> i mean the STARTING price is the same as the Xbone, and that is for the LOW END bottom o' the line system? Really?
It's not reasonable to expect a non-subsidized, upgradeable (in the case of many of the models), open console to cost less than subsidized, locked-down hardware with a consolidated-to-be-cheap design.
The Steam Machines are only a bad deal if you are the kind of person that only buys few AAA games and don't want to take advantage the openness to do things like run services (ex. put a minecraft server on your box) and/or emulators for your old console games.
You'd have to hack around it with the usual solution (pipelight) for now, but NetFlix is re-writing their client to drop Silverlight and be fully HTML5. So, in the future it should work natively.
If you have a Steam game that you can't play in Steam's offline mode, that's the fault of the people making the game, not Valve/Steam..
Valve gives devs a choice of how they want to do their DRM, and you have the choice not to buy games from the particular devs that don't meet your individual expectations.
But, if you'd rather buy a system with more locked down DRM and fewer games, more power to you. You also have the choice to not buy no games that use DRM at all, but then why are you reading a console thread... or is there some option of which I'm unaware?
Sony has repeatedly engaged in anti-consumer activity, so I see no reason to support them. I own all the last gen consoles, but I've had it with MS and Sony (and Nintendo's showing this round is not really compelling, IMHO).
I'm going to hold out for a really powerful Steam machine for the living room. Valve seems like a friendlier company, and most of us here probably already own over a hundred titles via Steam.
The fact that you can plug a Knoppix thumbdrive into almost any system and get booted to a working GUI with sound shows that Linux hardware support is not only good, it's amazingly good.
Use Windows To Go (assuming you have an Enterprise license) and try getting anywhere near the hardware compatibility you get from Linux LiveCDs.
A lot of people think Linux has relatively more installation problems because it might have some install quirk on their hardware. Windows has quirks too - they've just been worked around by a 3rd party before and built into their recovery disk/partition. God knows I spent way too long getting reference drivers for wifi chipsets and printers back when my kids wanted Vista.
"As a representative of the RIAA, we'd like to buy your whistle-recognition technology. We think we could make tens of millions of dollars each year by suing people who whistle our songs as providing unlicensed public performances. We'll give you as much as $200.00 for complete ownership of your patents!"
No, you won't have to upgrade to 13.10 "no matter what". The recommended way to do upgrades is to always go to the next version (as that's what gets the majority of testing), but 13.04 makes no major changes (like replacing upstart) that would prevent it from directly upgrading to anything to which 12.04 or other recent versions could directly upgrade.
You won't 'be screwed" if you have hardware compatibility problems in 13.10; you simply boot an older kernel (since that's where the hardware drivers are). I've done it with several previous alphas - but users are unlikely to discover major problems by the time it gets to a final release. I already have one system using the 13.10 (saucy) repos now (though they have no updates beyond what's in the raring repos). Expect me and the others that enjoy the bleeding edge to find/report the problems so that you don't have to.
I'm not sure why any of this would be an issue anyway: When the OS keeps all your app settings in/home (which you should put on a separate partition), complete re-installs of newer/older versions take no more time than the upgrades.
You can't get it working because of a bug in the latest xserver-xorg-core package. You can work around it by either backleveling that package or adding the BusID line to the nvidia xorg.conf in your BumbleBee directory.
By your logic, no one can ever estimate the cost of anything. You can't tell me $500,000 is too much for a Toyota unless you've run the company.
It cost Coursera $15,000 - 30,000 to design a MOOC (one time cost). That's less than a dollar per student (for a single schedule, and they have them on a loop!) for most of the classes. Everyone here has IT experience enough to know that the bandwidth and server resources is also inconsequential per student.
Or, do you think Coursera is eating $2B in expenses over and over, with their more than 2M students digging into the free courses? Coursera is a for-profit company, by the way started with only $16M in capital.
I'm not sure how they justify the cost, when it probably costs them all of $20 to manage the average online student. I guess people realize this, and for that kind of money they want the *full* college experience with hazing and all that.
I'll just stick with Coursera - it's free and awesome, (As long as you just want the knowledge and don't care about credits.)
Slashdot Mirror
They should name it according to the way people use it:
"Microsoft Googler", or maybe "Microsoft Google Chrome Downloader", would seem to be good choices.
Forgive and forgetting is hard, when Microsoft never really changed their strategy of working you into proprietary technologies and vendor lock-in.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
A sane ruling on the matter...
and in Florida...
[Update;} I'm back from the window, but I didn't see neither a lake of fire *nor* four horsemen. :\
> i mean the STARTING price is the same as the Xbone, and that is for the LOW END bottom o' the line system? Really?
It's not reasonable to expect a non-subsidized, upgradeable (in the case of many of the models), open console to cost less than subsidized, locked-down hardware with a consolidated-to-be-cheap design.
The Steam Machines are only a bad deal if you are the kind of person that only buys few AAA games and don't want to take advantage the openness to do things like run services (ex. put a minecraft server on your box) and/or emulators for your old console games.
You'd have to hack around it with the usual solution (pipelight) for now, but NetFlix is re-writing their client to drop Silverlight and be fully HTML5. So, in the future it should work natively.
It would have to travel 4 miles an hour over every possible type of terrain. Better to just live in orbit.
If you have a Steam game that you can't play in Steam's offline mode, that's the fault of the people making the game, not Valve/Steam..
Valve gives devs a choice of how they want to do their DRM, and you have the choice not to buy games from the particular devs that don't meet your individual expectations.
But, if you'd rather buy a system with more locked down DRM and fewer games, more power to you. You also have the choice to not buy no games that use DRM at all, but then why are you reading a console thread... or is there some option of which I'm unaware?
^ My sentiment exactly.
Sony has repeatedly engaged in anti-consumer activity, so I see no reason to support them. I own all the last gen consoles, but I've had it with MS and Sony (and Nintendo's showing this round is not really compelling, IMHO).
I'm going to hold out for a really powerful Steam machine for the living room. Valve seems like a friendlier company, and most of us here probably already own over a hundred titles via Steam.
Microsoft patented (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20110153809&OS=20110153809&RS=20110153809) listening in on Skype calls for the same reasons.
The fact that you can plug a Knoppix thumbdrive into almost any system and get booted to a working GUI with sound shows that Linux hardware support is not only good, it's amazingly good.
Use Windows To Go (assuming you have an Enterprise license) and try getting anywhere near the hardware compatibility you get from Linux LiveCDs.
A lot of people think Linux has relatively more installation problems because it might have some install quirk on their hardware. Windows has quirks too - they've just been worked around by a 3rd party before and built into their recovery disk/partition. God knows I spent way too long getting reference drivers for wifi chipsets and printers back when my kids wanted Vista.
This made me laugh out loud, then get soooo angry when I imagine someone saying it honestly. Good job.
Damn you, XKCD. See what you did?
Yes, but saying:
>âoeItâ(TM)s 2013 and the NSA is stuck in 2003 technology,â
Is a real good quote for later when they later tell congress they need their budget increased.
You can already transfer music between phones like this, but it's quite lossy depending on the quality of your speaker.
You forgot Poland.
And Skype.
"As a representative of the RIAA, we'd like to buy your whistle-recognition technology. We think we could make tens of millions of dollars each year by suing people who whistle our songs as providing unlicensed public performances. We'll give you as much as $200.00 for complete ownership of your patents!"
No, you won't have to upgrade to 13.10 "no matter what". The recommended way to do upgrades is to always go to the next version (as that's what gets the majority of testing), but 13.04 makes no major changes (like replacing upstart) that would prevent it from directly upgrading to anything to which 12.04 or other recent versions could directly upgrade.
You won't 'be screwed" if you have hardware compatibility problems in 13.10; you simply boot an older kernel (since that's where the hardware drivers are). I've done it with several previous alphas - but users are unlikely to discover major problems by the time it gets to a final release. I already have one system using the 13.10 (saucy) repos now (though they have no updates beyond what's in the raring repos). Expect me and the others that enjoy the bleeding edge to find/report the problems so that you don't have to.
I'm not sure why any of this would be an issue anyway: When the OS keeps all your app settings in /home (which you should put on a separate partition), complete re-installs of newer/older versions take no more time than the upgrades.
You can't get it working because of a bug in the latest xserver-xorg-core package. You can work around it by either backleveling that package or adding the BusID line to the nvidia xorg.conf in your BumbleBee directory.
Or their twitter feed got hacked by some NK'n kids and they just didn't want to admit it.
YES!!!! I cannot WAIT for the new M.A.S.H. series.
If scientific literacy made people more ethical, us mad scientists would be regarded as weirdos. So, thank Cthulu that's not the case.
That's a great idea. If, you want Silicon Valley to move out of the state.
Even if it were possible, it would just motivate companies to get as far away from your legislative stupidity as possible.
By your logic, no one can ever estimate the cost of anything. You can't tell me $500,000 is too much for a Toyota unless you've run the company.
It cost Coursera $15,000 - 30,000 to design a MOOC (one time cost). That's less than a dollar per student (for a single schedule, and they have them on a loop!) for most of the classes. Everyone here has IT experience enough to know that the bandwidth and server resources is also inconsequential per student.
Or, do you think Coursera is eating $2B in expenses over and over, with their more than 2M students digging into the free courses? Coursera is a for-profit company, by the way started with only $16M in capital.
Newsflash: Coursera announces their future business model... http://gigaom.com/2013/01/08/with-verified-certificates-coursera-offers-model-for-making-money-from-web-classes/... is to charge $30 to $100 for courses. Now... that including a profit.... am I the stupid uninformed one for guessing their cost are no more than $20?
23 years of professional experience in IT, and that I've taken 8 different 6-11 week online courses in the last year.
Most courses use automated and peer grading, the only expense is hosting/bandwidth costs.
I'm not sure how they justify the cost, when it probably costs them all of $20 to manage the average online student. I guess people realize this, and for that kind of money they want the *full* college experience with hazing and all that.
I'll just stick with Coursera - it's free and awesome, (As long as you just want the knowledge and don't care about credits.)