"Microsoft realized that the released of Windows 95 and NT 4 were premature, and thus see the need to improved quality control."
Um, okay....
"If our customers say, 'ship it,' then this is the one," he said. "But if we still have work to do, we'll work on the product until we get it right." -Craig Beilinson, Microsoft's lead product manager for Windows 2000
Does this sound like quality control?
"Shucks! Nun of our bayta tasters komplained real loud. And that 'crak our box' went good - only krashin haf da time. It must be dun! Put away the pointed sticks boys!"
I think what people are "afraid" of of is that M$ will continue to rule the world with horrible products. NT was their one product that didn't suck so bad and if they could build an empire on Win3.1 and 95 people are "afraid" that with one decent product and an ad budget bigger that the money generated from Redhat's IPO M$ will continue to rule unjustly.
Take from Apple - building a better system isn't enough against M$ you also have to fight the hard fight. If Linux, Apple and other Unixii (and maybe BeOS) can get together and carve the overall percentage of M$'s market/mind share down and make M$ compete on the quality of code issues rather than brand names then we'll be getting somewhere near a more level playing field.
I just saw the movie and the bottom line is: if you like the show at all go see the movie. I was really afraid it was going to be the a lame longer rehash of the show - but it really is "bigger, longer and uncut" as advertised. If you imagine the tv show as lite beer the movie is vodka served through a fire hose.
The scenes that make this movie worth it on their own: -The Bill Gates scene -Satan and Sadam in bed -Coach's advice -The Jar-Jar Binks moment and so on...
It is basically a musical but don't let that throw you - I had musicals but I loved it. Let's face it - Saddam Hussein singing to profess his love for Satan is not exactly Andrew Lloyd Weber. (Although the lyric "Giving hand-jobs for crack" in the chorus may have come from _Cats_...)
Anyway - I'd say see it. If you liked South Park at all on TV it'll rock your world. I'll probably see it again because I missed about a 1/3 of it because of the laughter.
Enjoy -
=tkk
"Where is your God now? He is the biggest bitch of them all...."
>MacOSX Server decently stable? >Two words: CGI scripts.
Yes, the binary of Apache that was bundled with OS X Server 1.0. How quickly Apple responds to this and fixes it will be a good test of Apple commitment to Servers and Serving in general.
That being said I'll put it up against both Linux 1.0 and NT 1.0 for a stability test.;)
>I have hardcore Mac'ers here twitching apoplectically about this, particularly when I show them my CelticGreen KDE laptop..;)
Is that a thinly disguised sexual reference/threat?;)
You have used either Mac OS X Server or a beta veriosn of OS X. In either case it's unfair to judge the eventual consumer version of the OS from it's 1.0, first to market Server version, or from it's current beta. (I think that's one BIG reason Apple hasn't trumpted OS X Server the way could/should. They know it's not pretty but it works - the year+ bewteen the rollout of X Server and the consumer version will be ALOT of beating the Unix bits with a shovel and painting them over with nice high gloss paint. I beat there won't even be a CLI access for the consumer OS when it ships - although some one will add one in about a day... 8)
I'd agree that some of your points are valid but as a server environment goes it's WAY ahead of about everything else in terms of GUI friendliness. Some people will grumble that Server OSs _shouldn't_ be friendly the same way I grumble that, "I used 8.5 inch floppies that lost data all the time. And I was _grateful_, not like you kids today with your 2gig removables...." when I'm in that mood.
Trust me Apple's painting and spackeling as fast as they can towards the roll-out. It may not be perfect when it hits the streets but it'll be alot better than OS X Server from a GUI point of view.
The only reference to speed I could find was the aim that it "will be 3x faster than a PIII". The basis for this is that it will apparently do 6 gigaflops as oppossed to 2 gigaflops for the PIII.
If I was cynical I'd say that this is probably the best spread (3 times!) they could get for a press release and that gigaflops != SPEC numbers.
If the Merced really has an FPU 3x faster than a PIII that means what? 45SpecFP? 60SpecFP? 2nd quarter of next year? Don't Alphas do that _now_?
Let's start: >Sony made the PlayStation to make money. It is their proprietary system.
True. So far so good.
>They may make money from selling the system.
*BZZZZZZZ* Wrong. They loose money on every box they sell. They only make money on software.
>They new Connectix thing endangers how Sony is making money from the PlayStation.
Again - you're wrong. Sony sells more boxes than there are G3 Powermacs (read: potential clients) over and over and over again. The market for G3s with this software would be SO small why would anyone develop a game for using the emulator? That's insane! Why not just develop a Mac game? Or are you contending that people could use it for developing NON-Sony approved games and sell those for the Play Station? It's a huge jump to say that a program I can buy would allow me use it as a development tool to produce games. You can easily find the information for how the Sony Playstation works and the APIs etc - those aren't secret - heck the Connectix product isn't even the only emulator out there.
>Furthermore, as Timur mentioned, the emulator does not honor the copy protection encoding. This endangers the profits of all those game makers who have the blessing of and pay Sony.
Why?!? If there a game that doesn't follow the copy protection doesn't that mean that THAT game could be copied? So I use Connectix's product to create a PlayStation game - in a way that has yet to be established - that can be copied because I ignore 'Sony required copy protection'. Why does that endanger the profits of another developer? My game can be copied but theirs can't - doesn't that threaten MY profits? Or are you saying that I can take my friends copy of a Playstation game, copy it to play on my G3 PowerMac? I doubt that very much: 1)My friend would PROBABLY just lend it to me - no profit for the manufacturer anyway 2)The market would be VERY small compared to the existing market - 50,000 MAYBE - and all those are al new potential customers. Even if a few copy disks some of them will go out and buy them.
>So, Sony is taking legal action to ensure their profits by maintaning tight control of the PlayStation system. Their tight control is very common in the video game market.
Well, you're right there. But common doesn't mean right, legal or good. Look at M$....
Slashdot Mirror
Um, okay....
"If our customers say, 'ship it,' then this is the one," he said. "But if we still have work to do,
we'll work on the product until we get it right."
-Craig Beilinson, Microsoft's lead product manager for Windows 2000
Does this sound like quality control?
"Shucks! Nun of our bayta tasters komplained real loud. And that 'crak our box' went good - only krashin haf da time. It must be dun! Put away the pointed sticks boys!"
I think what people are "afraid" of of is that M$ will continue to rule the world with horrible products. NT was their one product that didn't suck so bad and if they could build an empire on Win3.1 and 95 people are "afraid" that with one decent product and an ad budget bigger that the money generated from Redhat's IPO M$ will continue to rule unjustly.
Take from Apple - building a better system isn't enough against M$ you also have to fight the hard fight.
If Linux, Apple and other Unixii (and maybe BeOS) can get together and carve the overall percentage of M$'s market/mind share down and make M$ compete on the quality of code issues rather than brand names then we'll be getting somewhere near a more level playing field.
My $.02,
=tkk
"Apes evolved from creationists."
oh yeah, and,
"The gene pool needs some chlorine."
okay, and,
"People who think human beings can't devolve would do well to remember that poodles came from wolves." -me
Guess that's it -
=tkk
Just to keep the camp flags waving-
When Apple did just thing over a year ago they were "crazy" and "clueless".
"A PC without a floppy? Never!"
But when WIntel does it a year from now it'll be "future-think" and "revolutionary".
=tkk
I just saw the movie and the bottom line is: if you like the show at all go see the movie. I was really afraid it was going to be the a lame longer rehash of the show - but it really is "bigger, longer and uncut" as advertised. If you imagine the tv show as lite beer the movie is vodka served through a fire hose.
The scenes that make this movie worth it on their own:
-The Bill Gates scene
-Satan and Sadam in bed
-Coach's advice
-The Jar-Jar Binks moment
and so on...
It is basically a musical but don't let that throw you - I had musicals but I loved it. Let's face it - Saddam Hussein singing to profess his love for Satan is not exactly Andrew Lloyd Weber. (Although the lyric "Giving hand-jobs for crack" in the chorus may have come from _Cats_...)
Anyway - I'd say see it. If you liked South Park at all on TV it'll rock your world. I'll probably see it again because I missed about a 1/3 of it because of the laughter.
Enjoy -
=tkk
"Where is your God now? He is the biggest bitch of them all...."
>MacOSX Server decently stable?
;)
;)
;)
>Two words: CGI scripts.
Yes, the binary of Apache that was bundled with OS X Server 1.0. How quickly Apple responds to this and fixes it will be a good test of Apple commitment to Servers and Serving in general.
That being said I'll put it up against both Linux 1.0 and NT 1.0 for a stability test.
>I have hardcore Mac'ers here twitching apoplectically about this, particularly when I show them my CelticGreen KDE laptop..
Is that a thinly disguised sexual reference/threat?
"Oh my god! Mr. Burns is coming onto me!"
=tkk
>Have you ever used OS X?
No he hasn't and neither have you.
You have used either Mac OS X Server or a beta veriosn of OS X. In either case it's unfair to judge the eventual consumer version of the OS from it's 1.0, first to market Server version, or from it's current beta.
(I think that's one BIG reason Apple hasn't trumpted OS X Server the way could/should. They know it's not pretty but it works - the year+ bewteen the rollout of X Server and the consumer version will be ALOT of beating the Unix bits with a shovel and painting them over with nice high gloss paint. I beat there won't even be a CLI access for the consumer OS when it ships - although some one will add one in about a day... 8)
I'd agree that some of your points are valid but as a server environment goes it's WAY ahead of about everything else in terms of GUI friendliness. Some people will grumble that Server OSs _shouldn't_ be friendly the same way I grumble that, "I used 8.5 inch floppies that lost data all the time. And I was _grateful_, not like you kids today with your 2gig removables...." when I'm in that mood.
Trust me Apple's painting and spackeling as fast as they can towards the roll-out. It may not be perfect when it hits the streets but it'll be alot better than OS X Server from a GUI point of view.
=tkk
Howdy!
The only reference to speed I could find was the aim that it "will be 3x faster than a PIII". The basis for this is that it will apparently do 6 gigaflops as oppossed to 2 gigaflops for the PIII.
If I was cynical I'd say that this is probably the best spread (3 times!) they could get for a press release and that gigaflops != SPEC numbers.
If the Merced really has an FPU 3x faster than a PIII that means what? 45SpecFP? 60SpecFP? 2nd quarter of next year? Don't Alphas do that _now_?
Anyone else see any performance numbers?
=tkk
Let's start:
>Sony made the PlayStation to make money. It is their proprietary system.
True. So far so good.
>They may make money from selling the system.
*BZZZZZZZ* Wrong. They loose money on every box they sell. They only make money on software.
>They new Connectix thing endangers how Sony is making money from the PlayStation.
Again - you're wrong. Sony sells more boxes than there are G3 Powermacs (read: potential clients) over and over and over again.
The market for G3s with this software would be SO small why would anyone develop a game for using the emulator? That's insane! Why not just develop a Mac game?
Or are you contending that people could use it for developing NON-Sony approved games and sell those for the Play Station? It's a huge jump to say that a program I can buy would allow me use it as a development tool to produce games. You can easily find the information for how the Sony Playstation works and the APIs etc - those aren't secret - heck the Connectix product isn't even the only emulator out there.
>Furthermore, as Timur mentioned, the emulator does not honor the copy protection encoding. This endangers the profits of all those game makers who have the blessing of and pay Sony.
Why?!? If there a game that doesn't follow the copy protection doesn't that mean that THAT game could be copied? So I use Connectix's product to create a PlayStation game - in a way that has yet to be established - that can be copied because I ignore 'Sony required copy protection'. Why does that endanger the profits of another developer? My game can be copied but theirs can't - doesn't that threaten MY profits?
Or are you saying that I can take my friends copy of a Playstation game, copy it to play on my G3 PowerMac? I doubt that very much:
1)My friend would PROBABLY just lend it to me - no profit for the manufacturer anyway
2)The market would be VERY small compared to the existing market - 50,000 MAYBE - and all those are
al new potential customers. Even if a few copy disks some of them will go out and buy them.
>So, Sony is taking legal action to ensure their profits by maintaning tight control of the PlayStation system. Their tight control is very common in the video game market.
Well, you're right there. But common doesn't mean right, legal or good. Look at M$....
=tkk