First of all, let's put this in perspective. Take a look at the top right corner of that site: "Windows Network &.NET Magazine".
This spin is almost as amusing as the Redmond claim that "we're not coding anything new for a month so we can concentrate on 'security'". One whole month? Wow.
SecurityFocus now warns that the data upon which these assumptions are based "should not be considered a metric by which an accurate comparison of the vulnerability of one operating system versus another can be made." Yet I don't see an update on the WinInformant site acknowledging this, disputing it, or ANYthing.
If one actually READS the data, Windows came in at #1 for the year 2000, and Microsoft products grab 14 of the top 15 vulnerabilities for 1999.
If my memory serves correctly, Dell's reasoning was along the lines of there wasn't sufficient customer demand to cover the additional costs incurred to continue to offer such choice.
Come on, what part of "is it a coincidence?" don't you understand as opinion/speculation?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it wasn't clear because of the admittedly craptastic formatting job I did on the message. Otherwise, it wasn't stating fact or making representations, and I think that's obvious.
I object to the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v Microsoft Corp, Civil Action No.
98-1232 (CKK)also now referred to as "Track I", and would like to
expressthose objections herein. Under the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. 16(d), the "Tunney Act"), the court is required
to consider public commentary before accepting any settlement.
I should preface my comments by saying
that I am a long-timeuser ofMicrosoft Windows, Internet Explorer,
and Microsoft Office; in fact, I'm using them to research the subject and write
this message.
Everyone can agree that Microsoft isa very successful corporation,
andI amnot against businesses being profitable. Idraw the lineat a
companydemonstrating themselves to
bearrogant and beyond reproach, even bordering on flippant,when faced
with thescrutiny ofthe United
States Department of Justice.Microsoft is this
company.They
haveshowntime andagain, regardless of any
finding or judgment,that they
willcontinue to do as
theyplease.
Although you are
probably familiar with the following points, they illustrate how Microsoft has
shown nointention of acting lawfully:
Microsoft and the Justice Department signed a consent decreein 1994 limiting Microsoft's actions until the
year 2000. Even though later upheld by
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in 1995,Microsoft
essentially ignored it. Result:The
competingNetscapebrowser
is all but gone today,left with a dwindling market share. Consider this alongside a later discovery
thatvarious Microsoft software code had the phrase "Netscape engineers
are weenies!" hidden inside.
Regarding
Case No. 2:96-CV-645 B; Dist. of Utah - Central Div.,
CalderaInc. v Microsoft Corp., the court ruled in 1996
that "Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by
Microsoft." The resulting settlementwas
confidential.
DoJ wanted to fine
Microsoft $1 million a day in 1997 for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows
95, in violation of the consent decree. A preliminary injunction was
issued against Microsoft, who appealed and then offered computer makers old or
"broken" version of Windows 95 without Internet Explorer.
DoJaskedthat Microsoft beheld in contempt for failing to
obey the order.
Which brings
us to 2002. Ostensibly, the purpose of this action is to punish
Microsoft for breaking the law,
andkeep them fromviolating it again.But simply making them sign something, promising
they will no longeroperate
illegally, in no way prevents them from actually doing it, as evidenced above.As stated in
United States v E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co, 366 U.S. 316, 232
(1966), the Court of Appeals said, "The
suit has been a futile exercise if the Government proves a violation but fails
to secure a remedy adequate to address it."
Worse yet,
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is flawed in several ways. The two
items that concern me most are:
The"Findings of Fact 28"
define "middleware" to mean application software that itself presents a set of
APIs which allow users to write new applications, without reference to the
underlying operating system. Yet Definition J defines it in a much more
restrictive way,allowing Microsoft to exclude any software from
being covered by the definition, merely
by changing product version numbers. For example, if the next version of
Internet Explorer were named "7.0.0" instead of "7" or "7.0", it would not be
deemed Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ.
III. A. 2. of the PFJ allows Microsoft to
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing
Operating System(OS) but no
MicrosoftOS. Is it a coincidence that Dell quietly stopped
offering Linux as an operating system choice on its build-to-order systems in
August 2001? If a company of Dell's size can't offer a
competing OS, who can (or will)? This
wouldcurtail consumer choice,since not everyone has the technical
prowess (nor necessarily the time) toinstall a differentoperating
system. This is especially true of users who, for the first time, are
just beginningto use computers and the
Internet.
Before acting on the Proposed Final Judgment, I implore you to
considera fair alternative. The
settlement sought by State of New York, et al., in Civil Action No. 98-1233
(CKK)before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia is a good starting point. The
States' proposal is different from the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many
elements similar to those of the PFJ, with small yet critical
changes.
"Dolby Pro Logic (and it's predecessor, Dolby Surround) are always "synthetic/matrix" formats; created from discreet STEREO (2 channels) of information."
Yep, but I thought that's pretty much what I already said.;)
"The digital signal is a storage medium, and in this context is a single datastream. So, too is an LP record; it contains only 1 continuous groove."
Besides the fact than an LP is an analog medium, the above isn't a good analogy. While an LP does have just one groove, it has walls (the two "sides" of the groove) and varying depth, which are where the left and right channels come from; there is no "encoding" in an LP record, at least not normal ones. Yes, you CAN insert/extract all sorts of stuff using that kind of grooved format (see "RCA VideoDisc" and CED), but now we're talking apples and oranges here.
"If you do not have the AC-3 decoder, you will play back the synthesised version..."
Well, I can't argue with that. You do have to "pass-through" the signal on to a decoder to create discrete channels. But this isn't any different than playing a DVD on my computer. It's one of the items a potential buyer needs to research and become informed of before making a purchase. In my case, the TV has a digital optical (Toslink) output, so not only is it possible, the receiver should be decoding it properly. That having been said... yes, if you just connect your RCA plugs to left and right, of COURSE you're not getting 5.1 channels.
"*Dolby and others describe AC-3 as discreet 5.1 channel sound. Certainly that is the conventional wisdom; but consider the datarate: up to 640kbps. A significant amount of information must be compressed/processed to create 6 channels of information in such a "small" bitstream..."
Well, this is where we get into the Dolby vs DTS vs whatever other "better" schemes there are. So, briefly, a lot of people think (i.e., have been told) that because Dolby Digital is compressed/lossy, it's worse than, for example, DTS. NOT necessarily true. If you compress an MP3 with a decent bitrate and a faithful encoder, I challenge ANYone to hear the difference between source and original, with very few exceptions.
Further, even careful, controlled attempts to "listen" to the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS audio tracks on the same DVD are insufficient. Because DTS is (basically) at a louder level, most people think it "sounds" better.
Just because something appears technically superior doesn't make it so -- some audiophiles believe that ANY digital signal, no matter how high they're sampled, can't compete with analog for sound purity. See also "BetaMax" for examples of technical advantages on paper not making any difference.:P
Anyway, this thread is moving towards being offtopic for HDTV, so I'll just end by saying this: The technology IS impressive, regardless of some of the details in question. It has a lot of potential. If you can afford a set, do your homework first, and you can get one hell of a setup that'll impress even your geekiest friends. If you can't afford it, well, life goes on.:)
Re:Worth it, but there are many caveats
on
To HDTV or Not to HDTV?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's hard to figure out what you are trying to say here; if you're claiming Dolby is inferior to DTS, SDDS, etc, that's not a debate into which I'm going to jump, but I would disagree.
If you're saying that Dolby Digital is some sort of synthetic/matrix decoding, you're incorrect. And if you're saying that AC-3 and Pro Logic are the same thing, you couldn't be more wrong.
Dolby Pro Logic takes two channels, Lt and Rt, and creates four: Left, Right, Center and Surround. So yes, it's synthesized, so to speak, particularly the center channel which can be thought of as the mono component (or the sum), and the single surround channel (played back by one or more speakers), which is the difference between the L and R channels.
Without getting needlessly complex, Pro Logic's passive "difference amplifier" method is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT process than Dolby Digital.
The latter is sometimes referred to as AC-3, and it's a flexible scheme. I CAN agree with you if you're trying to say that Dolby Digital in this context (as used in HDTV) COULD be a watered-down version in SOME cases, because the bitrate and number of channels *can* be tailored to the application. It can be anything from mono to full-scale 6 channel sound (aka 5.1).
But just like the person who complained that one ATSC (HD) channel can be split up into many low-quality channels, that is NOT a technology issue, it's content/provider specific. It's like saying that my cablemodem is a piece of junk simply because a certain website is slow today.
In fact, the digital signal (which is NOT "stereo", as you put it, it's a single low-rate bitstream from 32 to 640kbps) contains information on the original production format: mono, stereo, matrixed or discrete surround. It also enables you to know the program's dynamic range. Furthermore, the LFE channel is created by the mixing engineer, not by the decoder. Last but not least, the surround channels are discrete, and cover the entire audio range.
None of this applies to Pro Logic, much less dbx/MTS.
Almost anyone will appreciate the improved definition of the HDTV broadcasts. The image is just amazing. Many major markets (and some not so major) have at least one network station sending out the HD signal.
FWIW, I was playing with a friend's RCA set last weekend, and was pretty surprised by a couple things I didn't know about:
1) There are sub-channels available. Briefly, we received the high-definition network broadcast itself, then we also got a "standard"-definition transmission of the Red Wings game, and, a standard "weather radar" transmission. These channels were labelled 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 respectively. Kinda neat, if you ask me. Think FM subcarriers...
2) Dolby Digital showed up, which I assume means a discreet 5.1 channels of sound. Beats dbx/MTS any day!
2) While the "standard" TV broadcasts at this rural location suffered badly from ghosting and generally poor signal reception, the HDTV did not, and was basically crystal clear. Supposedly, if you can get the signal at all, this will always be the case.
Now, here are a few warnings before you plop down all that money:
1) If you're wanting to use that HDTV with a DVD player to enjoy the most faithful picture, you should do some homework. Depending on who you ask, you may want a "progressive-scan" player. Honestly, the whole thing is confusing as hell, to me at least: Anamorphic video, 480p, 1080i, line doublers, component video... ugh. There is an excellent FAQ at http://www.nwlink.com/~rxg/hdtv.html which I highly suggest you read, or perhaps news://alt.video.digital-tv if you're a Usenet type.
2) On top of that, some of these HDTV sets actually require you to buy an extra box to receive the hi-def TV broadcasts. Yes, they're *capable* of showing HDTV signals, but they're essentially missing the tuner, kind of like a monitor with no computer.
3) Don't expect DirecTV to beam you those HDTV signals for free, even though the present equipment allegedly supports it. And if you use an emulator/hack, who really knows what works and what doesn't.;)
4) Play with the candidate HDTV set at the store, extensively! Note what options there are for the screen size when it's NOT hi-def. In other words, that big-ass 16:9 tube is probably going to have black or gray bars on either side, which can be annoying. Some models allow you to "stretch" and "fill" which alleviates this effect (somewhat). Furthermore, because of the innate complexity, the menus can be either easy to navigate or a button-pushing free-for-all.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, let's put this in perspective. Take a look at the top right corner of that site: "Windows Network & .NET Magazine".
This spin is almost as amusing as the Redmond claim that "we're not coding anything new for a month so we can concentrate on 'security'". One whole month? Wow.
SecurityFocus now warns that the data upon which these assumptions are based "should not be considered a metric by which an accurate comparison of the vulnerability of one operating system versus another can be made." Yet I don't see an update on the WinInformant site acknowledging this, disputing it, or ANYthing.
If one actually READS the data, Windows came in at #1 for the year 2000, and Microsoft products grab 14 of the top 15 vulnerabilities for 1999.
Come on, what part of "is it a coincidence?" don't you understand as opinion/speculation?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it wasn't clear because of the admittedly craptastic formatting job I did on the message. Otherwise, it wasn't stating fact or making representations, and I think that's obvious.
Damn, I hit submit instead of preview. >:P Well, you get the general idea at least.
I object to the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v Microsoft Corp, Civil Action No.
98-1232 (CKK)also now referred to as "Track I", and would like to
expressthose objections herein. Under the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. 16(d), the "Tunney Act"), the court is required
to consider public commentary before accepting any settlement.
I should preface my comments by saying
that I am a long-timeuser ofMicrosoft Windows, Internet Explorer,
and Microsoft Office; in fact, I'm using them to research the subject and write
this message.
Everyone can agree that Microsoft isa very successful corporation,
andI amnot against businesses being profitable. Idraw the lineat a
companydemonstrating themselves to
bearrogant and beyond reproach, even bordering on flippant,when faced
with thescrutiny ofthe United
States Department of Justice.Microsoft is this
company.They
haveshowntime andagain, regardless of any
finding or judgment,that they
willcontinue to do as
theyplease.
Although you are
probably familiar with the following points, they illustrate how Microsoft has
shown nointention of acting lawfully:
year 2000. Even though later upheld by
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in 1995,Microsoft
essentially ignored it. Result:The
competingNetscapebrowser
is all but gone today,left with a dwindling market share. Consider this alongside a later discovery
thatvarious Microsoft software code had the phrase "Netscape engineers
are weenies!" hidden inside.
Case No. 2:96-CV-645 B; Dist. of Utah - Central Div.,
CalderaInc. v Microsoft Corp., the court ruled in 1996
that "Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by
Microsoft." The resulting settlementwas
confidential.
Microsoft $1 million a day in 1997 for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows
95, in violation of the consent decree. A preliminary injunction was
issued against Microsoft, who appealed and then offered computer makers old or
"broken" version of Windows 95 without Internet Explorer.
DoJaskedthat Microsoft beheld in contempt for failing to
obey the order.
Which brings
us to 2002. Ostensibly, the purpose of this action is to punish
Microsoft for breaking the law,
andkeep them fromviolating it again.But simply making them sign something, promising
they will no longeroperate
illegally, in no way prevents them from actually doing
it, as evidenced above.As stated in
United States v E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co, 366 U.S. 316, 232
(1966), the Court of Appeals said, "The
suit has been a futile exercise if the Government proves a violation but fails
to secure a remedy adequate to address it."
Worse yet,
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is flawed in several ways. The two
items that concern me most are:
define "middleware" to mean application software that itself presents a set of
APIs which allow users to write new applications, without reference to the
underlying operating system. Yet Definition J defines it in a much more
restrictive way,allowing Microsoft to exclude any software from
being covered by the definition, merely
by changing product version numbers. For example, if the next version of
Internet Explorer were named "7.0.0" instead of "7" or "7.0", it would not be
deemed Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ.
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing
Operating System(OS) but no
MicrosoftOS. Is it a coincidence that Dell quietly stopped
offering Linux as an operating system choice on its build-to-order systems in
August 2001? If a company of Dell's size can't offer a
competing OS, who can (or will)? This
wouldcurtail consumer choice,since not everyone has the technical
prowess (nor necessarily the time) toinstall a differentoperating
system. This is especially true of users who, for the first time, are
just beginningto use computers and the
Internet.
Before acting on the Proposed Final Judgment, I implore you to
considera fair alternative. The
settlement sought by State of New York, et al., in Civil Action No. 98-1233
(CKK)before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia is a good starting point. The
States' proposal is different from the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many
elements similar to those of the PFJ, with small yet critical
changes.
Very truly yours,
A couple points...
;)
:P
:)
"Dolby Pro Logic (and it's predecessor, Dolby Surround) are always "synthetic/matrix" formats; created from discreet STEREO (2 channels) of information."
Yep, but I thought that's pretty much what I already said.
"The digital signal is a storage medium, and in this context is a single datastream. So, too is an LP record; it contains only 1 continuous groove."
Besides the fact than an LP is an analog medium, the above isn't a good analogy. While an LP does have just one groove, it has walls (the two "sides" of the groove) and varying depth, which are where the left and right channels come from; there is no "encoding" in an LP record, at least not normal ones. Yes, you CAN insert/extract all sorts of stuff using that kind of grooved format (see "RCA VideoDisc" and CED), but now we're talking apples and oranges here.
"If you do not have the AC-3 decoder, you will play back the synthesised version..."
Well, I can't argue with that. You do have to "pass-through" the signal on to a decoder to create discrete channels. But this isn't any different than playing a DVD on my computer. It's one of the items a potential buyer needs to research and become informed of before making a purchase. In my case, the TV has a digital optical (Toslink) output, so not only is it possible, the receiver should be decoding it properly. That having been said... yes, if you just connect your RCA plugs to left and right, of COURSE you're not getting 5.1 channels.
"*Dolby and others describe AC-3 as discreet 5.1 channel sound. Certainly that is the conventional wisdom; but consider the datarate: up to 640kbps. A significant amount of information must be compressed/processed to create 6 channels of information in such a "small" bitstream..."
Well, this is where we get into the Dolby vs DTS vs whatever other "better" schemes there are. So, briefly, a lot of people think (i.e., have been told) that because Dolby Digital is compressed/lossy, it's worse than, for example, DTS. NOT necessarily true. If you compress an MP3 with a decent bitrate and a faithful encoder, I challenge ANYone to hear the difference between source and original, with very few exceptions.
Further, even careful, controlled attempts to "listen" to the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS audio tracks on the same DVD are insufficient. Because DTS is (basically) at a louder level, most people think it "sounds" better.
Just because something appears technically superior doesn't make it so -- some audiophiles believe that ANY digital signal, no matter how high they're sampled, can't compete with analog for sound purity. See also "BetaMax" for examples of technical advantages on paper not making any difference.
Anyway, this thread is moving towards being offtopic for HDTV, so I'll just end by saying this: The technology IS impressive, regardless of some of the details in question. It has a lot of potential. If you can afford a set, do your homework first, and you can get one hell of a setup that'll impress even your geekiest friends. If you can't afford it, well, life goes on.
It's hard to figure out what you are trying to say here; if you're claiming Dolby is inferior to DTS, SDDS, etc, that's not a debate into which I'm going to jump, but I would disagree.
If you're saying that Dolby Digital is some sort of synthetic/matrix decoding, you're incorrect. And if you're saying that AC-3 and Pro Logic are the same thing, you couldn't be more wrong.
Dolby Pro Logic takes two channels, Lt and Rt, and creates four: Left, Right, Center and Surround. So yes, it's synthesized, so to speak, particularly the center channel which can be thought of as the mono component (or the sum), and the single surround channel (played back by one or more speakers), which is the difference between the L and R channels.
Without getting needlessly complex, Pro Logic's passive "difference amplifier" method is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT process than Dolby Digital.
The latter is sometimes referred to as AC-3, and it's a flexible scheme. I CAN agree with you if you're trying to say that Dolby Digital in this context (as used in HDTV) COULD be a watered-down version in SOME cases, because the bitrate and number of channels *can* be tailored to the application. It can be anything from mono to full-scale 6 channel sound (aka 5.1).
But just like the person who complained that one ATSC (HD) channel can be split up into many low-quality channels, that is NOT a technology issue, it's content/provider specific. It's like saying that my cablemodem is a piece of junk simply because a certain website is slow today.
In fact, the digital signal (which is NOT "stereo", as you put it, it's a single low-rate bitstream from 32 to 640kbps) contains information on the original production format: mono, stereo, matrixed or discrete surround. It also enables you to know the program's dynamic range. Furthermore, the LFE channel is created by the mixing engineer, not by the decoder. Last but not least, the surround channels are discrete, and cover the entire audio range.
None of this applies to Pro Logic, much less dbx/MTS.
Almost anyone will appreciate the improved definition of the HDTV broadcasts. The image is just amazing. Many major markets (and some not so major) have at least one network station sending out the HD signal.
;)
FWIW, I was playing with a friend's RCA set last weekend, and was pretty surprised by a couple things I didn't know about:
1) There are sub-channels available. Briefly, we received the high-definition network broadcast itself, then we also got a "standard"-definition transmission of the Red Wings game, and, a standard "weather radar" transmission. These channels were labelled 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 respectively. Kinda neat, if you ask me. Think FM subcarriers...
2) Dolby Digital showed up, which I assume means a discreet 5.1 channels of sound. Beats dbx/MTS any day!
2) While the "standard" TV broadcasts at this rural location suffered badly from ghosting and generally poor signal reception, the HDTV did not, and was basically crystal clear. Supposedly, if you can get the signal at all, this will always be the case.
Now, here are a few warnings before you plop down all that money:
1) If you're wanting to use that HDTV with a DVD player to enjoy the most faithful picture, you should do some homework. Depending on who you ask, you may want a "progressive-scan" player. Honestly, the whole thing is confusing as hell, to me at least: Anamorphic video, 480p, 1080i, line doublers, component video... ugh. There is an excellent FAQ at http://www.nwlink.com/~rxg/hdtv.html which I highly suggest you read, or perhaps news://alt.video.digital-tv if you're a Usenet type.
2) On top of that, some of these HDTV sets actually require you to buy an extra box to receive the hi-def TV broadcasts. Yes, they're *capable* of showing HDTV signals, but they're essentially missing the tuner, kind of like a monitor with no computer.
3) Don't expect DirecTV to beam you those HDTV signals for free, even though the present equipment allegedly supports it. And if you use an emulator/hack, who really knows what works and what doesn't.
4) Play with the candidate HDTV set at the store, extensively! Note what options there are for the screen size when it's NOT hi-def. In other words, that big-ass 16:9 tube is probably going to have black or gray bars on either side, which can be annoying. Some models allow you to "stretch" and "fill" which alleviates this effect (somewhat). Furthermore, because of the innate complexity, the menus can be either easy to navigate or a button-pushing free-for-all.
-- LunarFox (nee' LunarQT)