I suppose there should be an important distinction made here between people who buy a Mac and have both Windows PCs and Macs, versus people who throw their Windows machine out the window (irony!) and purchase a Mac to replace it.
Why? Or really, how important is the distinction?
I think the former number includes mostly people that have no intention of ever buying a new Windows PC, but have one or more old machines that continue to have some useful life in them. I don't think there are that many people actively purchasing both.
Just by association, I would expect that this thing would play MPEG, MPEG2, DiVX, H.264 and MOVs at the minimum.
* MPEG, probably. It's used in so many digital cameras, and they already support it in iPhoto libraries.
* MPEG2, no chance. QuickTime doesn't even support it out of the box, and even with the $30 add-on it doesn't support AC-3. Very few consumers ever use it.
* DivX is a proprietary competitor. No chance in hell.
* MPEG-4/H.264, of course. No doubt the bitrate and resolution would have to fall within a certain range.
* MOV is just a container format, it doesn't specify any codec. Given how many formats are supported in MOV, it's unlikely that you'll be able to play all of them.
But yeah, it's unlikely that any such device would only play a single format.
The fact of the matter is that both of these cater to different users with different tastes, and it is better to have both developed than one version that tries to be everything to everyone.
Unless of course neither version satisfies anyone.
Questions, questions, questions...This is good for Sony. HD-DVD sounds like an improved version of DVD.
I really don't see your point here. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both basically improved DVDs. They are discs that contain video; neither format does anything strikingly different. So again, HD-DVD sounds like what it is. Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is.
When I heard about Sony's new media format -- Blu-Ray -- the first thing that popped into my mind was a "BLUE LASER BEAM
HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?
Next, if Sony wants this media format to become standard
They're going to have to stop being Sony. Sony of MiniDisc, MicroMV, ATRAC3, MemoryStick, and many other proprietary formats. By using it in the PS3, they've committed themselves to using Blu-Ray even if it fails in the larger market.
"Will this new Blu-Ray PLAYER, play my old DVDs?" The answer is YES!
What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.
I stand by my belief that it will all come down to marketability.
How much of this customer preference is just the name? "Blu-Ray" is easy to remember, and does not sound like much anything else. "HD-DVD" sounds like just more tech alphabet soup, or part of a features list string for a Dell desktop ad.
I doubt they mentioned the name, as is typical for such surveys. "Technology A" and "Technology B" are probably what was presented. On paper (and in surveys paid for by the Blu-Ray group) Blu-Ray comes out on top every time.
I don't agree with your assessment of the names, though. HD-DVD sounds like "High Definition DVD", which is exactly what it's supposed to be. Any consumer interested in High Def. video in the near future is going to know what HD and DVD mean, whether they know the technical details or not. Blu-Ray sounds like a fish or a rock band, and "BD-ROM" is truly meaningless.
I think HD-DVD is likely to win out on it's marketability alone.
I though HD-DVD was just a normal dvd with the video stored with higher quality compression ?
You're supposed to think that, even though it isn't technically true. And that's why I predict HD-DVD will be more popular. It's easier to market something when you don't have to explain what it is to every potential customer.
Good UIs are simple, intuitive and introduce absolutely nothing new. Ever.
Care to give an example?
Everytime you introduce something new the user has to learn how to use it or what the fuck it is. This is bad.
It's only bad when it detracts from the task at hand, or takes up time without adding any new capability. If it takes 10 seconds for a user to learn what a new widget does, but it enables them to do do something they couldn't do before, then there is nothing wrong. If it takes 10 seconds to learn and doesn't make anything better, then it's staggeringly bad.
I've been repeating this every time FUD about "the switch" comes up:
Apple announced a two-year long transition from PowerPC to Intel/x86 chips. Two years.
That's two years that at least some of Apple's computers will contain PowerPC chips. IBM just announced some tasty new PowerPC chips. Doesn't anyone else think that *maybe*, Apple is going to be buying some of them in the next two years?
This story has nothing to do with DRM or the "right to read". It concerns a publisher protecting it's assets before they go on sale. If you think a publisher shouldn't be able to decide when to start selling it's books, you're out of your fucking mind.
After you buy the book, your rights are the same as with any other book.
Your rights are not being infringed upon. There is nothing to see here. Have a nice day.
Yes, we are. Apple's going to put them in the iMac and Mac Mini lines first, the PowerPC lines later, and the Xserve rack-mounted servers may never get them.
I'd imagine that DRM on user-created content would make it easier for smaller artists/groups to make music without having to deal with piracy.
Perhaps you've missed the legions of small-time artists that openly and vocally condone DRM-free redistribution of their work because it drives sales?
If you're selling 1,000 CDs a year, 200 people pirating music is a much bigger hit than if you sell 1,000,000 CDs a year.
If you're selling 1,000 CDs a year, 200 people pirating your music is 20% more people listening to your music. Small-time artists have more to fear from obscurity than piracy.
Still and all, Apple has been harping on about the superiority of PowerPC for so long that I'm even more surprised to see them switch when IBM has these things, which look like the answers to a couple of Apple's problems, coming up.
Keep in mind that Apple is still planning to be shipping some PPC hardware through 2007, so it's probable that they'll be using these chips anyway in that time. Nobody is really sure which lines they are going to transition in what order, but it's probable that the PowerMac G5/Xserves will still be available with PPCs until then.
As further clarification, I enjoy remixing myself - I've done plenty of it...
I have plenty of crow to eat here; I mistook you for someone who'd never heard the word "remix" until WIRED had co-opted (er...remixed) it.
And therein lies confusion. In this context, remix is not meant to apply strictly to music. The post-WIRED version describes a much more general cultural shift that I think is much more valid of the attention it receives than "just" music remixing.
Some people *have it* - simple raw talent - most people don't.
I don't disagree with this, per se; It's an observation anyone can make. What I disagree with is the idea that talent can't be learned. The idea that if you don't have it you can't get it, or at least shouldn't bother trying. Yes, it can't be taught, like technique, but it can still be acquired, nurtured, and expanded.
I definitely didn't mean to imply (as WIRED tends to) that all creative works are on equal footing. 90% of everything is still crap. What I understood Gibson to be saying, was that this trend of recombination has been and will be embraced by larger portions of our culture. The perceived gap between collage/cut-up/remix art and original art is shrinking (from both sides) to the point of being meaningless. The idea being that the lessened stigma around "appropriation" and "borrowing" will lower the bar significantly for people to create.
In other words, 90% of everything will still be crap, but there will be 100 times as much of everything.
There are a huge number of people, and I would submit that such a number constitutes a majority of people in general, who aren't really interested in being cultural producers of any variety.
One of the highlights of modern culture is that this number seems to be decreasing. People naturally want to create. If they "aren't interested" it's because they were never encouraged (and often actively discouraged) to be.
Remixing is a marginal case......that you demonstrate your lack of awareness of. I'm sorry if you heard some crappy mashup that you didn't like. There's a lot of crappy music by "Skilled Professional Musicians", too. (Furthermore, most remixing is done by "Skilled Professional Musicians") But you don't see people writing off the whole enterprise, except out of ignorance. Maybe if you addressed some of the concrete examples in TFA you would have more of a point.
Appealing to William Gibson as an authority is not a wise idea in this case. I have an idea - I'll OCR Mona Lisa Overdrive and remix it. Oooops! Can't really do that, can I? I have to KNOW HOW TO WRITE SCI-FI to do that. Same goes for music.
This doesn't make any sense. Are you implying that writing sci-fi is something reserved for a category of people other than the one you are in? Or that writing is something that cannot be learned and honed? Gibson is a sci-fi writer because he writes sci-fi, not because he is a member of an elite club that you can't join; and he's a good writer because he works hard to be a good writer, not because he has magic powers or something.
For torrent, the host setup is going to be much more involved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need:
Correcting:
Current BitTorrent betas support "trackerless" torrents, which removes the only problematic step. If you can host a file, you can host a torrent.
Re:Transclucent UI in windows
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
wtf... alpha blending has been around natively in windows since W2K. It wasn't used but it was there and many mods allowed context menu to set windows transparency.
I know the article and summary make it sound like this is the difference, but it's not. The key difference in this regard is that all windows are composited the same way, as if they had transparency, whether they do or not. (i.e., the compositing model is like what Mac OS X has always had.) This basically means a faster UI when using all kinds of crazy effects, and the enabling of new effects. Something like Apple's Expose is virtually impossible to do with out a graphics system like Quartz or Avalons.
In other words, they're catching up with Apple in capability, but it's yet to be seen if what they do with it will be anywhere near as good.
(IIRC, e17 uses the same kind of model; it's kind of like Mac OS X pre-10.2/Quartz Extreme.)
This is an oversimplification, but at least not as bad as the one in the article.
Excitement, in the context of this story, is created by quality design, which doesn't necessarily have to be completely new.
No-one wants 'newness' in user interface controls which keep them from the functionality of the software!
Not only is your basic assumption wrong, as I said above, but your conclusion isn't even consistent. There is no reason that newness in an interface would make it any less functional. If it did, it would be a flawed design and probably thrown out before it even shipped.
The overwhelming majority of new interface design is aimed at enabling greater functionality.
'Inspired' and 'Exciting' are bullshit terms that are meaningless in this context. Intuitiveness and consistency makes people more productive.
You cannot make people more productive, you can enable them to be more productive. What enables people more productive is largely dependent on context, even in the confines of computer interface design.
Consistency, for example, is not a panacea. It can be used inappropriately in devastatingly counterproductive ways. The inspiration referred to is the inspiration of the designer in properly choosing where to be consistent and where to break from it. Intuitiveness, too, is not a fixed target. All interfaces require familiarity, and it is the designer's challenge to properly balance the enabling of functionality and the requiring of familiarity.
There is science to ergonomics and cognition, but ultimately, design is an artform that cannot strictly adhere to scientific results. There is no such thing as an optimal design.
So Pine, Lynx and Emacs/Vi don't help people become productive?
I think a better answer for this is that these interfaces *are* inspired and exciting. Or were at one time. vi was created in the late 70s, emacs in the early 80s. They're quality designs, just from an earlier era, when demands and constraints were different. There still is some elegance to them, and still find use in environments with those same old demands and constraints, but they were not the final word.
Painting the handle of a hammer in warm pastels would be pleasant but doesn't make a roofer more productive
Nor would any sensible industrial designer working on a hammer for roofers do such a thing. And yet, specialized roofing hammers are more efficent than typical hammers for the job at hand. They also happen to look different.
Design is not simply "how it looks". Likewise, a "stimulating and pleasant" environment does not imply leather couches or any of the other bullshit you mention. The GP even said Terms you might wish to look up before posting further rants are 'ergonomics' and 'congitive psychology'., which you seem to have ignored completely.
You basically know nothing about design and yet are willing to write at length about why it worthless.
Efficiency of the tool is what matters and Windows apps are exceedingly efficient tools thanks to...
None of the things you mention are unique to Windows.
In corporate IT, more work is done before lunch every day than was ever done in anything more pleasant and stimulating surroundings because it needs to be done and there's a paycheck in it. ...and corporate IT is filled with depressed, angry, boring, and uninspired people who are only in it for the money as a result.
That's the problem. That's a horrible way for human beings to exist, and it is not necessary for things to be that way. Windows is designed to mimic this kind of stale environment, and articles like this are just symptoms of how flawed it really is.
Think about it, who do you think of when you think of a mac user? They are designed to cater to a group of people who are more creative and right brained.
Creativity is something that every human being is born with. "More creative" people just happen to have not had so much of it beaten, sucked, and driven out of them as "less creative" people.
Let us never forget that pretty software does not automatically mean functional software
Let us also never forget that functional software can be, and often is, beautiful.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose there should be an important distinction made here between people who buy a Mac and have both Windows PCs and Macs, versus people who throw their Windows machine out the window (irony!) and purchase a Mac to replace it.
Why? Or really, how important is the distinction?
I think the former number includes mostly people that have no intention of ever buying a new Windows PC, but have one or more old machines that continue to have some useful life in them. I don't think there are that many people actively purchasing both.
Yes, Thinksecret has gotten stuff right in the past, they've also blown it a couple times.
Importantly, they have blown it pretty consistently since they got sued for misappropriating trade secrets.
Just by association, I would expect that this thing would play MPEG, MPEG2, DiVX, H.264 and MOVs at the minimum.
* MPEG, probably. It's used in so many digital cameras, and
they already support it in iPhoto libraries.
* MPEG2, no chance. QuickTime doesn't even support it out of
the box, and even with the $30 add-on it doesn't support AC-3.
Very few consumers ever use it.
* DivX is a proprietary competitor. No chance in hell.
* MPEG-4/H.264, of course. No doubt the bitrate and resolution would have to fall within a certain range.
* MOV is just a container format, it doesn't specify any codec. Given how many formats are supported in MOV, it's unlikely
that you'll be able to play all of them.
But yeah, it's unlikely that any such device would only play a single format.
The fact of the matter is that both of these cater to different users with different tastes, and it is better to have both developed than one version that tries to be everything to everyone.
Unless of course neither version satisfies anyone.
Can anyone recommend an IT news site that sticks to IT news (preferably with discussion board attached).
Sections are your friend: it.slashdot.org
ErichTheWebGuy (745925)
Your UID is obviously way to high to understand.
Questions, questions, questions...This is good for Sony. HD-DVD sounds like an improved version of DVD.
I really don't see your point here. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both basically improved DVDs. They are discs that contain video; neither format does anything strikingly different. So again, HD-DVD sounds like what it is. Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is.
When I heard about Sony's new media format -- Blu-Ray -- the first thing that popped into my mind was a "BLUE LASER BEAM
HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?
Next, if Sony wants this media format to become standard
They're going to have to stop being Sony. Sony of MiniDisc, MicroMV, ATRAC3, MemoryStick, and many other proprietary formats. By using it in the PS3, they've committed themselves to using Blu-Ray even if it fails in the larger market.
"Will this new Blu-Ray PLAYER, play my old DVDs?" The answer is YES!
What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.
I stand by my belief that it will all come down to marketability.
How much of this customer preference is just the name? "Blu-Ray" is easy to remember, and does not sound like much anything else. "HD-DVD" sounds like just more tech alphabet soup, or part of a features list string for a Dell desktop ad.
I doubt they mentioned the name, as is typical for such surveys. "Technology A" and "Technology B" are probably what was presented. On paper (and in surveys paid for by the Blu-Ray group) Blu-Ray comes out on top every time.
I don't agree with your assessment of the names, though. HD-DVD sounds like "High Definition DVD", which is exactly what it's supposed to be. Any consumer interested in High Def. video in the near future is going to know what HD and DVD mean, whether they know the technical details or not. Blu-Ray sounds like a fish or a rock band, and "BD-ROM" is truly meaningless.
I think HD-DVD is likely to win out on it's marketability alone.
I though HD-DVD was just a normal dvd with the video stored with higher quality compression ?
You're supposed to think that, even though it isn't technically true. And that's why I predict HD-DVD will be more popular. It's easier to market something when you don't have to explain what it is to every potential customer.
Good UIs are simple, intuitive and introduce absolutely nothing new. Ever.
Care to give an example?
Everytime you introduce something new the user has to learn how to use it or what the fuck it is. This is bad.
It's only bad when it detracts from the task at hand, or takes up time without adding any new capability. If it takes 10 seconds for a user to learn what a new widget does, but it enables them to do do something they couldn't do before, then there is nothing wrong. If it takes 10 seconds to learn and doesn't make anything better, then it's staggeringly bad.
The biggest financial problem that chip manufactures face is the wavelength of light.
Damn. That really puts all of my problems into perspective.
I've been repeating this every time FUD about "the switch" comes up:
Apple announced a two-year long transition from PowerPC to Intel/x86 chips. Two years.
That's two years that at least some of Apple's computers will contain PowerPC chips. IBM just announced some tasty new PowerPC chips. Doesn't anyone else think that *maybe*, Apple is going to be buying some of them in the next two years?
This story has nothing to do with DRM or the "right to read". It concerns a publisher protecting it's assets before they go on sale. If you think a publisher shouldn't be able to decide when to start selling it's books, you're out of your fucking mind.
After you buy the book, your rights are the same as with any other book.
Your rights are not being infringed upon.
There is nothing to see here.
Have a nice day.
Yes, we are. Apple's going to put them in the iMac and Mac Mini lines first, the PowerPC lines later, and the Xserve rack-mounted servers may never get them.
Do you have a source for this?
I'd imagine that DRM on user-created content would make it easier for smaller artists/groups to make music without having to deal with piracy.
Perhaps you've missed the legions of small-time artists that openly and vocally condone DRM-free redistribution of their work because it drives sales?
If you're selling 1,000 CDs a year, 200 people pirating music is a much bigger hit than if you sell 1,000,000 CDs a year.
If you're selling 1,000 CDs a year, 200 people pirating your music is 20% more people listening to your music. Small-time artists have more to fear from obscurity than piracy.
Still and all, Apple has been harping on about the superiority of PowerPC for so long that I'm even more surprised to see them switch when IBM has these things, which look like the answers to a couple of Apple's problems, coming up.
Keep in mind that Apple is still planning to be shipping some PPC hardware through 2007, so it's probable that they'll be using these chips anyway in that time. Nobody is really sure which lines they are going to transition in what order, but it's probable that the PowerMac G5/Xserves will still be available with PPCs until then.
As further clarification, I enjoy remixing myself - I've done plenty of it...
I have plenty of crow to eat here; I mistook you for someone who'd never heard the word "remix" until WIRED had co-opted (er...remixed) it.
And therein lies confusion. In this context, remix is not meant to apply strictly to music. The post-WIRED version describes a much more general cultural shift that I think is much more valid of the attention it receives than "just" music remixing.
Some people *have it* - simple raw talent - most people don't.
I don't disagree with this, per se; It's an observation anyone can make. What I disagree with is the idea that talent can't be learned. The idea that if you don't have it you can't get it, or at least shouldn't bother trying. Yes, it can't be taught, like technique, but it can still be acquired, nurtured, and expanded.
I definitely didn't mean to imply (as WIRED tends to) that all creative works are on equal footing. 90% of everything is still crap. What I understood Gibson to be saying, was that this trend of recombination has been and will be embraced by larger portions of our culture. The perceived gap between collage/cut-up/remix art and original art is shrinking (from both sides) to the point of being meaningless. The idea being that the lessened stigma around "appropriation" and "borrowing" will lower the bar significantly for people to create.
In other words, 90% of everything will still be crap, but there will be 100 times as much of everything.
There are a huge number of people, and I would submit that such a number constitutes a majority of people in general, who aren't really interested in being cultural producers of any variety.
...that you demonstrate your lack of awareness of. I'm sorry if you heard some crappy mashup that you didn't like. There's a lot of crappy music by "Skilled Professional Musicians", too. (Furthermore, most remixing is done by "Skilled Professional Musicians") But you don't see people writing off the whole enterprise, except out of ignorance. Maybe if you addressed some of the concrete examples in TFA you would have more of a point.
One of the highlights of modern culture is that this number seems to be decreasing. People naturally want to create. If they "aren't interested" it's because they were never encouraged (and often actively discouraged) to be.
Remixing is a marginal case...
Appealing to William Gibson as an authority is not a wise idea in this case. I have an idea - I'll OCR Mona Lisa Overdrive and remix it. Oooops! Can't really do that, can I? I have to KNOW HOW TO WRITE SCI-FI to do that. Same goes for music.
This doesn't make any sense. Are you implying that writing sci-fi is something reserved for a category of people other than the one you are in? Or that writing is something that cannot be learned and honed? Gibson is a sci-fi writer because he writes sci-fi, not because he is a member of an elite club that you can't join; and he's a good writer because he works hard to be a good writer, not because he has magic powers or something.
For torrent, the host setup is going to be much more involved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need:
Correcting:
Current BitTorrent betas support "trackerless" torrents, which removes the only problematic step. If you can host a file, you can host a torrent.
wtf... alpha blending has been around natively in windows since W2K. It wasn't used but it was there and many mods allowed context menu to set windows transparency.
I know the article and summary make it sound like this is the difference, but it's not. The key difference in this regard is that all windows are composited the same way, as if they had transparency, whether they do or not. (i.e., the compositing model is like what Mac OS X has always had.) This basically means a faster UI when using all kinds of crazy effects, and the enabling of new effects. Something like Apple's Expose is virtually impossible to do with out a graphics system like Quartz or Avalons.
In other words, they're catching up with Apple in capability, but it's yet to be seen if what they do with it will be anywhere near as good.
(IIRC, e17 uses the same kind of model; it's kind of like Mac OS X pre-10.2/Quartz Extreme.)
This is an oversimplification, but at least not as bad as the one in the article.
Excitement is created by 'newness'
Excitement, in the context of this story, is created by quality design, which doesn't necessarily have to be completely new.
No-one wants 'newness' in user interface controls which keep them from the functionality of the software!
Not only is your basic assumption wrong, as I said above, but your conclusion isn't even consistent. There is no reason that newness in an interface would make it any less functional. If it did, it would be a flawed design and probably thrown out before it even shipped.
The overwhelming majority of new interface design is aimed at enabling greater functionality.
'Inspired' and 'Exciting' are bullshit terms that are meaningless in this context. Intuitiveness and consistency makes people more productive.
You cannot make people more productive, you can enable them to be more productive. What enables people more productive is largely dependent on context, even in the confines of computer interface design.
Consistency, for example, is not a panacea. It can be used inappropriately in devastatingly counterproductive ways. The inspiration referred to is the inspiration of the designer in properly choosing where to be consistent and where to break from it. Intuitiveness, too, is not a fixed target. All interfaces require familiarity, and it is the designer's challenge to properly balance the enabling of functionality and the requiring of familiarity.
There is science to ergonomics and cognition, but ultimately, design is an artform that cannot strictly adhere to scientific results. There is no such thing as an optimal design.
So Pine, Lynx and Emacs/Vi don't help people become productive?
I think a better answer for this is that these interfaces *are* inspired and exciting. Or were at one time. vi was created in the late 70s, emacs in the early 80s. They're quality designs, just from an earlier era, when demands and constraints were different. There still is some elegance to them, and still find use in environments with those same old demands and constraints, but they were not the final word.
Painting the handle of a hammer in warm pastels would be pleasant but doesn't make a roofer more productive
...and corporate IT is filled with depressed, angry, boring, and uninspired people who are only in it for the money as a result.
Nor would any sensible industrial designer working on a hammer for roofers do such a thing. And yet, specialized roofing hammers are more efficent than typical hammers for the job at hand. They also happen to look different.
Design is not simply "how it looks". Likewise, a "stimulating and pleasant" environment does not imply leather couches or any of the other bullshit you mention. The GP even said Terms you might wish to look up before posting further rants are 'ergonomics' and 'congitive psychology'., which you seem to have ignored completely.
You basically know nothing about design and yet are willing to write at length about why it worthless.
Efficiency of the tool is what matters and Windows apps are exceedingly efficient tools thanks to...
None of the things you mention are unique to Windows.
In corporate IT, more work is done before lunch every day than was ever done in anything more pleasant and stimulating surroundings because it needs to be done and there's a paycheck in it.
That's the problem. That's a horrible way for human beings to exist, and it is not necessary for things to be that way. Windows is designed to mimic this kind of stale environment, and articles like this are just symptoms of how flawed it really is.
Think about it, who do you think of when you think of a mac user? They are designed to cater to a group of people who are more creative and right brained.
Creativity is something that every human being is born with. "More creative" people just happen to have not had so much of it beaten, sucked, and driven out of them as "less creative" people.
Let us never forget that pretty software does not automatically mean functional software
Let us also never forget that functional software can be, and often is, beautiful.