From what's been going around, this is almost correct. The 200 MHz bus is useful though in the following way.
Even if you talk to memory at 100 MHz (due to memory manufacturer limitations), you still have 1/2 your bus free to talk to the rest of the system, such as the PCI/AGP cards. So while a PIII or similar processor can only burst to memory, a K7 in theory should be able to transfer data across AGP at 66 MHz while talking to memory at 100 MHz.
None of this has been verified, but its the assumption being made.
There's also the possibility that you'll have to install memory in pairs and then it'll interleave them to get 200-MHz memory performance. This seems reasonable, but only time will tell.
According to this article a company called Poseidon Technology is working on an up to 8-way K7 chipset. I submitted this article to Slashdot a while back, but it never got posted. Oh well.
You're telling me. Even if we were to assume that Linux and NT take the same time to boot n equally configured systems (which I find to be untrue, but let's assume), why is it that changing a NIC's default gateway requires a reboot in NT? Even changing an IP address brings up the "Do you want to restart now?" though you can ignore it.
I disagree with this sentiment because one of the main reasons MP3's haven't taken off is the lack of rack components. If it was as simple as placing a CD full of MP3's into a player in your stereo system, you'd see it much more popular with the so called "computer illiterate".
I've personally created such a device and brought it to a party. It played 1 disk for the entire duration of the party and I had to explain to plenty of non computer people what it was. Each of them was very interested in the concept of MP3's.
I agree quality isn't there for the audiophiles (though I believe in ripping tracks from CD's at 256k datarate at the least...you can still fit many hours of songs on a CDR), but then again the same audiophiles also still have vinyl. I don't think the aim of any new technology in the music industry, be it CDs or MP3s is to replace completely high end equipment. There will always be specialized equipment available for those people.
However, MP3's can also support much higher data rates and as DVD-RAM drives catch on (let's hope anyway), you'll be able to fit many more "high-quality" MP3's on a disk. Sure it's a tradeoff for playing time, but once you get to 5 hours or so, there's a limit to how much more you need per disk.
You think privacy concerns are a problem now...just wait until MS embeds a tracking device into each wearable. It wouldn't surprise me if WinCE devices already had some sort of privacy infringement.
I'm a Palm Developer (Star Pilot mainly). At one point, MS contacted me via email (a real person even, not just a mailing list) and asked if they provided free SDK's and tools for developers would I be interested. I said sure and never heard anything from them again...
Actually this is already available (in beta at least) with On Demand Producer and Media Player 6.0. I've played with it for video files and it is pretty good. It uses Mpeg v4 compression and just calls it a.asf file (whatever). It does support audio only and seems to work pretty well for that, but it seems to me that it's just an implementation of Mpeg v4 which is unsurprisingly better than v3. Of course MS probably corrupted it in some way shape or form.
First off, Intel offered a DOS/Win software fix that was to allow you to turn it off (I think it ran in autoexec or something equivilent for NT or whatnot). This is get-around-able due to ActiveX and other wonderful Windows "features". The gist of at least one of these is that it reboots the system and somehow or other grabs the ID before the Intel patch can be run.
There is a Linux kernel patch to disable the ID, and to my knowledge it is not possible to re-enable the ID while running Linux while that patch is in place (other than recompile/reboot of course).
Some motherboard manufacturers offer the ability to turn it off in hardware, but I don't know if this is able to be changed or not (again likely through ActiveX exploits, etc).
I get this mental image of a bunch of Cisco employees standing around a computer cheering as a packet gets sent from the NIC, encouraging it to make it all the way to a router.
As far as x86 chips go. AMD/Cyrix do indeed have a CPUID instruction that identifies them as "Authentic AMD K6..." or " Cyrix M2" but not a unique serial # like the PIII's.
AMD is reportedly considering it for the K7, but the K6, K6-2, K6-III, and all Cyrix chips do not have one as of yet.
A news.com article about yet another hack to get the PIII ID even when it's disabled. This one uses an ActiveX control to crash your system, then grabs it on reboot (is it just me or does anyone else think that ActiveX controls are getting out of hand).
I setup a small Linux box to interface to my PalmPilot (via Serial port). Pop a CD in, control it from the Pilot, output to a stereo (it's in the same room as that), yay, 5 hours of music at a pop.
The AMD 5x86 was not a "piece of crap". It was a chip designed to be cheaper than a P5-75 and about the same performance on a 486 board. My dad ran one for about 2 years until he got a K6-2. It served his needs until his needs grew.
I also use a 5x86 as my Linux gateway to the Internet at home (IP Masquerade box) and web proxy. It's grossly OVERPOWERED for that task mostly due to the amazingly slim Linux kernel.
While I don't have an NT 4 box near by, I am sure the system requirements do not state P2-400 minimum (seeing as it was out before or right at the same time as the P2 came to market). Your attitude that people need more and more hardware is fueled primarily by the crap (yes it is crap) that MS has helped to perpetuate. Word uses something like 20% of my K6-2's CPU power when it's sitting idle in the background...come on MS...
You'd seem to be correct. Although the patent implies sending a credit card number via a comptuer or other similar device, it does not actually explicity state that to be the case, so I guess calling up the BBS and giving them your credit card number would be covered. Thanks for the information, I'm glad we've finally come up with something that seems to be prior art.
I'm tired of people misquoting the patents and then other people yelling at them. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but let's analyze the patents a little, shall we?
Abstract from patent US5191573 (filed in 1990, issued in 1993): The present invention is a method for transmitting a desired digital video or audio signal stored on a first memory of a first party to a second memory of a second party. The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party. Additionally, the method comprises the step of then connecting electronically via a telecommunications line the first memory with the second memory such that the desired signal can pass therebetween. Next, there is the step of transmitting the desired digital signal from the first memory with a transmitter in control and in possession of the first party to a receiver having the second memory at a location determined by the second party. The receiver is in possession and in control of the second party. There is also the step of then storing the digital signal in the second memory.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the web was fledgling in 1993 and to my knowledge non-existant in 1990. However, not being an internet user at the time, can anyone tell me a service which offered music for download (and here's the key part) after you paid for it?. People saying that newsgroups or downloading from BBS's are missing the point of the patent completely. The patent does not claim to cover a free music download, merely one where money changes hand and then the audio/video signal is transferred from the server to the client. The only possible problem I see here is the bit about storing it on the client's system. Technically if I use NS, MSIE, lynx, whatever...the 1st party referred to in this patent is not storing the audio/visual signal on the 2nd party's computer per say, but that's a weak point to stand on.
The other patent was filed for in 1996 and issued in 1997 and seems rather redundant to me, and can in my opinion probably be overruled with prior art seeing as I'm sure some company was selling music online for d/l before 1996.
I'm not saying that I like the concept of this patent, but please look at what it's actually saying before you go off on tirades.
I'm tired of people misquoting the patents and then other people yelling at them. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but let's analyze the patents a little, shall we?
Abstract from patent US5191573 (files : The present invention is a method for transmitting a desired digital video or audio signal stored on a first memory of a first party to a second memory of a second party. The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party. Additionally, the method comprises the step of then connecting electronically via a telecommunications line the first memory with the second memory such that the desired signal can pass therebetween. Next, there is the step of transmitting the desired digital signal from the first memory with a transmitter in control and in possession of the first party to a receiver having the second memory at a location determined by the second party. The receiver is in possession and in control of the second party. There is also the step of then storing the digital signal in the second memory.
This has got to be one of the stupidest things the music industry has done. I've used lyrics.ch on numerous occassions to find songs I've heard on the radio and didn't know the name of so I could buy the album....
Slashdot Mirror
From what's been going around, this is almost correct. The 200 MHz bus is useful though in the following way.
Even if you talk to memory at 100 MHz (due to memory manufacturer limitations), you still have 1/2 your bus free to talk to the rest of the system, such as the PCI/AGP cards. So while a PIII or similar processor can only burst to memory, a K7 in theory should be able to transfer data across AGP at 66 MHz while talking to memory at 100 MHz.
None of this has been verified, but its the assumption being made.
There's also the possibility that you'll have to install memory in pairs and then it'll interleave them to get 200-MHz memory performance. This seems reasonable, but only time will tell.
According to this article a company called Poseidon Technology is working on an up to 8-way K7 chipset. I submitted this article to Slashdot a while back, but it never got posted. Oh well.
You're telling me. Even if we were to assume that Linux and NT take the same time to boot n equally configured systems (which I find to be untrue, but let's assume), why is it that changing a NIC's default gateway requires a reboot in NT? Even changing an IP address brings up the "Do you want to restart now?" though you can ignore it.
I disagree with this sentiment because one of the main reasons MP3's haven't taken off is the lack of rack components. If it was as simple as placing a CD full of MP3's into a player in your stereo system, you'd see it much more popular with the so called "computer illiterate".
I've personally created such a device and brought it to a party. It played 1 disk for the entire duration of the party and I had to explain to plenty of non computer people what it was. Each of them was very interested in the concept of MP3's.
I agree quality isn't there for the audiophiles (though I believe in ripping tracks from CD's at 256k datarate at the least...you can still fit many hours of songs on a CDR), but then again the same audiophiles also still have vinyl. I don't think the aim of any new technology in the music industry, be it CDs or MP3s is to replace completely high end equipment. There will always be specialized equipment available for those people.
However, MP3's can also support much higher data rates and as DVD-RAM drives catch on (let's hope anyway), you'll be able to fit many more "high-quality" MP3's on a disk. Sure it's a tradeoff for playing time, but once you get to 5 hours or so, there's a limit to how much more you need per disk.
You think privacy concerns are a problem now...just wait until MS embeds a tracking device into each wearable. It wouldn't surprise me if WinCE devices already had some sort of privacy infringement.
I'm a Palm Developer (Star Pilot mainly). At one point, MS contacted me via email (a real person even, not just a mailing list) and asked if they provided free SDK's and tools for developers would I be interested. I said sure and never heard anything from them again...
Actually this is already available (in beta at least) with On Demand Producer and Media Player 6.0. I've played with it for video files and it is pretty good. It uses Mpeg v4 compression and just calls it a .asf file (whatever). It does support audio only and seems to work pretty well for that, but it seems to me that it's just an implementation of Mpeg v4 which is unsurprisingly better than v3. Of course MS probably corrupted it in some way shape or form.
Making it so you can order the things on the right? As it is now, they're just in a random order.
Ok, there are a few things here.
First off, Intel offered a DOS/Win software fix that was to allow you to turn it off (I think it ran in autoexec or something equivilent for NT or whatnot). This is get-around-able due to ActiveX and other wonderful Windows "features". The gist of at least one of these is that it reboots the system and somehow or other grabs the ID before the Intel patch can be run.
There is a Linux kernel patch to disable the ID, and to my knowledge it is not possible to re-enable the ID while running Linux while that patch is in place (other than recompile/reboot of course).
Some motherboard manufacturers offer the ability to turn it off in hardware, but I don't know if this is able to be changed or not (again likely through ActiveX exploits, etc).
I get this mental image of a bunch of Cisco employees standing around a computer cheering as a packet gets sent from the NIC, encouraging it to make it all the way to a router.
As far as x86 chips go. AMD/Cyrix do indeed have a CPUID instruction that identifies them as "Authentic AMD K6..." or " Cyrix M2" but not a unique serial # like the PIII's.
AMD is reportedly considering it for the K7, but the K6, K6-2, K6-III, and all Cyrix chips do not have one as of yet.
A news.com article about yet another hack to get the PIII ID even when it's disabled. This one uses an ActiveX control to crash your system, then grabs it on reboot (is it just me or does anyone else think that ActiveX controls are getting out of hand).
Been there, done that.
I setup a small Linux box to interface to my PalmPilot (via Serial port). Pop a CD in, control it from the Pilot, output to a stereo (it's in the same room as that), yay, 5 hours of music at a pop.
Typical reactionary response...
The AMD 5x86 was not a "piece of crap". It was a chip designed to be cheaper than a P5-75 and about the same performance on a 486 board. My dad ran one for about 2 years until he got a K6-2. It served his needs until his needs grew.
I also use a 5x86 as my Linux gateway to the Internet at home (IP Masquerade box) and web proxy. It's grossly OVERPOWERED for that task mostly due to the amazingly slim Linux kernel.
While I don't have an NT 4 box near by, I am sure the system requirements do not state P2-400 minimum (seeing as it was out before or right at the same time as the P2 came to market). Your attitude that people need more and more hardware is fueled primarily by the crap (yes it is crap) that MS has helped to perpetuate. Word uses something like 20% of my K6-2's CPU power when it's sitting idle in the background...come on MS...
You'd seem to be correct. Although the patent implies sending a credit card number via a comptuer or other similar device, it does not actually explicity state that to be the case, so I guess calling up the BBS and giving them your credit card number would be covered. Thanks for the information, I'm glad we've finally come up with something that seems to be prior art.
I'm tired of people misquoting the patents and then other people yelling at them. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but let's analyze the patents a little, shall we?
Abstract from patent US5191573 (filed in 1990, issued in 1993): The present invention is a method for transmitting a desired digital video or audio signal stored on a first memory of a first party to a second memory of a second party. The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party. Additionally, the method comprises the step of then connecting electronically via a telecommunications line the first memory with the second memory such that the desired signal can pass therebetween. Next, there is the step of transmitting the desired digital signal from the first memory with a transmitter in control and in possession of the first party to a receiver having the second memory at a location determined by the second party. The receiver is in possession and in control of the second party. There is also the step of then storing the digital signal in the second memory.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the web was fledgling in 1993 and to my knowledge non-existant in 1990. However, not being an internet user at the time, can anyone tell me a service which offered music for download (and here's the key part) after you paid for it?. People saying that newsgroups or downloading from BBS's are missing the point of the patent completely. The patent does not claim to cover a free music download, merely one where money changes hand and then the audio/video signal is transferred from the server to the client. The only possible problem I see here is the bit about storing it on the client's system. Technically if I use NS, MSIE, lynx, whatever...the 1st party referred to in this patent is not storing the audio/visual signal on the 2nd party's computer per say, but that's a weak point to stand on.
The other patent was filed for in 1996 and issued in 1997 and seems rather redundant to me, and can in my opinion probably be overruled with prior art seeing as I'm sure some company was selling music online for d/l before 1996.
I'm not saying that I like the concept of this patent, but please look at what it's actually saying before you go off on tirades.
I'm tired of people misquoting the patents and then other people yelling at them. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but let's analyze the patents a little, shall we?
Abstract from patent US5191573 (files : The present invention is a method for transmitting a desired digital video or audio signal stored on a first memory of a first party to a second memory of a second party. The method comprises the steps of transferring money via a telecommunications line to the first party from the second party. Additionally, the method comprises the step of then connecting electronically via a telecommunications line the first memory with the second memory such that the desired signal can pass therebetween. Next, there is the step of transmitting the desired digital signal from the first memory with a transmitter in control and in possession of the first party to a receiver having the second memory at a location determined by the second party. The receiver is in possession and in control of the second party. There is also the step of then storing the digital signal in the second memory.
A link for non-NYTimes types here
This has got to be one of the stupidest things the music industry has done. I've used lyrics.ch on numerous occassions to find songs I've heard on the radio and didn't know the name of so I could buy the album....
Goes to B5 of course...