that's definitely FYI, and the PPCs were only (very slightly) slower running legacy code, for performance applications like Photoshop the native code was available very quickly.
I wish people would leave it out with "double the Mhz" crap. It really isn't true. I'm a big Mc fan, and a G3-class PowerPc DOES peform better than a PIII clock for clock... by around 25-30%. Seeing as the fastest G3 Apple ever put in a computer was a 700Mhz PPC 750cxe, and that I've seen PIIIs at 1.3Ghz we can see how that comparison pans out. If Apple use a different CPU architecture and are able to produce a product that performs as effectively at it's given task (or more so) than an x86 machine, then what's the problem? PS2s make better games machines than PCs too - doesn't really matter what's going on inside, does it?
"Microsoft hasn't been able to reverse engineer the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field either" Au contraire! I'd argue that MS have been FAR more succesful in the field of reality distotion that Apple. They'v actually managed o convince the majority of computer users/buyers that they somehow need Windows+Office to perform even the simplest WP, DB or spreadsheet task. I work with people who genuinely believe that they need office to make labels. LABELS!
That's a pretty fair summary, excepting the omission of the idea that even IF the Mac was 10% worse in EVERY way than an MS PC, I'd still buy a Mac because Apple have never stated it as an aim to have THEIR software running on every device in the world. I remember Bill G saying something like that - and I've seen him do everything in his power to make it happen.
yeah, TV is definitely wasted on you if you spend your time watching Children's TV like Farscape. Does the Slashdot demographic comprise a majority of kids under the age of 12 now?
why on Earth did SGI get rid of their "speckled granite" monitor and keyboard finish? not to mention their wonderful old "hypercube" logo. such a shame - maybe they'll bring back the logo when they're profitable again.
Here here! I use an MS Intellimouse Explode at work and it's... OK. I find the body too arched, I don't wan't or need either the scroll wheel or the extra 3 buttons (my model has four) and I don't see any purpose in the "tail light". But, it works OK, mine tracks very well on the table top and - although others in my office behave erratically - the click pressure is about right. I've got to say that the MS mouse actually CREAKS if you squeeze it! WTF? My other mouse is an Apple Pro-Mouse, which I REALLY DO infinitely prefer.
as a compressionist, I've been dealing with these questions day to day for YEARS, if only the Slashdot crowd had some inkling how utterly pathetic QuickTime's competitors are, you'd see why all this stuff pisses me off so much. QT is open, enormously well documented, amazingly extensible and versatile, the MPEG standards take different - but equally valid - approach. Microsoft's approach is nothing less than an outright attempt to kill Apple, MPEG and Real by predatory pricing (exactly the same as the Netscape scenario), and it looks like Real WILL eventually die because of it - despite being the only system where streaming is REALLY solid, and despite0 doing innovative things such as licencing audio codecs from Sony and working hard with SMIL integration. And as for Apple "moving into" the DVD market, well I hardly know where to start except to say that ALL of the DVD video and audio tracks that we compress are from QuickTime source movies using the Digital Voodoo 10bit video codec, and PCM audio.
the DivX situation as I understand it is this:- part of MPEG4 is a video codec called "simple profile", which MPEG put out to tender. MS submitted their attempt (MS-MPEG4) which they subsequently rolled into Media Player 6.4, using the MPEG4 name illegally in a fit of pique at having had their codec rejected. This codec promptly escaped from MS' maximum security stockade - OK it was nicked and hacked by the DivX pirates. MS finally gave in to MPEGLA's demands that they stop calling it MPEG4, but not until they'd thoroughly confused everyone about the true nature of their codec's status. Typical underhand shit from MS, typical hacker shit from DivX. DivX now claim their NEW codec is MPEG4 also - just as bogus a claim as MS' was, and people are eating it up just as fast. FWIW, Win Media 7, 8, Real 8, Sorensen Video 3.1, On2 VP3 and 4 and Zygo Video ALL give better encodes at a given data rate than does DivX - and are ALL equally proprietary. There is ONE open standard that IS applicable in low data-rate situations, and that's H.263. If you're into Linux and want a good low-band codec, have a look at 263, and see what it can do - it's quite competitive with the Win Media 7, Real G2, Sorenson Video 2 generation of codecs.
let's get this straight, MPEG4 is NOT a codec in just the same way that QuickTime is NOT a codec. QT already supports the encoding and decoding of media in many different codecs, as well as supporting sprite tracks, text tracks, Flash tracks, chapter points, effects tracks, still images etc etc etc. Apple is aiming to fully incorporate MPEG4 standards into QuickTime (MPEG4 was born out of QT anyway) because QT is GREAT, and MPEG4 will hopefully bring the functionality of QT to a wider audience.
Apple have developed MANY codecs over the years, why the fuck should they give any away for free? Oh, I know, so that some digital video inept Linux retard can copy someone else's Star trek DVDs... now it makes sense.
MPEG4 ENCODING most likely - do you expect Apple's stockholders to pay for YOUR ability to make movies? If it's a valuable feature to you, pay for it. If not, don't.
err... the best format for photos was NEVER GIF. IFF, TGA and TIFF all predate it. I'll agree with everyone that trying to charge on a per-hour basis is ludicrous, and hands the initiative to the idiotic DivX pirates. Apple must be getting well pissed off with MPEGLA.
why post on a subject that you clearly do not understand? The RGB sensors are effectively STACKED, and thus the sample truly coincident. It's very much like having a 3CCD design in a single chip package, and avoids ENTIRELY the Bayer filter image reconstruction phase of the process. This technology is a big advance, make no mistake about that.
how naiive! the medical world is ENTIRELY based on doing experiments on live humans. ALL surgery is experimental to one degree or another - there are no guarantees whatsoever. FWIW, I entirely agree with the vegan morality - as I do with Christian philosophy, if I weren't so lazy and weak I might do better at adhereing to them. Pigs and lambs taste wonderful, but I'll wager a 16 year old human female tastes better still. But I only nibble those...
"let's say pure black is light level 0 and pure white is level 10. now if traditional film can capture the range from 2-8 then digital film captures 3-7, so digital provides less shadow detail and less highlight detail than traditional film." Nope, you're completely wrong here. If the range of brightness in the scene is 0-100, your film camera will give you a linear response from 33-66, whereas your digital might give you linearity from 20-80. The problem with CCDs is that they will hard clip your exposure at the top end, whereas film NEVER will, and sink you into noise at the bottom - just like film will. You can also develop your latent film image in different ways to extract different results (you may do a dilute development to drag extra detail out of the toe of the curve, for example), this option isn't available with CCD images, but other exciting DSP options are. Film's REAL S-shaped response is the key to it's performance, and this is often simulated wth CCD cameras, but for no other reason than "look".
"As such, my dinosaur film camera can give overall MTF numbers comparable to bleeding-edge digital cameras, at a fraction of the cost."
You should know that's just NOT true. If your Pentax lens has 90% modulation transfer at 30cycles/mm, your film 90%, and your film scanner 90%, by the time you get your slide or neg to the SCREEN, you're already down to 73% by the time you're film is ready for production, a digital system can typically give you 10-15% more. I was a real sceptic for a long time (and I definitely feel film is - on balance - just much more beautiful), but the extra penetration that digital cameras give you at USEFUL spatial frequencies is really unarguable. Arguments about high frequency performance is usually completely spurious as it's so difficult to capture high frequency info with a handheld, mechanical focal-plane shutter camera. Your lens might be able to resolve 150cycles/mm, but you'd be doing REALLY well to manage HALF that in a creative photographic context. Digital technology is always pragmatic above all.
"does really every Mac-user shell out several hundred bucks for Photoshop?" Not every, but a surprising number DO. Ask Adobe how many copies of PS for Windows they sell vs. PS for MacOS... I'll save you the trouble, it's approximately the SAME number. Figure that, with Apple owning 5% of the market.
is there ANY purpose in your life? why would anyone spend their time complaining about how expensive computer x isn't EXACTLY the same as inexpensive computer y? KDE is a visual affront and a functional travesty - thank God OSX isn't KDE, and if you want KDE, well JUST USE KDE!
Slashdot Mirror
that's definitely FYI, and the PPCs were only (very slightly) slower running legacy code, for performance applications like Photoshop the native code was available very quickly.
I wish people would leave it out with "double the Mhz" crap. It really isn't true. I'm a big Mc fan, and a G3-class PowerPc DOES peform better than a PIII clock for clock... by around 25-30%. Seeing as the fastest G3 Apple ever put in a computer was a 700Mhz PPC 750cxe, and that I've seen PIIIs at 1.3Ghz we can see how that comparison pans out. If Apple use a different CPU architecture and are able to produce a product that performs as effectively at it's given task (or more so) than an x86 machine, then what's the problem? PS2s make better games machines than PCs too - doesn't really matter what's going on inside, does it?
"Microsoft hasn't been able to reverse engineer the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field either" Au contraire! I'd argue that MS have been FAR more succesful in the field of reality distotion that Apple. They'v actually managed o convince the majority of computer users/buyers that they somehow need Windows+Office to perform even the simplest WP, DB or spreadsheet task. I work with people who genuinely believe that they need office to make labels. LABELS!
That's a pretty fair summary, excepting the omission of the idea that even IF the Mac was 10% worse in EVERY way than an MS PC, I'd still buy a Mac because Apple have never stated it as an aim to have THEIR software running on every device in the world. I remember Bill G saying something like that - and I've seen him do everything in his power to make it happen.
yeah, TV is definitely wasted on you if you spend your time watching Children's TV like Farscape. Does the Slashdot demographic comprise a majority of kids under the age of 12 now?
why on Earth did SGI get rid of their "speckled granite" monitor and keyboard finish? not to mention their wonderful old "hypercube" logo. such a shame - maybe they'll bring back the logo when they're profitable again.
Here here! I use an MS Intellimouse Explode at work and it's... OK. I find the body too arched, I don't wan't or need either the scroll wheel or the extra 3 buttons (my model has four) and I don't see any purpose in the "tail light". But, it works OK, mine tracks very well on the table top and - although others in my office behave erratically - the click pressure is about right. I've got to say that the MS mouse actually CREAKS if you squeeze it! WTF? My other mouse is an Apple Pro-Mouse, which I REALLY DO infinitely prefer.
let's spell it together! (again!) P-E-D-A-N-T
as a compressionist, I've been dealing with these questions day to day for YEARS, if only the Slashdot crowd had some inkling how utterly pathetic QuickTime's competitors are, you'd see why all this stuff pisses me off so much. QT is open, enormously well documented, amazingly extensible and versatile, the MPEG standards take different - but equally valid - approach. Microsoft's approach is nothing less than an outright attempt to kill Apple, MPEG and Real by predatory pricing (exactly the same as the Netscape scenario), and it looks like Real WILL eventually die because of it - despite being the only system where streaming is REALLY solid, and despite0 doing innovative things such as licencing audio codecs from Sony and working hard with SMIL integration. And as for Apple "moving into" the DVD market, well I hardly know where to start except to say that ALL of the DVD video and audio tracks that we compress are from QuickTime source movies using the Digital Voodoo 10bit video codec, and PCM audio.
the DivX situation as I understand it is this:- part of MPEG4 is a video codec called "simple profile", which MPEG put out to tender. MS submitted their attempt (MS-MPEG4) which they subsequently rolled into Media Player 6.4, using the MPEG4 name illegally in a fit of pique at having had their codec rejected. This codec promptly escaped from MS' maximum security stockade - OK it was nicked and hacked by the DivX pirates. MS finally gave in to MPEGLA's demands that they stop calling it MPEG4, but not until they'd thoroughly confused everyone about the true nature of their codec's status. Typical underhand shit from MS, typical hacker shit from DivX. DivX now claim their NEW codec is MPEG4 also - just as bogus a claim as MS' was, and people are eating it up just as fast. FWIW, Win Media 7, 8, Real 8, Sorensen Video 3.1, On2 VP3 and 4 and Zygo Video ALL give better encodes at a given data rate than does DivX - and are ALL equally proprietary. There is ONE open standard that IS applicable in low data-rate situations, and that's H.263. If you're into Linux and want a good low-band codec, have a look at 263, and see what it can do - it's quite competitive with the Win Media 7, Real G2, Sorenson Video 2 generation of codecs.
nice display of ignorance AND cowardice there.
what, blows or sucks? either way you're an idiot - QT is fantastic.
let's get this straight, MPEG4 is NOT a codec in just the same way that QuickTime is NOT a codec. QT already supports the encoding and decoding of media in many different codecs, as well as supporting sprite tracks, text tracks, Flash tracks, chapter points, effects tracks, still images etc etc etc. Apple is aiming to fully incorporate MPEG4 standards into QuickTime (MPEG4 was born out of QT anyway) because QT is GREAT, and MPEG4 will hopefully bring the functionality of QT to a wider audience.
let's spell it together! P-E-D-A-N-T-R-Y
Apple have developed MANY codecs over the years, why the fuck should they give any away for free? Oh, I know, so that some digital video inept Linux retard can copy someone else's Star trek DVDs... now it makes sense.
MPEG4 ENCODING most likely - do you expect Apple's stockholders to pay for YOUR ability to make movies? If it's a valuable feature to you, pay for it. If not, don't.
err... the best format for photos was NEVER GIF. IFF, TGA and TIFF all predate it. I'll agree with everyone that trying to charge on a per-hour basis is ludicrous, and hands the initiative to the idiotic DivX pirates. Apple must be getting well pissed off with MPEGLA.
let's spell it together! R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-E
nice display of ignorance! what tribe are you then, my native American friend? Sioux? Tecumseh?
why post on a subject that you clearly do not understand? The RGB sensors are effectively STACKED, and thus the sample truly coincident. It's very much like having a 3CCD design in a single chip package, and avoids ENTIRELY the Bayer filter image reconstruction phase of the process. This technology is a big advance, make no mistake about that.
how naiive! the medical world is ENTIRELY based on doing experiments on live humans. ALL surgery is experimental to one degree or another - there are no guarantees whatsoever. FWIW, I entirely agree with the vegan morality - as I do with Christian philosophy, if I weren't so lazy and weak I might do better at adhereing to them. Pigs and lambs taste wonderful, but I'll wager a 16 year old human female tastes better still. But I only nibble those...
"let's say pure black is light level 0 and pure white is level 10. now if traditional film can capture the range from 2-8 then digital film captures 3-7, so digital provides less shadow detail and less highlight detail than traditional film." Nope, you're completely wrong here. If the range of brightness in the scene is 0-100, your film camera will give you a linear response from 33-66, whereas your digital might give you linearity from 20-80. The problem with CCDs is that they will hard clip your exposure at the top end, whereas film NEVER will, and sink you into noise at the bottom - just like film will. You can also develop your latent film image in different ways to extract different results (you may do a dilute development to drag extra detail out of the toe of the curve, for example), this option isn't available with CCD images, but other exciting DSP options are. Film's REAL S-shaped response is the key to it's performance, and this is often simulated wth CCD cameras, but for no other reason than "look".
"As such, my dinosaur film camera can give overall MTF numbers comparable to bleeding-edge digital cameras, at a fraction of the cost." You should know that's just NOT true. If your Pentax lens has 90% modulation transfer at 30cycles/mm, your film 90%, and your film scanner 90%, by the time you get your slide or neg to the SCREEN, you're already down to 73% by the time you're film is ready for production, a digital system can typically give you 10-15% more. I was a real sceptic for a long time (and I definitely feel film is - on balance - just much more beautiful), but the extra penetration that digital cameras give you at USEFUL spatial frequencies is really unarguable. Arguments about high frequency performance is usually completely spurious as it's so difficult to capture high frequency info with a handheld, mechanical focal-plane shutter camera. Your lens might be able to resolve 150cycles/mm, but you'd be doing REALLY well to manage HALF that in a creative photographic context. Digital technology is always pragmatic above all.
"does really every Mac-user shell out several hundred bucks for Photoshop?" Not every, but a surprising number DO. Ask Adobe how many copies of PS for Windows they sell vs. PS for MacOS... I'll save you the trouble, it's approximately the SAME number. Figure that, with Apple owning 5% of the market.
is there ANY purpose in your life? why would anyone spend their time complaining about how expensive computer x isn't EXACTLY the same as inexpensive computer y? KDE is a visual affront and a functional travesty - thank God OSX isn't KDE, and if you want KDE, well JUST USE KDE!