Is that why they made more income in Q2-2005 than they have ever made before?
"They are downright paranoid about us slashdotters, as well they should be."
No, they aren't. Slashdot isn't even 0.1% of their userbase. Firefox, on the other hand, represents 8-10% of web users - a significant enough potion that it's only logical to support them.
Price fixing sucks. But this is Rambus we're talking about. Remeber RDRAM? Remember Rambus trying to hold JEDEC (and DRAM manufacturers) hostage through patent claims on DDR?
"In the FOSS world where backwards binary compatibility is not an issue, a source patch could be made available."
BULLSHIT. Lack of backwards binary compatibility is the reason that NVIDIA and ATI have to resort to dirty hacks to release their drivers for Linux.
Backwards binary compatibility means that a hardware vendor can release one binary driver, without having to worry about whether it will work next month. It's not reasonable to expect every hardware company to want to release every module - but with Linux, this is essentially the only option.
OASIS ODF is very much the Open Office XML format in the same way that swf is the Macromedia Flash format. Both are open standards derived from the featureset of a single product and whose format continues to be dictated by a single product. How many people are using ODF outside of OOo?
Just as VC-1 is still (mostly) Windows Media, OASIS ODF is still OpenOffice.org. Standardizing the format doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
If Microsoft made their Word format completely open and submitted it to a standards body tomorrow, it would still be the Word format.
Don't fool yourself. ODF is designed around OpenOffice.
"Wrong. MS Office doesn't support Word documents in general, but just those produced with the same version of Word, and -perhaps- with the previous one. In some rare cases, you may succeed with importing simple documents from even earlier versions -- but you will need to spend a long time reformatting everything."
What the hell are you talking about? At my previous company, we ran a mixed Office 2003/Office XP/Office 2000 environment. We NEVER had problems with PowerPoint, Word, or Excel - even between versions. And, while most of our documents/presentations/spreadsheats were "simple", there were quite a few "complex" documents too.
I worked at documents on my home PC (Word 2003) and business PC (Word 2000) every day without encountering isues.
Don't spread FUD. No, it's not 100% compatible, but it's decently close. More so than, for example, OOo 1.x and 2.x.
Why would they do that? XAML isn't any more "proprietary" than XUL, which is only a "standard" in the sense that it's implemented by Mozilla. There's no formal specification that has been submitted to a standards body.
Why, might I ask, do you believe that Microsoft should implement the Mozilla UI language when it's not even a formal standard? Should Firefox go implement ActiveX on Windows instead of its plugin model because it's the "de-facto standard"?
Moreover, XAML does a hell of a lot more than XUL.
"stop working on that "PDF killer""
Metro, or whatever the hell it's called now post-Vista-naming, isn't a PDF killer. It never was intended to be one. Instead, it's a standardized XML format that's designed to make the printing system in Vista work like it should. I shouldn't need printer drivers to print on a network printer - you need a common document format to accomplish that, and it helps a lot for compatibility if that format is designed around the current printer driver model.
"In my personal opinion, this dude is talking out his ass.
The Revolution controller is a massive improvement over the current controller designs when it comes to first person shooters."
In my opinion, you're talking out of your ass. Have you ever considered that perhaps controller design has reached a point of mautrity? There's a reason that keyboards and mice are fundamentally the same as they were 20 years ago - the input device works, and it works well.
The problems with the Revolution controller are numerous.
First, it eliminates compatibility - games that play well on the PS3 or XBox 360 will likely play poorly on the Revolution. And most (if not all) of the first-person-shooters on the Cube were XBox/PS2 simultaneous releases or ports. The "different" controller makes companies like EA question whether they even want to do a port. Now, you may argue that companies will make exclusive Revolution FPS games, but that wasn't the case with the Cube, and there is no reason to believe that it will be the case with the Revolution.
Second, the analog controller is awkward. You're going to need it for movement control in FPS games, but it's attached to the "main" controller with a damn cable. That basically rules out fast movements of the Revolution controller.
Third, you need to make big movements to make small changes with the Revolution controller. That's bad from an ergonomic standpoint. Can you imagine moving your arm around in the air (or, for that matter, twisting your wrist) for multiple hours on end?
Fourth, it has very few buttons. If you use the d-pad for weapon selection, Start for the menu, a for primary fire, and b for secondary fire, you still need to find another button for jumping, a button for "Use", a button for reload, a button for crouch - where are these buttons going to come from? How are you even going to use the buttons at the bottom of the remote?
Nintendo is a very unique and innovative controller. But designing a controller that is radically different is a bad move for a company that very much needs third-party involvement. In the end, the games make the system. And Nintendo cannot deliver a compelling game lineup without 3rd party developers.
I very much doubt that he is shilling for Microsoft. Remember that Unreal Engine is a major part of the PS3 dev system - Epic has a lot to gain if the PS3 does well.
For example:
In what must come as a relief to developers, Epic Games' Tim Sweeney was on hand to vouch for the PS3, saying it was "easy to program for" and that Epic had received its first PS3 hardware two months ago.
"They also haven't attempted to kill their competition through monopolistic practices."
Wait a minute. Apple has extended their de-facto monopoly on portable music players (how the got it is unimportant) to a near-monopoly on music software (iTunes) and a music download service (iTMS).
This is EXACTLY what Microsoft is often trashed for. Microsoft used their near-monopoly on operating systems to attempt to corner the browser market. If you want Windows, you get IE.
Apple is doing the same thing. If you want an iPod, you get iTunes. If you want to buy music for your iPod (from major labels), iTMS is the only legal online download source for your iPod. And once you buy that music, the iPod is the only portable player that can play those tunes without jumping through hoops to burn CDs.
The result? iTMS is the #1 store. And iTunes is the #1 music software. If consumers were given the freedom to choose where to buy their tunes from, you can bet that tracks wouldn't be selling for $0.99. A competitive marketplace encourages lower prices, better service, and better quality. Apple's lock-in has prevented that.
Whatever you think of WMA-DRM, the fact is that there are hundreds of different devices from many companies that play it. You don't have to use MSN Music. You don't have to use a Creative player. Hell, with RealPlayer or Yahoo! Music, you don't even have to use Windows Media player.
Who's using their monopoly to stifle competition now?
"Apple has taken its time getting their initial product out there, but the extra care they take is readily noticeable in the useability."
That's crap. Apple's FrontRow is lacking in both functionality and usability. Who decided that a six button remote was a good idea? Who decided that iTunes/iPhoto should open up when you want to view your music or photos?
FrontRow is a poor response to Meida Center. Apple may have taken their time, but it doesn't show.
Not to mention that Front Row has barely any resemblence to Media Center - it is much more like a PC version of the iPod interface, which is suboptimal at best.
I run a MCE 2005 box with two tuners. The tuners are AverMedia M150s, about as cheap as you can get for a tuner with MPEG-2 encoding (about $60 each).
Here's what you need for a good 2-tuner media center experience:
- Decent drives. A 7200rpm SATA drive is best, I use a Maxtor DiamondMax 10 300GB. If possible, have a separate drive for storing shows than the one you use to boot off of. - A GOOD GPU. I found that a 64-bit GeForce FX 5200 just didn't cut it. I use a NV44A GeForce 6200 now. - A good DVD decoder. I use NVIDIA PureVideo decoder because it has hardware acceleration. PowerDVD also works pretty well.
That's about it. No audio sync issues with my Realtek ALC850 built in audio. No problems driving both a standard-def tv and an HDTV (component) with my NVIDIA card.
Complaining that your HD projector doesn't like PC resolutions (duh) or that S-Video cables break easily (again, duh) is really bone-headed. These things are not problems with Media Center, they are problems with you not understanding that driving an HD projector using a DVI-HDMI adaptor and a standard graphics card is a HACK. Expecting it to work perfectly is stupid.
Compared with Myth and other Windows DVR solutions, Media Center is easier to configure and easier to use. It's not TiVo, but it's not supposed to be TiVo.
Perhaps it is not about fear at all. Perhaps we use SMTP and POP (well, in my case, IMAP) and HTTP and IPv4 because the system isn't fundamentally broken.
Look at how fast DVDs were adopted. Or PCIe - both technologies had a low barrier to entry and offered significant advantages (DVD had much better picture quality, better sound, and special features; PCIe cost less to implement).
Now compare that to IPv6. What is the compelling advantage? How does it compare to the cost of implementation?
Capitalism is a sloppy hack. But it works well enough.
"You turn on power saving nodes (Intel's Speedstep, AMD's Cool n Quiet)?"
Yes. My Athlon 64 Newcastle (CG stepping) idles at 800MHz/0.8V, consuming ~8-10W. My LCD blanks itself after five minutes. I do not use a power-intensive screensaver.
"You use 55W fluorescent torchiere lamps instead of 300W halogen ones, right?"
There is nothing other than flourescent lighting in my room - a 19W tube as a cieling light, a 19W compact-flourescent desk-lamp, and three 13W compact-flourescent lamps. Usually, I only use the 19W overhead lamp.
Like GPS, the DNS root servers are a service funded by the US government. Like GPS, the US does not want to give up control of the service that it funds. And, like GPS, the EU is welcome to create their own competing service.
But don't whine that the US doesn't want to release control. Regardless of who invented the internet, the root servers are funded by the government. If you don't want to use them, no one is forcing you to.
"Um, yes? Google is probably the most-visited site on the internet. Millions of requests per second would be reasonable. I'd be suprised if they were only running off 5000 boxes."
That would actually be Yahoo, followed by MSN, then Google.
"MySQL is prolific, I'll give it that. But its created a cadre of developers who don't know why 'INNER JOIN' is better than just 'select table1,table2', or that string parsing should be done on the application level, not the DB level."
Should they have to? Most DBMS installations today are used for small-medium websites, not for huge business databases.
Not every nail needs a sledgehammer. That's why the media player I wrote years ago used SQLite. That's why my website runs MySQL.
The XBox is a very closed environment. It is unlikely that Microsoft would sign games that affect the functionality of their product. It is in their best interest that your system continues to function, so that you can buy more games.
The US government is operating a service. Like GPS, the root DNS is operated by a government-controlled organization. Like GPS, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
The EU doesn't like GPS because it's US controlled. As a result, they are creating their own system.
The EU doesn't like the current DNS system because the root servers are US controlled. Bummer. Go create your own system. But don't mandate that your ISPs switch to it. And don't complain that the US doesn't want to release control.
Re:Does anyone else find myth busters annoying?
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
MythBusters is what it is. The show is not infallable, but, quite honestly, what do you expect from a mainstream television show? It's a fun hour of TV - the MythBusters have resources available to them that are far beyond what a typical person could expect to have. Where else are you going to see rockets attached to a car, a cement truck blown up with mining explosives, or a giant slingshot?
Don't take it too seriously. I know that the MythBusters don't.
I don't think that I'm as smart as Archimedes was. But yet I would have no problem designing an electronic circuit. The difference is knowledge.
The problem with the death ray is that it is impractical as a weapon. It only works under certain conditions (not at night or on cloudy days). And the surface area required to reflect enough sun to light a ship requires a reflector that is impractically large.
"Also consider that the vast majority of people in the world simply do not have the bandwidth to download HD videos. This is undoubtedly the future of content distribution, but it is the distant future - only Japan and Korea really have the telecommunications infrastructure to support this."
What are you even talking about? Comcast, in my area, offers HD video on demand. The infastructure is more than fast enough to stream HD videos to my set-top-box. Even a single 6MHz cable channel has 40 megabits of bandwidth. And, as for the uplink, Comcast's CRAN metro-area-network is 10Gb ethernet throughout.
Comcast has more than enough bandwidth to offer HD video downloads. But why offer downloads when the connection is fast enough to stream in real-time? Video-on-demand is very here, very now. No PC required.
By your assessment, the future is now. It's called cable.
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft is getting really desperate."
Is that why they made more income in Q2-2005 than they have ever made before?
"They are downright paranoid about us slashdotters, as well they should be."
No, they aren't. Slashdot isn't even 0.1% of their userbase. Firefox, on the other hand, represents 8-10% of web users - a significant enough potion that it's only logical to support them.
Price fixing sucks. But this is Rambus we're talking about. Remeber RDRAM? Remember Rambus trying to hold JEDEC (and DRAM manufacturers) hostage through patent claims on DDR?
"In the FOSS world where backwards binary compatibility is not an issue, a source patch could be made available."
BULLSHIT. Lack of backwards binary compatibility is the reason that NVIDIA and ATI have to resort to dirty hacks to release their drivers for Linux.
Backwards binary compatibility means that a hardware vendor can release one binary driver, without having to worry about whether it will work next month. It's not reasonable to expect every hardware company to want to release every module - but with Linux, this is essentially the only option.
OASIS ODF is very much the Open Office XML format in the same way that swf is the Macromedia Flash format. Both are open standards derived from the featureset of a single product and whose format continues to be dictated by a single product. How many people are using ODF outside of OOo?
Just as VC-1 is still (mostly) Windows Media, OASIS ODF is still OpenOffice.org. Standardizing the format doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
If Microsoft made their Word format completely open and submitted it to a standards body tomorrow, it would still be the Word format.
Don't fool yourself. ODF is designed around OpenOffice.
"Wrong. MS Office doesn't support Word documents in general, but just those produced with the same version of Word, and -perhaps- with the previous one. In some rare cases, you may succeed with importing simple documents from even earlier versions -- but you will need to spend a long time reformatting everything."
What the hell are you talking about? At my previous company, we ran a mixed Office 2003/Office XP/Office 2000 environment. We NEVER had problems with PowerPoint, Word, or Excel - even between versions. And, while most of our documents/presentations/spreadsheats were "simple", there were quite a few "complex" documents too.
I worked at documents on my home PC (Word 2003) and business PC (Word 2000) every day without encountering isues.
Don't spread FUD. No, it's not 100% compatible, but it's decently close. More so than, for example, OOo 1.x and 2.x.
"switch to XUL instead of XAML"
Why would they do that? XAML isn't any more "proprietary" than XUL, which is only a "standard" in the sense that it's implemented by Mozilla. There's no formal specification that has been submitted to a standards body.
Why, might I ask, do you believe that Microsoft should implement the Mozilla UI language when it's not even a formal standard? Should Firefox go implement ActiveX on Windows instead of its plugin model because it's the "de-facto standard"?
Moreover, XAML does a hell of a lot more than XUL.
"stop working on that "PDF killer""
Metro, or whatever the hell it's called now post-Vista-naming, isn't a PDF killer. It never was intended to be one. Instead, it's a standardized XML format that's designed to make the printing system in Vista work like it should. I shouldn't need printer drivers to print on a network printer - you need a common document format to accomplish that, and it helps a lot for compatibility if that format is designed around the current printer driver model.
"In my personal opinion, this dude is talking out his ass.
The Revolution controller is a massive improvement over the current controller designs when it comes to first person shooters."
In my opinion, you're talking out of your ass. Have you ever considered that perhaps controller design has reached a point of mautrity? There's a reason that keyboards and mice are fundamentally the same as they were 20 years ago - the input device works, and it works well.
The problems with the Revolution controller are numerous.
First, it eliminates compatibility - games that play well on the PS3 or XBox 360 will likely play poorly on the Revolution. And most (if not all) of the first-person-shooters on the Cube were XBox/PS2 simultaneous releases or ports. The "different" controller makes companies like EA question whether they even want to do a port. Now, you may argue that companies will make exclusive Revolution FPS games, but that wasn't the case with the Cube, and there is no reason to believe that it will be the case with the Revolution.
Second, the analog controller is awkward. You're going to need it for movement control in FPS games, but it's attached to the "main" controller with a damn cable. That basically rules out fast movements of the Revolution controller.
Third, you need to make big movements to make small changes with the Revolution controller. That's bad from an ergonomic standpoint. Can you imagine moving your arm around in the air (or, for that matter, twisting your wrist) for multiple hours on end?
Fourth, it has very few buttons. If you use the d-pad for weapon selection, Start for the menu, a for primary fire, and b for secondary fire, you still need to find another button for jumping, a button for "Use", a button for reload, a button for crouch - where are these buttons going to come from? How are you even going to use the buttons at the bottom of the remote?
Nintendo is a very unique and innovative controller. But designing a controller that is radically different is a bad move for a company that very much needs third-party involvement. In the end, the games make the system. And Nintendo cannot deliver a compelling game lineup without 3rd party developers.
I very much doubt that he is shilling for Microsoft. Remember that Unreal Engine is a major part of the PS3 dev system - Epic has a lot to gain if the PS3 does well.
For example:
In what must come as a relief to developers, Epic Games' Tim Sweeney was on hand to vouch for the PS3, saying it was "easy to program for" and that Epic had received its first PS3 hardware two months ago.
"They also haven't attempted to kill their competition through monopolistic practices."
Wait a minute. Apple has extended their de-facto monopoly on portable music players (how the got it is unimportant) to a near-monopoly on music software (iTunes) and a music download service (iTMS).
This is EXACTLY what Microsoft is often trashed for. Microsoft used their near-monopoly on operating systems to attempt to corner the browser market. If you want Windows, you get IE.
Apple is doing the same thing. If you want an iPod, you get iTunes. If you want to buy music for your iPod (from major labels), iTMS is the only legal online download source for your iPod. And once you buy that music, the iPod is the only portable player that can play those tunes without jumping through hoops to burn CDs.
The result? iTMS is the #1 store. And iTunes is the #1 music software. If consumers were given the freedom to choose where to buy their tunes from, you can bet that tracks wouldn't be selling for $0.99. A competitive marketplace encourages lower prices, better service, and better quality. Apple's lock-in has prevented that.
Whatever you think of WMA-DRM, the fact is that there are hundreds of different devices from many companies that play it. You don't have to use MSN Music. You don't have to use a Creative player. Hell, with RealPlayer or Yahoo! Music, you don't even have to use Windows Media player.
Who's using their monopoly to stifle competition now?
"Apple has taken its time getting their initial product out there, but the extra care they take is readily noticeable in the useability."
That's crap. Apple's FrontRow is lacking in both functionality and usability. Who decided that a six button remote was a good idea? Who decided that iTunes/iPhoto should open up when you want to view your music or photos?
FrontRow is a poor response to Meida Center. Apple may have taken their time, but it doesn't show.
Not to mention that Front Row has barely any resemblence to Media Center - it is much more like a PC version of the iPod interface, which is suboptimal at best.
I run a MCE 2005 box with two tuners. The tuners are AverMedia M150s, about as cheap as you can get for a tuner with MPEG-2 encoding (about $60 each).
Here's what you need for a good 2-tuner media center experience:
- Decent drives. A 7200rpm SATA drive is best, I use a Maxtor DiamondMax 10 300GB. If possible, have a separate drive for storing shows than the one you use to boot off of.
- A GOOD GPU. I found that a 64-bit GeForce FX 5200 just didn't cut it. I use a NV44A GeForce 6200 now.
- A good DVD decoder. I use NVIDIA PureVideo decoder because it has hardware acceleration. PowerDVD also works pretty well.
That's about it. No audio sync issues with my Realtek ALC850 built in audio. No problems driving both a standard-def tv and an HDTV (component) with my NVIDIA card.
Complaining that your HD projector doesn't like PC resolutions (duh) or that S-Video cables break easily (again, duh) is really bone-headed. These things are not problems with Media Center, they are problems with you not understanding that driving an HD projector using a DVI-HDMI adaptor and a standard graphics card is a HACK. Expecting it to work perfectly is stupid.
Compared with Myth and other Windows DVR solutions, Media Center is easier to configure and easier to use. It's not TiVo, but it's not supposed to be TiVo.
Perhaps it is not about fear at all. Perhaps we use SMTP and POP (well, in my case, IMAP) and HTTP and IPv4 because the system isn't fundamentally broken.
Look at how fast DVDs were adopted. Or PCIe - both technologies had a low barrier to entry and offered significant advantages (DVD had much better picture quality, better sound, and special features; PCIe cost less to implement).
Now compare that to IPv6. What is the compelling advantage? How does it compare to the cost of implementation?
Capitalism is a sloppy hack. But it works well enough.
Good enough is.
"You turn on power saving nodes (Intel's Speedstep, AMD's Cool n Quiet)?"
Yes. My Athlon 64 Newcastle (CG stepping) idles at 800MHz/0.8V, consuming ~8-10W. My LCD blanks itself after five minutes. I do not use a power-intensive screensaver.
"You use 55W fluorescent torchiere lamps instead of 300W halogen ones, right?"
There is nothing other than flourescent lighting in my room - a 19W tube as a cieling light, a 19W compact-flourescent desk-lamp, and three 13W compact-flourescent lamps. Usually, I only use the 19W overhead lamp.
And, I ride the bus or walk. I don't have a car.
Like GPS, the DNS root servers are a service funded by the US government. Like GPS, the US does not want to give up control of the service that it funds. And, like GPS, the EU is welcome to create their own competing service.
But don't whine that the US doesn't want to release control. Regardless of who invented the internet, the root servers are funded by the government. If you don't want to use them, no one is forcing you to.
"Um, yes? Google is probably the most-visited site on the internet. Millions of requests per second would be reasonable. I'd be suprised if they were only running off 5000 boxes."
n g&lang=en
That would actually be Yahoo, followed by MSN, then Google.
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=la
No. Why the fuck should I have to set this shit up myself. Shouldn't there be a distro that does it out of the box?
"MySQL is prolific, I'll give it that. But its created a cadre of developers who don't know why 'INNER JOIN' is better than just 'select table1,table2', or that string parsing should be done on the application level, not the DB level."
Should they have to? Most DBMS installations today are used for small-medium websites, not for huge business databases.
Not every nail needs a sledgehammer. That's why the media player I wrote years ago used SQLite. That's why my website runs MySQL.
The XBox is a very closed environment. It is unlikely that Microsoft would sign games that affect the functionality of their product. It is in their best interest that your system continues to function, so that you can buy more games.
Spoken like a true zealot - defending the fact that your project doesn't have a feature by claiming that such a feature is stupid to begin with.
Grammar checkers are good for things like repeated words, missed or incorrect punctuation or capitalization, and other common mistakes.
AbiWord has a grammar checker. That's an advangate. Don't try to spin it as a non-feature because English doesn't have perfectly standardized grammar.
The US government is operating a service. Like GPS, the root DNS is operated by a government-controlled organization. Like GPS, you don't have to use it if you don't want to.
The EU doesn't like GPS because it's US controlled. As a result, they are creating their own system.
The EU doesn't like the current DNS system because the root servers are US controlled. Bummer. Go create your own system. But don't mandate that your ISPs switch to it. And don't complain that the US doesn't want to release control.
MythBusters is what it is. The show is not infallable, but, quite honestly, what do you expect from a mainstream television show? It's a fun hour of TV - the MythBusters have resources available to them that are far beyond what a typical person could expect to have. Where else are you going to see rockets attached to a car, a cement truck blown up with mining explosives, or a giant slingshot?
Don't take it too seriously. I know that the MythBusters don't.
I don't think that I'm as smart as Archimedes was. But yet I would have no problem designing an electronic circuit. The difference is knowledge.
The problem with the death ray is that it is impractical as a weapon. It only works under certain conditions (not at night or on cloudy days). And the surface area required to reflect enough sun to light a ship requires a reflector that is impractically large.
"Also consider that the vast majority of people in the world simply do not have the bandwidth to download HD videos. This is undoubtedly the future of content distribution, but it is the distant future - only Japan and Korea really have the telecommunications infrastructure to support this."
What are you even talking about? Comcast, in my area, offers HD video on demand. The infastructure is more than fast enough to stream HD videos to my set-top-box. Even a single 6MHz cable channel has 40 megabits of bandwidth. And, as for the uplink, Comcast's CRAN metro-area-network is 10Gb ethernet throughout.
Comcast has more than enough bandwidth to offer HD video downloads. But why offer downloads when the connection is fast enough to stream in real-time? Video-on-demand is very here, very now. No PC required.
By your assessment, the future is now. It's called cable.
How does it feel to be in the 2/3rds?
1 in 3 people in the world have a mobile phone. That ratio is only going to increase.
Get used to it.
"Google is changing the platform to the web."
For the past 10 years, we've been told about how the Web was the next platform. How thin clients were going to rise up and take back the market.
It hasn't happened. As it turns out, thin clients have not taken off. And the Web has not replaced desktop applications.
Of course, this is Google, and, as their stock price indicates, they can do anything.