"If only you could get a PVR that just worked, and was programmable like a VCR, with Showview or some other listings, and could pause live TV? "
It's called the RCA Scenium DRS7000N, a combination progressive scan DVD player with Hard-Disc Recorder.
It has a 40 Gig harddrive, can record about 30 hours of television, pause live TV and can even store and playback MP3 and JPEG files.
Cost is about $600.
I considered it, and ultimately opted for building my own PC. 80 Gig drive, ATI All-In-Wonder 8500DV card... now the only problem is software. I've been involved with the Snapstream Quartz beta and it's looking pretty good. I have to download the latest beta to see what's improved.
While I spent $600 on my PC solution, it's a bit more flexible even if it isn't as easy to use.
"This is not what Petreley concluded. He found that the majority of "new blood" in Linux were previously developing for Windows, not other UNIX. The conclusion is that Linux is eroding the Windows market faster than the UNIX market. Your strawman is amusing but completely out of touch with reality."
Yet his conclusions are still unreasonable given the facts presented.
How many Windows developers have worked on Linux/Unix in the past? Quite a few from a sampling at my company.
Yup, that's exactly where I got the "and he learned that 50% of them were no longer developing Windows software."
The term "no longer" is synonymous with "USED TO".
But the key point here, which apparently easily missed by some Linux zealots irrational desire to justify their preconceived notions is that this survey was one of Linux developers. So it's not surprising to see a certain pattern in regards to this one question.
What would be more interesting is to see other survey questions. One has to wonder what those other questions revealed for Petreley to want to distract attention to them.
"Consider this: most linux users have a static IP but a large fraction of MS users will have a dynamic IP. So if they are counting unique IPs it will have a heavy windows bias. "
First, that's an unreasonable assumption. Second, I rather suspect that google.com is calculating statistics on all hits, not just unique visitors. There's no reason to do otherwise, at least not from a statistical sampling point of view.
"Proxies. Again, more linux users could be behind a proxy (a few hundred linux users at my univ go through a single proxy) than windows users "
Many Windows machines are behind proxies. We have over 5,000 machines at my company behind proxy.
Don't confuse your experiences at University with the real world... they aren't remotely close.
"Third, some factors similar to those described in the article could be at work (linux more efficient ==> less linux servers for same job). Maybe linux users are more efficient googlers? I think this is unlikely, but still a possibiility. "
Well from what I've seen Linux users are less likely to be interested in facts, so maybe they don't care enough to go looking up answers to questions.
(Oh yeah, that was sarcasm)
"Fourth, it doesn't agree with my webserver stats (i.e, counting the hits I get from google searches). "
Yes, clearly your anecdotal evidence is more accurate than massive statistical sampling.
(BTW, that was also sarcasm)
"but on the whole it makes me think that some combination of the factors above may be at work in decreasing the perceived share of linux."
I've always said... Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
If you want to believe Linux is really popular, and mass adoption is just around the corner, be my guest.
Nicholas Petreley worked with Evans Data Corporation on a survey which asked Linux developers about there preferences, and he learned that 50% of them were no longer developing Windows software.
Somehow from these figures, Petreley concluded that Windows has signifigantly less developer mindshare than Linux.
In other news...
99.9%(with a margin of error of 5%) of respondents at a KKK rally were against affirmative action programs, from this we can clearly conclude that tea in China is selling at 50 cent per pound.
"So in your line of work, you don't need a resource kit."
Yeah, weird ain't it? Here I am supporting and developing for Windows NT for the past seven years and I've yet to have purchased a resource kit.
The point was, which you obviously missed either on purpose or because you are dense, that you don't need the resource kits to use or maintain the software. All of the information they contain is available online through technet or msdn. The resource kit is simply a convenience item where all this information is brought together in book form.
"Take out your anger somewhere else; no one here has done anything to merit your anger and your bald faced rudeness."
Your spreading of lies makes me very angry.
And please stop pretending like I'm ignoring your points. I do so on purpose, because your points are based on such terribly wrong information that they are undeserving of response.
"Well since you obviously can correct my mistakes, why don't you."
Because it would largely be a waste of my time. It's quite clear that you actually believe your bias perceptions.
But so be it...
"Since Microsoft's MO has always been innovation through immitation"
Microsoft's MO is not innovation through immitation any moreso than any other company in the market.
"Microsoft imitates the competition just well enough, and lowers the price just enough to take business away from competitors."
Oh boo hoo, isn't this what competition is supposed to be about? You said before... "Generally prices go downward whenever there is competition in any marketplace."
"Because Microsoft's strategy has always been to match the prices of competition, then charge for add-ons, plus packs, professional versions, etc. "
No, that is not Microsoft's strategy.
"Microsoft has always made it easy to get onto the treadmill; they know they'll be getting money back via "upgrades" or other add-ons that should have been a part of the system to begin with."
This is one of the most assinine statements I've yet to see. The add-ons don't provide any major functionality, and are generally nothing more than fluff.
"Why has the price of a top of the line PC gone from $4000 in 1982 to less than a quarter of that today?"
Because the hardware has interoperability standards, which has lead to economies of scale. Quite different from the proprietary hardware that you advocate.
"Why has the PC dramatically improved its performance since 1982? Because there was competition."
You have a strange understanding of what competition means.
"Why, in general, is Microsoft software the same cost that it was when it was originally introduced?"
Again, why is it still cheaper than the competing software?
"Why, in general, has Microsoft software always been so low in quality?"
Oh and now you resort to lies.
"Because Microsoft has done everything in its power to stifle competition."
Oh in other words, the competition has been incompetent and incapable of providing a better product at a better price.
Face it, software production benefits incredibly from economies of scale. The more people you have buying, the greater your profit margin becomes.
"The only competition that's been able to withstand Microsoft's competition stifling strategy so far has been Open Source."
Open Source doesn't offer competition in quality, only price.
Besides you ignored Adobe and Intuit and all the other companies out there.
"Now that Open Source products are being seen as a viable alternative to Microsoft products, we're finally seeing Microsoft stop the customer gouging that they've become so famous for."
And with that, you confirm yourself to be a lunatic.
I was wondering the same about you. Your revisionist distortion of history seems to come to a point, but why do you feel the need to mislead yourself and others?
The only explanation I can think of is you are trolling.
"Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it... "
Computers didn't cost $8,000 in 1989 so it's quite clear you didn't learn any history.
BTW, I've been using PC's since 1982. I've yet to see Microsoft prices go upwards. Generally the prices go downwards once Microsoft enters the market, and then they stay at that level.
So your alternative world in which Microsoft doesn't exist just means higher prices, at least from what I've seen.
Honestly, Microsoft assumed right, that Sony would make a mistake.
What I see here is Sony wanting to follow the model of online games on the PC. But all they are really thinking of is the huge successes like Ultima Online and Everquest. With the exception of those and the third person shooters like Quake and Counterstrike, most PC games with online play have failed dramatically. The reason being, they each charged $10/month and never got to a critical mass where they could afford their infrastructure.
But the Microsoft model shares the infrastructure costs between all games. So while this might mean more successful games don't rake in the subscription fees, it means less successful games don't completely die.
The console world is different from the PC world. People who are buying console games are not going to be happy if they buy a game that is now completely worthless because the online servers have been taken down. Also console game players generally have a number of different games they play, not just one. Trying to maintain subscriptions to 4-5 different games is not feasible... which is why most online games on the PC have failed.
Microsoft is going down the right direction here, which is evidenced by the success they are seeing with their online gaming offerings.
"has been so seriously crippled as to be useless to anyone but the big content management and collaboration system providers."
That indicates to me that the problem is really that the document format is so complicated that it takes tremendous resources to understand and implement compatibility with it, as this implies that larger companies like say a Xerox will have no problem producing tools to work with it.
So from a business consumer perspective this is still a tremendous win.
This sounds like more whining from the open source crowd.
"Or are you refering to the fact that the Slashdot community consists of many people with diverse opinions, some of whom credit [insert organization] and some of whom hate it?"
No, I think he's talking about the people who go to great lengths of hypocrisy to justify their hatred of Microsoft.
1) Qualified (i.e. not test taking wonders) MCSE can physically manage about 14 MS Servers... However, a qualified Linux Admin can handle (depending upon variations in OS release) from 50-75. Much lower people cost.
Doesn't this depend on what function the server is performing?
Managing a server only requires time if you have to change something, and if it's a repetitive change you can usually automate it. So the level of work involved is going to increase in server environments which are constantly changing, and changing in such a way that they cannot be easily automated.
File/Print is probably the worst case example. Database server is probably best case. The server admin for a DB server primarily only needs to watch memory and disk usage, all other changes are handled by the DBA staff.
"Unfortunately, the real world is not such a utopia. The real world is what you get when the market economy actually works, as opposed to the computer industry, where it's been warped and twisted into a smoking pile of slag. "
Huh?
I've worked for about half a dozen Fortune 500 companies now, and every single one of them has offered perks similar to those from Microsoft. Tremendous access to technology, high pay, high bonuses, etc. etc.
Not one of these companies were in the computer industry. One was mobile telecom, Three were financial(insurance or banking) and the last is a financial division of a automaker.
"Open source and free software are about sharing the (intellectual) wealth around, making it available to anybody, not concentrating it in one place. It's a people thing."
In other words, Open Source is about destroying wealth... or specifically about preventing those who create the intellectual property from profiting from it.
It bothers me to see this, because I personally think tech people are extremely undervalued today for what value they bring to companies, even though we are relatively highly paid. Part of my perspective comes from working in finance industry where I routinely encounter people making 7 figure salaries for doing nothing more than offering opinions.
These people love open source, because they can take *YOUR* work and use it to make more money. That way they can continue to have their 7 figure salary and not worry about sharing it with you.
I just don't understand why this self-destructive behavior is so appealing to some people.
Slashdot Mirror
My time is worth something to me.
"And pollution is bad, it just makes cities unpleasant."
Unpleasant? Isn't that a bit of an understatement?
Or is death merely an unpleasant experience, like having to stand in line too long at the grocery store?
"But fight these things for a real reason, not one that doesn't hold stand up to scrutiny."
You've got a long way to go buddy if you are seeking out real reason. Claiming pollution doesn't cause any harm... Ha!
I'm not an environmentalist, but it's quite clear you've drank the anti-Environment koolaid.
"If only you could get a PVR that just worked, and was programmable like a VCR, with Showview or some other listings, and could pause live TV? "
It's called the RCA Scenium DRS7000N, a combination progressive scan DVD player with Hard-Disc Recorder.
It has a 40 Gig harddrive, can record about 30 hours of television, pause live TV and can even store and playback MP3 and JPEG files.
Cost is about $600.
I considered it, and ultimately opted for building my own PC. 80 Gig drive, ATI All-In-Wonder 8500DV card... now the only problem is software. I've been involved with the Snapstream Quartz beta and it's looking pretty good. I have to download the latest beta to see what's improved.
While I spent $600 on my PC solution, it's a bit more flexible even if it isn't as easy to use.
"Software development is like the Mc Donalds job, anyone can do it, theres no shortage of programmers"
Well that's what the GPL proponents would have you believe, anyway.
http://slate.msn.com/id/27730
Any of those names sound familiar?
Any of those arguments sound familiar?
"This is not what Petreley concluded. He found that the majority of "new blood" in Linux were previously developing for Windows, not other UNIX. The conclusion is that Linux is eroding the Windows market faster than the UNIX market. Your strawman is amusing but completely out of touch with reality."
Yet his conclusions are still unreasonable given the facts presented.
How many Windows developers have worked on Linux/Unix in the past? Quite a few from a sampling at my company.
Ignore reality at your own peril.
Yup, that's exactly where I got the "and he learned that 50% of them were no longer developing Windows software."
The term "no longer" is synonymous with "USED TO".
But the key point here, which apparently easily missed by some Linux zealots irrational desire to justify their preconceived notions is that this survey was one of Linux developers. So it's not surprising to see a certain pattern in regards to this one question.
What would be more interesting is to see other survey questions. One has to wonder what those other questions revealed for Petreley to want to distract attention to them.
"Not only does it include information, but also applications that should have been included with the OS to begin with."
i nfo/resk it/tools/default.asp
e w/default. asp?url=/technet/scriptcenter/default.asp
You mean like these:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/tech
Or maybe some administration scripts:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treevi
Go away troll.
"Consider this: most linux users have a static IP but a large fraction of MS users will have a dynamic IP. So if they are counting unique IPs it will have a heavy windows bias. "
First, that's an unreasonable assumption. Second, I rather suspect that google.com is calculating statistics on all hits, not just unique visitors. There's no reason to do otherwise, at least not from a statistical sampling point of view.
"Proxies. Again, more linux users could be behind a proxy (a few hundred linux users at my univ go through a single proxy) than windows users "
Many Windows machines are behind proxies. We have over 5,000 machines at my company behind proxy.
Don't confuse your experiences at University with the real world... they aren't remotely close.
"Third, some factors similar to those described in the article could be at work (linux more efficient ==> less linux servers for same job). Maybe linux users are more efficient googlers? I think this is unlikely, but still a possibiility. "
Well from what I've seen Linux users are less likely to be interested in facts, so maybe they don't care enough to go looking up answers to questions.
(Oh yeah, that was sarcasm)
"Fourth, it doesn't agree with my webserver stats (i.e, counting the hits I get from google searches). "
Yes, clearly your anecdotal evidence is more accurate than massive statistical sampling.
(BTW, that was also sarcasm)
"but on the whole it makes me think that some combination of the factors above may be at work in decreasing the perceived share of linux."
I've always said... Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.
If you want to believe Linux is really popular, and mass adoption is just around the corner, be my guest.
Nicholas Petreley worked with Evans Data Corporation on a survey which asked Linux developers about there preferences, and he learned that 50% of them were no longer developing Windows software.
Somehow from these figures, Petreley concluded that Windows has signifigantly less developer mindshare than Linux.
In other news...
99.9%(with a margin of error of 5%) of respondents at a KKK rally were against affirmative action programs, from this we can clearly conclude that tea in China is selling at 50 cent per pound.
"So in your line of work, you don't need a resource kit."
Yeah, weird ain't it? Here I am supporting and developing for Windows NT for the past seven years and I've yet to have purchased a resource kit.
The point was, which you obviously missed either on purpose or because you are dense, that you don't need the resource kits to use or maintain the software. All of the information they contain is available online through technet or msdn. The resource kit is simply a convenience item where all this information is brought together in book form.
"Take out your anger somewhere else; no one here has done anything to merit your anger and your bald faced rudeness."
Your spreading of lies makes me very angry.
And please stop pretending like I'm ignoring your points. I do so on purpose, because your points are based on such terribly wrong information that they are undeserving of response.
"I guess that's why I have to buy a Windows Resource Kit for every version of Windows that Microsoft creates."
Weird, I've yet to buy a resource kit.
You've just confirmed that you're nothing but an ignorant troll.
"Well since you obviously can correct my mistakes, why don't you."
Because it would largely be a waste of my time. It's quite clear that you actually believe your bias perceptions.
But so be it...
"Since Microsoft's MO has always been innovation through immitation"
Microsoft's MO is not innovation through immitation any moreso than any other company in the market.
"Microsoft imitates the competition just well enough, and lowers the price just enough to take business away from competitors."
Oh boo hoo, isn't this what competition is supposed to be about? You said before... "Generally prices go downward whenever there is competition in any marketplace."
"Because Microsoft's strategy has always been to match the prices of competition, then charge for add-ons, plus packs, professional versions, etc. "
No, that is not Microsoft's strategy.
"Microsoft has always made it easy to get onto the treadmill; they know they'll be getting money back via "upgrades" or other add-ons that should have been a part of the system to begin with."
This is one of the most assinine statements I've yet to see. The add-ons don't provide any major functionality, and are generally nothing more than fluff.
"Why has the price of a top of the line PC gone from $4000 in 1982 to less than a quarter of that today?"
Because the hardware has interoperability standards, which has lead to economies of scale. Quite different from the proprietary hardware that you advocate.
"Why has the PC dramatically improved its performance since 1982? Because there was competition."
You have a strange understanding of what competition means.
"Why, in general, is Microsoft software the same cost that it was when it was originally introduced?"
Again, why is it still cheaper than the competing software?
"Why, in general, has Microsoft software always been so low in quality?"
Oh and now you resort to lies.
"Because Microsoft has done everything in its power to stifle competition."
Oh in other words, the competition has been incompetent and incapable of providing a better product at a better price.
Face it, software production benefits incredibly from economies of scale. The more people you have buying, the greater your profit margin becomes.
"The only competition that's been able to withstand Microsoft's competition stifling strategy so far has been Open Source."
Open Source doesn't offer competition in quality, only price.
Besides you ignored Adobe and Intuit and all the other companies out there.
"Now that Open Source products are being seen as a viable alternative to Microsoft products, we're finally seeing Microsoft stop the customer gouging that they've become so famous for."
And with that, you confirm yourself to be a lunatic.
"Are you trolling, or do you have a point?"
I was wondering the same about you. Your revisionist distortion of history seems to come to a point, but why do you feel the need to mislead yourself and others?
The only explanation I can think of is you are trolling.
"Although the actual numbers may be incorrect, the poster is correct in their observation."
Ok, so they just exagerrated a bit, right?
"But this is, in general misleading."
You mean misleading like using exagerrated numbers?
"Because Microsoft's strategy has always been to match the prices of competition, then charge for add-ons, plus packs, professional versions, etc. "
Oh you meant you were going to mislead us.
"1989 Computer $8,000, Microsoft software, $500"
and then...
"Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it... "
Computers didn't cost $8,000 in 1989 so it's quite clear you didn't learn any history.
BTW, I've been using PC's since 1982. I've yet to see Microsoft prices go upwards. Generally the prices go downwards once Microsoft enters the market, and then they stay at that level.
So your alternative world in which Microsoft doesn't exist just means higher prices, at least from what I've seen.
Also, many consoles are purchased by kids under 18 who don't have credit cards or checking accounts.
Whatever the model, it must be something you can purchase at Wal-Mart to be able to play.
Honestly, Microsoft assumed right, that Sony would make a mistake.
What I see here is Sony wanting to follow the model of online games on the PC. But all they are really thinking of is the huge successes like Ultima Online and Everquest. With the exception of those and the third person shooters like Quake and Counterstrike, most PC games with online play have failed dramatically. The reason being, they each charged $10/month and never got to a critical mass where they could afford their infrastructure.
But the Microsoft model shares the infrastructure costs between all games. So while this might mean more successful games don't rake in the subscription fees, it means less successful games don't completely die.
The console world is different from the PC world. People who are buying console games are not going to be happy if they buy a game that is now completely worthless because the online servers have been taken down. Also console game players generally have a number of different games they play, not just one. Trying to maintain subscriptions to 4-5 different games is not feasible... which is why most online games on the PC have failed.
Microsoft is going down the right direction here, which is evidenced by the success they are seeing with their online gaming offerings.
"has been so seriously crippled as to be useless to anyone but the big content management and collaboration system providers."
That indicates to me that the problem is really that the document format is so complicated that it takes tremendous resources to understand and implement compatibility with it, as this implies that larger companies like say a Xerox will have no problem producing tools to work with it.
So from a business consumer perspective this is still a tremendous win.
This sounds like more whining from the open source crowd.
Moral-relativism.... You gotta love it!
"It is one huge monopolistic megacorporation that they are comparing with a movement fighting for people's freedom in the use of their computers."
See it's ok for freedom fighters to kill civilians by planting bombs in grocery stores, but it's wrong for big evil governments to do that.
Wrong is wrong.
"Or are you refering to the fact that the Slashdot community consists of many people with diverse opinions, some of whom credit [insert organization] and some of whom hate it?"
/. editors.
No, I think he's talking about the people who go to great lengths of hypocrisy to justify their hatred of Microsoft.
Such as the
1) Qualified (i.e. not test taking wonders) MCSE can physically manage about 14 MS Servers... However, a qualified Linux Admin can handle (depending upon variations in OS release) from 50-75. Much lower people cost.
Doesn't this depend on what function the server is performing?
Managing a server only requires time if you have to change something, and if it's a repetitive change you can usually automate it. So the level of work involved is going to increase in server environments which are constantly changing, and changing in such a way that they cannot be easily automated.
File/Print is probably the worst case example. Database server is probably best case. The server admin for a DB server primarily only needs to watch memory and disk usage, all other changes are handled by the DBA staff.
"Unfortunately, the real world is not such a utopia. The real world is what you get when the market economy actually works, as opposed to the computer industry, where it's been warped and twisted into a smoking pile of slag. "
Huh?
I've worked for about half a dozen Fortune 500 companies now, and every single one of them has offered perks similar to those from Microsoft. Tremendous access to technology, high pay, high bonuses, etc. etc.
Not one of these companies were in the computer industry. One was mobile telecom, Three were financial(insurance or banking) and the last is a financial division of a automaker.
"Open source and free software are about sharing the (intellectual) wealth around, making it available to anybody, not concentrating it in one place. It's a people thing."
In other words, Open Source is about destroying wealth... or specifically about preventing those who create the intellectual property from profiting from it.
It bothers me to see this, because I personally think tech people are extremely undervalued today for what value they bring to companies, even though we are relatively highly paid. Part of my perspective comes from working in finance industry where I routinely encounter people making 7 figure salaries for doing nothing more than offering opinions.
These people love open source, because they can take *YOUR* work and use it to make more money. That way they can continue to have their 7 figure salary and not worry about sharing it with you.
I just don't understand why this self-destructive behavior is so appealing to some people.
It's interesting that this response was slightly more comprehensible than your last. However you still do not address the points of discussion.
I'm left with the impression that my initial perceptions of you were indeed correct.
Perhaps you do not understand English?