this article is from a.co.uk site so I assume they are talking about Europe?
Which is an interesting point in itself. With net access now so common, if a company delays the European release date the chances are that by the time it comes out a lot of us have read net-based reviews from the US telling us not to bother.
... if you're in an office, you find someone with MS Office and get them to convert it for you. But if you're not allowed Office at all, you're pretty much up the creek.
Or if you're the Chinese Government, you send it back and ask the submitter to redo it in something readable. They do have a fair amount of clout...
What kind of games? Well, most games run - I've only had trouble with Impossible Mission, annoyingly (one of my favourites). And yes - sound comes out through the phone (a Nokia 3650).
I've found that despite the vertical resolution stretch, most things still play fine. Ghosts and Goblins, for one. Bubble Bobble for another. Oh, and Knight Games is a good way to destroy your phone's keypad. Haven't tried anything along the lines of Defender of the Crown yet though.
My dream system used to consist of a Commodore 64, a colour monitor and two (yes, count 'em, two) floppy disk drives. 1541's to be precise. Oh, and an acoustic coupler too.
That's what I believed the future could hold for me at the time. Now I'm typing from a gorgeous little Powerbook with built-in DVD writer, which is wirelessly remote desktop-connected to an XP-based 2.4Ghz PC with a DVD rewriter in it, 1 Gig of RAM and a 120Gig hard drive. That's not even considered a top-end system anymore. Peripherals I connect include a firewire video cameras, bluetooth phone, a scanner, an iPod which stores more than supercomputers used to at the time of my C64 dream...all very nice toys. The above systems also have a broadband link out to the internet. Given all the above, I have to say that personal computing (small 'p', small 'c') has surpassed my expectations by a long, long way.
Oh, and the C64? I have the system I wanted, leaving aside the acoustic coupler. Of course, it's an emulated system. I carry it around installed on my phone...
Any chance you can grab a digital camera and take a quick shot for us?
Yes, a previous poster asked for that. I'm at work at the moment, but when I leave I'll stop by to take a shot using a camera phone. Hopefully it will still be there.
'afraid not. Mind you, I do have a camera phone so perhaps I'll try in a couple of hours when I finish work and post a link here. It might be fixed by then though, although I doubt it.
3650 costs +300-400 without operator tie in/bundling(which is illegal here.)
A fair point. However, the full cost of that phone isn't due to the bluetooth capability alone. For example, Microsoft make a bluetooth mouse which costs about 50 GBP, and that compares favourably to the non-bluetooth version which is 35 GBP.
And how much does a Bluetooth cost nowadays? $100? $200? That's absurd.
If you're talking about buying some PC dongle at retail, then perhaps. But not the Bluetooth chipset.
I use Bluetooth every day - I send SMS messages via my bluetooth-equipped Nokia 3650 by selecting a contact's name on my Powerbook and typing the message there. I also send pictures that I've taken with the phone over to the laptop, and synchronise address book changes. It works very well, and my phone certainly didn't cost me $200.
Buying add-ons is always expensive. As the functionality makes its way into the chipset of standard boards then you'll see the computer side of things come down in cost. I know that all Apple laptops have bluetooth - I think that the new Centrino sets do too, don't they? Confirmation from a Centrino owner please?
Oh, so you weren't really looking for an open standard, you were just looking for an easy way to encode your movies.
Not so. Given that all ways lead to a non-open standard which won't be universally playable, I've chosen to settle on the one that gives me least hassle to produce.
...I don't know about iMovie, but every decent movie editor that I've used has given me the option of what I codec want to encode my movie with.
iMovie produces Quicktime only, but combined with Quicktime Pro I can encode to whatever I choose. Well, except for.wmv from Quicktime Pro, but I can do.avi instead. The point is - I'm not gaining anything by converting. You're saying you won't open Quicktime Player to play it - fine, but an OS X-person would likely say they're not opening Windows Media Player for OS X to play it either. And neither of those standard clients will have access to a divx player by default. Swings and roundabouts.
...a hacker has broken into a Acxiom server....The suspect, now in police custody, was an employee with legitimate access to the information.
So not a hacker then. Or a cracker either, to keep another section of the crowd happy.
This sounds like straight abuse of confidential information. No computers required, no lax security required. A person with legitimate access to data went bad. As such, it's not really a criticism of Axiom's security policies . It is, however, a criticism of their hiring and monitoring policies.
The reason Nintendo is sucking isn't because the Game Cube isn't a nice box, it's that the GAMES suck.
Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish.
Sorry, I normally try to be more rational and thoughtful in a post, but this time I thought I'd better emphasise my position. How many of these 'rubbish' games have you played? I bought a Gamecube on the strength of just two games - Pikmin and Super Monkey Ball. Brilliant, both of them. Luigi's Mansion was also a nice change for the norm.
I tried the big sellers - Mario and Zelda, but to be honest I don't have the time for them anymore. A shame that, because both looked very enjoyable. Metroid Prime is not to my taste, but to be described as rubbish? I don't think so.
I'm no platform bigot. I own PCs running XP, PCs running Linux, a Mac Plus, an OS X-bsed POwerbook, a Playstation, a Playstation 2, a Gamecube and a couple of Gameboy Advance SPs. Frankly, I couldn't care less who produces the hardware so long as it does what I need from it. And Nintendo are kings of the non-violent, slightly off-beat fun to play games.
...You didn't choose divx because it required additional software...Wmv can ONLY be played in windows,...WMP can't play quicktime
That was my point - none of the choices available fit the bill. Original poster asked what was hard about putting up standards-compliant video, and my answer is that there's no one file format that plays on all clients and still produces a decent file size/performance trade-off. I've just picked the easiest one for me to work with and stuck with that.
What was wrong with divx again? Or the open XviD for that matter...
Extra client software required. The aim is to get a file that plays on the three major OSes in their out-of-the-box configurations. So far, I've not found any format that fits the bill other than MPEG 1, and the file sizes that produces are unacceptably large.
When creating video clips like this, what is so HARD about using an open, well established standard that everyone (including the few % not running M$ media player) can use?
Quite a lot, as it happens. The main hassle being that there aren't any well established open standards that provide decent compression rates. At least, if there are then I'd be grateful for people enlightening me
I had to put video up on my site - I chose MPEG 1 at first because everyone could view it, but eventually the file sizes started getting huge and I had to switch to something else. ISO MP4 can't be played by MS WMP, Divx and what have you can't be played without installing additional software on client machines...what to pick?
In the end, I chose.wmv for a while. Seemed to give the best picture quality/file size trade-off. However, since then I've bought myself a Powerbook so all future things will be Quicktime.
Honestly - if anyone knows a format that can be played on out-of-the-box Windows, OS X and common Linux distros without the installation of any extra software, I'd love to hear about it.
in that case, the same argument can be made for m$ regarding other players proprietary format...
Yes.
...and once again EU loses any validity to their arguement.
No. They're arguing that MS is illegaly using its client OS monopoly to push Media Player. Since no-one else has a client OS monopoly, no-one else can be guilty of that.
Everyone's focusing on the media player aspect, but to me the far more important one is the server-side protocal disclosure.
From the EU's press release: "As regards remedies, the Commission has provisionally identified the core disclosure obligations that would be indispensable for Microsoft's competitors in low-end servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. Microsoft would be obliged to reveal the necessary interface information so that rival vendors of low-end servers are able to compete on a level playing-field with Microsoft."
So...Samba benefits. Anyone trying to interoperate with Exchange benefits (I'd presume MAPI would be one of the protocols). People trying to do integration with Active Directory Services benefit. That's the real meat of the notice. The media player is attracting attention, but it's not the most important half by far.
>>Realplayer has certainly tried to beat them in the realm
>>of streaming content, but due to such little things as shit for
>>quality and lack of content, they didn't do so well.
>
>That's because M$ was able to push their format as
>a result of their monopoly. You're confusing the result with the cause.
Well, no - not really. I dislike RealMedia because of their player, not their file format. They have the most obnoxiously ad-pushing client I've ever come across, and as such I refuse to install it. I know I'm not alone either, and I suspect that this had as much to do with their decline as anything else.
Actually, i was referring more to the.mov format which as far as i know is really only supported by Quicktime player.
I realise that, yes, but the reason I introduced my clarification was to point out that extensible frameworks already exist. To say that 'Quicktime can't compete with divx' isn't really correct - since 'Quicktime' isn't actually a format, it isn't really in the same area as Divx. There's a Quicktime divx component, which means that all Quicktime-aware video apps can playback divx anyway. They could encode to it too, were an encoder available for Quicktime (I don't know whether an encoder is available - perhaps there is one, perhaps there isn't).
In other words, the statement about 'doing down legacy players' isn't really correct. Quicktime isn't legacy - it was already expandable and can encompass the new codecs and file formats. DirectX can do the same. The one that can't out of your examples is RealPlayer, which is not an extensible framework.
I'd like to stress that this is a clarification post, not a flame. I actually agree with your basic point - that companies should be allowed to write their own stuff. However, I think the issue here is that MS is using their client dominance to ensure that people can't write their own stuff. Look at the WMA format for instance - proprietary and illegal to crack the enrryption, so you can't write a competing player there. Since the new music services are being tied to WMA, than that means MS has a monopoly on the playback. That's the kind of thing that's being addressed here I think.
Slashdot Mirror
He certainly does. Calling Bruce Almighty a first class movie takes something special.
Cheers,
Ian
Which is an interesting point in itself. With net access now so common, if a company delays the European release date the chances are that by the time it comes out a lot of us have read net-based reviews from the US telling us not to bother.
Cheers,
Ian
Or if you're the Chinese Government, you send it back and ask the submitter to redo it in something readable. They do have a fair amount of clout...
Cheers,
Ian
I've found that despite the vertical resolution stretch, most things still play fine. Ghosts and Goblins, for one. Bubble Bobble for another. Oh, and Knight Games is a good way to destroy your phone's keypad. Haven't tried anything along the lines of Defender of the Crown yet though.
Cheers,
Ian
Cheers,
Ian
That's what I believed the future could hold for me at the time. Now I'm typing from a gorgeous little Powerbook with built-in DVD writer, which is wirelessly remote desktop-connected to an XP-based 2.4Ghz PC with a DVD rewriter in it, 1 Gig of RAM and a 120Gig hard drive. That's not even considered a top-end system anymore. Peripherals I connect include a firewire video cameras, bluetooth phone, a scanner, an iPod which stores more than supercomputers used to at the time of my C64 dream...all very nice toys. The above systems also have a broadband link out to the internet. Given all the above, I have to say that personal computing (small 'p', small 'c') has surpassed my expectations by a long, long way.
Oh, and the C64? I have the system I wanted, leaving aside the acoustic coupler. Of course, it's an emulated system. I carry it around installed on my phone...
Cheers,
Ian
Because it wasn't a blue screen. It was a shell prompt and a Find window.
Cheers,
Ian
That's not true. One of the people I work with here is called Iain, just to break the monotony...
Cheers,
Ian
Yes, a previous poster asked for that. I'm at work at the moment, but when I leave I'll stop by to take a shot using a camera phone. Hopefully it will still be there.
Cheers,
Ian
'afraid not. Mind you, I do have a camera phone so perhaps I'll try in a couple of hours when I finish work and post a link here. It might be fixed by then though, although I doubt it.
Cheers,
Ian
Then try, really, really hard to stop laughing...
Cheers,
Ian
You know, there are many C programmers who would like to file just such a suit....
Cheer,
Ian
A fair point. However, the full cost of that phone isn't due to the bluetooth capability alone. For example, Microsoft make a bluetooth mouse which costs about 50 GBP, and that compares favourably to the non-bluetooth version which is 35 GBP.
Cheers,
Ian
If you're talking about buying some PC dongle at retail, then perhaps. But not the Bluetooth chipset.
I use Bluetooth every day - I send SMS messages via my bluetooth-equipped Nokia 3650 by selecting a contact's name on my Powerbook and typing the message there. I also send pictures that I've taken with the phone over to the laptop, and synchronise address book changes. It works very well, and my phone certainly didn't cost me $200.
Buying add-ons is always expensive. As the functionality makes its way into the chipset of standard boards then you'll see the computer side of things come down in cost. I know that all Apple laptops have bluetooth - I think that the new Centrino sets do too, don't they? Confirmation from a Centrino owner please?
Cheers,
Ian
I aim to please... :-)
Cheers,
Ian
Not so. Given that all ways lead to a non-open standard which won't be universally playable, I've chosen to settle on the one that gives me least hassle to produce.
iMovie produces Quicktime only, but combined with Quicktime Pro I can encode to whatever I choose. Well, except for .wmv from Quicktime Pro, but I can do .avi instead. The point is - I'm not gaining anything by converting. You're saying you won't open Quicktime Player to play it - fine, but an OS X-person would likely say they're not opening Windows Media Player for OS X to play it either. And neither of those standard clients will have access to a divx player by default. Swings and roundabouts.
Cheers,
Ian
So not a hacker then. Or a cracker either, to keep another section of the crowd happy.
This sounds like straight abuse of confidential information. No computers required, no lax security required. A person with legitimate access to data went bad. As such, it's not really a criticism of Axiom's security policies . It is, however, a criticism of their hiring and monitoring policies.
Cheers,
Ian
iMovie.
Cheers,
Ian
Rubbish. Complete and utter rubbish.
Sorry, I normally try to be more rational and thoughtful in a post, but this time I thought I'd better emphasise my position. How many of these 'rubbish' games have you played? I bought a Gamecube on the strength of just two games - Pikmin and Super Monkey Ball. Brilliant, both of them. Luigi's Mansion was also a nice change for the norm.
I tried the big sellers - Mario and Zelda, but to be honest I don't have the time for them anymore. A shame that, because both looked very enjoyable. Metroid Prime is not to my taste, but to be described as rubbish? I don't think so.
I'm no platform bigot. I own PCs running XP, PCs running Linux, a Mac Plus, an OS X-bsed POwerbook, a Playstation, a Playstation 2, a Gamecube and a couple of Gameboy Advance SPs. Frankly, I couldn't care less who produces the hardware so long as it does what I need from it. And Nintendo are kings of the non-violent, slightly off-beat fun to play games.
Cheers,
Ian
That was my point - none of the choices available fit the bill. Original poster asked what was hard about putting up standards-compliant video, and my answer is that there's no one file format that plays on all clients and still produces a decent file size/performance trade-off. I've just picked the easiest one for me to work with and stuck with that.
What was wrong with divx again? Or the open XviD for that matter...
Extra client software required. The aim is to get a file that plays on the three major OSes in their out-of-the-box configurations. So far, I've not found any format that fits the bill other than MPEG 1, and the file sizes that produces are unacceptably large.
Cheers,
Ian
Quite a lot, as it happens. The main hassle being that there aren't any well established open standards that provide decent compression rates. At least, if there are then I'd be grateful for people enlightening me
I had to put video up on my site - I chose MPEG 1 at first because everyone could view it, but eventually the file sizes started getting huge and I had to switch to something else. ISO MP4 can't be played by MS WMP, Divx and what have you can't be played without installing additional software on client machines...what to pick?
In the end, I chose .wmv for a while. Seemed to give the best picture quality/file size trade-off. However, since then I've bought myself a Powerbook so all future things will be Quicktime.
Honestly - if anyone knows a format that can be played on out-of-the-box Windows, OS X and common Linux distros without the installation of any extra software, I'd love to hear about it.
Cheers,
Ian
Yes.
No. They're arguing that MS is illegaly using its client OS monopoly to push Media Player. Since no-one else has a client OS monopoly, no-one else can be guilty of that.
Cheers,
Ian
From the EU's press release:
"As regards remedies, the Commission has provisionally identified the core disclosure obligations that would be indispensable for Microsoft's competitors in low-end servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. Microsoft would be obliged to reveal the necessary interface information so that rival vendors of low-end servers are able to compete on a level playing-field with Microsoft."
So...Samba benefits. Anyone trying to interoperate with Exchange benefits (I'd presume MAPI would be one of the protocols). People trying to do integration with Active Directory Services benefit. That's the real meat of the notice. The media player is attracting attention, but it's not the most important half by far.
Cheers,
Ian
>>of streaming content, but due to such little things as shit for
>>quality and lack of content, they didn't do so well.
>
>That's because M$ was able to push their format as
>a result of their monopoly. You're confusing the result with the cause.
Well, no - not really. I dislike RealMedia because of their player, not their file format. They have the most obnoxiously ad-pushing client I've ever come across, and as such I refuse to install it. I know I'm not alone either, and I suspect that this had as much to do with their decline as anything else.
Cheers,
Ian
I realise that, yes, but the reason I introduced my clarification was to point out that extensible frameworks already exist. To say that 'Quicktime can't compete with divx' isn't really correct - since 'Quicktime' isn't actually a format, it isn't really in the same area as Divx. There's a Quicktime divx component, which means that all Quicktime-aware video apps can playback divx anyway. They could encode to it too, were an encoder available for Quicktime (I don't know whether an encoder is available - perhaps there is one, perhaps there isn't).
In other words, the statement about 'doing down legacy players' isn't really correct. Quicktime isn't legacy - it was already expandable and can encompass the new codecs and file formats. DirectX can do the same. The one that can't out of your examples is RealPlayer, which is not an extensible framework.
I'd like to stress that this is a clarification post, not a flame. I actually agree with your basic point - that companies should be allowed to write their own stuff. However, I think the issue here is that MS is using their client dominance to ensure that people can't write their own stuff. Look at the WMA format for instance - proprietary and illegal to crack the enrryption, so you can't write a competing player there. Since the new music services are being tied to WMA, than that means MS has a monopoly on the playback. That's the kind of thing that's being addressed here I think.
Cheers,
Ian