WMA will be the dominant format going forward... I recently started ripping everything in either lossless WMA (archives) or 160 WMA (for portable player). It sounds better at a smaller size than MP3 - end of story.
It's also looking like it may be the format of choice for video. It could conceivably be the compression technique used for next gen HD-DVD.
About the only reason to use MP3 anymore is if you're married to Linux/MacOS.
Ohh, I see... "Might be able to control"... "Corporate control". "Fair use rights". You're one of those.
Oh, and Cletus - they _are_ working with RedHat. The itanium build of Linux kind of USES EFI!!!! And openbios.org??! Who the hell cares about them - insignificant. Maybe they should work with every small-time "visionary" on the web, huh?
Paranoid delusions with no basis in fact.
Sorry I mentioned it - carry on with with trying to decipher messages from Aliens in the newspaper or whatever it is paranoids do with their free time.
By the way, why would a large corporation _not_ work with the single largest OS and software vendor in the world?
Seems like they're having a lot of problems with the Opteron systems, and he seems convinced he should still get another one "for future upgrades".
My ass. He's going to get a lot better hardware quality with a standard machine and a P4 based system. They could get a HPQ DL380 for like $4k with dual P4 processors, high quality raid, redundant network/power/fans/etc...
Instead, he's buying some crappy home-build (practically) Opteron system "because it's cool", basically. Jeesh.
Companies make money - and why should the government fund OS via tax breaks? I thought you did it because you love open source, now you want handouts from companies and uncle sucker?
What do you care whar a corporation does with your open software, your shitty GPL makes a lot of open source sw useless for corporate use anyway.
Yeah, people _love_ to prattle on about how everyone else is _soo_ stupid for playing the lottery.
The real truth is that it can (rarely) make statistical sense, as you say. And moreoever, you're better off spending $20 a month on something halfway entertaining and with a (close to zero, but nonzero) chance of changing your life than you are e.g. spedning $20 on big macs at McDonalds.
"I don't remember" is a nice way of saying "quit passing off rumors as facts, dumbass - Intel has announced no such thing".
And you seem to be, umm, stupid. First, you seem to think that AMD chips don't have bugs. Pretty silly, you cheeky monkey.
Second, Itanium/ia64 is very well designed. They perform exceptionally well at their intended task, and are among the fastest processors you can buy - _FOR THEIR INTENDED TASKS_.
Lastly, there is a version of Windows for the Itanium, and plenty of Linux versions for it. What the hell kind of paint thinner have you been huffing? I suggest you come up for air, it's making you stupid.
Hehe, AMD. Yeah, look at all the money they're raking in - there's something to copy.
You also seem to be under the incorrect assumption that IBM or AMD "invented" any of those things. This is _truly_ funny considering AMD has (barely) eeked an existence out of basically COPYING/LICENSING OTHER PEOPLES' TECHNOLOGY. This is sure innovative, eh?
Let's see, diamond products that will be to market anytime soon? Oh, wait, _ZERO_.
Strained silicon? _SEVERAL_.
Is there any kind of self editing process when you post like this? I mean, do you ever stop to think that maybe the severel people running the multibillion dollar company and the best technical minds in the industry just _may_ know a little more than you on this subject?
Or, more likely, you just read something, hear the vague sounds of a banjo playing in your head, and pound on the keyboard until something resembling a paragraph takes form?
1. I don't recall Intel announcing anything about any x86-64 CPU. 2. Intel's products are more reliable, as they spend a _lot_ more time testing and qualifying their products than any other manufacturer.
Don't SCO's financial officers have a legal duty to shareholders to earn as much profit as possible? Sounds like SCO shareholders should be suing _now_, instead of waiting.
It's obvious to me that a lot of people _will_ be suing SCO when this all blows over and it turns out they squandered millions on a case they knew they couldn't win. But I think they should start now, and use this quarters' losses as their case.
They can release 256 bit processors if they want, it doesn't mean anything to your garden variety desktop user unless it's faster at running 32-bit code (which is sometimes the case, admittedly).
The 64-bit thing is a bragging rights gimmick and doesn't do anything for the vast, vast majority of desktop users out there, who don't even have 1G of memory much less 3-4G. What's funny is people are actually buying into it.
Wait, I'm geniunely curious (I want to see how AMD's marketing machine works)...
Why are you convinced that a 64-bit processor will help you in any way? It won't, of course, unless it also happens to be faster in run-of-the-mill 32-bit code - which I will admin AMD's 64-bit chips sometimes are.
But you specifically mention you want to "go 64 bit". How did they convince you this will help anything?
People keep saying this old saw ("Some games are faster in Linux"), but it just ain't true.
And lastly, let's say it were. UT for example is developed by Epic. That guy Sweeney is the biggest contrarian nerd there is. I can see them intentionally_ making it faster on Linux just to stick it to Windows and Intel.
Wow, throw a few "N'Glaven"'s in there, and you would win Self Righteous Nerd of the Year award!
You don't _own_ Linux. End of story. There are definite limitations on what you can and can't do with it.
2 is just silly. Software has bugs, including Linux.
3. Bullshit. Linux has patches all the time, too.
4. Umm, hey genius - what do you think you're doing when you download anything that's GPLd? You're giving up reasonable (like the ability to use the software in an internal, proprietary product without giving out YOUR source) rights.
Slashdot Mirror
You are surely mistaken. .mp3 does decently if you crank the bitrate way up. Then, so does WMA.
So..
@64kbps-96kpbs - WMA is far superior
At 120kbps and above, WMA is slightly better and will have slightly better sound.
So, umm, where's MP3's benefit again, now that everything supports WMA?
Yeah, nimwits are endemic - not really WMA's fault.
.WAV files that compare perfectly to the original .WAV file using lossess WMA.
I can extract
WMA will be the dominant format going forward... I recently started ripping everything in either lossless WMA (archives) or 160 WMA (for portable player). It sounds better at a smaller size than MP3 - end of story.
It's also looking like it may be the format of choice for video. It could conceivably be the compression technique used for next gen HD-DVD.
About the only reason to use MP3 anymore is if you're married to Linux/MacOS.
Ohh, I see... "Might be able to control"... "Corporate control". "Fair use rights". You're one of those.
Oh, and Cletus - they _are_ working with RedHat. The itanium build of Linux kind of USES EFI!!!! And openbios.org??! Who the hell cares about them - insignificant. Maybe they should work with every small-time "visionary" on the web, huh?
Paranoid delusions with no basis in fact.
Sorry I mentioned it - carry on with with trying to decipher messages from Aliens in the newspaper or whatever it is paranoids do with their free time.
By the way, why would a large corporation _not_ work with the single largest OS and software vendor in the world?
You're just spouting nonsense. It doesn't do _anything_ with consumer rights, numbskull. Intel is a supporter of Linux.
Ya paranoid freak.
Seems like they're having a lot of problems with the Opteron systems, and he seems convinced he should still get another one "for future upgrades".
My ass. He's going to get a lot better hardware quality with a standard machine and a P4 based system. They could get a HPQ DL380 for like $4k with dual P4 processors, high quality raid, redundant network/power/fans/etc...
Instead, he's buying some crappy home-build (practically) Opteron system "because it's cool", basically. Jeesh.
Wow! Who'd 'a thunk it??
Seriously, umm, no shit?
Companies make money - and why should the government fund OS via tax breaks? I thought you did it because you love open source, now you want handouts from companies and uncle sucker?
What do you care whar a corporation does with your open software, your shitty GPL makes a lot of open source sw useless for corporate use anyway.
The whole thing seems childish.
$500? That's _great_...
DTivo is under $200, why would anyone go with Dish?
Yeah, people _love_ to prattle on about how everyone else is _soo_ stupid for playing the lottery.
The real truth is that it can (rarely) make statistical sense, as you say. And moreoever, you're better off spending $20 a month on something halfway entertaining and with a (close to zero, but nonzero) chance of changing your life than you are e.g. spedning $20 on big macs at McDonalds.
Oh come on, you're joking right? AMD does not make money. End of story. Their stock price is irrelevent.
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5063556.html
Cough *bullshit* cough.
"I don't remember" is a nice way of saying "quit passing off rumors as facts, dumbass - Intel has announced no such thing".
And you seem to be, umm, stupid. First, you seem to think that AMD chips don't have bugs. Pretty silly, you cheeky monkey.
Second, Itanium/ia64 is very well designed. They perform exceptionally well at their intended task, and are among the fastest processors you can buy - _FOR THEIR INTENDED TASKS_.
Lastly, there is a version of Windows for the Itanium, and plenty of Linux versions for it. What the hell kind of paint thinner have you been huffing? I suggest you come up for air, it's making you stupid.
Hehe, AMD. Yeah, look at all the money they're raking in - there's something to copy.
You also seem to be under the incorrect assumption that IBM or AMD "invented" any of those things. This is _truly_ funny considering AMD has (barely) eeked an existence out of basically COPYING/LICENSING OTHER PEOPLES' TECHNOLOGY. This is sure innovative, eh?
Let's see, diamond products that will be to market anytime soon? Oh, wait, _ZERO_.
Strained silicon? _SEVERAL_.
Is there any kind of self editing process when you post like this? I mean, do you ever stop to think that maybe the severel people running the multibillion dollar company and the best technical minds in the industry just _may_ know a little more than you on this subject?
Or, more likely, you just read something, hear the vague sounds of a banjo playing in your head, and pound on the keyboard until something resembling a paragraph takes form?
This is so laughably stupid on so many levels I can only assume it's an inelegant attempt at a troll.
What's funny is you probably think it's subtle and clever. _That's_ why I laugh.
Some factual mistakes in your post.
1. I don't recall Intel announcing anything about any x86-64 CPU.
2. Intel's products are more reliable, as they spend a _lot_ more time testing and qualifying their products than any other manufacturer.
Don't SCO's financial officers have a legal duty to shareholders to earn as much profit as possible? Sounds like SCO shareholders should be suing _now_, instead of waiting.
It's obvious to me that a lot of people _will_ be suing SCO when this all blows over and it turns out they squandered millions on a case they knew they couldn't win. But I think they should start now, and use this quarters' losses as their case.
They can release 256 bit processors if they want, it doesn't mean anything to your garden variety desktop user unless it's faster at running 32-bit code (which is sometimes the case, admittedly).
The 64-bit thing is a bragging rights gimmick and doesn't do anything for the vast, vast majority of desktop users out there, who don't even have 1G of memory much less 3-4G. What's funny is people are actually buying into it.
Wait, I'm geniunely curious (I want to see how AMD's marketing machine works)...
Why are you convinced that a 64-bit processor will help you in any way? It won't, of course, unless it also happens to be faster in run-of-the-mill 32-bit code - which I will admin AMD's 64-bit chips sometimes are.
But you specifically mention you want to "go 64 bit". How did they convince you this will help anything?
Almost - it's in ns since some epoch, not seconds. Still a long time.
Hey, numbskull - they most certainly do NOT. Unless e.g. Redhat isn't modern?
Nah - Windows has it right. Just use a 64-bit number and there's no longer an issue.
Steam from Apple? What in God's name are you talking about?
You think Apple has really innovated _anything_ that's new? What a load of shit.
Bullshit. You are truly full of shit.
People keep saying this old saw ("Some games are faster in Linux"), but it just ain't true.
And lastly, let's say it were. UT for example is developed by Epic. That guy Sweeney is the biggest contrarian nerd there is. I can see them intentionally_ making it faster on Linux just to stick it to Windows and Intel.
Wow, throw a few "N'Glaven"'s in there, and you would win Self Righteous Nerd of the Year award!
You don't _own_ Linux. End of story. There are definite limitations on what you can and can't do with it.
2 is just silly. Software has bugs, including Linux.
3. Bullshit. Linux has patches all the time, too.
4. Umm, hey genius - what do you think you're doing when you download anything that's GPLd? You're giving up reasonable (like the ability to use the software in an internal, proprietary product without giving out YOUR source) rights.
5. Bullshit.
I am absolutely amazed that the local Cabal let you say that with modding you down to:
-10 (publish phone number and stalk)
You are absolutely correct. Since NT 4.0, Windows has been very good on a technical level.