My USB hard drive is a USB 1.1 device (and, on a related note, I don't have any USB 2.0 ports in my system).
Off the same port I use for my USB hard drive, I have a web cam, a scanner, a printer, a digicam, a portable MP3 player (Rio800), and two USB hubs; I do not experience the slowdowns you mention, but that's because not all of the devices are in use at once, and when idle, only use up a small percentage of the available bandwidth (and, of course, not all devices do that; only certain devices will reserve bandwidth that they're not actually using).
Finally, if you do the math (and assume maximum bandwidth utilization), USB 2.0 can transfer 15GB in under 5 minutes...so, assuming the worst ("real world") conditions, it should be able to handle it in under 30 to 60 minutes, not the <5 hours I experienced with my USB 1.1 HDD =)
Then there was Windows 3.11 (3.1 was so buggy it was quickly replaced by a much needed upgrade version; I doubt anyone here actually used Win 3.1 proper).
IIRC, the only major difference between Windows 3.1 and 3.11 was stronger networking. 3.11 was primarily used by businesses (before NT came out), and 3.1 was primarily used by home users. It wasn't a patch, per se, but an upgrade that added functionality that not everyone needed, so not everyone used it.
But if we're talking about Wi-Fi, then the problem isn't just inside my house. I'm essentially empowering any Wi-Fi receiver within my broadcast range to see what I'm watching on my own system -- whether it's television, cable TV, pay-per-view, or pre-recorded home video.
You mean like those video transmission/receiving devices (Rabbits?) they sell at Radio Shack for like $50 can do?
Hmm...$300+ for WiFi vs. ~$100 for Radio Shack equipment...tough choice, especially when the WiFi would yield MUCH crappier results.
DirectX HAL comes to the rescue here; the games shouldn't be touching the hardware except through DirectX, to which calls can be trapped.
The only problem with that is that, from what I understand, MS highly modified DX8 for the Xbox so that the software (read: games) could get even closer to the hardware than any PC-based software could ever hope to get. This was provided as a convenience for the game programmers, so that they could do more with the hardware than DirectX would have allowed.
This, of course, does not mean that every game will "bypass" DirectX and head straight from the hardware, but it's certainly a possibility.
Under the section about Serial ATA, I found this little gem:
It also uses longer, thinner cables that won't block airflow inside the system case, which lets systems run cooler and allows PC makers to build more-compact desktops and notebooks.
So, the cables will INCREASE airflow by taking up less space, but, because of these new, smaller cables, the PC manufacturers are going to DECREASE the amount of space inside the chassis in which the air can actually flow? *boggle*
Hardly. When you download files from someone on KaZaA, your computer is made aware of the other computer's IP address, and vice versa. It wouldn't be very difficult for law enforcement to download files from KaZaA, log IP addresses, and contact the users' ISP's to find out who was using those IP addresses at any given time.
Sure, some changes might have to be made to the way ISP's operate, and in some instances, court orders would need to be issued for the ISP's to release that information, but it could be done...that is, if the RIAA/MPAA were TRULY interested in punishing the guilty.
The fact of the matter is, they have no interest in doing so. Why? Because "the guilty" == "the customers." Start going after the customers, and you start alienating customers. Alienated customers are no longer customers...or, more specifically, no longer a source of revenue.
I honestly don't know what the RIAA and MPAA hope to accomplish with all this silliness. They should realize that they can't stop piracy, and they're obviously not willing to go after the pirates. It seems to me like a half-assed "show of force"...and the only purposes it's serving at this point is to alienate customers, and put honest, hard-working people out of work...all for nothing. It's truly sad.
I find it hard to believe that you've gone through enough time on this planet to get to the point where you can type coherent sentences, and yet have never heard the term "flavor" used in any context other than in reference to taste...so, I'm probably feeding a troll here, but here goes...
Merrial-Webster's dictionary defines "flavor" as a "characteristic or predominant quality."
I know plenty of people who have more than one computer running more than one OS (I never said anything about non-MS OS'es, just OS'es other than XP), and very few of these people are what you'd consider computer savvy.
Of course, we're both neglecting the fact that those that will actually install the patch are the same type of people who have multiple PC's running multiple OS'es (yes, even some non-MS ones).
And, last, but not least, you're overlooking the fact that the patch is only 600K, which means that you wouldn't have to be online for more than a couple of minutes to download the patch...then just go offline to apply it.
Yeah...because it's not like someone could use another machine/OS to download the update, put it on a CD/Zip disk/whatever and install it on their XP box(en).
I know it's not a clock; it's an icon. But when you look at your analog watch and see the hands pointing to the 3:00 position, do you immediately think "O-L"?
Of course not. What kind of stupid question is that? I'm looking at a clock, I think "clock"...if I'm looking at an icon, I think "icon"...if I'm looking at the icon for Outlook, I think "L inside an O."
"L" inside "O". How do you do that in Hebrew?
I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. I like how you avoided the point I made about how MS should probably change the icon for other languages. What page of the troll manual is that tactic on?
You show me how to fit ì inside ò.
Why should I? If you're so curious, figure it out yourself.
It's Microsoft's problem. If users don't immediately see O-L, then Microsoft has not effectively communicated O-L.
Or maybe it's a like a computer-age Rorschach test. Those that see an "L" inside an "O" are smart, and those that see a clock are idiots.
BTW, I'm not trolling here...just trying to prove a point.
here's a clock
Looks like another "L" inside an "O" to me. I don't see any numbers or any other markers that denote the time.
Point is, if it looks like a clock, moves like a clock, and ticks like a clock, it's a clock.
You're absolutely right. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I noticed that the Outlook icon doesn't move OR tick, so it must not be a clock.
I know Microsoft's icon designer meant L in O, but that's not what was conveyed.
It certainly is what's conveyed. You're simply inferring the incorrect meaning behind the icon. That's no one's fault but your own.
Users expect icons to convey the function of an app, not the name
Not I, or anyone else I know. I expect the icon to tell me something about the application. Whether it's the name, the function, or whatever else the icon designer wants to tell me about the application that will help me distinguish it from other applications is what I expect to be in an icon. Bottom line is, if the Outlook icon confuses you, then maybe you shouldn't be using a computer at all. I'm not flaming, just pointing out a very harsh truth. Even if it looks like a clock to you, as long as you know that the "little red/orange (remember, I'm colorblind, so I'm not sure) clock means Outlook," then the icon has served its purpose.
I'd venture a guess, based on how adament you are in arguing this with me, that you're very familiar with the Outlook icon and what it does. This, of course, begs the question: why are you arguing this with me? I think the answer is simple, and I'll give you a hint: it begins with "T," ends with "L," and rhymes with "poll."
I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that it isn't a clock. It's the letter "L" inside the letter "O." If people are seeing a clock, then that's their problem.
As far as other languages go, I suppose the argument could be made that they should change the icon for copies of Office distributed in other countries. However, we weren't discussing that side of the whole thing.
And finally, if you have problems differenciating between an "X" and a "W," or between green and blue, then you probably shouldn't be trying to recognize icons at a glance; rather, you should be taking your time.
I'm colorblind, and I have no problems telling the difference between the Word icon and the Excel icon.
Slashdot Mirror
If a typo was the only mistake I made, then I must be doing alright. =)
Father forgive me, for I have sinned.
I don't know about your keyboard, but on mine, the '1' key is right next to the '2' key. Typos happen, get over it and yourself. =\
USB 1.1 peaks at 11Mbps, not 10.
My USB hard drive is a USB 1.1 device (and, on a related note, I don't have any USB 2.0 ports in my system).
Off the same port I use for my USB hard drive, I have a web cam, a scanner, a printer, a digicam, a portable MP3 player (Rio800), and two USB hubs; I do not experience the slowdowns you mention, but that's because not all of the devices are in use at once, and when idle, only use up a small percentage of the available bandwidth (and, of course, not all devices do that; only certain devices will reserve bandwidth that they're not actually using).
Finally, if you do the math (and assume maximum bandwidth utilization), USB 2.0 can transfer 15GB in under 5 minutes...so, assuming the worst ("real world") conditions, it should be able to handle it in under 30 to 60 minutes, not the <5 hours I experienced with my USB 1.1 HDD =)
Hmm...$300+ for WiFi vs. ~$100 for Radio Shack equipment...tough choice, especially when the WiFi would yield MUCH crappier results.
This, of course, does not mean that every game will "bypass" DirectX and head straight from the hardware, but it's certainly a possibility.
Oh, man...I wish I had me some mod points left so I could mod that one up...
Hillarious! =)
Excellent post. The only correction I have is that a T3 actually offers 44.736Mbps worth of bandwidth, not 10. =)
Sure, some changes might have to be made to the way ISP's operate, and in some instances, court orders would need to be issued for the ISP's to release that information, but it could be done...that is, if the RIAA/MPAA were TRULY interested in punishing the guilty.
The fact of the matter is, they have no interest in doing so. Why? Because "the guilty" == "the customers." Start going after the customers, and you start alienating customers. Alienated customers are no longer customers...or, more specifically, no longer a source of revenue.
I honestly don't know what the RIAA and MPAA hope to accomplish with all this silliness. They should realize that they can't stop piracy, and they're obviously not willing to go after the pirates. It seems to me like a half-assed "show of force"...and the only purposes it's serving at this point is to alienate customers, and put honest, hard-working people out of work...all for nothing. It's truly sad.
Ugh...
Merriam-Webster's, even... *sigh*
I find it hard to believe that you've gone through enough time on this planet to get to the point where you can type coherent sentences, and yet have never heard the term "flavor" used in any context other than in reference to taste...so, I'm probably feeding a troll here, but here goes...
Merrial-Webster's dictionary defines "flavor" as a "characteristic or predominant quality."
I know plenty of people who have more than one computer running more than one OS (I never said anything about non-MS OS'es, just OS'es other than XP), and very few of these people are what you'd consider computer savvy.
Of course, we're both neglecting the fact that those that will actually install the patch are the same type of people who have multiple PC's running multiple OS'es (yes, even some non-MS ones).
And, last, but not least, you're overlooking the fact that the patch is only 600K, which means that you wouldn't have to be online for more than a couple of minutes to download the patch...then just go offline to apply it.
Yeah...because it's not like someone could use another machine/OS to download the update, put it on a CD/Zip disk/whatever and install it on their XP box(en).
*eyeroll*
I know we shouldn't feed the trolls, but...
You can actually change the GUI in WinXP to something a little more respectable.
Of course, you probably knew that already...
BTW, I'm not trolling here...just trying to prove a point.Looks like another "L" inside an "O" to me. I don't see any numbers or any other markers that denote the time.You're absolutely right. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I noticed that the Outlook icon doesn't move OR tick, so it must not be a clock.It certainly is what's conveyed. You're simply inferring the incorrect meaning behind the icon. That's no one's fault but your own.Not I, or anyone else I know. I expect the icon to tell me something about the application. Whether it's the name, the function, or whatever else the icon designer wants to tell me about the application that will help me distinguish it from other applications is what I expect to be in an icon.
Bottom line is, if the Outlook icon confuses you, then maybe you shouldn't be using a computer at all. I'm not flaming, just pointing out a very harsh truth. Even if it looks like a clock to you, as long as you know that the "little red/orange (remember, I'm colorblind, so I'm not sure) clock means Outlook," then the icon has served its purpose.
I'd venture a guess, based on how adament you are in arguing this with me, that you're very familiar with the Outlook icon and what it does. This, of course, begs the question: why are you arguing this with me? I think the answer is simple, and I'll give you a hint: it begins with "T," ends with "L," and rhymes with "poll."
I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that it isn't a clock. It's the letter "L" inside the letter "O." If people are seeing a clock, then that's their problem.
As far as other languages go, I suppose the argument could be made that they should change the icon for copies of Office distributed in other countries. However, we weren't discussing that side of the whole thing.
And finally, if you have problems differenciating between an "X" and a "W," or between green and blue, then you probably shouldn't be trying to recognize icons at a glance; rather, you should be taking your time.
I'm colorblind, and I have no problems telling the difference between the Word icon and the Excel icon.
They should use the logo for MacOS as the icon for Internet Explorer. Then people would get it.
You mean the 'L' inside the 'O'? As in OutLook? Yeah, you're right...that doesn't make ANY sense.
Ummm...that's not P2P...that's distributed computing. Big difference.
I didn't miss that point. I was talking about the legal aspects of ripping a CD.