I can't help thinking one reason the nested-folders approach has become so strained is because it's been abused so much. As a tool allowing users to organize their stuff -- basically, their applications and their data files -- it was a good idea, and it's still a good idea.
The problem is, when you install Mac OS X, you are installing 30,000+ files and God only knows how many thousands of directories and sub-directories onto your hard drive. Even my backup program is nearly crushed under the strain of indexing them all, and almost none of them are of any pertinence to the user whatsoever.
It's the same story when you install any major application, or install a game, etc. It's not uncommon for them to incorporate several thousand files and a maze of nested folders, none of which are of any relevance to the person using the program.
I believe Apple took a step in the right direction when they introduced application bundles. It doesn't get rid of all those files and folders, but at least they are hidden from the user. I don't think it's enough, I think it's a baby step toward a solution.
The way I see it, the big problem with the hierarchical file system is that it's being forced to perform two different jobs. For one, it's being used by end users to organize their discrete objects -- meaning media files, documents, and applications. These are individual, self-contained items that have some kind of meaning to an ordinary person (who is not a programmer). The system as it now stands is perfectly adequate for doing this job.
Secondly, it's being used as a development tool for programmers to organize the profusion of data structures and obscure components that make their programs. This is where the bloat comes from. This is where the thousands of files and folders come from that have no meaning to a user, except that they strain the filesystem, confuse its organization, and provide a "haystack" of entries for the user's needles to get lost in.
Apple's Finder hides a lot of stuff from the users -- bundle contents and many system files -- but in the long run it should be possible to come up with a better answer to this problem.
My first thought. . . Wouldn't this be fun to launch on a model rocket? It's solid-state, so it should handle the acceleration fine. 20 minutes is long enough to prep the rocket and fly it, so you don't have to worry about rigging some gadget to trigger recording at launch. And it's not too expensive to risk crashing or losing it.
At five ounces, it would have to be more of a mid-power rocket, I suppose. . . and I haven't seen a photo yet, so I'm not sure how big the payload compartment would need to be. But I think it's exciting that these kinds of gadgets are becoming available.
I don't know if WINE could save the Mac or kill it. On the good side, being able to run Windows programs right alongside Mac, Java and Linux programs on Mac OS X sounds great. On the other hand. ..
If I'm a developer with a Windows application, why bother porting it to Macintosh? I can just tell my customers to run it using WINE instead. It could decimate Mac software development.
Macs with X86 processors probably wouldn't be able to install and run Windows, and Mac OS X probably still won't be able to run on a Dell. Somebody will of course try to hack it and make it work, but Apple will be against them. Generally, a Mac will still be a Mac, and a PC will still be a PC.
X86 will raise the possibility of WINE becoming practical on the Mac. Whether this is good or not depends on your viewpoint. Some would say a single box that can run Mac programs, Java programs, Windows programs, and a lot of Linux programs (via Fink, etc.) is the Holy Grail. On the other hand, it might decimate Mac software development. Why spend money developing a Mac version of your app when users can simply run your Windows version under WINE?
Wired Magazine raised speculation about this all being a DRM ploy, saying what Apple really wants is the Pentium D so they can sell movies over the internet (just like iTMS) with DRM up the wazoo. I agree with the guy who said this is the worst possible reason to switch processors.
On the balance, I'm against it, and I hope this all turns out to be merely a rumor that ran out of control. The DRM aspect worries me the most -- as a die-hard Mac lover, this is the one thing I can imagine that might possibly drive me to Linux.
That's fine for new programs, but all existing, already-distributed programs containing only PPC code will be broken. This is a huge problem, and I don't see an easy answer to it.
You can't kill computer gaming -- you would practically have to force people to quit making and playing computer games. How you gonna do that?
And besides, I've been around long enough to remember these dire predictions about how the Sega Genesis and Super NES were going to kill computer gaming. After that it was the Sega Saturn and the Sony Playstation that were going to do it. Somehow it didn't happen.
However. . . The shape of the business may change.
I suspect that the huge, massively expensive, Hollywood-style productions may gradually disappear from computer gaming. I suspect the focus may shift back to where it originally came from: cottage industry, small companies, even shareware, and less ambitious and less costly games that don't have to sell 100,000+ in order to break even.
All this talk about graphics performance is getting ridiculous. We've reached a level of diminishing returns, where graphics cards are getting more and more powerful, more expensive, hotter and more power-hungry -- and yet the improvement in visual appearance with each generation is becoming less and less, while development costs balloon. (And as others have noted, actual gameplay doesn't seem to be advancing at all. Does anybody remember gameplay?)
The big-money, big-projects side of the computer gaming industry is locked into an economic death spiral. But scurrying around under the feet of these lumbering giants are a bunch of small companies making small-but-fun games. They never went away, they've just been overshadowed by the behemoths.
In other words: The future doesn't belong to Electronic Arts, it belongs to Freeverse and their kin.
Windows and Office are the source of most of Microsoft's revenue, and the source of their dominance. Kill those, or even just cut them down to size, and the rest of Microsoft might continue -- but would no longer be feared.
We don't need to kill Microsoft, just get it off the world's back.
"For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."
My memories of the browser wars are not that positive. In fact, it was an awful mess from my standpoint. I had an Amiga at the time, and the browsers we had available for it (iBrowse, Voyager, etc.) were always behind the curve, struggling to catch up with IE and Netscape.
It was *common* to be unable to render many pages, or shop online at many stores, with any kind of alternative browser. The user experience was one I suspect most people simply would not tolerate today.
If the browser wars resume, it won't be IE or Netscape that suffer. The casualties will be Safari, iCab, Opera, Konqueror, etc. And the standards, of course, will be trashed right and left.
You might be surprised how long I can keep using my old computer, if I'm sufficiently motivated not to "upgrade" to a newer and more crippled one.
I lived through the Amiga platform dying out from under me, so I have plenty of experience with keeping old machines in service.
As for my ISP. . . Well, they're a small company, they've treated me right so far. If they ever decide to shut me out because I don't have DRM, they'll get a fight. And at worst, those of us in the anti-DRM camp can set up our own crummy little networks to do what we want. Where there's a will there's a way.
Re:lets get our shit on earth fixed first
on
New NASA Budget Woes
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Gaaah! It really cheeses me off whenever I hear this tired old argument. "There are problems here on Earth! We must solve all the world's problems before going into space!"
That's the same as saying we should never do anything in space. The world has had problems for thousands of years, I don't see paradise-on-earth being established anytime soon.
So if you really believe this, let's get serious. Let's stop making movies, since they cost a ton of money and don't contribute to solving the world's problems. Let's outlaw the gambling industry. Let's shut down tourism, too. Let's make people give up their pets -- Americans spend way more on their pets every year than NASA gets.
And of course, the US military budget is about 10X NASA's budget, maybe we should trim *that* back until after we've solved illiteracy, poverty, world hunger, AIDS & cancer, etc.
You are incorrect, or at least your information is out of date. AAC and recent versions of LAME MP3, both encoding at 128 kbs bitrate, have been shown in blind listening tests to be practically identical quality.
LAME "--preset standard" tends to produce VBR files running in the vicinity of 200 kbs, and I can't hear anything wrong with them. Maybe your ears or your speakers are better than mine, I dunno, but I don't see a pressing need for higher quality.
As for "plus mode" and "SBR", I'm not familiar with those. Are those options available in iTunes or Quicktime? Because in practical terms, those are the only AAC utilities that most people have, or even have heard of.
The striking thing to me is. . . All these companies fighting over which format is going to replace MP3, when none of them have anything useful to offer beyond what MP3 already does. Basically WMA and AAC are "superior" to MP3 only in that they have DRM. So. . . From a consumer standpoint, they are actually inferior. Practically everything will play MP3 tracks, there's no DRM, what more can you ask for?
Why are people licking the boots of the record companies and accepting inferior formats? It just doesn't make right good sense.
As for the argument about sound quality. . . The LAME MP3 encoder has improved now to the point where it's highly competitive. I rip my CDs with "lame --preset standard" and have no complaints about it.
For those of you who simply must get your music off the net, or who refuse to pay inflated prices for CDs. . . Let me come right out and say it: I get a lot of music off Usenet. I can't always find exactly what I'm looking for right when I want it, but there's always good stuff to take a listen to, and it's free. It's great for exploring new musical horizons.
As others have pointed out, the panel itself may be manufactured for $400, that's not the retail price of a TV set. Add a power supply, tuner and other electronics, a nice housing, packaging, freight and tariffs, then markup for the manufacturer, and the distributer, and the retailer. . . You could easily be looking at $1200+ for the set.
Another thing that concerns me is the use of CRT-style phosphors. That means it will be subject to burn-in. Many people seem unaware of burn-in, but I expect it to become a big issue in a few years -- after the first generation of widescreen CRT and plasma sets start showing bars at either side when viewing full-screen content.
At my house we recently got a large Mitsubishi LCD panel. LCDs of course are not subject to burn-in. The wide viewing angle is impressive to me. Also, I was surprised by the default factory settings. There was no "red push" or "torch mode" or other typical kinds of programmed-in distortion to make it stand out in the showroom. I checked black level, contrast, sharpness, tint and color balance, etc. . . And I hardly changed anything from the factory settings. I just wish I had some actual HD test patterns to try on it, instead of a test DVD.
". ..it seems we'll be programming this way for quite some time."
Speak for yourself.
I started using an IDE and visual tools twenty years ago, and it was a huge improvement over what came before. My question is why everybody else hasn't jumped on board.
If you think that programming with a basic text editor, a command line, and programmatic creation of interfaces is better. . . if you think it's easier. . . if you think it's faster, or more efficient. . . It's because you've never used a good GUI-oriented development environment. Simple as that.
I have special scorn for any dev kit that expects me to create a graphical interface programmatically, using ASCII text. That's just dumb, isn't it?
More than 20 years after the introduction of Macintosh, there are still a lot of people who don't seem to "get" the GUI concept. I suspect a lot of them are Linux programmers.
My first exposure to a GUI was when I got my Atari 520ST in 1985. I approached it with skepticism, it was a newfangled-looking thing at the time, but I soon became a true believer. The ST didn't have any command line -- everything you did on it, you did using a GUI. That applied right down to application programming, which was done using a GUI-WIMP based text editor, IDE, and visual GUI editor (i.e. resource editor). Likewise, every third-party utility, no matter how technical in nature, came with a GUI interface. They had to, because that was the only way to do it.
And you know what I found out? The Atari ST, despite its limitations, was an easy computer to use -- and an easy computer to program.
It's remarkable today to observe how many programming environments *still* don't come with features like an IDE or visual GUI interface creator, and to ponder the reasons why not.
Example: Python is hot. . . I'm sure it's OK for simple scripting, but why are people getting so excited about a language that doesn't even come with a good WIMP-based IDE and visual GUI creator? Are we really expected to create applications with this?
The problem as I see it, as that a lot of programmers from the Unix tradition still view "user friendly" computers with contempt. To them, user-friendly means idiot-friendly, and a GUI exists only so that Grandma can launch her web browser without getting confused. They don't program their Unix/Linux boxes using a GUI environment, and it would never occur to them that they should.
And here's the revelation. . . The GUI wasn't invented for Grandma. It was invented for everybody: office workers, scientists, artists, publishers, musicians, network administrators . . . and yes, programmers. The purpose is to make complicated things easy, not simple things.
I find one of the most frustrating aspects of Mac OS X is the occasional need to work with utilities from the Unix world (Subversion being a recent example). As long as I stick with Apple-supplied software, everything is easy and natural. As soon as I need to install and configure any program from the Unix/Linux world, and I'm forced to dig "under the hood" of Mac OS X, everything quickly goes to Hell. Sure, I can make it work eventually -- after enough tinkering and fiddling and digging around for documentation -- but I find myself asking why. Why should I have to put up with this nonsense in the year 2005?
The problem goes beyond the lack of GUI interfaces for programs coming from the Unix and Linux world. There's also the poor quality and inconsistency of those programs that have a GUI. These are interfaces designed by somebody who doesn't want to use a GUI himself. They're tacked on as an afterthought because "the dumb users" want a GUI, not because the program's designer wants or appreciates a GUI. And can you blame them? The only kind of GUIs they have regular experience with are the desperately *bad* and confusing ones typical of Unix and Linux applications.
When I am shopping at a "brick and mortar" store, and I find something I like, I always feel a pressure to buy it right away -- while I have the opportunity in front of me. Comparison shopping would take a lot of time and work. Coming back later, after I've thought about it for a while, would involve a whole new trip to town, burning more gas -- and then the item might be gone when I get there. So there's a sense of: grab it now while you have the chance.
Shopping online, the pressure is entirely gone. I can compare products and prices easily, and I can think it over as long as I want, there's no cost to doing so. So yes. . . I think it's perfectly natural to be *less* impulsive when shopping online.
Items sometimes sit in my Amazon "saved for later" list weeks or even months before I buy them. And sometimes I eventually remove them, but quite a few get bought in the end.
Keep in mind, my views may not be entirely typical since I live out in the country a ways. Online shopping has been a huge benefit to those of us who live 60+ miles from any shopping mall. (We don't worry about killing the local merchants: they all died out years ago. My town is a wasteland of fast food, convenience stores and knickknack shops.)
Oh, to be really accurate it's $3,999.00. Under $4000, right. Sheesh. ..
The most powerful -- and expensive -- Power Mac that Apple list is "under $3000" in its default configuration. So. . . This Dell is actually $1000 more. You know, I'm going to remember this next time one of my friends insists he won't get a Mac "because I can't afford to spend twice as much as a PC costs".
It seems like every new "big cat" release of Mac OS X is less impressive than the previous. I didn't see a huge improvement going from 10.2 to 10.3. Looking at the promised new features in 10.4 now. . . I don't see anything that particularly excites me.
Mac OS X isn't revolutionary. It really is the synthesis of everything that we all wanted in an OS back in the late 1980s. If you take the better features of early Macintosh, Amiga, and all those competing projects that were attempting add a GUI to Unix, and mung them all together and then work out most of the kinks, you end up with Mac OS X.
One might well ask the question of why there were so many twists and turns along the way, and why it took about 15 years to reach someplace where we all pretty much knew we were going. That's the computer industry at work -- one big dysfunctional family, squabbling and blundering along.
And the real question now is. . . Where do we go from here? After achieving the OS that everybody wanted 15+ years ago, now Apple's OS team suddenly find themselves without a goal. They've resorted to tacking on a hodgepodge of minor trinkets and calling it a major upgrade. It must be hard to step back and admit that they're done with this OS, and that continually adding new features to it may no longer be the right approach.
If it was up to me, I would focus on maintenance, bugfixes, security, optimization. . . and de-emphasize the OS as a product. Put the OS back in its proper place, I say! An operating system shouldn't be a featured product, it should be merely a component -- a part of the computer, just like the hard drive, the RAM, the processor, etc. -- that is required for running applications. The goal should be to provide a stable, efficient foundation for apps to run on, because apps are where your work gets done. The goal should not be to try and dazzle the user with how many new widgets you can tack onto your OS every year in an attempt to sell lots of overpriced upgrade discs.
Errr. . . . Some of us still hold the opinion that 720p is better than 1080i, and that all interlacing is the work of The Devil. It's shameful that ATSC even includes interlace formats.
Also remember, we're talking about a computer here. So even if I were to grudgingly accept that interlace is acceptable on a TV set, surely we can all agree that you don't want it on your computer monitor. (Remember people making fun of Amiga "jitters" back in the 1980s?)
Re:Next year - PlayStation 3 and Blue-Ray
on
What's Next At Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There have been similar schemes in the past (the 3DO card comes to mind), but they usually run into economic problems -- meaning the add-on card costs more than the stand-alone game console. Simple economies of scale almost guarantee that. And the result is. . . nobody buys them.
Now. . . If Apple were to produce something like a Mac Mini that had PS3 hardware built-in and used the PS3's GPU as its one-and-only display system, then the economics might add up. It could be manufactured cheaply.
Problem is, the software integration with Mac OS X would probably be a nightmare, and even if you could manage that, then you have to ask whether the PS3's display hardware would be suitable for general-purpose computer operations. (For example, do you really want to be limited to an ATSC 720p display on your computer?)
It's a shame, really. . . Because I think getting the PS3 functionality into Macs would be great, and finally addressing the Mac's shortcomings as a game machine would be terrific, but it just doesn't look practical from where I sit.
What exactly does this do that I can't do with my Mac already? I've already ripped my CDs and keep my whole music collection in my iTunes library. It already syncs with my iPod. I can stream music to my main stereo system, over the Airport network to my Roku Soundbridge. And. . . I don't have a PDA. So what's the point of buying a whole new $400 box to do all this stuff?
Let me see if I can pin down the reasons why I don't enjoy watching BSG.
First, it's so dark. I mean not only the theme (which is very dark), but even the visual style -- dark colored uniforms, dimly lighted corridors, spaceships that look like they came out of a Soviet tank factory and then were covered in soot.
Gritty is OK. I like gritty. But when there's hardly ever a glimmer of light in the show, it gets old for me pretty quickly. (Somebody in another comment said ST Enterprise was too sugary, but BSG is like vinegar.)
Secondly, the show is too derivative. I mean, when you adapt major plot elements and characters from the original BSG show, borrow other elements (both visual elements and characters) from Babylon-5, and then throw in stories that lean heavily on real life events (i.e. 9-11) regardless of how well or poorly they fit into the setting. . . That is derivative, and it's not living up to the real potential of science fiction, which is to show us things we *haven't* seen or thought about before. At times it even risks drifting into the realm of allegory.
Thirdly, there's very little "science" in this supposed science fiction. Granted that's not an uncommon shortcoming of SF TV shows, but. . . It really bothers me that the Cylons do so many things, and have so many abilities that have no given explanation -- things that apparently just seemed cool to the writers. I can just imagine the conversation. ..
Writer A: Hey, let's make some of the Cylons look just like humans! There won't be *any* way to identify them -- but they'll still be able to do robot-like stuff too.
Writer B: I like it, just think of all the possibilities for the plot! Think of the paranoia! Plus it'll make the effects budget stretch a lot further.
Writer C: But. . . It doesn't really make any sense, does it?
Writers A & B: What's the matter with you? This is SCIENCE FICTION, it's not suppose to make any sense.
Writer A: Hey, I've got an idea! Let's have Baltar see Cylons all the time, and he doesn't know if they're real or just hallucinations.
Writer B: I like it! It'll give us a device for exploring his psychology in more depth.
Writer C: But. . . but. ..
And so forth. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I like science fiction that starts with a science or technology concept and then expands upon that and then looks at how people react or adapt to it. BSG is putting the cart before the horse.
I have to question one of the main assumptions in the article -- that most software won't benefit from multiple processors. In a sense it's true, but it's also misleading.
If you are desperate to run your word processor or spreadsheet faster, then he's got a point. But realistically, don't the current systems already run those kinds of programs just fine? Is this the kind of application where more speed is most needed?
I think Sony have got it right with their whole "media processor" approach, with high bandwidth and multiple vector units. It won't benefit most programs, but it will greatly benefit most of the programs that slog on today's systems.
The time has come to break away from the old approach of merely running the same linear X86 code faster and faster. I think this change is overdue.
I agree about C syntax. . . C is an excellent language, but the terse syntax makes it ugly and hard to read.
One of my favorite languages was Amiga E. In the way it worked it was fundamentally similar to K&R-style C, with a few esoteric features added. The striking difference was how much more readable Amiga E was, mostly because it used more keywords than C.
It also underscores that point about marketing, since Amiga E was never a commercial project, and was never ported from Amiga to any other system, and thus was doomed to obscurity.
Despite my gripes about C syntax, I still think it's hugely successful for good reasons. C doesn't attempt to introduce any exotic concepts. It's simply an interface to a microprocessor. In a way, this leads me to question Kay's whole assumption that ever-more-advanced comp-sci concepts should be reflected, or embodied, in programming languages.
If all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails. If all you have is LISP, all your problems start to look like recursion.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help thinking one reason the nested-folders approach has become so strained is because it's been abused so much. As a tool allowing users to organize their stuff -- basically, their applications and their data files -- it was a good idea, and it's still a good idea.
The problem is, when you install Mac OS X, you are installing 30,000+ files and God only knows how many thousands of directories and sub-directories onto your hard drive. Even my backup program is nearly crushed under the strain of indexing them all, and almost none of them are of any pertinence to the user whatsoever.
It's the same story when you install any major application, or install a game, etc. It's not uncommon for them to incorporate several thousand files and a maze of nested folders, none of which are of any relevance to the person using the program.
I believe Apple took a step in the right direction when they introduced application bundles. It doesn't get rid of all those files and folders, but at least they are hidden from the user. I don't think it's enough, I think it's a baby step toward a solution.
The way I see it, the big problem with the hierarchical file system is that it's being forced to perform two different jobs. For one, it's being used by end users to organize their discrete objects -- meaning media files, documents, and applications. These are individual, self-contained items that have some kind of meaning to an ordinary person (who is not a programmer). The system as it now stands is perfectly adequate for doing this job.
Secondly, it's being used as a development tool for programmers to organize the profusion of data structures and obscure components that make their programs. This is where the bloat comes from. This is where the thousands of files and folders come from that have no meaning to a user, except that they strain the filesystem, confuse its organization, and provide a "haystack" of entries for the user's needles to get lost in.
Apple's Finder hides a lot of stuff from the users -- bundle contents and many system files -- but in the long run it should be possible to come up with a better answer to this problem.
My first thought. . . Wouldn't this be fun to launch on a model rocket? It's solid-state, so it should handle the acceleration fine. 20 minutes is long enough to prep the rocket and fly it, so you don't have to worry about rigging some gadget to trigger recording at launch. And it's not too expensive to risk crashing or losing it.
At five ounces, it would have to be more of a mid-power rocket, I suppose. . . and I haven't seen a photo yet, so I'm not sure how big the payload compartment would need to be. But I think it's exciting that these kinds of gadgets are becoming available.
It's called WINE.
.
I don't know if WINE could save the Mac or kill it. On the good side, being able to run Windows programs right alongside Mac, Java and Linux programs on Mac OS X sounds great. On the other hand. .
If I'm a developer with a Windows application, why bother porting it to Macintosh? I can just tell my customers to run it using WINE instead. It could decimate Mac software development.
Some quick points. . .
Macs with X86 processors probably wouldn't be able to install and run Windows, and Mac OS X probably still won't be able to run on a Dell. Somebody will of course try to hack it and make it work, but Apple will be against them. Generally, a Mac will still be a Mac, and a PC will still be a PC.
X86 will raise the possibility of WINE becoming practical on the Mac. Whether this is good or not depends on your viewpoint. Some would say a single box that can run Mac programs, Java programs, Windows programs, and a lot of Linux programs (via Fink, etc.) is the Holy Grail. On the other hand, it might decimate Mac software development. Why spend money developing a Mac version of your app when users can simply run your Windows version under WINE?
Wired Magazine raised speculation about this all being a DRM ploy, saying what Apple really wants is the Pentium D so they can sell movies over the internet (just like iTMS) with DRM up the wazoo. I agree with the guy who said this is the worst possible reason to switch processors.
On the balance, I'm against it, and I hope this all turns out to be merely a rumor that ran out of control. The DRM aspect worries me the most -- as a die-hard Mac lover, this is the one thing I can imagine that might possibly drive me to Linux.
That's fine for new programs, but all existing, already-distributed programs containing only PPC code will be broken. This is a huge problem, and I don't see an easy answer to it.
You can't kill computer gaming -- you would practically have to force people to quit making and playing computer games. How you gonna do that?
And besides, I've been around long enough to remember these dire predictions about how the Sega Genesis and Super NES were going to kill computer gaming. After that it was the Sega Saturn and the Sony Playstation that were going to do it. Somehow it didn't happen.
However. . . The shape of the business may change.
I suspect that the huge, massively expensive, Hollywood-style productions may gradually disappear from computer gaming. I suspect the focus may shift back to where it originally came from: cottage industry, small companies, even shareware, and less ambitious and less costly games that don't have to sell 100,000+ in order to break even.
All this talk about graphics performance is getting ridiculous. We've reached a level of diminishing returns, where graphics cards are getting more and more powerful, more expensive, hotter and more power-hungry -- and yet the improvement in visual appearance with each generation is becoming less and less, while development costs balloon. (And as others have noted, actual gameplay doesn't seem to be advancing at all. Does anybody remember gameplay?)
The big-money, big-projects side of the computer gaming industry is locked into an economic death spiral. But scurrying around under the feet of these lumbering giants are a bunch of small companies making small-but-fun games. They never went away, they've just been overshadowed by the behemoths.
In other words: The future doesn't belong to Electronic Arts, it belongs to Freeverse and their kin.
Windows and Office are the source of most of Microsoft's revenue, and the source of their dominance. Kill those, or even just cut them down to size, and the rest of Microsoft might continue -- but would no longer be feared.
We don't need to kill Microsoft, just get it off the world's back.
"For the average computer user this is a very good thing as it should drastically improve browser performance in a short period of time."
My memories of the browser wars are not that positive. In fact, it was an awful mess from my standpoint. I had an Amiga at the time, and the browsers we had available for it (iBrowse, Voyager, etc.) were always behind the curve, struggling to catch up with IE and Netscape.
It was *common* to be unable to render many pages, or shop online at many stores, with any kind of alternative browser. The user experience was one I suspect most people simply would not tolerate today.
If the browser wars resume, it won't be IE or Netscape that suffer. The casualties will be Safari, iCab, Opera, Konqueror, etc. And the standards, of course, will be trashed right and left.
You might be surprised how long I can keep using my old computer, if I'm sufficiently motivated not to "upgrade" to a newer and more crippled one.
I lived through the Amiga platform dying out from under me, so I have plenty of experience with keeping old machines in service.
As for my ISP. . . Well, they're a small company, they've treated me right so far. If they ever decide to shut me out because I don't have DRM, they'll get a fight. And at worst, those of us in the anti-DRM camp can set up our own crummy little networks to do what we want. Where there's a will there's a way.
Gaaah! It really cheeses me off whenever I hear this tired old argument. "There are problems here on Earth! We must solve all the world's problems before going into space!"
That's the same as saying we should never do anything in space. The world has had problems for thousands of years, I don't see paradise-on-earth being established anytime soon.
So if you really believe this, let's get serious. Let's stop making movies, since they cost a ton of money and don't contribute to solving the world's problems. Let's outlaw the gambling industry. Let's shut down tourism, too. Let's make people give up their pets -- Americans spend way more on their pets every year than NASA gets.
And of course, the US military budget is about 10X NASA's budget, maybe we should trim *that* back until after we've solved illiteracy, poverty, world hunger, AIDS & cancer, etc.
You are incorrect, or at least your information is out of date. AAC and recent versions of LAME MP3, both encoding at 128 kbs bitrate, have been shown in blind listening tests to be practically identical quality.
LAME "--preset standard" tends to produce VBR files running in the vicinity of 200 kbs, and I can't hear anything wrong with them. Maybe your ears or your speakers are better than mine, I dunno, but I don't see a pressing need for higher quality.
As for "plus mode" and "SBR", I'm not familiar with those. Are those options available in iTunes or Quicktime? Because in practical terms, those are the only AAC utilities that most people have, or even have heard of.
The striking thing to me is. . . All these companies fighting over which format is going to replace MP3, when none of them have anything useful to offer beyond what MP3 already does. Basically WMA and AAC are "superior" to MP3 only in that they have DRM. So. . . From a consumer standpoint, they are actually inferior. Practically everything will play MP3 tracks, there's no DRM, what more can you ask for?
Why are people licking the boots of the record companies and accepting inferior formats? It just doesn't make right good sense.
As for the argument about sound quality. . . The LAME MP3 encoder has improved now to the point where it's highly competitive. I rip my CDs with "lame --preset standard" and have no complaints about it.
For those of you who simply must get your music off the net, or who refuse to pay inflated prices for CDs. . . Let me come right out and say it: I get a lot of music off Usenet. I can't always find exactly what I'm looking for right when I want it, but there's always good stuff to take a listen to, and it's free. It's great for exploring new musical horizons.
As others have pointed out, the panel itself may be manufactured for $400, that's not the retail price of a TV set. Add a power supply, tuner and other electronics, a nice housing, packaging, freight and tariffs, then markup for the manufacturer, and the distributer, and the retailer. . . You could easily be looking at $1200+ for the set.
Another thing that concerns me is the use of CRT-style phosphors. That means it will be subject to burn-in. Many people seem unaware of burn-in, but I expect it to become a big issue in a few years -- after the first generation of widescreen CRT and plasma sets start showing bars at either side when viewing full-screen content.
At my house we recently got a large Mitsubishi LCD panel. LCDs of course are not subject to burn-in. The wide viewing angle is impressive to me. Also, I was surprised by the default factory settings. There was no "red push" or "torch mode" or other typical kinds of programmed-in distortion to make it stand out in the showroom. I checked black level, contrast, sharpness, tint and color balance, etc. . . And I hardly changed anything from the factory settings. I just wish I had some actual HD test patterns to try on it, instead of a test DVD.
". . .it seems we'll be programming this way for quite some time."
Speak for yourself.
I started using an IDE and visual tools twenty years ago, and it was a huge improvement over what came before. My question is why everybody else hasn't jumped on board.
If you think that programming with a basic text editor, a command line, and programmatic creation of interfaces is better. . . if you think it's easier. . . if you think it's faster, or more efficient. . . It's because you've never used a good GUI-oriented development environment. Simple as that.
I have special scorn for any dev kit that expects me to create a graphical interface programmatically, using ASCII text. That's just dumb, isn't it?
More than 20 years after the introduction of Macintosh, there are still a lot of people who don't seem to "get" the GUI concept. I suspect a lot of them are Linux programmers.
My first exposure to a GUI was when I got my Atari 520ST in 1985. I approached it with skepticism, it was a newfangled-looking thing at the time, but I soon became a true believer. The ST didn't have any command line -- everything you did on it, you did using a GUI. That applied right down to application programming, which was done using a GUI-WIMP based text editor, IDE, and visual GUI editor (i.e. resource editor). Likewise, every third-party utility, no matter how technical in nature, came with a GUI interface. They had to, because that was the only way to do it.
And you know what I found out? The Atari ST, despite its limitations, was an easy computer to use -- and an easy computer to program.
It's remarkable today to observe how many programming environments *still* don't come with features like an IDE or visual GUI interface creator, and to ponder the reasons why not.
Example: Python is hot. . . I'm sure it's OK for simple scripting, but why are people getting so excited about a language that doesn't even come with a good WIMP-based IDE and visual GUI creator? Are we really expected to create applications with this?
The problem as I see it, as that a lot of programmers from the Unix tradition still view "user friendly" computers with contempt. To them, user-friendly means idiot-friendly, and a GUI exists only so that Grandma can launch her web browser without getting confused. They don't program their Unix/Linux boxes using a GUI environment, and it would never occur to them that they should.
And here's the revelation. . . The GUI wasn't invented for Grandma. It was invented for everybody: office workers, scientists, artists, publishers, musicians, network administrators . . . and yes, programmers. The purpose is to make complicated things easy, not simple things.
I find one of the most frustrating aspects of Mac OS X is the occasional need to work with utilities from the Unix world (Subversion being a recent example). As long as I stick with Apple-supplied software, everything is easy and natural. As soon as I need to install and configure any program from the Unix/Linux world, and I'm forced to dig "under the hood" of Mac OS X, everything quickly goes to Hell. Sure, I can make it work eventually -- after enough tinkering and fiddling and digging around for documentation -- but I find myself asking why. Why should I have to put up with this nonsense in the year 2005?
The problem goes beyond the lack of GUI interfaces for programs coming from the Unix and Linux world. There's also the poor quality and inconsistency of those programs that have a GUI. These are interfaces designed by somebody who doesn't want to use a GUI himself. They're tacked on as an afterthought because "the dumb users" want a GUI, not because the program's designer wants or appreciates a GUI. And can you blame them? The only kind of GUIs they have regular experience with are the desperately *bad* and confusing ones typical of Unix and Linux applications.
When I am shopping at a "brick and mortar" store, and I find something I like, I always feel a pressure to buy it right away -- while I have the opportunity in front of me. Comparison shopping would take a lot of time and work. Coming back later, after I've thought about it for a while, would involve a whole new trip to town, burning more gas -- and then the item might be gone when I get there. So there's a sense of: grab it now while you have the chance.
Shopping online, the pressure is entirely gone. I can compare products and prices easily, and I can think it over as long as I want, there's no cost to doing so. So yes. . . I think it's perfectly natural to be *less* impulsive when shopping online.
Items sometimes sit in my Amazon "saved for later" list weeks or even months before I buy them. And sometimes I eventually remove them, but quite a few get bought in the end.
Keep in mind, my views may not be entirely typical since I live out in the country a ways. Online shopping has been a huge benefit to those of us who live 60+ miles from any shopping mall. (We don't worry about killing the local merchants: they all died out years ago. My town is a wasteland of fast food, convenience stores and knickknack shops.)
Oh, to be really accurate it's $3,999.00. Under $4000, right. Sheesh. . .
The most powerful -- and expensive -- Power Mac that Apple list is "under $3000" in its default configuration. So. . . This Dell is actually $1000 more. You know, I'm going to remember this next time one of my friends insists he won't get a Mac "because I can't afford to spend twice as much as a PC costs".
It seems like every new "big cat" release of Mac OS X is less impressive than the previous. I didn't see a huge improvement going from 10.2 to 10.3. Looking at the promised new features in 10.4 now. . . I don't see anything that particularly excites me.
Mac OS X isn't revolutionary. It really is the synthesis of everything that we all wanted in an OS back in the late 1980s. If you take the better features of early Macintosh, Amiga, and all those competing projects that were attempting add a GUI to Unix, and mung them all together and then work out most of the kinks, you end up with Mac OS X.
One might well ask the question of why there were so many twists and turns along the way, and why it took about 15 years to reach someplace where we all pretty much knew we were going. That's the computer industry at work -- one big dysfunctional family, squabbling and blundering along.
And the real question now is. . . Where do we go from here? After achieving the OS that everybody wanted 15+ years ago, now Apple's OS team suddenly find themselves without a goal. They've resorted to tacking on a hodgepodge of minor trinkets and calling it a major upgrade. It must be hard to step back and admit that they're done with this OS, and that continually adding new features to it may no longer be the right approach.
If it was up to me, I would focus on maintenance, bugfixes, security, optimization. . . and de-emphasize the OS as a product. Put the OS back in its proper place, I say! An operating system shouldn't be a featured product, it should be merely a component -- a part of the computer, just like the hard drive, the RAM, the processor, etc. -- that is required for running applications. The goal should be to provide a stable, efficient foundation for apps to run on, because apps are where your work gets done. The goal should not be to try and dazzle the user with how many new widgets you can tack onto your OS every year in an attempt to sell lots of overpriced upgrade discs.
Errr. . . . Some of us still hold the opinion that 720p is better than 1080i, and that all interlacing is the work of The Devil. It's shameful that ATSC even includes interlace formats.
Also remember, we're talking about a computer here. So even if I were to grudgingly accept that interlace is acceptable on a TV set, surely we can all agree that you don't want it on your computer monitor. (Remember people making fun of Amiga "jitters" back in the 1980s?)
There have been similar schemes in the past (the 3DO card comes to mind), but they usually run into economic problems -- meaning the add-on card costs more than the stand-alone game console. Simple economies of scale almost guarantee that. And the result is. . . nobody buys them.
Now. . . If Apple were to produce something like a Mac Mini that had PS3 hardware built-in and used the PS3's GPU as its one-and-only display system, then the economics might add up. It could be manufactured cheaply.
Problem is, the software integration with Mac OS X would probably be a nightmare, and even if you could manage that, then you have to ask whether the PS3's display hardware would be suitable for general-purpose computer operations. (For example, do you really want to be limited to an ATSC 720p display on your computer?)
It's a shame, really. . . Because I think getting the PS3 functionality into Macs would be great, and finally addressing the Mac's shortcomings as a game machine would be terrific, but it just doesn't look practical from where I sit.
What exactly does this do that I can't do with my Mac already? I've already ripped my CDs and keep my whole music collection in my iTunes library. It already syncs with my iPod. I can stream music to my main stereo system, over the Airport network to my Roku Soundbridge. And. . . I don't have a PDA. So what's the point of buying a whole new $400 box to do all this stuff?
Am I missing something?
There are a couple of reasons why there aren't any more World's Fairs. . .
1. Too many of them turned into financial busts.
2. People have learned to fear science and technology.
Let me see if I can pin down the reasons why I don't enjoy watching BSG.
.
.
First, it's so dark. I mean not only the theme (which is very dark), but even the visual style -- dark colored uniforms, dimly lighted corridors, spaceships that look like they came out of a Soviet tank factory and then were covered in soot.
Gritty is OK. I like gritty. But when there's hardly ever a glimmer of light in the show, it gets old for me pretty quickly. (Somebody in another comment said ST Enterprise was too sugary, but BSG is like vinegar.)
Secondly, the show is too derivative. I mean, when you adapt major plot elements and characters from the original BSG show, borrow other elements (both visual elements and characters) from Babylon-5, and then throw in stories that lean heavily on real life events (i.e. 9-11) regardless of how well or poorly they fit into the setting. . . That is derivative, and it's not living up to the real potential of science fiction, which is to show us things we *haven't* seen or thought about before. At times it even risks drifting into the realm of allegory.
Thirdly, there's very little "science" in this supposed science fiction. Granted that's not an uncommon shortcoming of SF TV shows, but. . . It really bothers me that the Cylons do so many things, and have so many abilities that have no given explanation -- things that apparently just seemed cool to the writers. I can just imagine the conversation. .
Writer A: Hey, let's make some of the Cylons look just like humans! There won't be *any* way to identify them -- but they'll still be able to do robot-like stuff too.
Writer B: I like it, just think of all the possibilities for the plot! Think of the paranoia! Plus it'll make the effects budget stretch a lot further.
Writer C: But. . . It doesn't really make any sense, does it?
Writers A & B: What's the matter with you? This is SCIENCE FICTION, it's not suppose to make any sense.
Writer A: Hey, I've got an idea! Let's have Baltar see Cylons all the time, and he doesn't know if they're real or just hallucinations.
Writer B: I like it! It'll give us a device for exploring his psychology in more depth.
Writer C: But. . . but. .
And so forth. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I like science fiction that starts with a science or technology concept and then expands upon that and then looks at how people react or adapt to it. BSG is putting the cart before the horse.
I have to question one of the main assumptions in the article -- that most software won't benefit from multiple processors. In a sense it's true, but it's also misleading.
If you are desperate to run your word processor or spreadsheet faster, then he's got a point. But realistically, don't the current systems already run those kinds of programs just fine? Is this the kind of application where more speed is most needed?
I think Sony have got it right with their whole "media processor" approach, with high bandwidth and multiple vector units. It won't benefit most programs, but it will greatly benefit most of the programs that slog on today's systems.
The time has come to break away from the old approach of merely running the same linear X86 code faster and faster. I think this change is overdue.
I agree about C syntax. . . C is an excellent language, but the terse syntax makes it ugly and hard to read.
One of my favorite languages was Amiga E. In the way it worked it was fundamentally similar to K&R-style C, with a few esoteric features added. The striking difference was how much more readable Amiga E was, mostly because it used more keywords than C.
It also underscores that point about marketing, since Amiga E was never a commercial project, and was never ported from Amiga to any other system, and thus was doomed to obscurity.
Despite my gripes about C syntax, I still think it's hugely successful for good reasons. C doesn't attempt to introduce any exotic concepts. It's simply an interface to a microprocessor. In a way, this leads me to question Kay's whole assumption that ever-more-advanced comp-sci concepts should be reflected, or embodied, in programming languages.
If all you have is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails. If all you have is LISP, all your problems start to look like recursion.