And when American soldiers go nuts and abuse prisoners, it's an indictment of the entire American way of life, instead of the actions of "a few soldiers".
If the orders to abuse prisoners came from powers-at-be, then it could be blamed on the administration. And even then, it would be limited to the administration, not to all americans in general. Hell, even the most rapid foaming-at-the-mouth people who complained about the abuse of prisoners never claimed that it was an "indictment of the entire American way of life"
GPU's aren't magic, true. But they are designed to draw graphics from the ground up. CPU's are jack-of-all-trade microprocessors that can do just about everything, but it can't really excel at any of them. Since we have insanely fast microprocessors in our systems who'se sole reason to exist is to draw graphics, why couldn't we use it to.... draw graphics? Why should we use the CPU for that task, espesially since the CPU is busy doing many other things as well? Instead of burdening the CPU with graphics, we should share the workload to the GPU, which can handle graphics alot faster than the CPU could.
Of course the CPU will have to tell the GPU what to draw. And that's not different than it is when you play some 3D-game. Those games run ALOT faster when it's the GPU that does the rendedering, and not the CPU. Besides running faster, it also means that the CPU is free to do other things than worry about displaying pixels on the screen.
Rendering the UI in the GPU does not mean that CPU does not have to do anything related to it. Like it was said, CPU has to tell the GPU what to draw and to where. But that's not different on how things are right now. Doing the rendering in the CPU should considerably lower the strain on the CPU, even if the UI had some new whiz-bang eye-candy in it.
GPU-rendered UI's are the way of the future. And that's the way it should be.
I think the idea of a GPU having a specific opcode for "a window" is a little unlikely. That level of specialization would be spending die space on a feature whose performance is plenty fast already; I doubt it'll happen.
I'm not talking about having specific "window-drawing" transistors in the GPU. In the future UI-elements will be handled as a 3D-elements. They might still be 2D-windows, widgets and buttons but they will be drawn using 3D-hardware. The CPU tells the GPU to draw a window (for example). It does that with vertices and polygons, and the end-result gets textured accordingly. And the GPU would be hardly breaking a sweat while doing that. If they can handle Doom3, handling a UI would not be a problem. They can handle millions of polygons and they can move ALOT of textures around. Using those resources for windowing and UI would be a Good Thing (tm).
I don't really buy the claim that the GPU will be "drawing the UI". I mean, obviously, the GPU is what actually renders the pixels, but someone's still telling it what to do.
right now the CPU does the work. In the future, the CPU will tell the GPU "draw a window here". And I bet that CPU doing all the basic UI-finctions (like it does now) consumes more performance than dedicated GPU doing advanced UI, with CPU just telling it what to do.
I'm aware that the people working on this might not be able to do the other kinds of work we need done... But it's still not much for "news". This stuff doesn't need to be part of X; window managers have been doing it for years.
All those drop-shadows and transparencies we have had untill now have been nothing but ugly hacks. The transparency is not real transparency. Drop-shadows are just hacks. having them in X makes it possible to do it right and with better performance. transparency will be real transparency instead of the "take a screenshot, and display the background image as a background of the term"-kludge, and it will work with other apps besides terms as well. And drop-shadows will be real drop-shadows, instead of crappy hacks. And they will work with ALL WM's, not just that one specific WM that has somekind of drop-shadow hack in it.
I suspect that even a hypothetical perfect use would still use at least some CPU cycles.
And modern CPU's have insane amounts of CPU-cycles at their disposal. Modern CPU's are so powerful that it's kinda ridiculous. How many CPU-cycles do you need to do your work? What do you do for living? I assume it requires massive amounts of CPU-cycles? 3D-rendering?
Most people don't do stuff like that. They run word-processors, browsers, email. you don't need uber-machine for that. Modern computer are ridiculously overpowered for those kinds of applications.
Anyway, I'm well aware that some people like eye-candy. I just wonder whether it's the best thing to be putting a lot of development effort into when the base functionality isn't worked out.
What "base functionality" are you talking about? It has been worked out long time ago as far as X is concerned. Now they are starting to work more on accessibility, features and eye-candy. Just because they work more on eye-candy does not mean that other areas are negletted. Good usability-hackers might not be good eye-candy-hackers, and vice-versa.
The work on eye-candy can and does improve the usability of the product. Right now everything is done by CPU. In the future, drawing of the UI is handled by the GPU, leaving the CPU to do your actual work. And that's the way it should be. And that means that you would have more eye-candy at your disposal. And eye-candy can make your work more pleasant. If it doesn't, feel free to turn that stuff off.
That's a great way to use CPU cycles previously wasted on my actual work!
If done properly, drop-shadow and the like wont eat too much CPU-cycles. what they should use is the GPU, while leaving the CPU do all the other stuff.
And this might come as a shock to you, but you are not forced to enable the drop-shadow or any other eye-candy you now have at your disposal. But there are those (myself included) that have more than enough horsepower in their machines and who are willing to invest some of 'em to eye-candy.
This is why I love Finland. Bundling phones with subscriptions is not allowed here. So that means that I can buy whatever phone I wish, and I can use it with any operator I wish. None of that "If you want to use our service, you have to use this phone"-crap. If I were to change my operator tomorrow, they would only provide me with a new SIM-card. I replace the old SIM with the new SIM and presto: I'm now using the new operators services!
And yes, the phone-calls are cheap here. And the phones aren't THAT expensive.
Answer me this: Why is anything that even remotely resembles Windows automatically a bad thing? Is this just a case of "Windows? It's made by Microsoft. And since Microsoft sucks, Windows suck as well. And since Windows and Microsoft sucks, the Windows UI sucks as well!".
I don't think Gnome looks like Windows. Well, of course it (and KDE as well) shares some common things with Windows. They all have windows. they have a taskbar. They have a start-menu or equivalent. And they all offer integrated system with similar look 'n feel between apps and tools. Are ANY of those things bad things? Why? Just because Windows has them as well?
Why don't you whiners start your own GUI-project. Call it UTIADFWAP, or "UI That Is As Different From Windows As Possible". Make sure that it doesn't look anything like Windows. Maybe then you will be happy. Who cares about usability or consistensy, at least it would be different from Windows! And it seems that many people think that being different from Windows is the primary feature of a Linux/Unix-UI these days!
Some "anything but Windows!"-zealots usually whine about KDE that "it looks too much like Windows". I use KDE at work (occasionally I boot to W2K for a game or two) and XP at work. I don't think KDE and Windows'es look that much alike. Well, the file-dialog is a bit similar, but that's it. And that's not really a bad thing, since I think the Windows file-dialog serves me well. The one in KDE looks somewhat similar, but it's alot better.
Yes, I dislike Microsoft as well. And Windows the OS has it's share of problems. But it's UI is OK on the basic level. Yes, the UI does have problems as well, but luckily KDE (and Gnome I think) fixes those issues.
repeat after me: just because something can be found in Windows does not automatically mean that it's a bad thing.
- A Keyboard. I want to enter data in to that thing. A keyboard is a must. No, I don't want to carry some external keyboard and using a on-screen keyboard / Character recognition is a pain in the ass
- A good screen. Something like 640 x 480
- I don't have WLAN yet, but it's a good think to have in the future.
Am I asking for too much? No I'm not. This thing Has just about everything I want, minus the built-in WLAN.
"which version of windows has more GUI features than the latest KDE or GNOME?"
Without editing files and getting complicated? 95/98/Me/2000/XP/NT 4
Pray tell: what features are there in KDE that require "editing files"? And how exactly is using those features "complicated"? KDE (or Gnome for that matter) provide all the features Windows-UI has, and ALOT more. And I don't have to "edit files" to use them, nor is their usage "compilcated".
You seem to assume that using any of the more advanced features in KDE (or Gnome) is inherintly "complicated", whereas using features in Windows is simple, and therefore Windows wins by default.
How would I use virtual desktop in Windows? I don't. Unless I installed a separate app than gives me primitive implementation of virtual desktops. Why is that "simple" whereas using the built-in feature in KDE would be "compicated"?
Or how about encoding mp3's. In KDE I do that by dragging file around. In Windows I need some third-party app to do the same thing (although it would still be more difficult). Why is it (according to you) "complicated" in KDE, whereas it would me "simple" in Windows?
If I wanted to have even the fraction of the features I have in KDE at my disposal in Windows, I would have to install alot of third-party apps. How exactly is installing and using those third-party apps "simple", whereas using the easy-to-use and built-in features of KDE "complicated"?
Opterons generate less than 100 watts. AFAIK the 100 watt figure is the absolute maximum amount of heat the chip-family will produce, _including upcoming, yet to be announced models_! Actual wattage right now for top-end Opteron is considerably below 100 W
I fail to see how saying something like "I'm emerging this right now" or "it also available in Portage!" is "Gentoo love-fest". I think some of you are just hyper-sensitive when it comes to Gentoo.
uh, Neither Firefox, Gimp or OpenOffice are Gnome-apps! I have often seen that Gnome-folks like to claim that non-Gone apps are Gnome-apps when in reality they are not. I have often seen comments like "Gnome rocks! for example, OpenOffice is alot better than Koffice is!". Too bad OpenOffice is not relate to Gnome in any shape or form and it works just fine in KDE as well.
I kinda like the K-names. They instantly tell me that the app is part of the KDE-desktop. "Evolution" (for example) doesn't really tell me anything about the app.
And I don't see how you can be annoyed by KDE's naiming-scheme, since you don't seem to be a KDE-user in the first place! I'm not annoyed by the quirks in MacOS (for example), since I don't use it.
On my machine the apps start more or less instanteniously. First start-up of the desktop takes about 8-10 seconds. After that, it's 4-5 seconds. Just how fast do you want it to be??? Do you REALLY lose that much productivity if you have to wait for few seconds as the desktop loads? And I bet you are starting and restarting the desktop all the time, so the start-up time of the desktop is absolutely crucial!
Haven't tried prelinking yet, it should make it a bit faster still.
This may come as a shock to you, but you don't have to install everything that come with KDE. Don't want the games? then don't install them! Don't want the educational-apps? Then don't install them! Just because they make them available, does not mean that you are forced to install them! This is not Windows, you CAN choose what is installed on your system!
But if a basic windowsmanager is all you need, then Fluxbox is fine. Me? I want full-blown desktop, and I use KDE. To each on his own.
Yes, 3.3 is faster then 3.2.3 is. It starts up faster, Apps are a bit faster and Konqueror feels smoother (they managed to eliminate alot of redundant redraws of the Konqueror UI when using it).
I don't "waste time" compiling. For example, last evening I noticed that some KDE3.3-packages (kdelibs and kdebase) were available in Portage. So I left it compiling for the night. In the morning it was finished, and I noticed that the rest of the KDE3.3-packages were available as well. So I started compiling those and went to work. It's compiling as we speak.
So, how much time have I "wasted" compiling KDE? If you include the time it took to update the portage cache and enter the commands, about 5 minutes total. I don't waste any time compiling, since it compiles when I wouldn't be using the computer in the first place! When I get back home, I will have fully functional KDE3.3 ready for use.
I'm getting tired of all the Debian-folks whining about Gentoo. Could it be that they are afraid of something? Considering the number of users who have moved from Debian to Gentoo, maybe they should be? I moved from Debian to Gentoo, and I think Debian is a kick-ass distro. I just like Gentoo better. But for some reason it seems that while Gentoo-users often appreciate Debian, Debian-users have this weird urge to flame Gentoo. Are the Debian-users afraid that Gentoo is going to steal their thunder or something?
Guess I've got some downloading to do, eh? Which comes to a gripe - it's a real pain in the arse to download all the seperate files and install them. Sure would be nice if the KDE team wrote an "update" script that would check for updates and optionally download/install them.
MANY of the programs available through open source is fucking terrible and certainly nothing more than a free knockoff of a Windows/etc counterpart (hell wasn't that the entire point of Linux in the first place)?
No. The point of Linux was to write an Unix-like operating-system for x86. Granted, it has grown a bit sine that;).
And I don't have any problems with the apps that are available on Linux. I have W2K on this machine as well, but I rarely boot in to it anymore.
Yes, sure, many commercial applications are buggy and have slow release times but at least they aren't 100% alpha quality with huge disclaimers that they aren't responsible for what happens to your computer when you run them.
Uh, yes they do. Windows EULA specificly says that Microsoft will not be held liable if Windows screws up your system. They basically say "this may or may not work. If it doesn't.... Well, sucks to be you!"
I'm getting sick and tired of people whining about the feature-packed hi-end phones. "But I just want to make phone-calls!". Well boo-fucking-hoo! Go right ahead and buy a basic phone with just the basic features! market is full of them! Put your money where your mouth is and stop whining!
There are lots and lots of phones that offer just the basics when it comes to features. If you don't want all these features, then go ahead and buy something like Nokia 1100 (I bought my non-technological mother that one. Really solid construction, works very well, good reception and it cheap as well!)
Me? I have a Nokia 6600 with just about all the imaginable features. And I do use those features (yes, that includes the web-browser!).
Seriously: It's pointless to whine "But I just want to make phone-calls! I don't need all these features!". In that case: just buy a basic phone! There are lots of those available! just because there are phones that are packed with features, does not mean that you are forced to buy one.
Slashdot Mirror
If the orders to abuse prisoners came from powers-at-be, then it could be blamed on the administration. And even then, it would be limited to the administration, not to all americans in general. Hell, even the most rapid foaming-at-the-mouth people who complained about the abuse of prisoners never claimed that it was an "indictment of the entire American way of life"
GPU's aren't magic, true. But they are designed to draw graphics from the ground up. CPU's are jack-of-all-trade microprocessors that can do just about everything, but it can't really excel at any of them. Since we have insanely fast microprocessors in our systems who'se sole reason to exist is to draw graphics, why couldn't we use it to.... draw graphics? Why should we use the CPU for that task, espesially since the CPU is busy doing many other things as well? Instead of burdening the CPU with graphics, we should share the workload to the GPU, which can handle graphics alot faster than the CPU could.
Of course the CPU will have to tell the GPU what to draw. And that's not different than it is when you play some 3D-game. Those games run ALOT faster when it's the GPU that does the rendedering, and not the CPU. Besides running faster, it also means that the CPU is free to do other things than worry about displaying pixels on the screen.
Rendering the UI in the GPU does not mean that CPU does not have to do anything related to it. Like it was said, CPU has to tell the GPU what to draw and to where. But that's not different on how things are right now. Doing the rendering in the CPU should considerably lower the strain on the CPU, even if the UI had some new whiz-bang eye-candy in it.
GPU-rendered UI's are the way of the future. And that's the way it should be.
Then turn it off. Problem solved.
I'm not talking about having specific "window-drawing" transistors in the GPU. In the future UI-elements will be handled as a 3D-elements. They might still be 2D-windows, widgets and buttons but they will be drawn using 3D-hardware. The CPU tells the GPU to draw a window (for example). It does that with vertices and polygons, and the end-result gets textured accordingly. And the GPU would be hardly breaking a sweat while doing that. If they can handle Doom3, handling a UI would not be a problem. They can handle millions of polygons and they can move ALOT of textures around. Using those resources for windowing and UI would be a Good Thing (tm).
You are talking about actions of few UN peace-keepers, not actions of UN as a whole.
right now the CPU does the work. In the future, the CPU will tell the GPU "draw a window here". And I bet that CPU doing all the basic UI-finctions (like it does now) consumes more performance than dedicated GPU doing advanced UI, with CPU just telling it what to do.
All those drop-shadows and transparencies we have had untill now have been nothing but ugly hacks. The transparency is not real transparency. Drop-shadows are just hacks. having them in X makes it possible to do it right and with better performance. transparency will be real transparency instead of the "take a screenshot, and display the background image as a background of the term"-kludge, and it will work with other apps besides terms as well. And drop-shadows will be real drop-shadows, instead of crappy hacks. And they will work with ALL WM's, not just that one specific WM that has somekind of drop-shadow hack in it.
And modern CPU's have insane amounts of CPU-cycles at their disposal. Modern CPU's are so powerful that it's kinda ridiculous. How many CPU-cycles do you need to do your work? What do you do for living? I assume it requires massive amounts of CPU-cycles? 3D-rendering?
Most people don't do stuff like that. They run word-processors, browsers, email. you don't need uber-machine for that. Modern computer are ridiculously overpowered for those kinds of applications.
What "base functionality" are you talking about? It has been worked out long time ago as far as X is concerned. Now they are starting to work more on accessibility, features and eye-candy. Just because they work more on eye-candy does not mean that other areas are negletted. Good usability-hackers might not be good eye-candy-hackers, and vice-versa.
The work on eye-candy can and does improve the usability of the product. Right now everything is done by CPU. In the future, drawing of the UI is handled by the GPU, leaving the CPU to do your actual work. And that's the way it should be. And that means that you would have more eye-candy at your disposal. And eye-candy can make your work more pleasant. If it doesn't, feel free to turn that stuff off.
If done properly, drop-shadow and the like wont eat too much CPU-cycles. what they should use is the GPU, while leaving the CPU do all the other stuff.
And this might come as a shock to you, but you are not forced to enable the drop-shadow or any other eye-candy you now have at your disposal. But there are those (myself included) that have more than enough horsepower in their machines and who are willing to invest some of 'em to eye-candy.
This is why I love Finland. Bundling phones with subscriptions is not allowed here. So that means that I can buy whatever phone I wish, and I can use it with any operator I wish. None of that "If you want to use our service, you have to use this phone"-crap. If I were to change my operator tomorrow, they would only provide me with a new SIM-card. I replace the old SIM with the new SIM and presto: I'm now using the new operators services!
And yes, the phone-calls are cheap here. And the phones aren't THAT expensive.
Crippled phones? Just say no!
Answer me this: Why is anything that even remotely resembles Windows automatically a bad thing? Is this just a case of "Windows? It's made by Microsoft. And since Microsoft sucks, Windows suck as well. And since Windows and Microsoft sucks, the Windows UI sucks as well!".
I don't think Gnome looks like Windows. Well, of course it (and KDE as well) shares some common things with Windows. They all have windows. they have a taskbar. They have a start-menu or equivalent. And they all offer integrated system with similar look 'n feel between apps and tools. Are ANY of those things bad things? Why? Just because Windows has them as well?
Why don't you whiners start your own GUI-project. Call it UTIADFWAP, or "UI That Is As Different From Windows As Possible". Make sure that it doesn't look anything like Windows. Maybe then you will be happy. Who cares about usability or consistensy, at least it would be different from Windows! And it seems that many people think that being different from Windows is the primary feature of a Linux/Unix-UI these days!
Some "anything but Windows!"-zealots usually whine about KDE that "it looks too much like Windows". I use KDE at work (occasionally I boot to W2K for a game or two) and XP at work. I don't think KDE and Windows'es look that much alike. Well, the file-dialog is a bit similar, but that's it. And that's not really a bad thing, since I think the Windows file-dialog serves me well. The one in KDE looks somewhat similar, but it's alot better.
Yes, I dislike Microsoft as well. And Windows the OS has it's share of problems. But it's UI is OK on the basic level. Yes, the UI does have problems as well, but luckily KDE (and Gnome I think) fixes those issues.
repeat after me: just because something can be found in Windows does not automatically mean that it's a bad thing.
- A Keyboard. I want to enter data in to that thing. A keyboard is a must. No, I don't want to carry some external keyboard and using a on-screen keyboard / Character recognition is a pain in the ass
- A good screen. Something like 640 x 480
- I don't have WLAN yet, but it's a good think to have in the future.
Am I asking for too much? No I'm not. This thing Has just about everything I want, minus the built-in WLAN.
What law was he breaking?
Pray tell: what features are there in KDE that require "editing files"? And how exactly is using those features "complicated"? KDE (or Gnome for that matter) provide all the features Windows-UI has, and ALOT more. And I don't have to "edit files" to use them, nor is their usage "compilcated".
You seem to assume that using any of the more advanced features in KDE (or Gnome) is inherintly "complicated", whereas using features in Windows is simple, and therefore Windows wins by default.
How would I use virtual desktop in Windows? I don't. Unless I installed a separate app than gives me primitive implementation of virtual desktops. Why is that "simple" whereas using the built-in feature in KDE would be "compicated"?
Or how about encoding mp3's. In KDE I do that by dragging file around. In Windows I need some third-party app to do the same thing (although it would still be more difficult). Why is it (according to you) "complicated" in KDE, whereas it would me "simple" in Windows?
If I wanted to have even the fraction of the features I have in KDE at my disposal in Windows, I would have to install alot of third-party apps. How exactly is installing and using those third-party apps "simple", whereas using the easy-to-use and built-in features of KDE "complicated"?
Opterons generate less than 100 watts. AFAIK the 100 watt figure is the absolute maximum amount of heat the chip-family will produce, _including upcoming, yet to be announced models_! Actual wattage right now for top-end Opteron is considerably below 100 W
Well, he did say this:
KDE-libs and maybe KDE-base. But it doesn't need any of the other KDE "crap".
I fail to see how saying something like "I'm emerging this right now" or "it also available in Portage!" is "Gentoo love-fest". I think some of you are just hyper-sensitive when it comes to Gentoo.
uh, Neither Firefox, Gimp or OpenOffice are Gnome-apps! I have often seen that Gnome-folks like to claim that non-Gone apps are Gnome-apps when in reality they are not. I have often seen comments like "Gnome rocks! for example, OpenOffice is alot better than Koffice is!". Too bad OpenOffice is not relate to Gnome in any shape or form and it works just fine in KDE as well.
I kinda like the K-names. They instantly tell me that the app is part of the KDE-desktop. "Evolution" (for example) doesn't really tell me anything about the app.
And I don't see how you can be annoyed by KDE's naiming-scheme, since you don't seem to be a KDE-user in the first place! I'm not annoyed by the quirks in MacOS (for example), since I don't use it.
On my machine the apps start more or less instanteniously. First start-up of the desktop takes about 8-10 seconds. After that, it's 4-5 seconds. Just how fast do you want it to be??? Do you REALLY lose that much productivity if you have to wait for few seconds as the desktop loads? And I bet you are starting and restarting the desktop all the time, so the start-up time of the desktop is absolutely crucial!
Haven't tried prelinking yet, it should make it a bit faster still.
This may come as a shock to you, but you don't have to install everything that come with KDE. Don't want the games? then don't install them! Don't want the educational-apps? Then don't install them! Just because they make them available, does not mean that you are forced to install them! This is not Windows, you CAN choose what is installed on your system!
But if a basic windowsmanager is all you need, then Fluxbox is fine. Me? I want full-blown desktop, and I use KDE. To each on his own.
Yes, 3.3 is faster then 3.2.3 is. It starts up faster, Apps are a bit faster and Konqueror feels smoother (they managed to eliminate alot of redundant redraws of the Konqueror UI when using it).
I don't "waste time" compiling. For example, last evening I noticed that some KDE3.3-packages (kdelibs and kdebase) were available in Portage. So I left it compiling for the night. In the morning it was finished, and I noticed that the rest of the KDE3.3-packages were available as well. So I started compiling those and went to work. It's compiling as we speak.
So, how much time have I "wasted" compiling KDE? If you include the time it took to update the portage cache and enter the commands, about 5 minutes total. I don't waste any time compiling, since it compiles when I wouldn't be using the computer in the first place! When I get back home, I will have fully functional KDE3.3 ready for use.
I'm getting tired of all the Debian-folks whining about Gentoo. Could it be that they are afraid of something? Considering the number of users who have moved from Debian to Gentoo, maybe they should be? I moved from Debian to Gentoo, and I think Debian is a kick-ass distro. I just like Gentoo better. But for some reason it seems that while Gentoo-users often appreciate Debian, Debian-users have this weird urge to flame Gentoo. Are the Debian-users afraid that Gentoo is going to steal their thunder or something?
Yep. But now you can enable/disable through a button in the windowtitle (if you want to)
*cough*
No. The point of Linux was to write an Unix-like operating-system for x86. Granted, it has grown a bit sine that
And I don't have any problems with the apps that are available on Linux. I have W2K on this machine as well, but I rarely boot in to it anymore.
Uh, yes they do. Windows EULA specificly says that Microsoft will not be held liable if Windows screws up your system. They basically say "this may or may not work. If it doesn't.... Well, sucks to be you!"
Buy a Nokia 1100. It has just the basic features.
I'm getting sick and tired of people whining about the feature-packed hi-end phones. "But I just want to make phone-calls!". Well boo-fucking-hoo! Go right ahead and buy a basic phone with just the basic features! market is full of them! Put your money where your mouth is and stop whining!
There are lots and lots of phones that offer just the basics when it comes to features. If you don't want all these features, then go ahead and buy something like Nokia 1100 (I bought my non-technological mother that one. Really solid construction, works very well, good reception and it cheap as well!)
Me? I have a Nokia 6600 with just about all the imaginable features. And I do use those features (yes, that includes the web-browser!).
Seriously: It's pointless to whine "But I just want to make phone-calls! I don't need all these features!". In that case: just buy a basic phone! There are lots of those available! just because there are phones that are packed with features, does not mean that you are forced to buy one.