Well all I think him and Maddog are saying is that a comprimise must be met. People expect multimedia play from their PC's and thus far, evn though progress is being made, it is slow. It's a small sacrifice to make in order to win the bigger battle.
At the same time, it will win software manufacturer support and more people will realize that they can make software for Linux that is proprietary. While the Linux community has always said this, some software manufacturers are still scared due to the militant ideal of keeping EVERYTHING free. I too think everything should be free but I don't think it's going to be possible without making concessions. Allow some through the door to get others involved and then once critical mass has been achieved, people will start creating their own options.
Walmart is neglecting to realize that a large percentage of the market is over 21 and they are usually the one buying the games; dad buys the game for junior because he wants to play TOO!
This is a dumb move by Wal-Mart. If there is a consumer demand for something, why limit yourself? They are a company and as a company (especially retailers), they have to listen to consumer demand. Regardless of their ability to artificially create a consumer demand just by CARRYING a product, do they honestly think consumers will just start buying 'Mickey Mouses Big Adventure' instead of going elswhere for 'GoreFest 3000: The Revenge'??
Honestly, this move will cause consumers to look elsewhere or purchase online. The consumer demand will move to other markets and eventually ignore Walmart entirely (over time). Why purchase my Playstation for Christmas at Walmart when I have to go to Gamestop for the games?? Consumers are lazy and they want to be able to get everything in one place... this was the Walmart ethic. When they start limiting their video game stock, they will be limiting their video game console sales. This is also bound to affect other electronic sales as well as a result of impulse electronic purchases lost.
Sad to say you are very mistaken. The vast majority of us Americans have little more than a public education, shop at walmart and give people like Jeff Foxworthy a career aside from pig farmer. The other 1% of Americans spend their time maintaining their literacy, supporting PBS and smokings lots of pot so we don't have to think about how miserable we are dwelling in a land of knuckle dragging bible perverts.
And Halo and Flight Simulator (game???) are being released BY MICROSOFT. Not independent game companies. Microsoft as usual has to support their product first. Get out from under the retard bus, buddy. Sales figures from XP were only 20% market saturation within the first year and that didn't require a new monitor to run and had backward compatibility.
You force people to buy new hardware and get rid of backward compatibility and they will be staying away in droves.
Indeed. Forcing those who wish to upgrade to Microsoft Vista to purchase all new monitors. Bright move to hit consumers with this big cost right after the holiday season when budgets are stretched. They'll be pleasantly pleased to have to get their friends and family to have to all upgrade their systems in order to share family photos or home movies.
Read your HDCP docs. Microsoft's implementation doesn't deviate. As such, content providers have the ability to dictate how their content will play on devices that don't support HDCP. They can either lower the quality or cause them not to show at all. It's all in the HDCP specs for the literate.
Yes this is true. They purchased a new graphics cvard and some new RAM. Total of about $500 at the time.
But this time, if they do that same upgrade, it will require a new monitor (for the monitor DRM) as well as the OS, new RAM and the same new graphics card. That's about $1000 (including the game). And assuming that they get the whole new computer with this, just to play the game, it will be costing them $2000 - $3000 to play a game.
This time around the prices have increased. And keeping in mind the current oil crisis, consumer budgets are going to be strapped. Especially since the launch is going to be AFTER Christmas when consumer spending goes WAY down.
Why why why does this rubbish keep on getting repeated over and over again? Just because Vista supports monitor DRM doesnt mean that you HAVE to have a DRM-capable monitor. All it means is that if you choose to watch DRM'd content that specifically requests a DRM'd monitor, you will need to have one, or the display will be fuzzy.
Actually Microsoft itself has stated that without a monitor that supports their monitor DRM, content will display at a bad resolution or NOT AT ALL.
Employers do not equalk consumers... this is true. However this is a good measure of the market. Plus considering that Vista will have monitor DRM, early adopters (aside from hardcore gamers) may not find having to buy a whole new monitor acceptable especially if gas prices continue to rise and put a crimp on the expendable income of the average consumer.
It's not just the perceivable costs but the unperceived costs that will affect adoption.
Yes but they are still a good measure of how the consumer base will respond. Also, governments and businesses are the biggest early adopters. And from the same poll 14% hadn't even heard of Vista.
You can probably safely bet that with the exception of hardcore gamers, these statistiocs will probably transfer to the average consumer as well. Those purchasing Vista will also be in for a suprise due to the monitor DRM and will probably re-install XP before purchasing a new monitor... especially if gas prices continue to climb and the consumer gets squeezed for expendable income.
Considering the fact that DirectX10 is only available on Vista and that 50% of employers say they are not going to purchase (14% if which say they will wait 15 months before evaluating), it's a safe bet to say that we won't be seeing any games that use DirectX10 for at least 2 years.
Anyone REQUIRING it before then will be severely limiting their consumer base; games failing to be picked up due to a small consumer base will also affect the adoption rate since other game manufacturers will be watching those games that first launch with it.
In alot of ways, Vista is a major gamble for Microsoft and one that alot of people say is going to fail. Only time will tell. In alot of ways, I'm glad that OpenGL development has been put into high gear. This may cause game manufacturers to change tactics since OpenGL is supported on ALL OS's.
Heh. Sounds like me. I did the same thing. But how far do you think the majority of the populace would go after that 'boy, what an unattractive name'. Most people who aren't drawn to something don't bother doing additional research. For instance, that ugly girl or guy in high school. The vast majority of people would not have taken the time to know them no matter HOW awesome they were due to initial appearances.
I had a friend who made it onto Jeopardy but when Alex Trebek saw the contestants and shook their hands he stopped at her. She was a library science major who had her head shaved except for a pink devils lock in the front. He held out his hand, paused and then retracted it before she could shake it, then looked at her and said 'You made it??'
True story. So even though I knew she was awesome, some people make snap decisions based on appearance. And sadly, this is the norm I guess.
So again, while I love Ubuntu, I still stress better branding and better marketing to be able to get Linux to break through the desdktop barrier.
It's not that it's a foreign name, it's that American consumers dominate what becomes mainstream by having the most purchasing power. Which is why most companies who want major sales gear their products branding to an American test audience. It's not that it's better, it's just who the majority of their purchasers are.
Now obviously, no one is going to be BUYING Ubuntu (unless they release an Enterprise Edition) but bad marketing can ruin its adoption rate. I mean between 'The Megatron 9000' and 'Ubuntu' I know which one I want just from the name alone. One sounds like it needs a hug while the other sounds like it would rip your arms of and beat you to death if you even THOUGHT about running as ROOT.
Now as a clarification, I run Kubuntu and LOVE it. It's the most stable and user friendly distro I have ever had. I just think they could have thought of a better name.
My wife has an aversion to Ubuntu because of the name. I tell her it's awesome but she just seems to be hung up on the name. I must admit that the name didn't sell me on the product either but now that I use it, I swear by it.
Linux could use a good marketing team; grassroots can do alot but good marketing is what pushes it over the edge into the mainstream.
Damn straight Baby! I used to use Fedora but a co-worker turned me onto Kubuntu (a KDE version of Ubuntu). At first, getting used to a Debian based distro was tough but I quickly realized that I really didn't have to do my makes or check for dependencies and a ton of the other stuff that can just be a constant annoyance and reduces consumer uptake of Linux as a Desktop.
I have it installed on my Mom's computer and she loves it! Instantly detected her new digital camera my brother got her, her scanner, her printer and I even installed all the extra codecs so she can play WMVs and other multimedia.
Plus she practically squeeled with jhoy when she realized that she wouldn't have to have any anti-virus software on her system and didn't really have to worry about spyware or anything else.
I now run Ubuntu at home and at work. When all the windows systems are getting patched, updated crashing or just dying (my bosses computer needs a re-install this morning), I can just keep plugging away.
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Depends. Depends on what the server is for, whether the server is being used as a home machine (serving from DSL for instance) and alot of other factors. Alot of them won't be used to surf. I'd say easily 15-20% will due to additional requirements, VMS servers, etc.
So yes, unless that server is a dedicated box without X-windows installed (which as I stated about is, in most cases, the norm), you will still see some people surfing in from their server. Classic example, I use my desktop as a test server. It can serve web pages and is remotely accessible. Is it a server? Yes. Do I surf from it? Yes.
This is why I included it in the numbers. Because while most people ignore Linux as a desktop[, they don't ignore it as a server. And in alot of dev environments, the desktop often doubles as a server at times. Especially for LAMP developers.
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Heh. You've been hung by your own rope. Keep your hat. Otherwise you might drown when it rains.
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
For just about everything except Swing and to a lesser degree AWT, java runs at adequate speed for nearly any purpose.
Well considering that Swing and AWT are the standards, what the hell would your point be?
Um... I've been advocating mixed environments all along. You're the one pushing java on the backend and java on the frontend.
Um... Java is a application development language. Flash ISN'T (nor is Actionscript). Again... what would be your point?
I could just as easily say no desktop apps are being developed as pure-java apps
LOL. Yes, you could SAY that. Of course you'd be wrong and just showing your ignorance since (and I repeat again) Java IS an application development language... and flash is an animation tool with a scripting tool built in.
Hey, if I knew you were going to humiliate yourself with your own ignorance, I would have gone and looked at some goofy Flash animation to waste my time *DOH*
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Ask the developers. I believe their reasoning is that native backend code could be alot faster in C and the front-end would be more easily handled in Java. At least this is what I heard when last this conversation was had.
Most decent developers realize that no one tool is good for everything. A hammer isn't also a wrench and a screw driver. Hence, different languages do some things better than others. This is why no applications are being built in flash. It does not meet the needs of serious development.
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Flash can make an awesome database driven web application that is tolerant of intermittent disconnection to the server and can work with or without internet at all; it just works on a variety of platforms on and offline. AND it can do a wide array of media and server interactions along the way.
And how would you suggest making this work within an MVC framework? Should we just have a ton of CGI's it has to call? I prefer the stability and security of a framework and Flash cannot act as a front end in that sense. Plus a modular framework allows for quick changing of the interface and the data that it calls. Flash doubles and triples the time it takes to do that.
As a front end to a framework, flash is most definitely not an answer and even if it were, it's not a professional answer.
And need I mention that when you take into consideration that it's only installed on 2-5% of machine do not have it installed, 25% have of copys are not up to date, you are constantly playing a guessing game with your customer base.
Sticking to older CSS standards, older HTML standards and older JS standards means that you will reach your audience 99% of the time and be able to fulfill their requirements for coming to your site. Sure it won't be animated but thats not why they are there (unless its an animation site). With flash, at best you can serve 70%-90% of your customers. This is not acceptable as an application. If I had to deliver an applicatio nthat left out that many sers, management would tell me to re-engineer it. Yet somehow what you are saying is that this is completely acceptable??
Acceptable is delivery to the customer what he wants FIRST. Fashy animation comes second and if it won't work, won't fit into the framework or won't meet my needs as the web site owner or the customer, kiss it goodbye.
As such Flash is not ready for app development and won't be for a long time to come.
Re:Flash as an application development platform
on
The Future of Flash
·
· Score: 1
Ever try making a commercial frontend app with it? Write once, debug everwhere
Yep... and when you actually know what you are doing, the debugging doesn't take that long.
Oxygen and Eclipse both didn't work with the intel macs when they were released.
I don't know about Oxygen but Eclipse is not pure Java. Which would sort of explain that problem now wouldn't it. For someone who claims to be a Java developer, you'd think you;d have realized that.
We certainly could have made it a java frontend as well, but doing that would have cost a lot more for no real world benefit
Yeah... updating the app remotely via webstart has no real value. Maintaining one codebase has no real value. Using one architecture has no real value. Flexibility of the front end has no real...Wait.... did you say you were a developer??? Funny, you sound more like a designer to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well all I think him and Maddog are saying is that a comprimise must be met. People expect multimedia play from their PC's and thus far, evn though progress is being made, it is slow. It's a small sacrifice to make in order to win the bigger battle.
At the same time, it will win software manufacturer support and more people will realize that they can make software for Linux that is proprietary. While the Linux community has always said this, some software manufacturers are still scared due to the militant ideal of keeping EVERYTHING free. I too think everything should be free but I don't think it's going to be possible without making concessions. Allow some through the door to get others involved and then once critical mass has been achieved, people will start creating their own options.
Walmart is neglecting to realize that a large percentage of the market is over 21 and they are usually the one buying the games; dad buys the game for junior because he wants to play TOO!
This is a dumb move by Wal-Mart. If there is a consumer demand for something, why limit yourself? They are a company and as a company (especially retailers), they have to listen to consumer demand. Regardless of their ability to artificially create a consumer demand just by CARRYING a product, do they honestly think consumers will just start buying 'Mickey Mouses Big Adventure' instead of going elswhere for 'GoreFest 3000: The Revenge'??
Honestly, this move will cause consumers to look elsewhere or purchase online. The consumer demand will move to other markets and eventually ignore Walmart entirely (over time). Why purchase my Playstation for Christmas at Walmart when I have to go to Gamestop for the games?? Consumers are lazy and they want to be able to get everything in one place... this was the Walmart ethic. When they start limiting their video game stock, they will be limiting their video game console sales. This is also bound to affect other electronic sales as well as a result of impulse electronic purchases lost.
Ignore Walmart and just start going to Fry's.
I'll believe it when I see them supporting SVG. Until then, it's a load of crap.
Sad to say you are very mistaken. The vast majority of us Americans have little more than a public education, shop at walmart and give people like Jeff Foxworthy a career aside from pig farmer. The other 1% of Americans spend their time maintaining their literacy, supporting PBS and smokings lots of pot so we don't have to think about how miserable we are dwelling in a land of knuckle dragging bible perverts.
God bless America
And Halo and Flight Simulator (game???) are being released BY MICROSOFT. Not independent game companies. Microsoft as usual has to support their product first. Get out from under the retard bus, buddy. Sales figures from XP were only 20% market saturation within the first year and that didn't require a new monitor to run and had backward compatibility.
You force people to buy new hardware and get rid of backward compatibility and they will be staying away in droves.
Indeed. Forcing those who wish to upgrade to Microsoft Vista to purchase all new monitors. Bright move to hit consumers with this big cost right after the holiday season when budgets are stretched. They'll be pleasantly pleased to have to get their friends and family to have to all upgrade their systems in order to share family photos or home movies.
Read your HDCP docs. Microsoft's implementation doesn't deviate. As such, content providers have the ability to dictate how their content will play on devices that don't support HDCP. They can either lower the quality or cause them not to show at all. It's all in the HDCP specs for the literate.
Yes this is true. They purchased a new graphics cvard and some new RAM. Total of about $500 at the time.
But this time, if they do that same upgrade, it will require a new monitor (for the monitor DRM) as well as the OS, new RAM and the same new graphics card. That's about $1000 (including the game). And assuming that they get the whole new computer with this, just to play the game, it will be costing them $2000 - $3000 to play a game.
This time around the prices have increased. And keeping in mind the current oil crisis, consumer budgets are going to be strapped. Especially since the launch is going to be AFTER Christmas when consumer spending goes WAY down.
Actually Microsoft itself has stated that without a monitor that supports their monitor DRM, content will display at a bad resolution or NOT AT ALL.
XP had a LARGE DEGREE of backward compatibility... from what I have read about Vista, this won't be the case.
Employers do not equalk consumers... this is true. However this is a good measure of the market. Plus considering that Vista will have monitor DRM, early adopters (aside from hardcore gamers) may not find having to buy a whole new monitor acceptable especially if gas prices continue to rise and put a crimp on the expendable income of the average consumer.
It's not just the perceivable costs but the unperceived costs that will affect adoption.
Yes but they are still a good measure of how the consumer base will respond. Also, governments and businesses are the biggest early adopters. And from the same poll 14% hadn't even heard of Vista.
You can probably safely bet that with the exception of hardcore gamers, these statistiocs will probably transfer to the average consumer as well. Those purchasing Vista will also be in for a suprise due to the monitor DRM and will probably re-install XP before purchasing a new monitor... especially if gas prices continue to climb and the consumer gets squeezed for expendable income.
Considering the fact that DirectX10 is only available on Vista and that 50% of employers say they are not going to purchase (14% if which say they will wait 15 months before evaluating), it's a safe bet to say that we won't be seeing any games that use DirectX10 for at least 2 years.
Anyone REQUIRING it before then will be severely limiting their consumer base; games failing to be picked up due to a small consumer base will also affect the adoption rate since other game manufacturers will be watching those games that first launch with it.
In alot of ways, Vista is a major gamble for Microsoft and one that alot of people say is going to fail. Only time will tell. In alot of ways, I'm glad that OpenGL development has been put into high gear. This may cause game manufacturers to change tactics since OpenGL is supported on ALL OS's.
Heh. Sounds like me. I did the same thing. But how far do you think the majority of the populace would go after that 'boy, what an unattractive name'. Most people who aren't drawn to something don't bother doing additional research. For instance, that ugly girl or guy in high school. The vast majority of people would not have taken the time to know them no matter HOW awesome they were due to initial appearances.
I had a friend who made it onto Jeopardy but when Alex Trebek saw the contestants and shook their hands he stopped at her. She was a library science major who had her head shaved except for a pink devils lock in the front. He held out his hand, paused and then retracted it before she could shake it, then looked at her and said 'You made it??'
True story. So even though I knew she was awesome, some people make snap decisions based on appearance. And sadly, this is the norm I guess.
So again, while I love Ubuntu, I still stress better branding and better marketing to be able to get Linux to break through the desdktop barrier.
It's not that it's a foreign name, it's that American consumers dominate what becomes mainstream by having the most purchasing power. Which is why most companies who want major sales gear their products branding to an American test audience. It's not that it's better, it's just who the majority of their purchasers are.
Now obviously, no one is going to be BUYING Ubuntu (unless they release an Enterprise Edition) but bad marketing can ruin its adoption rate. I mean between 'The Megatron 9000' and 'Ubuntu' I know which one I want just from the name alone. One sounds like it needs a hug while the other sounds like it would rip your arms of and beat you to death if you even THOUGHT about running as ROOT.
Now as a clarification, I run Kubuntu and LOVE it. It's the most stable and user friendly distro I have ever had. I just think they could have thought of a better name.
My wife has an aversion to Ubuntu because of the name. I tell her it's awesome but she just seems to be hung up on the name. I must admit that the name didn't sell me on the product either but now that I use it, I swear by it.
Linux could use a good marketing team; grassroots can do alot but good marketing is what pushes it over the edge into the mainstream.
Damn straight Baby! I used to use Fedora but a co-worker turned me onto Kubuntu (a KDE version of Ubuntu). At first, getting used to a Debian based distro was tough but I quickly realized that I really didn't have to do my makes or check for dependencies and a ton of the other stuff that can just be a constant annoyance and reduces consumer uptake of Linux as a Desktop.
I have it installed on my Mom's computer and she loves it! Instantly detected her new digital camera my brother got her, her scanner, her printer and I even installed all the extra codecs so she can play WMVs and other multimedia.
Plus she practically squeeled with jhoy when she realized that she wouldn't have to have any anti-virus software on her system and didn't really have to worry about spyware or anything else.
I now run Ubuntu at home and at work. When all the windows systems are getting patched, updated crashing or just dying (my bosses computer needs a re-install this morning), I can just keep plugging away.
Yes and it was played by a bunch of monkeys.
Depends. Depends on what the server is for, whether the server is being used as a home machine (serving from DSL for instance) and alot of other factors. Alot of them won't be used to surf. I'd say easily 15-20% will due to additional requirements, VMS servers, etc.
So yes, unless that server is a dedicated box without X-windows installed (which as I stated about is, in most cases, the norm), you will still see some people surfing in from their server. Classic example, I use my desktop as a test server. It can serve web pages and is remotely accessible. Is it a server? Yes. Do I surf from it? Yes.
This is why I included it in the numbers. Because while most people ignore Linux as a desktop[, they don't ignore it as a server. And in alot of dev environments, the desktop often doubles as a server at times. Especially for LAMP developers.
Heh. You've been hung by your own rope. Keep your hat. Otherwise you might drown when it rains.
Well considering that Swing and AWT are the standards, what the hell would your point be?
Um... Java is a application development language. Flash ISN'T (nor is Actionscript). Again... what would be your point?
LOL. Yes, you could SAY that. Of course you'd be wrong and just showing your ignorance since (and I repeat again) Java IS an application development language... and flash is an animation tool with a scripting tool built in.
Hey, if I knew you were going to humiliate yourself with your own ignorance, I would have gone and looked at some goofy Flash animation to waste my time *DOH*
Learn it.
Ask the developers. I believe their reasoning is that native backend code could be alot faster in C and the front-end would be more easily handled in Java. At least this is what I heard when last this conversation was had.
Most decent developers realize that no one tool is good for everything. A hammer isn't also a wrench and a screw driver. Hence, different languages do some things better than others. This is why no applications are being built in flash. It does not meet the needs of serious development.
And how would you suggest making this work within an MVC framework? Should we just have a ton of CGI's it has to call? I prefer the stability and security of a framework and Flash cannot act as a front end in that sense. Plus a modular framework allows for quick changing of the interface and the data that it calls. Flash doubles and triples the time it takes to do that.
As a front end to a framework, flash is most definitely not an answer and even if it were, it's not a professional answer.
And need I mention that when you take into consideration that it's only installed on 2-5% of machine do not have it installed, 25% have of copys are not up to date, you are constantly playing a guessing game with your customer base.
Sticking to older CSS standards, older HTML standards and older JS standards means that you will reach your audience 99% of the time and be able to fulfill their requirements for coming to your site. Sure it won't be animated but thats not why they are there (unless its an animation site). With flash, at best you can serve 70%-90% of your customers. This is not acceptable as an application. If I had to deliver an applicatio nthat left out that many sers, management would tell me to re-engineer it. Yet somehow what you are saying is that this is completely acceptable??
Acceptable is delivery to the customer what he wants FIRST. Fashy animation comes second and if it won't work, won't fit into the framework or won't meet my needs as the web site owner or the customer, kiss it goodbye.
As such Flash is not ready for app development and won't be for a long time to come.
Yep... and when you actually know what you are doing, the debugging doesn't take that long.
I don't know about Oxygen but Eclipse is not pure Java. Which would sort of explain that problem now wouldn't it. For someone who claims to be a Java developer, you'd think you;d have realized that.
Yeah... updating the app remotely via webstart has no real value. Maintaining one codebase has no real value. Using one architecture has no real value. Flexibility of the front end has no real...Wait.... did you say you were a developer??? Funny, you sound more like a designer to me.