With HD-DVD the backwards compatibility refers to the production facilities where the Disks are stamped and the players/drives are made. That is to say, your current production line can be upgraded to handle the new format, which is cheaper for them (if they will pass the savings to the consumer, is a different story).
On the other Hand, the Blu-Ray guys, will have to build new facilities from scratch, which is expensive...
that is why there is a difference in capacity, because, by not being compatible with previous infrastructure, the Blu-Ray camp had more liberty to design.
Think of HD-DVD as more evolutionary than revolutioray and Blu-Ray as more revolutionary than evolutionary, and you'll get the idea.
Personally, I would like the manufacturers and content providers to use a better compression algorithm with current DVD technology (like DivX6, the codec, not to be confused with the maligned divx Disks) for the HD-DVDs now, and let the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps Fsck-Up, until a new breakthrough technology comes, in wich everyone may agree. Hey, even better, some of the Current player could be upgraded with the new codec, meaning that I can start my HD-DVD colection with m=y old player now, and buy an HD-DVD player when I buy an HD-DVD tv set latter in the future....
Probably you can automate this by using some windows scripting and the Process204.zip program from the Fine folks at BeyondLogic.org http://www.beyondlogic.org/
This may be useful for maintenance purposes, as some posters commented in the article's comments zone. Not that is very wise to run a machine like that all the time, as the article itself says.
But what I like the most about this, is that the article shows that WinNT 5.0 (A.K.A. Windows 2000) and WinNT 5.2 (A.K.A. Windows XP) can be trimmed down to a bare minimum. Another mith debunked.
Other of my pet peves comes from the dos era. The slashdot crowd used to say that DOS can not mount a drive into a a directory to form a unified directory tree like in Unix. This was false then (please see the description of the JOIN command mor the method in DOS). The functionality was present in Win95 and 98, but seems absent in 2000 and XP.
Miths like this abound on Slashdot and are repeated time and time again, until they become truth. Check first, post later.
While I would preffer a world where no DRM is necesary, and people abide the law, the fact is that there are a few leaches among us, and a bunch of morons making crappy DRMs and crappy laws.
When the parent mentions biometrics, I remember a movie where a cop lost ann arm. Afterwards he goes to the bank to make a withdrawl (the movie is old, pre-ATM era). The cashier says:
"I can not give you the money, the signature does not match" The guy answers: "The reasion is that last time i signed ith my left hand" and shows him his hook.
the Idea is to reduce the number of people for whom the technology is obstrusive to epsilon, without steeping to much in their privacy.
To continue using your biometric example, perhaps you are given 10 tokens (Iris, left Thumb, Right index, a huge password, size of left foot, USB key,.... you get the idea), and you can use any one of them to unlock your music.I you loose any one of them (index finger lost in freakish garbage disposer repair accident), you have to present at least three of the remaining others to restore the mising ones.... Of course, one can drone on and on about the advantages and inconveniences of any of the examples ginen on slashdot. Mine is a piece of crap, and that is the idea.....
In the end (some 10 years or so) this will be achieved, in the meantime, enjoy the crappy DRM schemes that will come to pass
The reasons for the shift are one thing
The reasons for the shift cited by Jobs are a different thing.
They went to Intel for many reasons, fab capacity, better performance per watt in 2007, breadth of offer (Intel can give anithing from processors to chipsets, to freescale procesors), discounts, et cetera.
While AMD has the best microporcesors Where are the embeded ones for the iPod? And the Chipsets?. The same can be said for every other possible supplier. Possibly only Intel, VIA, Motorola and IBM coud offer the entire line. In the end, Apple chose Intel, well, big deal, suck it up, let's all dela with it!
The floppy will inddeed disappear, along with RS-232 and Centronics parallel ports. C'mon people, it WILL dissapear someday but VEEERY slowly. This is not the first article about it, and is not the last one.
I propose that, from now onwards, everytime we see an article about "The demise of the floppy disk" or "The end of the floppy disk era" on slashdot, we treat it as a dud.
My only regret is that the floppy will go away without a suitable replacement. As some other posters have said, it was too bad that as the time was ripe for a replacement to be picked up, too many choices (ZIPs, JAZZ, Bernoillis, superdisks, LS-120, et cetera) were available, so neither one became the de-facto standart.
Hopefully, by the time claiming property of space becomes relevant, there will be less players involved. Probably Nafta (You know what that is), LatAm (everything south of Mexico), EEC (European Economic Comunity), The greater Africa... Or even better, the United Earth.
This trend towards countries creating trade and political blocks is accelelrating and is, In my humble oppinion, a GOOD thing.
Being like that, I guess they can treat the solar system as they do with Antartica
The business model of ink-jet printing is perverse. Nowadays, the companies earn more for the ink than for the printer. Everyone knows that.
In this sad state of affairs, the more one company can do to lower the cost of the printer, the better for it, since the printer is posibly subsidized, and people buy them based on sheer up front value of the printer, without considering long term costs. Therefore, this is an "advancement" for HP if it allows them to lower the cost of the overall system, wether or not they pass on the savings.
But, although the business model is perverse, do not just post: "Why is people so stupid? Laser is better, do not buy inkjets!" Inkjet printing has quite a few uses were laser can not match:
* Printing giant billboards. * Portable printers. * Color printing (I bet is still cheaper on Inkjets) * Printing on alternate media (texturized paper, fabrics, t-shit transfers, etc.) * When your volume of printing is so low than the interest earned on the money you save up-fron versus buying a laser printer will more than ofset the savings on refills. * Or in cases like mine: I'll be going to spain for 13 months for a masters degree, and I plan to buy a printer there and I will not be taking back this printer, and I do not want or need the wassle of selling it. What do you tink I'll do? Well, buy the cheapest one I can lay my hands on!
Stop reading here, unless you want to bask in the glorious past, and read a praise for Canon
It used to be that each manufacturer had a different method. HP would integrate the printhead in the ink cartridge, forcing you to replace the printhead each time (but at the same time making sure that you got perfect prints every time). Nonetheless, I still remember a niffty Pelikan replacement cartridge for HP, that separated the printhead from the ink tank (a-la Canon).
Epson had the printheads built in the printer, with all the known problems, but this allowed them (IIRC) to be the first company to break 1k points per inch barrier (in consumer printers).
Canon, depending on the line, used the HP method, or an even better method (from the customer point of view), of having ink tanks separated from head, and head separated from printer, and therefore, user replaceable. That gave the customer the best of both worlds (economy of replacing only the ink tanks, and use inktanks from alternate suppliers, and a non-dipossable printer), while giving Canon the WORST of both worlds (higher manufacturing costs and exposure to competitors in the lucrative ink market).
But that also gave them tremendous flexibility. Withnes the BJC-4300, depending on the Inktank you put there it could become: * High Speed High def Black only * Color printer * Proto Printer * One page Scaner
Those guys make superb printers, as a mather of fact, my BJC-4100 is still going strong since 1996. But, as some other posters noted, sadly, it served them for nothing.
And by the way, the guts of the first HP Laserjets were made not by HP but by Canon... go figure!
Is PC BIOS security relevant to any modern OS ? Linux does not use the BIOS routines. And I don't see how a protected piece of data (video, audio, software) can't be reproduced by open source code.
>>> Precisely, you put the API calls in Linux so that the BIOS routines can be used if so is desired... >> The whole Idea of puting the routines in HW is that if you hach a software which you are not supposed to hack, the change can be detected and the application does not run...... Of course, you could hack the VIOS itself, mod the thing, or..... but then again, is an arms race.
Since I am an electronics engineer I am not sure if there is anything to do with termal loads or anything else, but the question still arises, why not do all this Liquid based cooling with liquids other than water, which are not conductive????
Due to the Fact that our Health Ministery moves faster tha the FDA, we have 4th generation lasers here, while in the US they have 2th Gen Lasers. I am also a computer type (Sysadmin, actually) and had the surgery in Aug 1998 with a Third Gen. Laser and can tell you this:
1.) I asked my doctor any and all things that could go wrong, no matter how slight the chance. Those include uncalibrated lases that can make the surgery worse, the blade cutting through your Iris, or simply a non successfull operation.
2.) My personal experience is that my eyes are dryer, reder, more prone to infection, and (and this is highly unnusual) I see a very big halo arround bright lights (varyes with dryness of the eyes, and has something to do with the way my tissue heals). By the way I went from 2.50 myopia one eye and 3.5 Myopia on the other with 1 of aftismatism in both eyes, to 0,25 miopia in one eye and 0,25 Hypermetropia in the other, 0 aftismatism.
3.) If I knew beforehand what would happen to me, I would have done the surgery anyway. It is great to be able to wake up in the morning and see the alarm clock without squinting (is that word correct?). To go to the beach and use real sunglases. To be able to look through the corner of your eye (babes, mostly), to see almost no blurr in the field of vision, and the way my overall apearence has got better.
For the details about your laser generation, procedure, and risks involved, ask your doctor, but is something I would recomend wholehartedly!
In my experience, when you factor in time cost, no support, no warranty, reliability, and TCO (do not forget TCO, a Favorite for the Bigwigs), the scale always tips to buy brand in a commercial environment.
But there is another route: Optimize:
Make as many ponds of uniformity as you can (to leverage ghost), making sure that all (peripherals, chipsets, Video, all) is equal. Do a clean install of the OS, PatchIt with all your might. If you can assign machines on the base of needs alone, probably the secretary of the Ceo does not need a Dual Mobile P8 2Ghz Laptop with 1TB of video RAM.
Install Your applications, only a basic set, with a good custom install to get only the meat. If possible for you, do not install office if all someone needs is Works (or do not install StarOffice, if all you need is Koffice). This is specially valid for the afforementioned CEOs Secretary. Besides this will save in Licenses cost (even StarOffice 6 has a license now).
Invest a couple of $20s in some magazines with optimization tricks for the _OS *AND* Applications_ to disable fancy crap, remove fonts and junk, and generaly squeze your machine, then SET THE POLICIES SO THAT USERS CAN NOT CHANGE THIS (please, bear in mind there may be exceptions, otherwise you will alienate your literate users).
Once the machine is in TipTop form, use it as a ghost image for all those in your uniform pond, and move on to the next pond.
If you have a File server insist that user save ALL data files in the server, and applications are on the local HardDisk, that way you can erase the hardisk guilt free.
Then every six months update one machine from the ghost image, patchit... refresh the installation and once is rock solid use its ghost image to update its pond.....
Slashdot Mirror
With HD-DVD the backwards compatibility refers to the production facilities where the Disks are stamped and the players/drives are made. That is to say, your current production line can be upgraded to handle the new format, which is cheaper for them (if they will pass the savings to the consumer, is a different story).
On the other Hand, the Blu-Ray guys, will have to build new facilities from scratch, which is expensive...
that is why there is a difference in capacity, because, by not being compatible with previous infrastructure, the Blu-Ray camp had more liberty to design.
Think of HD-DVD as more evolutionary than revolutioray and Blu-Ray as more revolutionary than evolutionary, and you'll get the idea.
Personally, I would like the manufacturers and content providers to use a better compression algorithm with current DVD technology (like DivX6, the codec, not to be confused with the maligned divx Disks) for the HD-DVDs now, and let the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps Fsck-Up, until a new breakthrough technology comes, in wich everyone may agree. Hey, even better, some of the Current player could be upgraded with the new codec, meaning that I can start my HD-DVD colection with m=y old player now, and buy an HD-DVD player when I buy an HD-DVD tv set latter in the future....
Probably you can automate this by using some windows scripting and the Process204.zip program from the Fine folks at BeyondLogic.org http://www.beyondlogic.org/
This may be useful for maintenance purposes, as some posters commented in the article's comments zone. Not that is very wise to run a machine like that all the time, as the article itself says.
But what I like the most about this, is that the article shows that WinNT 5.0 (A.K.A. Windows 2000) and WinNT 5.2 (A.K.A. Windows XP) can be trimmed down to a bare minimum. Another mith debunked.
Other of my pet peves comes from the dos era. The slashdot crowd used to say that DOS can not mount a drive into a a directory to form a unified directory tree like in Unix. This was false then (please see the description of the JOIN command mor the method in DOS). The functionality was present in Win95 and 98, but seems absent in 2000 and XP.
Miths like this abound on Slashdot and are repeated time and time again, until they become truth. Check first, post later.
While I would preffer a world where no DRM is necesary, and people abide the law, the fact is that there are a few leaches among us, and a bunch of morons making crappy DRMs and crappy laws.
.... you get the idea), and you can use any one of them to unlock your music.I you loose any one of them (index finger lost in freakish garbage disposer repair accident), you have to present at least three of the remaining others to restore the mising ones.... Of course, one can drone on and on about the advantages and inconveniences of any of the examples ginen on slashdot. Mine is a piece of crap, and that is the idea.....
When the parent mentions biometrics, I remember a movie where a cop lost ann arm. Afterwards he goes to the bank to make a withdrawl (the movie is old, pre-ATM era). The cashier says:
"I can not give you the money, the signature does not match"
The guy answers: "The reasion is that last time i signed ith my left hand" and shows him his hook.
the Idea is to reduce the number of people for whom the technology is obstrusive to epsilon, without steeping to much in their privacy.
To continue using your biometric example, perhaps you are given 10 tokens (Iris, left Thumb, Right index, a huge password, size of left foot, USB key,
In the end (some 10 years or so) this will be achieved, in the meantime, enjoy the crappy DRM schemes that will come to pass
The reasons for the shift are one thing
The reasons for the shift cited by Jobs are a different thing.
They went to Intel for many reasons, fab capacity, better performance per watt in 2007, breadth of offer (Intel can give anithing from processors to chipsets, to freescale procesors), discounts, et cetera.
While AMD has the best microporcesors Where are the embeded ones for the iPod? And the Chipsets?. The same can be said for every other possible supplier. Possibly only Intel, VIA, Motorola and IBM coud offer the entire line. In the end, Apple chose Intel, well, big deal, suck it up, let's all dela with it!
Besides, what would be the use? Running Yellow Dog Linux?
Is too small a market for IBM or Lenovo to be interested....
The floppy will inddeed disappear, along with RS-232 and Centronics parallel ports. C'mon people, it WILL dissapear someday but VEEERY slowly. This is not the first article about it, and is not the last one.
I propose that, from now onwards, everytime we see an article about "The demise of the floppy disk" or "The end of the floppy disk era" on slashdot, we treat it as a dud.
My only regret is that the floppy will go away without a suitable replacement. As some other posters have said, it was too bad that as the time was ripe for a replacement to be picked up, too many choices (ZIPs, JAZZ, Bernoillis, superdisks, LS-120, et cetera) were available, so neither one became the de-facto standart.
The floppy is dying, long live the floppy!
Hopefully, by the time claiming property of space becomes relevant, there will be less players involved. Probably Nafta (You know what that is), LatAm (everything south of Mexico), EEC (European Economic Comunity), The greater Africa... Or even better, the United Earth.
This trend towards countries creating trade and political blocks is accelelrating and is, In my humble oppinion, a GOOD thing.
Being like that, I guess they can treat the solar system as they do with Antartica
The business model of ink-jet printing is perverse. Nowadays, the companies earn more for the ink than for the printer. Everyone knows that.
In this sad state of affairs, the more one company can do to lower the cost of the printer, the better for it, since the printer is posibly subsidized, and people buy them based on sheer up front value of the printer, without considering long term costs. Therefore, this is an "advancement" for HP if it allows them to lower the cost of the overall system, wether or not they pass on the savings.
But, although the business model is perverse, do not just post: "Why is people so stupid? Laser is better, do not buy inkjets!" Inkjet printing has quite a few uses were laser can not match:
* Printing giant billboards.
* Portable printers.
* Color printing (I bet is still cheaper on Inkjets)
* Printing on alternate media (texturized paper, fabrics, t-shit transfers, etc.)
* When your volume of printing is so low than the interest earned on the money you save up-fron versus buying a laser printer will more than ofset the savings on refills.
* Or in cases like mine: I'll be going to spain for 13 months for a masters degree, and I plan to buy a printer there and I will not be taking back this printer, and I do not want or need the wassle of selling it. What do you tink I'll do? Well, buy the cheapest one I can lay my hands on!
Stop reading here, unless you want to bask in the glorious past, and read a praise for Canon
It used to be that each manufacturer had a different method. HP would integrate the printhead in the ink cartridge, forcing you to replace the printhead each time (but at the same time making sure that you got perfect prints every time). Nonetheless, I still remember a niffty Pelikan replacement cartridge for HP, that separated the printhead from the ink tank (a-la Canon).
Epson had the printheads built in the printer, with all the known problems, but this allowed them (IIRC) to be the first company to break 1k points per inch barrier (in consumer printers).
Canon, depending on the line, used the HP method, or an even better method (from the customer point of view), of having ink tanks separated from head, and head separated from printer, and therefore, user replaceable. That gave the customer the best of both worlds (economy of replacing only the ink tanks, and use inktanks from alternate suppliers, and a non-dipossable printer), while giving Canon the WORST of both worlds (higher manufacturing costs and exposure to competitors in the lucrative ink market).
But that also gave them tremendous flexibility. Withnes the BJC-4300, depending on the Inktank you put there it could become:
* High Speed High def Black only
* Color printer
* Proto Printer
* One page Scaner
Those guys make superb printers, as a mather of fact, my BJC-4100 is still going strong since 1996. But, as some other posters noted, sadly, it served them for nothing.
And by the way, the guts of the first HP Laserjets were made not by HP but by Canon... go figure!
Stop stealing UserFriendly Material...
ArsTechnica to the Rescue:
0 -1.ht ml
4 5.htm l
* Inside the IBM PowerPC 970 Part I: Design Philosophy and Front End
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc97
* Ars Technica Newsdesk A Brief Look at the PowerPC 970
http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/10347562
* Ars Technica - CPU and Chipset Guide
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/
Hope it helps fill that Gap.
many of us got our fisrt Slackware CD from the back of a "Linux Unleashed"(r/tm/c) series Book. ;-)
Oh, the memories
Try these:s
http://www.pcengines.com/resource.htm#bio
Is PC BIOS security relevant to any modern OS ? Linux does not use the BIOS routines. And I don't see how a protected piece of data (video, audio, software) can't be reproduced by open source code.
>>> Precisely, you put the API calls in Linux so that the BIOS routines can be used if so is desired... >> The whole Idea of puting the routines in HW is that if you hach a software which you are not supposed to hack, the change can be detected and the application does not run...... Of course, you could hack the VIOS itself, mod the thing, or..... but then again, is an arms race.
I am not sure if it was the Pentium III or P4, but I think RIGHT NOW there is a RNG in Hardware, which uses thermal noise for the number generation.
Since I am an electronics engineer I am not sure if there is anything to do with termal loads or anything else, but the question still arises, why not do all this Liquid based cooling with liquids other than water, which are not conductive????
Due to the Fact that our Health Ministery moves faster tha the FDA, we have 4th generation lasers here, while in the US they have 2th Gen Lasers. I am also a computer type (Sysadmin, actually) and had the surgery in Aug 1998 with a Third Gen. Laser and can tell you this:
1.) I asked my doctor any and all things that could go wrong, no matter how slight the chance. Those include uncalibrated lases that can make the surgery worse, the blade cutting through your Iris, or simply a non successfull operation.
2.) My personal experience is that my eyes are dryer, reder, more prone to infection, and (and this is highly unnusual) I see a very big halo arround bright lights (varyes with dryness of the eyes, and has something to do with the way my tissue heals). By the way I went from 2.50 myopia one eye and 3.5 Myopia on the other with 1 of aftismatism in both eyes, to 0,25 miopia in one eye and 0,25 Hypermetropia in the other, 0 aftismatism.
3.) If I knew beforehand what would happen to me, I would have done the surgery anyway. It is great to be able to wake up in the morning and see the alarm clock without squinting (is that word correct?). To go to the beach and use real sunglases. To be able to look through the corner of your eye (babes, mostly), to see almost no blurr in the field of vision, and the way my overall apearence has got better.
For the details about your laser generation, procedure, and risks involved, ask your doctor, but is something I would recomend wholehartedly!
Sorry for the grammar!
In my experience, when you factor in time cost, no support, no warranty, reliability, and TCO (do not forget TCO, a Favorite for the Bigwigs), the scale always tips to buy brand in a commercial environment.
But there is another route:
Optimize:
Make as many ponds of uniformity as you can (to leverage ghost), making sure that all (peripherals, chipsets, Video, all) is equal. Do a clean install of the OS, PatchIt with all your might. If you can assign machines on the base of needs alone, probably the secretary of the Ceo does not need a Dual Mobile P8 2Ghz Laptop with 1TB of video RAM.
Install Your applications, only a basic set, with a good custom install to get only the meat. If possible for you, do not install office if all someone needs is Works (or do not install StarOffice, if all you need is Koffice). This is specially valid for the afforementioned CEOs Secretary. Besides this will save in Licenses cost (even StarOffice 6 has a license now).
Invest a couple of $20s in some magazines with optimization tricks for the _OS *AND* Applications_ to disable fancy crap, remove fonts and junk, and generaly squeze your machine, then SET THE POLICIES SO THAT USERS CAN NOT CHANGE THIS (please, bear in mind there may be exceptions, otherwise you will alienate your literate users).
Once the machine is in TipTop form, use it as a ghost image for all those in your uniform pond, and move on to the next pond.
If you have a File server insist that user save ALL data files in the server, and applications are on the local HardDisk, that way you can erase the hardisk guilt free.
Then every six months update one machine from the ghost image, patchit... refresh the installation and once is rock solid use its ghost image to update its pond.....
You see it from here.....