEG 1 Layer 3, while AAC is ISO MPEG 4 advanced audio codec. Your rejection of AAC is absurd and silly; My DVD player plays MPEG4, DivX, AAC, MP3, and WMA. My iPod (at last count they were roughly 80% of the market) plays MP3, AAC, and MPEG4. All PCs and Macs with iTunes plays AAC, MP3, and MPEG4, and at last count in a previous article it was discussed that iTunes has twice the use rate of WMP. I don't know why you think no one uses AAC has it clearly has two advantages over MP3, listed above.
Because I can't actually get the 'same' song in encrypted vs non encrypted. We're trying to prove that the difference in battery life is due to codec complexity.
If I have a CD of, say, the Bangles, I can rip it twice, once with MP3 and once with AAC at the same bitrate and with the same settings.
If I then perform the overnight test and report the values and they have an 8% hit then we can conclusively say that the 8% hit is not because of DRM but because of the additional complexity of the format/codec. If however I see less of a hit then the difference can be attributed to DRM since we have already seen that DRM vs non DRM has an 8% hit.
Or depending on implementation, AAC can use less resources than MP3.
It really does depend on the implementation as much as the technology.
That, or the fact that they used computationally simple 128kbps MP3 and 192kbps computationally complex WMA. The 128kbps AAC showed an 8% hit, but that can be explained away with computational complexity and not DRM; an easy way to redo this test is to take a 128kbps MP3 and the same song encoded in non DRM 128kbps AAC and see if the same 8% hit occurrs.
If yes, it is the codec and not the DRM.
If no, it is the DRM and not the codec.
Yes but you notice, the game isn't called Final, it is called "Final Fantasy".
This is no more strange than calling some one a fireman. Would you ask, "But does fire not really mean burning? I have often wondered why they are not burning down to the ground."
So just like firemen are not actually on fire, "Final Fantasy" is not actually the last fantasy. Firemen stop fires, and Final Fantasy is a series that was started with a then ailing Square as their last game.
So you're saying that Microsoft has been resting on it's laurels since 2003? ;)
e chnologies
Still, I too would prefer that Microsoft improve it's guts, but I'm not sure that I see any evidence that they have. They haven't made their user-land applications such as Outlook, Addressbook, Windows Media Center, Windows Messenger, or Internet Explorer safer by using managed code (.NET), but they have instead focused a lot of effort on developing a new display system ala Quartz in their WPF/Avalon display technology, WinFX ala Cocoa as their new advanced development toolkit, and then there is Indigo, their web foundation that allows applications to act both locally and remotely. I hope they've done a good job with that, because that sounds like a sure recipe for remote exploits!
Apple had it easier though, since they bought NeXT, who had already developed an advanced display library and development toolkit. They were able to use that development toolkit to rapidly add to OS X what was necessary to catch up to XP, and then continue to add features such as Dashboard, Expose, and Spotlight to continue advancing past XP.
All info gathered from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Core_t
Yes, and Objective-C has a perceived performance hit as a message passing language, as compared to C++, that is analogous if not comparable to the performance hit that .NET has compared to Win32, as a managed code library. It isn't 100% analogous, but for the purpose of the comparison it has merits.
What's the point of upgrading to Vista if it doesn't provide new applications or features?
.NET in Macland, to highlight the strengths of the Cocoa development environment.
OS X has provided new applications with each release for the past five years:
Fontbook
Spotlight
Dashboard
Expose
Safari
iChat
iSync
AddressBook
Automator
They have all used Cocoa, the equivalent to
In addition they have developed new applications in Cocoa, such as iPhoto, Aperture, and other for sale programs.
Well, then, isn't that the same reason for 3rd party developers to not use .NET? If there is no physical difference, why use .NET over known existing toolkits and libraries? Using .NET chains developers to MS, while at the same time MS is NOT constrained by .NET
.NET really is as powerful as Microsoft claims, why not write them in .NET?
.NET in Mac OS X is Cocoa, the modern development environment on OS X, while Carbon is their modern equivalent to Win32 that is also compatible with the now deprecated Mac OS 9. Apple implements their modern products (Safari, iPhoto, Mail, Aperture, iChat) in Cocoa and their transition products in Carbon (Finder, iTunes). The term, I think, is "eat their own dog food" in terms of promoting these development environments. .NET replaces Win32
On the other hand Vista has NEW products, such as the new Explorer and IE; if
To use an example, analogous (but not the same) to
Yes, but isn't this also true of the other Core Duo solutions that happen to be equivalent in performance to Athlon/Opeteron CPUs?
Of course it doesn't matter. If you choose not to care about details, then all that matters is outcome.
All I'm implying is that you might be able to glean some of the reasons for the iPod's success despite worthy competitors such as the Vision by it's physical design and engineering:
1) Smaller components (such as motherboard and battery)
2) Higher efficiency (same battery life, but smaller battery)
3) Better layout (smaller form factor because of smaller components)
Those just hint at the physical and philosophical differences between the iPod and Vision:M.
There is more of course, but these differences also suggest the differences we see in the software and UI, which for Creative, like their music players, has steadily improved without actually surpassing the iPod, while the iPod's software and UI has been more or less the same since it's inception in 2001. It's now 2006, so it's take Creative about 5 years to 'catch up' in both physical design, UI, and software design, and these pictures still show that Creative is slightly behind, in terms of density, efficiency, and layout.
You can learn a few things by taking apart an iPod. Compare, for example with a Creative Vision:Mo w-to-disassemble-the-creative-zen-vision-m.php
http://www.anythingbutipod.com/archives/2006/02/h
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ipod3.htm
You will notice, for one thing, that the iPod's PCB is about half the size of the Vision's; this corresponds to the size of the mp3 player, and battery life. 1250mAH for the Vision and 700mAH for the iPod, and they both rate at 14 hours. The size of the mp3 player speaks about the engineering effort placed into designing the components.
Then the size of the batteries tell you about the efficiency of the MP3 player, since they both rate at 14hrs, while one is nearly twice as large.
It is also telling that the Vision:M was released AFTER the iPod with Video; so in that sense the Vision:M is a couple generations behind because isn't as power thrifty, nor as compact. Apple has steadily been making their devices both more power efficient and smaller.
Do you have a wardrobe of various styles and colors, or are all your clothes the exact same material, cut, and design?
Do you happen to have a plain car in tan with grey cloth seats? Wouldn't you rather have a car with more color and style?
The color of the DS-Lite is one factor; the other is the size, since it is smaller than the previous DS, and the previous DS came in three different colors (silver, red, and blue)
You forgot one of the reasons for the iPod's rule:
Perfect form factor.
Prior to the iPod you had CD sized large capacity MP3 players, or iPod sized low capacity flash players. The iPod bridged that gap quite nicely by providing high density small size players.
Now EVERYONE has a deck of cards sized MP3 player with touch pad and screen. Before the iPod it was a mess of buttons and UI elements.
So the top three, in order of history:
1) Perfect form factor
2) De-geeked interface
3) Marketing
You can't after all, market crap. There has to be something marketable in the first place.