OK, first read this... taken straight from the page:
In the July 2002 issue of Digital Producer Magazine, Charlie White reported on a head-to-head duel between a single-processor Dell 2.53GHz Pentium® 4 -- the Dell Precision Workstation 340 -- and the fastest Macintosh then available -- a 1GHz dual-processor G4. The contest compared renderings of files created in Adobe® After Effects®, Illustrator®, and Photoshop® software that are typical to the video post-production workflow. The graphs below show some of the results, which were consistent. While the computers used in this study are no longer the fastest in their respective classes, the information is still valid. The PC outperformed the similar Macintosh machine, at an impressive rate.
And this above all the pretty graphs:
Graphics courtesy of DMN - DigitalMediaNet.com
Listen up, dumbasses... this was an article written entirely external of Adobe and most likely was on Adobe's website simply because it was an Adobe product in the press. This has nothing to do with Adobe's own preferences.
Furthermore, you can't take a single set of benchmarks as indesputable proof of anything. Different benchmark tests can get widely different results.
Finally, if you look at the page one directory up, you'll see one of the links that says the following:
Prefer a PC for DV? - See what an industry expert says about PC vs. Mac for digital video editing."
It really has little to do with Adobe's preference for platform and more likely was put there because the sales of the PC versions are trailing behind the Mac versions. Adobe is at it's best when both platforms sell products evenly.
While bad feedback can indeed cause a loss of sales to a seller on eBay, I don't think the sellers themselves should be freed of the responsibility to control the situation which landed them the negative feedback in the first place.
First of all, they need to realize they are running a business and that their customers are going to demand a certain level of respect. If you leave negative feedback, your gonna get negative feedback. Furthermore, if you rip off your customers, they will complain... and loudly.
My advice to you sellers... If you are going to hand out feedback about your customers, do so at your own risk and be cautious about it. Unlike how you see it, none of them owe you any favors.
If you do have a bad experience with a customer, be sure to contact them before filing feedback to try and resolve any issues. If that doesn't work, then decide how bad the problem is.
Many situations don't require negative feedback. Unless the customer sent you a check that bounced or forged a money order, don't mark your feedback negative!!! Sure, it's tempting to flame the "Buy It Now" idiots that never pay up, but is it really worth getting negative feedback yourself? Instead, for minor complaints, simply mark it off as neutral and post the complaint. Since neutral feedback doesn't affect the feedback rating, these users are less likely to retaliate... and, you've still gotten your complaint made.
In short, don't let an itchy trigger finger ruin your reputation as a seller. Limit truly negative feedback to the lowlives, con-artists and thieves.
Actually, I've been running the Mac OS on my Sharp Zaurus for a while now.;-)
What will be real interesting is the potential for a port of Mac-On-Linux on such a device, since the hardware is already natively running on a PowerPC chip.
At any rate, I plan to watch the progress of this device very closely.
I wonder if this could be used to get an increase in speed for running OS X apps without the overhead of the OS X GUI? If it eliminates the eye candy effects, I'd bet it'd be noticeably faster.
One issue that seems to be a big factor with OS X that many users overlook is file fragmentation. After about a month or two of use, the OS starts to become noticeably slower and slower to most users.
I've been looking at the way things work in OS X and have found that the OS is extremely sloppy in the fact that it does not deal with fragmentation on its own, nor does it provide users with a tool to defragment the drives. The typical new Mac OS X user wouldn't even think about this sort of thing.
To combat the issue, I now keep a custom boot disk handy with a defragging tool on it, so I can keep the system performance optimized.
I'd also like to put to rest any rumors that defragmenting an OS X drive with an OS 9 will render a system unbootable. Not only is this not the case, it's complete foolishness. The HFS+ file system runs exactly the same way regardless of what OS is using it, so unless you do something that modifies the actual data of OS X-specific files, you have no risk of losing OS X.
First off, I noticed a lot of people seen this and immediately thought of a flat surface with some sort of display of the backdrop on it. Sure, the idea is cute and all, but only would work if someone was looking directly at it from a straight on view.
Now, a more realistic approach would be to a hemispherical display. Merge this with equipment similar to that used to take Quicktime VR panoramic imaged... but only setting everything at the edges of the hemisphere instead of the middle. Then, have a fast computer calculate out the correct "image" to display as a texture for the hemisphere and map it onto it. (Think IMAX, but inverted.)
Unlike a flat surface, a hemisphere would be ideal since the shape does not vary and it can be scaled as needed for the task at hand. With technologies such as OLED displays, which can be shaped to conform almost any surface, this could be a frighteningly real scenario.
A few considerations:
The biggest concern for employing a device like this would be avoiding detection from devices that use a means other than visual to detect objects... such as radar, sonar and infra-red sensors. it should be possible to avoid detection by these, but would require extra thought being put into the design.
Shadows will be a difficult obstacle to overcome if you are approaching at a time other than "high noon" or night. You may be able to kill a shadow by drowning it with light, but then you have the risk of the light itself being seen.
I have a feeling something like this could re-open the debate on whether or not DVDs (or other digital video formats) should be considered as software. I'm not exactly comfortable with the implications of open-source video will have in the future.:-/
You have no idea how close we came to experiencing a live sailor moon hell!
Thanks to the folks at Saban (yep, the powerranger guys), they created a demo trailer (9.4MB quicktime Movie, zipped) that would make DiC themselves cringe.
My friend, please allow me to direct you to Right Stuf International. Browse the clearance section and pick up a few tapes. You might be surprised how much good anime there really is!;-)
Since when has the philosophy of "Keep It Simple, Stupid" never been good enough?
The problems we see in design today isn't with HTML itself, but with browsers and development tools that have strayed from the standards to individualize themselves.
The only reason flash looks like an attractive alternative to HTML is because there is currently only one company that produces the player needed to view this content. About how long do you suppose that will last?
How about companies like Apple and Microsoft, who's media technologies both contain several interactive elements similar to flash? How long until they enhance these players to play flash content, but with extensions to them to take advantage of each player's additional features?
Eventually you'll have flash movies that will either play in just one player or will play in all of them, but will display differently. Does this not sound familiar to anyone?
The problem isn't with the viewers used to present the content to the end user. It's with the developers of these viewers that try to complicate things more than they should.
There is simply no point in creating a standard that can't be enforced. Unfortunately, until we can figure out a way to do it, this will continue to be a problem that plagues the interactive content medium.
While I do give Blizzard *some* slack regarding their actions leading to bnetd being killed, this will be a costly mistake for them in the long run.
First off, Blizzard needs to realize that not everyone who uses their software is pirating it. By assuming the legitimate users are potential pirates, their actions will probably increase the likelyhood of piracy. (If you're going to be assumed guilty, you may as well commit the crime.)
Next, Blizzard should try to focus more on offering an alternative to bnetd servers for its legitimate users. There is no reason Blizzard can't set up a "pay-to-play" service that would provide access to an uncluttered, high-bandwidth server for a small monthly fee. Blizzard would have no problem getting $9.95/month out of it's more dedicated users in exchange for much-improved online gaming experience. By simply cutting off access to alternate servers without providing legitimate users with an alternative, they are making their games much less desireable.
Finally, Blizzard should be asking its users for input on how battlenet should be improved. If you can give your customers what they want, they'll have no reason to look elsewhere.
Blizzard *does* produce some of the greatest games out there. I, for one, would like to see that continue. But, without the support of it's users, Blizzard will not last long.
"The humans on those planets will not be "us". They will never have had direct contact with Earth, and probably would be quite different from what we consider human unless we provide very strict controls... and hope they work 300 years and some light-years away with no intervention."
Interesting... a race of human clones with an autonomous, mechanical, electronic, digital god to oversee their development.
That would be kinda like the Matrix, but without the luxury of the late 20th century earth fantasy dream land being pumped into each person's brain by a wire.
Of course, if it had the ability to do this wirelessly to surpress free-will, we might be looking at the birth of planet Teletubby. (Hope they send lots of rabbits!);-)
I used to own an MC-10 myself. That 4K limit was a pain for a long time... thank god for the 16K memory expansion!:-P
I also managed got my hands on one of the CoCo 2 systems a few years later. A big silver-grey thing with either 32K or 64K of RAM, a catridge slot and support for a couple high-resolution graphics modes.
An interesting thing to note about these two systems is that you could save a program written on one of them to a tape, and load it into the other one... but, they can't run them. Was kinda sad knowing that none of the programs I wrote for the MC-10 wouldn't run on the CoCo 2.
After that, I moved up to the Apple II+, programmed that for a few years, and finally switched to a Mac. Been brain-dead ever since.:-P
Actually, I *do* program the Mac now, but it's been a slow process. After spending a lot of years in the background programming linear code, breaking into OOP hasn't been easy. Lucky for me that programs like Hypercard and Macromedia Director were around to put me on the right path.
Even to this day I'm still learning. Sure, I may not writing the latest 3D engine for the next hit game, but of the stuff I do create, I do it well.
Just in case you think I'm some old geezer ranting, guess again... I'm a mere 24yrs old. Just been programming since I was 8.;-)
Evolution does not have to be result of a purely natural or biological event..
With the work currently being done in genetic engineering and the potential applications of nano-technology, our next stage of evolution will be to merge ourselves with technology on the cellular and molecular level. I anticipate this will probably occur in about 200 years.
Our bodies' ability to regenerate various tissues and immune systems will be enhanced with the aid of nano-bots, which will travel through our bodies searching for problem areas, and will make repairs where necessary.
These nano-bots could also be used to modify the genes of our reproductive cells to match a specific pattern instead of the randomness we see now. The nano-bots could even become a part of the reproductive process by sharing "code" with foreign nano-bots to create new "child" nano-bots. These child nano-bots would become the primary nano-bots of the fetus itself, while leaving both the mother and father's nano-bots unaffected.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, first read this... taken straight from the page:
In the July 2002 issue of Digital Producer Magazine, Charlie White reported on a head-to-head duel between a single-processor Dell 2.53GHz Pentium® 4 -- the Dell Precision Workstation 340 -- and the fastest Macintosh then available -- a 1GHz dual-processor G4. The contest compared renderings of files created in Adobe® After Effects®, Illustrator®, and Photoshop® software that are typical to the video post-production workflow. The graphs below show some of the results, which were consistent. While the computers used in this study are no longer the fastest in their respective classes, the information is still valid. The PC outperformed the similar Macintosh machine, at an impressive rate.
And this above all the pretty graphs:
Graphics courtesy of DMN - DigitalMediaNet.com
Listen up, dumbasses... this was an article written entirely external of Adobe and most likely was on Adobe's website simply because it was an Adobe product in the press. This has nothing to do with Adobe's own preferences.
Furthermore, you can't take a single set of benchmarks as indesputable proof of anything. Different benchmark tests can get widely different results.
Finally, if you look at the page one directory up, you'll see one of the links that says the following:
Prefer a PC for DV? - See what an industry expert says about PC vs. Mac for digital video editing."
It really has little to do with Adobe's preference for platform and more likely was put there because the sales of the PC versions are trailing behind the Mac versions. Adobe is at it's best when both platforms sell products evenly.
Nope, MOL doesn't run on the Zaurus, but this may be of equal interest.
Check out this shot of Mac OS running on my Zaurus.
While bad feedback can indeed cause a loss of sales to a seller on eBay, I don't think the sellers themselves should be freed of the responsibility to control the situation which landed them the negative feedback in the first place.
First of all, they need to realize they are running a business and that their customers are going to demand a certain level of respect. If you leave negative feedback, your gonna get negative feedback. Furthermore, if you rip off your customers, they will complain... and loudly.
My advice to you sellers... If you are going to hand out feedback about your customers, do so at your own risk and be cautious about it. Unlike how you see it, none of them owe you any favors.
If you do have a bad experience with a customer, be sure to contact them before filing feedback to try and resolve any issues. If that doesn't work, then decide how bad the problem is.
Many situations don't require negative feedback. Unless the customer sent you a check that bounced or forged a money order, don't mark your feedback negative!!! Sure, it's tempting to flame the "Buy It Now" idiots that never pay up, but is it really worth getting negative feedback yourself? Instead, for minor complaints, simply mark it off as neutral and post the complaint. Since neutral feedback doesn't affect the feedback rating, these users are less likely to retaliate... and, you've still gotten your complaint made.
In short, don't let an itchy trigger finger ruin your reputation as a seller. Limit truly negative feedback to the lowlives, con-artists and thieves.
Actually, I've been running the Mac OS on my Sharp Zaurus for a while now. ;-)
What will be real interesting is the potential for a port of Mac-On-Linux on such a device, since the hardware is already natively running on a PowerPC chip.
At any rate, I plan to watch the progress of this device very closely.
I wonder if this could be used to get an increase in speed for running OS X apps without the overhead of the OS X GUI? If it eliminates the eye candy effects, I'd bet it'd be noticeably faster.
John Travolta and Nicholas Cage suddenly unavailable for comments.
Doesn't Logitech lready have that trademarked?
One issue that seems to be a big factor with OS X that many users overlook is file fragmentation. After about a month or two of use, the OS starts to become noticeably slower and slower to most users.
I've been looking at the way things work in OS X and have found that the OS is extremely sloppy in the fact that it does not deal with fragmentation on its own, nor does it provide users with a tool to defragment the drives. The typical new Mac OS X user wouldn't even think about this sort of thing.
To combat the issue, I now keep a custom boot disk handy with a defragging tool on it, so I can keep the system performance optimized.
I'd also like to put to rest any rumors that defragmenting an OS X drive with an OS 9 will render a system unbootable. Not only is this not the case, it's complete foolishness. The HFS+ file system runs exactly the same way regardless of what OS is using it, so unless you do something that modifies the actual data of OS X-specific files, you have no risk of losing OS X.
I wonder if I could patent the process of solving a problem with a solution. ;-)
Now, a more realistic approach would be to a hemispherical display. Merge this with equipment similar to that used to take Quicktime VR panoramic imaged... but only setting everything at the edges of the hemisphere instead of the middle. Then, have a fast computer calculate out the correct "image" to display as a texture for the hemisphere and map it onto it. (Think IMAX, but inverted.)
Unlike a flat surface, a hemisphere would be ideal since the shape does not vary and it can be scaled as needed for the task at hand. With technologies such as OLED displays, which can be shaped to conform almost any surface, this could be a frighteningly real scenario.
A few considerations:
I dig holes
Boy, if these guys fear anti-corpororate users with hacker tendencies, then OpenProjects has to be public enemy #1!
Be careful of those super-intellegent dolphin hackers, man! ;-)
I have a feeling something like this could re-open the debate on whether or not DVDs (or other digital video formats) should be considered as software. I'm not exactly comfortable with the implications of open-source video will have in the future. :-/
You have no idea how close we came to experiencing a live sailor moon hell!
:-P
Thanks to the folks at Saban (yep, the powerranger guys), they created a demo trailer (9.4MB quicktime Movie, zipped) that would make DiC themselves cringe.
This kind of thing should be outlawed!
My friend, please allow me to direct you to Right Stuf International. Browse the clearance section and pick up a few tapes. You might be surprised how much good anime there really is! ;-)
Whoever started this thread, thanks. I needed a laugh right about now. ;-)
Since when has the philosophy of "Keep It Simple, Stupid" never been good enough?
The problems we see in design today isn't with HTML itself, but with browsers and development tools that have strayed from the standards to individualize themselves.
The only reason flash looks like an attractive alternative to HTML is because there is currently only one company that produces the player needed to view this content. About how long do you suppose that will last?
How about companies like Apple and Microsoft, who's media technologies both contain several interactive elements similar to flash? How long until they enhance these players to play flash content, but with extensions to them to take advantage of each player's additional features?
Eventually you'll have flash movies that will either play in just one player or will play in all of them, but will display differently. Does this not sound familiar to anyone?
The problem isn't with the viewers used to present the content to the end user. It's with the developers of these viewers that try to complicate things more than they should.
There is simply no point in creating a standard that can't be enforced. Unfortunately, until we can figure out a way to do it, this will continue to be a problem that plagues the interactive content medium.
Hmmm? ;-)
Next, please!
While I do give Blizzard *some* slack regarding their actions leading to bnetd being killed, this will be a costly mistake for them in the long run.
First off, Blizzard needs to realize that not everyone who uses their software is pirating it. By assuming the legitimate users are potential pirates, their actions will probably increase the likelyhood of piracy. (If you're going to be assumed guilty, you may as well commit the crime.)
Next, Blizzard should try to focus more on offering an alternative to bnetd servers for its legitimate users. There is no reason Blizzard can't set up a "pay-to-play" service that would provide access to an uncluttered, high-bandwidth server for a small monthly fee. Blizzard would have no problem getting $9.95/month out of it's more dedicated users in exchange for much-improved online gaming experience. By simply cutting off access to alternate servers without providing legitimate users with an alternative, they are making their games much less desireable.
Finally, Blizzard should be asking its users for input on how battlenet should be improved. If you can give your customers what they want, they'll have no reason to look elsewhere.
Blizzard *does* produce some of the greatest games out there. I, for one, would like to see that continue. But, without the support of it's users, Blizzard will not last long.
"The humans on those planets will not be "us". They will never have had direct contact with Earth, and probably would be quite different from what we consider human unless we provide very strict controls... and hope they work 300 years and some light-years away with no intervention."
;-)
Interesting... a race of human clones with an autonomous, mechanical, electronic, digital god to oversee their development.
That would be kinda like the Matrix, but without the luxury of the late 20th century earth fantasy dream land being pumped into each person's brain by a wire.
Of course, if it had the ability to do this wirelessly to surpress free-will, we might be looking at the birth of planet Teletubby. (Hope they send lots of rabbits!)
I used to own an MC-10 myself. That 4K limit was a pain for a long time... thank god for the 16K memory expansion! :-P
:-P
;-)
I also managed got my hands on one of the CoCo 2 systems a few years later. A big silver-grey thing with either 32K or 64K of RAM, a catridge slot and support for a couple high-resolution graphics modes.
An interesting thing to note about these two systems is that you could save a program written on one of them to a tape, and load it into the other one... but, they can't run them. Was kinda sad knowing that none of the programs I wrote for the MC-10 wouldn't run on the CoCo 2.
After that, I moved up to the Apple II+, programmed that for a few years, and finally switched to a Mac. Been brain-dead ever since.
Actually, I *do* program the Mac now, but it's been a slow process. After spending a lot of years in the background programming linear code, breaking into OOP hasn't been easy. Lucky for me that programs like Hypercard and Macromedia Director were around to put me on the right path.
Even to this day I'm still learning. Sure, I may not writing the latest 3D engine for the next hit game, but of the stuff I do create, I do it well.
Just in case you think I'm some old geezer ranting, guess again... I'm a mere 24yrs old. Just been programming since I was 8.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Evolution does not have to be result of a purely natural or biological event..
:-)
With the work currently being done in genetic engineering and the potential applications of nano-technology, our next stage of evolution will be to merge ourselves with technology on the cellular and molecular level. I anticipate this will probably occur in about 200 years.
Our bodies' ability to regenerate various tissues and immune systems will be enhanced with the aid of nano-bots, which will travel through our bodies searching for problem areas, and will make repairs where necessary.
These nano-bots could also be used to modify the genes of our reproductive cells to match a specific pattern instead of the randomness we see now. The nano-bots could even become a part of the reproductive process by sharing "code" with foreign nano-bots to create new "child" nano-bots. These child nano-bots would become the primary nano-bots of the fetus itself, while leaving both the mother and father's nano-bots unaffected.
Just a thought though.
Kmart would probably have something to say about that. ;-)