I seriously hope you're not serious here. Either you're joking or you simply don't have the basic understanding how the world turns.
I agree that it would hurt Microsoft's image in Europe but it would also hurt the EU's image and many politicians would lose their job. Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch.
They can't switch overnight, yes. And most of the government bodies already has licenses they need for the time of switch. They can't stop being valid. So, where would be the problem, they start switching and meanwhile use the already bought software.
They could simply start one (or all) of few good solutions: - calc MS tax per year (which now stays in EU, meaning financial state for EU is much better than paying MS tax) and fund moving of the software on other OS (most effective in financial and time). Just to point you the fact, funding one exchange replacement would be cheap (all it needs is one migration tool for current customers). OO.o? Just fund the features they need. etc... - simply start using ODF and such as official documents. With this people would be forced to move. (not so friendly way, but effective) - start project of data certification and unification. where the only thing that would be enforced are open formats. (not unfriendly, timely effective and without any problem)
On the other hand, all they need to do is to declare that they won't prosecute users of MS software. You know, MS has illegal practices and as such won't be able to do anything against this fact until they pay their fine and start playing by the rules set for them. You know the fact that if MS wants to prosecute some illegal user of their software they have to go trough the local chanels, don't you?:)
These offices pay in the form of lobbying particular politicians to office. If the EU's anticompetitive commision grows any balls then heads will roll and people will be fired until it finds employees friendly to Microsoft. Just look at what happened in the US when ms lobbied heavily when it was on trial?
That was in US. MS is paying taxes there (and having as much cash flow as MS, well... imagine how big of a cash cow MS is for US officials, and this was the reason why heads were rolling). For EU it just means wasting money to some foreign country with low margin of tax proffit. No, heads wouldn't roll. There's absolutely no reason. Probably the only EU country affected negatively would be Ireland (all MS software goes trough them), the rest of the countries would be ending with positive numbers (this is, usual - MS tax).
Either way its suicide for the EU and Microsoft just may win. It will have a black eye in the short term but in the long term it will get what it wants by playing chicken.
No:) They can't win (:except maybe in Fairy-tale-land of yours:). All they can is either pay the fine and play by the rules (maybe even playing by the rules would be enough) or face the switch on OSS in a market consisting of 470 million people.
Major trouble here for US is loosing such large market. Suddenly market is covered with OSS solutions. Software companies have to compete against OSS (where OSS is taken as favoured). Now, who do you think would loose this battle and who would be the looser here?
Now you look from here on Let's say EU moved on OSS. Could Adobe ignore the market of 470mio? No. Could Autodesk? No. They would simply start doing bussines as usual (they are doing it for money, and market of 470mio means a lot of money), but MS would loose most of the reasons why Windows differ from others. And if Adobe and Autodesk couldn't resist not to go with the flow, how do you think smaller software companies could?
Stop selling products in Europe. Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe. Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.
From your mouth to bills ears. I might even kiss you if you succed. It would mean that plague of 21st century has finaly ended in EU.
But on a more serious tone. EU could simply just answer with pro-OSS movement and not prosecute users of illegal MS software. MS would gain nothing with this fact, loose only
How comes then the first the world hears of AIGLX was on OSNews, but I've been reading about XGL on the Xorg mailing lists and development forums for literally years.
Lucky for us that world doesn't depend on your knowing. http://anholt.livejournal.com/29633.html From blog "For the last 2 days, I've been here in Santa Clara for XDevConf. It's been a good time -- three straight days of everybody talking about the exciting things going on in the X world, and nights of fun and hacking. David Reveman showed off the shiniest bling I've seen on any OS yet, using Xgl and his new "compiz" compmgr/wm. That GL ninja, krh, showed off the accelerated indirect rendering work he's cranked out in the last month or so (for reference, A.I.R. has been on the TODO since DRI was first created what, 5 years ago?). Dave Airlie talked about all the horrible brokenness with drivers, and ajax talked about all the horrible brokenness in X configuration. These talks are a good motivation to go fix broken junk."
A.I.R. stands for accelerated indirect rendering, meaning plans were there, but nobody implemented it.
Additionally, the fact that you think that the manufacturing cost would translate to a $5000 MSRP is ludicrous, and shows that you have no real perspective on how thin the margins on CPUs actually is.
Can't read? RETAIL PRICE. I specified end-user retail price hwen buying as a customer.
manufacturing cost != MSRP
Yep, and that is why you're twisting my comment? See up.
AFAIK, the cost of the "chip" on $120 Nvidia budget cards is $58.
Notice the fact that Sony half owns RSX.
7. And you can't apparently can't write down numbers with the decimal in the right place; who to believe... *sigh*
How is the fact that Sony has already paid the research relevant for the fact that they want/need return on that investment?
Sony is a company? Out to make profit? Why would they provide charity to IBM and not demand their rights?
Cell R&D was long term investment in Sony and not even near PS3 exclusive. One holding part of IPs and such mass order has special privileges in bussines. And since it was co-developed, I seriously doubt that IBM could name just any price right before release. All these are long term planned contracts, planned long before D-day. So, I doubt that Sony could be surprised with larger price than agreed before, fact is they named $399 not even half year ago.
Buy 1 = price Buy 5 = price - discount Buy 50000000 = discount and a little of price
They obviously can't do simple addition right. Second is, though. Meaning any extra expense is impossible.
and it doesn't come out till 2007 in the US, we're looking at between 6-7 years for the PS2, so why not 9-10 for the PS3. Granted, with how fast Microsoft is moving, Xbox 4 should beat PS4 to the market.
Like now? They beat with release date, so what? Mostly everybody I know is waiting PS3. I don't know single person who bought 360, but I know at least 50 people already waiting in line for the first shipment of PS3 (me included).
And I expect (or at least hope for) some serious revamp of complete gaming tech in 10 years (even before that).
Before answering. The analyst (or all 7 of them) can't even add, not to be taken in question.
Valid cost in their equation is $800, and before mentioning other costs, second is correct which would mean that shipping, etc wuold be $0 in 3 years.
1. I said I'm debunking both not the production price only. And they also speculate on this, how low Sony can get with price. My post is valid 2. Yes it is. Otherwise retail price of Cell (considering all benefits Sony has) for retail would get to about $5000 per CPU. Take to the fact that Cell is planned for DVDs, TVs, phones too. 3. See 2 4. Meaning in translation, Sony is stupid in your eyes 5. See 2 6. Obviously you don't have a clue. Graphic card with some chip is a often lot more expensive than complete motherboard with the same cheap on-board. Check prices on net. I think you can find prices for NVidia chips licensed to manufacturers. You'll be surprised 7. Analysts in question can't do simple addition. Which is way of equation needed for this calculation. Hope you weren't planing gettting those analysts to do your taxes
Yep, and I forgot the rent which Sony bills Sony for PS3 too:) With the fact that Kuturagi personaly will be forced to feed Kuturagis dog in the name of PS3 free ride.
You're guilty of the same thing. You don't state why their numbers are not believable, nor how you arrive at your $500 estimate, nor the reasoning for how it would be easy for them to cut the price by 40% quickly.
Ok, here are the reasons (a no-brainer as simple as 1+1) for both why price will probably still be $399 and why Sony costs won't go over $550: 1. Money is in games not consoles 2. Having mass contract like PS3 (where sony owns part of IP, co-financed R&D) means a lot lower price than that analyst can get in retailer shop 3. Almost all other components are in-house. Again, Sony won't sell to it self at retail price. 4. Sony already spent a lot of money on Cell and PS3 R&D. Having ludicrous price on start would probably mean the same as burning that money in fire. 5. There are only two expensive elements on that pricelist. CPU and BR. BR is in-house made (CPU in pt. 2). 6. As for RSX, check at what prices NVidia licenses their chips to manufacturers. Way, way below 70$. Again (Sony owns part of IP and co-financed R&D) 7. Cell in PS3 will be 7SPU, not 8SPU (meaning one can simply be defective or not). Meaning cheaper Cell for PS3 and complete products for higher end applications.
I was under the impression that BlueRay was supposed to cost $350 when Joe Sixpack went to pick one up at Wal-Mart. Sony's not going to have to pay that.
Didn't you hear that on the news? Sony will start reselling parts to Sony at the retail price:) Analysts sometimes are funny or stupid. This one is both.
Except the fact that Sony probably isn't stupid and planed this term a little longer.
It is a no brainer that if PS3 fails, those 2-3 billion are lost. Normal logic would say it is better to have longer period of returning funds than going for a 50-50 game. And even (for example number of Macs sold) very low average of 5 million of consoles sold in one year, would give a lot of money back with games (I don't know for others, but in one year I buy 15-20 games. All my friends buy more than that. But then again some buy none. Taken out the fact that downloading of the game on BR will be ludicrously long, more people will buy originals). Lifecycle of PS3 is 5 years. Meaning, with Mac average they would probably return money invested with some earnings.
You take being a Sony fanboy to a whole new level. If you're willing to pay up to $1000.00 for a gaming console you have some serious issues
And in other waters of PC, people make almost same kind of expensive graphics only upgrades. Few of my friends who are avid gamers at least once a year upgrade their graphics card for at least $500 or more. And they don't use computer for anything else.
I would be willing to go $1000 too, easily. PS2 was just too good experience for me. On the other hand, no, I'm not prepared to pay much lower price for XBox360 (even the current one)
If it costs even remotely close to $900.00 there will be close to zero games for it because it simply won't be worth developing for since the target market will be so incredibly small. Barely anybody is going to be willing to pay $900.00 for a console.
It won't be $900, that's for sure. It even sounds kinda fishy. IBM wouldn't put price $320 on Cell (which was designed for consoles from the begining, and the fact that PS3 includes Cell with 7 SPEs only, leaving fully workable Cells for higher end computers) for such wide deployment, market just doesn't work like that. And the fact that Sony has almost complete PS3 in-house made makes difference too. MS on the other hands depends on different vendors.
And the fact that most of the Cell cost is already in the past. Sony payed quite a lot for research there.
DRM? Actualy there's no need for additional ones. Author named 10 reasons against already.
1. Security, security, security Every OS had that department better than Windows. 2. Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover Yeah, so why do I use FF then? 3. Righteous eye candy: For the first time, Microsoft is building high-end graphics effects into Windows Again lagging behind others. 4. Desktop search And in every other OS, it is nothing less than memory hog. I disabled it everywhere so far, even Longhorn builds, which are no better. 5. Better updates Old ones, (pre XP, sucked major. In XP you have to disable this if you use Limited User. System just hangs on Updating... on Shutdown). And you have to update software separately from OS. BWAAAAH! 6. More media But still supporting near zero codecs by default. 7. Parental controls Can be avoided with any other browser, where is the point? 8. Better backups What? Now backup will actualy work? No more buying expensive backup software? - Microsoft also tweaked the useful System Restore feature--which takes snapshots of your system state so you can recover from a nasty infection or botched software installation. Usefull System Restore? That should probably tell everything about author. He's an idiot. Only thing working with system restore were viruses. When I actualy needed it once it didn't work. 9. Peer-to-peer collaboration Author just forgot to mention it is only MSOffice related. 10. Quick setup Yeah, but still you need to install every god damn driver separately. CD Install was about 10% of actual instalation, not more.
It would be silly to avoid the Core Duo in favor of the Turion just for the pointless excursion of 64-bit.
It would be silly to preach now when Turion dual core is almost here in a month or two.
As someone else here also mentioned, all the people I know who were running 64-bit Windows gave up and now run the 32-bit version. Guess what, it's faster for them and runs better. There is little inherently better about a 64-bit chip since its performance gains are offset by its negative qualities (pointer size, cache bloat), especially if the 32-bit code is optimized for SSE as 64-bit apps often are.
Yep (in your case, you're 100% correct), running 32-bit apps in 64-bit environment does that. I noticed that too, testing Windows. Regressions everywhere. After testing first 64-bit Linux on Opteron, well,... no more Intel or 32-bit for me.
Intel got just too much of bad reputation for my taste in last two years, so it will probably need at least four very good years (or at least better than AMD) to convince me otherwise.
Conclusion: If Budha takes a shit,... well,... it doest taste like cake and it still smells like shit.
Better quesion here is what they want to do with that legislation. Decrease unempolyment rate? Even now US courts are full of patent cases and can't handle the load. With this one,.... well court buildings construction would impose higher demand, clerks, judges, lawyers etc. You could probably employ most of the currently unemployed. Other unemployed could just start new job, litigation without sense.
Off course, US major bussines would move from production and sale to litigation.
Conclusion: Damn, sounds like SCO will sue US for infringing their intelectual property.
huh, you forgot to say dog slow. Just last year I installed MSSQL on my Linux machine and I'm still waiting for the first record in query result.
p.s. Off course real translation of my sarcasm should say, MSSQL is the only non-portable solution from named databases, which is one major thing you forgot
On the other hand, it is a joke killer. Star trek producers would probably sue IBM if this would go mainstream. Nobody will laugh in the scene where Scoty talks to PC mouse anymore. IBM would ruin their best scene ever
Now, if they could make my computer make coffe and a beautifull babe ready to do anything out of nothing,... that would be something. It is something I would be proud to call progress.
You obviously missed two points. Do at least a little RTFA before posting BS.
1. The slimy mass in your ass aren't brains. And as such unusable for thinking. Here's one more pointer, dick is not correct organ for thinking either. 2. it has nothing to do with patriotism, nothint with anti-MS, nothing with anti-US. It is ment to level the playing field between OSS and MS, where both can coexist and freely cooperate.
EU has never demanded source code. Only freely available protocol SPECS without license restrictions. MS just provided unusable specs and then after source code for fee, including the fact that not even one OSS developer can look at it and taint him self permanently.
Meaning MS did provided MORE (about protocols) than requested, but not WHAT it was requested (LESS, SPECS only, but without license BS). State with both MS actions has not improved not even for 0.0000001% in OSS case. And leveling the field is the only thing EU is concerned.
EU wants open SPECS, not source code for fee. MS completely missed the request.
Can somebody please mod article as TROLL? Poster of this article is obviously using wrong organ to think.
As it was posted sounds like: Even source code is not enough for EU, they just want to go on all-out-MS-war, while in reality EU only demands freely accessible readable SPECS.
There was request for readable and freely accesible SPECS, not for source code.
1. Specs MS provided at first were not readable. 2. MS decided to provide code for fee under licence which completely obstructs any way to cooperate with most OSS licenses. Original intention EU was demanded for this one sole purpose which levels the playing field between OSS and MS.
p.s. C'mon/. Is it not enough for first poster to be trolls in 99.999% ? Now even article posters are competing for "first post" troll?
Intel is seriously droping out of being serious contestant in current technology for quite some time now. It's just like droping a ball to get it back in one of the next few seasons, hopefully other team will remember your showing of good will, act then just as you did now and now fight back. Yeah, right.
Slashdot Mirror
I seriously hope you're not serious here. Either you're joking or you simply don't have the basic understanding how the world turns.
:)
I agree that it would hurt Microsoft's image in Europe but it would also hurt the EU's image and many politicians would lose their job. Offices need Microsoft and have proprietary formats for data from win32 specific apps. THey can't just switch.
They can't switch overnight, yes. And most of the government bodies already has licenses they need for the time of switch. They can't stop being valid. So, where would be the problem, they start switching and meanwhile use the already bought software.
They could simply start one (or all) of few good solutions:
- calc MS tax per year (which now stays in EU, meaning financial state for EU is much better than paying MS tax) and fund moving of the software on other OS (most effective in financial and time). Just to point you the fact, funding one exchange replacement would be cheap (all it needs is one migration tool for current customers). OO.o? Just fund the features they need. etc...
- simply start using ODF and such as official documents. With this people would be forced to move. (not so friendly way, but effective)
- start project of data certification and unification. where the only thing that would be enforced are open formats. (not unfriendly, timely effective and without any problem)
On the other hand, all they need to do is to declare that they won't prosecute users of MS software. You know, MS has illegal practices and as such won't be able to do anything against this fact until they pay their fine and start playing by the rules set for them. You know the fact that if MS wants to prosecute some illegal user of their software they have to go trough the local chanels, don't you?
These offices pay in the form of lobbying particular politicians to office. If the EU's anticompetitive commision grows any balls then heads will roll and people will be fired until it finds employees friendly to Microsoft. Just look at what happened in the US when ms lobbied heavily when it was on trial?
That was in US. MS is paying taxes there (and having as much cash flow as MS, well... imagine how big of a cash cow MS is for US officials, and this was the reason why heads were rolling). For EU it just means wasting money to some foreign country with low margin of tax proffit. No, heads wouldn't roll. There's absolutely no reason. Probably the only EU country affected negatively would be Ireland (all MS software goes trough them), the rest of the countries would be ending with positive numbers (this is, usual - MS tax).
Either way its suicide for the EU and Microsoft just may win. It will have a black eye in the short term but in the long term it will get what it wants by playing chicken.
No:) They can't win (:except maybe in Fairy-tale-land of yours:). All they can is either pay the fine and play by the rules (maybe even playing by the rules would be enough) or face the switch on OSS in a market consisting of 470 million people.
Major trouble here for US is loosing such large market. Suddenly market is covered with OSS solutions. Software companies have to compete against OSS (where OSS is taken as favoured). Now, who do you think would loose this battle and who would be the looser here?
Now you look from here on
Let's say EU moved on OSS. Could Adobe ignore the market of 470mio? No. Could Autodesk? No. They would simply start doing bussines as usual (they are doing it for money, and market of 470mio means a lot of money), but MS would loose most of the reasons why Windows differ from others.
And if Adobe and Autodesk couldn't resist not to go with the flow, how do you think smaller software companies could?
Stop selling products in Europe.
Deny tech support to companies/users in Europe.
Buy advertising stating why they're pulling out of the market.
From your mouth to bills ears. I might even kiss you if you succed. It would mean that plague of 21st century has finaly ended in EU.
But on a more serious tone.
EU could simply just answer with pro-OSS movement and not prosecute users of illegal MS software. MS would gain nothing with this fact, loose only
It portable BSOD device, so you don't get homesick on vacation
How comes then the first the world hears of AIGLX was on OSNews, but I've been reading about XGL on the Xorg mailing lists and development forums for literally years.
Lucky for us that world doesn't depend on your knowing.
http://anholt.livejournal.com/29633.html
From blog
"For the last 2 days, I've been here in Santa Clara for XDevConf. It's been a good time -- three straight days of everybody talking about the exciting things going on in the X world, and nights of fun and hacking. David Reveman showed off the shiniest bling I've seen on any OS yet, using Xgl and his new "compiz" compmgr/wm. That GL ninja, krh, showed off the accelerated indirect rendering work he's cranked out in the last month or so (for reference, A.I.R. has been on the TODO since DRI was first created what, 5 years ago?). Dave Airlie talked about all the horrible brokenness with drivers, and ajax talked about all the horrible brokenness in X configuration. These talks are a good motivation to go fix broken junk."
A.I.R. stands for accelerated indirect rendering, meaning plans were there, but nobody implemented it.
Additionally, the fact that you think that the manufacturing cost would translate to a $5000 MSRP is ludicrous, and shows that you have no real perspective on how thin the margins on CPUs actually is.
... *sigh*
Can't read? RETAIL PRICE. I specified end-user retail price hwen buying as a customer.
manufacturing cost != MSRP
Yep, and that is why you're twisting my comment? See up.
AFAIK, the cost of the "chip" on $120 Nvidia budget cards is $58.
Notice the fact that Sony half owns RSX.
7. And you can't apparently can't write down numbers with the decimal in the right place; who to believe
And I wrote decimals in a wrong place.... where?
How is the fact that Sony has already paid the research relevant for the fact that they want/need return on that investment?
Sony is a company? Out to make profit? Why would they provide charity to IBM and not demand their rights?
Cell R&D was long term investment in Sony and not even near PS3 exclusive. One holding part of IPs and such mass order has special privileges in bussines. And since it was co-developed, I seriously doubt that IBM could name just any price right before release. All these are long term planned contracts, planned long before D-day. So, I doubt that Sony could be surprised with larger price than agreed before, fact is they named $399 not even half year ago.
Buy 1 = price
Buy 5 = price - discount
Buy 50000000 = discount and a little of price
Think about it, if ML is right
They obviously can't do simple addition right. Second is, though. Meaning any extra expense is impossible.
and it doesn't come out till 2007 in the US, we're looking at between 6-7 years for the PS2, so why not 9-10 for the PS3. Granted, with how fast Microsoft is moving, Xbox 4 should beat PS4 to the market.
Like now? They beat with release date, so what? Mostly everybody I know is waiting PS3. I don't know single person who bought 360, but I know at least 50 people already waiting in line for the first shipment of PS3 (me included).
And I expect (or at least hope for) some serious revamp of complete gaming tech in 10 years (even before that).
Before answering. The analyst (or all 7 of them) can't even add, not to be taken in question.
Valid cost in their equation is $800, and before mentioning other costs, second is correct which would mean that shipping, etc wuold be $0 in 3 years.
1. I said I'm debunking both not the production price only. And they also speculate on this, how low Sony can get with price. My post is valid
2. Yes it is. Otherwise retail price of Cell (considering all benefits Sony has) for retail would get to about $5000 per CPU. Take to the fact that Cell is planned for DVDs, TVs, phones too.
3. See 2
4. Meaning in translation, Sony is stupid in your eyes
5. See 2
6. Obviously you don't have a clue. Graphic card with some chip is a often lot more expensive than complete motherboard with the same cheap on-board. Check prices on net. I think you can find prices for NVidia chips licensed to manufacturers. You'll be surprised
7. Analysts in question can't do simple addition. Which is way of equation needed for this calculation. Hope you weren't planing gettting those analysts to do your taxes
Yep, and I forgot the rent which Sony bills Sony for PS3 too:)
With the fact that Kuturagi personaly will be forced to feed Kuturagis dog in the name of PS3 free ride.
Instead of $900, result is $800
And before posting about other expenses like storage, packaging... Second result $320 is correct. Meaning in 3 years costs would be the same.
It is a sad world when 7 analysts is not enough for simple addition.
If producers of Numb3rs will be looking for new cast, well Merril Linch are the perfect match for braindead victims.
You're guilty of the same thing. You don't state why their numbers are not believable, nor how you arrive at your $500 estimate, nor the reasoning for how it would be easy for them to cut the price by 40% quickly.
Ok, here are the reasons (a no-brainer as simple as 1+1) for both why price will probably still be $399 and why Sony costs won't go over $550:
1. Money is in games not consoles
2. Having mass contract like PS3 (where sony owns part of IP, co-financed R&D) means a lot lower price than that analyst can get in retailer shop
3. Almost all other components are in-house. Again, Sony won't sell to it self at retail price.
4. Sony already spent a lot of money on Cell and PS3 R&D. Having ludicrous price on start would probably mean the same as burning that money in fire.
5. There are only two expensive elements on that pricelist. CPU and BR. BR is in-house made (CPU in pt. 2).
6. As for RSX, check at what prices NVidia licenses their chips to manufacturers. Way, way below 70$. Again (Sony owns part of IP and co-financed R&D)
7. Cell in PS3 will be 7SPU, not 8SPU (meaning one can simply be defective or not). Meaning cheaper Cell for PS3 and complete products for higher end applications.
I was under the impression that BlueRay was supposed to cost $350 when Joe Sixpack went to pick one up at Wal-Mart. Sony's not going to have to pay that.
Didn't you hear that on the news? Sony will start reselling parts to Sony at the retail price:) Analysts sometimes are funny or stupid. This one is both.
Except the fact that Sony probably isn't stupid and planed this term a little longer.
It is a no brainer that if PS3 fails, those 2-3 billion are lost. Normal logic would say it is better to have longer period of returning funds than going for a 50-50 game. And even (for example number of Macs sold) very low average of 5 million of consoles sold in one year, would give a lot of money back with games (I don't know for others, but in one year I buy 15-20 games. All my friends buy more than that. But then again some buy none. Taken out the fact that downloading of the game on BR will be ludicrously long, more people will buy originals). Lifecycle of PS3 is 5 years. Meaning, with Mac average they would probably return money invested with some earnings.
You take being a Sony fanboy to a whole new level. If you're willing to pay up to $1000.00 for a gaming console you have some serious issues
And in other waters of PC, people make almost same kind of expensive graphics only upgrades. Few of my friends who are avid gamers at least once a year upgrade their graphics card for at least $500 or more. And they don't use computer for anything else.
I would be willing to go $1000 too, easily. PS2 was just too good experience for me. On the other hand, no, I'm not prepared to pay much lower price for XBox360 (even the current one)
If it costs even remotely close to $900.00 there will be close to zero games for it because it simply won't be worth developing for since the target market will be so incredibly small. Barely anybody is going to be willing to pay $900.00 for a console.
It won't be $900, that's for sure. It even sounds kinda fishy. IBM wouldn't put price $320 on Cell (which was designed for consoles from the begining, and the fact that PS3 includes Cell with 7 SPEs only, leaving fully workable Cells for higher end computers) for such wide deployment, market just doesn't work like that. And the fact that Sony has almost complete PS3 in-house made makes difference too. MS on the other hands depends on different vendors.
And the fact that most of the Cell cost is already in the past. Sony payed quite a lot for research there.
DRM? Actualy there's no need for additional ones. Author named 10 reasons against already.
1. Security, security, security
Every OS had that department better than Windows.
2. Internet Explorer 7: IE gets a much-needed, Firefox-inspired makeover
Yeah, so why do I use FF then?
3. Righteous eye candy: For the first time, Microsoft is building high-end graphics effects into Windows
Again lagging behind others.
4. Desktop search
And in every other OS, it is nothing less than memory hog. I disabled it everywhere so far, even Longhorn builds, which are no better.
5. Better updates
Old ones, (pre XP, sucked major. In XP you have to disable this if you use Limited User. System just hangs on Updating... on Shutdown). And you have to update software separately from OS. BWAAAAH!
6. More media
But still supporting near zero codecs by default.
7. Parental controls
Can be avoided with any other browser, where is the point?
8. Better backups
What? Now backup will actualy work? No more buying expensive backup software?
- Microsoft also tweaked the useful System Restore feature--which takes snapshots of your system state so you can recover from a nasty infection or botched software installation.
Usefull System Restore? That should probably tell everything about author. He's an idiot. Only thing working with system restore were viruses. When I actualy needed it once it didn't work.
9. Peer-to-peer collaboration
Author just forgot to mention it is only MSOffice related.
10. Quick setup
Yeah, but still you need to install every god damn driver separately. CD Install was about 10% of actual instalation, not more.
It would be silly to avoid the Core Duo in favor of the Turion just for the pointless excursion of 64-bit.
It would be silly to preach now when Turion dual core is almost here in a month or two.
As someone else here also mentioned, all the people I know who were running 64-bit Windows gave up and now run the 32-bit version. Guess what, it's faster for them and runs better. There is little inherently better about a 64-bit chip since its performance gains are offset by its negative qualities (pointer size, cache bloat), especially if the 32-bit code is optimized for SSE as 64-bit apps often are.
Yep (in your case, you're 100% correct), running 32-bit apps in 64-bit environment does that. I noticed that too, testing Windows. Regressions everywhere. After testing first 64-bit Linux on Opteron, well,... no more Intel or 32-bit for me.
Intel got just too much of bad reputation for my taste in last two years, so it will probably need at least four very good years (or at least better than AMD) to convince me otherwise.
Conclusion:
If Budha takes a shit,... well,... it doest taste like cake and it still smells like shit.
Damn me, but if this would happen', I think EU would sue MS for preinstalled MSNCourtChat with the next release of Windows:)
Better quesion here is what they want to do with that legislation. Decrease unempolyment rate? Even now US courts are full of patent cases and can't handle the load. With this one,.... well court buildings construction would impose higher demand, clerks, judges, lawyers etc. You could probably employ most of the currently unemployed. Other unemployed could just start new job, litigation without sense.
Off course, US major bussines would move from production and sale to litigation.
Conclusion: Damn, sounds like SCO will sue US for infringing their intelectual property.
Sorry, but in this bullshit hype machine competition, everything is fair. Bullshit giant against another bullshit giant.
Although Sony has dissapointed me far less times than MS so far. In fact I can't remember one time I was satisfied with MS.
huh, you forgot to say dog slow. Just last year I installed MSSQL on my Linux machine and I'm still waiting for the first record in query result.
p.s. Off course real translation of my sarcasm should say, MSSQL is the only non-portable solution from named databases, which is one major thing you forgot
Babblin' all over the place is dumb.
On the other hand, it is a joke killer. Star trek producers would probably sue IBM if this would go mainstream. Nobody will laugh in the scene where Scoty talks to PC mouse anymore. IBM would ruin their best scene ever
Now, if they could make my computer make coffe and a beautifull babe ready to do anything out of nothing,... that would be something. It is something I would be proud to call progress.
Wrong.
API != protocol SPEC;
EU asks for protocol SPECS not API docs.
You obviously missed two points. Do at least a little RTFA before posting BS.
1. The slimy mass in your ass aren't brains. And as such unusable for thinking. Here's one more pointer, dick is not correct organ for thinking either.
2. it has nothing to do with patriotism, nothint with anti-MS, nothing with anti-US. It is ment to level the playing field between OSS and MS, where both can coexist and freely cooperate.
EU has never demanded source code. Only freely available protocol SPECS without license restrictions.
MS just provided unusable specs and then after source code for fee, including the fact that not even one OSS developer can look at it and taint him self permanently.
Meaning MS did provided MORE (about protocols) than requested, but not WHAT it was requested (LESS, SPECS only, but without license BS). State with both MS actions has not improved not even for 0.0000001% in OSS case. And leveling the field is the only thing EU is concerned.
Wrong.
/. Is it not enough for first poster to be trolls in 99.999% ? Now even article posters are competing for "first post" troll?
EU wants open SPECS, not source code for fee. MS completely missed the request.
Can somebody please mod article as TROLL? Poster of this article is obviously using wrong organ to think.
As it was posted sounds like:
Even source code is not enough for EU, they just want to go on all-out-MS-war, while in reality EU only demands freely accessible readable SPECS.
There was request for readable and freely accesible SPECS, not for source code.
1. Specs MS provided at first were not readable.
2. MS decided to provide code for fee under licence which completely obstructs any way to cooperate with most OSS licenses. Original intention EU was demanded for this one sole purpose which levels the playing field between OSS and MS.
p.s. C'mon
Very bad strategy then.
Intel is seriously droping out of being serious contestant in current technology for quite some time now. It's just like droping a ball to get it back in one of the next few seasons, hopefully other team will remember your showing of good will, act then just as you did now and now fight back. Yeah, right.