You're looking at a single aspect of a static snapshot and using that perspective to judge future performance without actually thinking about what that snapshot represents.
Eternally selling one product at a loss is a bad thing. Microsoft isn't selling one product.
Game consoles are generally sold using a razor-blade model. Sell the razor at a loss (console), sell the blade at a profit (games). Revenue trending up generally means that you're selling more stuff, which is a very good thing for the future (more potential game sales).
The only thing which has kept Mac OS X relatively safe up until now is the fact that the market share is significantly lower than that of Microsoft Windows or the more common UNIX platforms
Umm, sorry. The moment Mac OS X 10.0 started shipping, it immediately became the most common desktop UNIX-like operating system. This guy is divorced from reality.
So if somebody wants a more complicated control they are going to do it XML?
Well, since you've read about it and understand how it all works, why don't you explain to me the difference in "doing it in xml" vs writing one in C++?
Oh, you can't? Sorry, thank you, come again. Feel free to ignore this the same way you ignored being called on your previous bullshit.
Software can easily manipulate data. Software cannot easily manipulate source code. This should be a somewhat obvious point demonstrated throughout the history of computing and the number of tools which (poorly) attempt to do so.
seems silly especially if the programmer will be using a GUI designer in the first place.
In a large software development project, the programmer is rarely the person responsible for coming up with the UI design. The programmer is not the UI designer.
Typically, the UI designer comes up with a dummy vb project or other component that prototypes the user interaction. This project can't be integrated in any form with the application being developed. They hand that off to the programmer who then has to re-create the interface envisioned by the UI designer.
How much easier would it be when the designer can just hand over the UI design and plug it in? How much easier is it to refresh that xml when the UI designer decides they want to change some aspect of how the UI interacts with the user?
Even if the programmer is the entity creating the UI design, this still makes the process easier, more efficient. Why do people code in C++ instead of assembly? Why do people code in Java instead of C++?
Mmm yea, but why? What is the advantage over what delphi did, what vb did, what.net did or what swing does?
They provide basic controls. Want a more complicated control? You have to write it yourself. Here, that whole process is encapulated in the UI design.
Since when has any other GUI toolkit by any major vendor been only good for defining static layout? That's not innovation. That technology has been around for twenty years or more.
Bullshit. GUI toolkits in 1986 consisted of resource editors, and crappy ones at that. I welcome your forthcoming examples of 20 year old toolkits suitable for non-static UI layout.
Why don't you actually, I dunno, try to read about what this is before you start trying to wave the "it's from microsoft, it must be shit" flag? It is plainly obvious you haven't spent any time understanding how this technology works or what it does.
That's just it, the dev's don't code in XML. The XML defines what the UI looks like and how elements of the UI interact (either though more XML, or by referencing some code snippet). The XML is converted into a set of objects. Those objects are responsible for managing all of the fun nitty gritty details of the UI; they also have events that de which have events that the developers can interact with.
You can actually create a project where the UI management logic and the application logic is completely separate; you can change how the UI looks and responds to events without touching one piece of application logic.
I completely expect someone to create some sort of advanced tool to create this XML -- the same way I'd expect someone to use a tool to manipulate a resource file. However, that tool won't be limited to just defining a static layout -- THAT is the "innovative" part.
Generally with consoles you decompress data on the fly. It allows you to read data off of the disc faster and it takes up less space in ram. The compression algorithm used by PC game installs is actually rather inefficient (good 'ol cabarc), and in a modern console it certainly isn't difficult to top. It also doesn't hurt that the graphics hardware natively supports dealing with compressed textures on the fly.
They were served with a subpoena. They refused to provide the information. Now they're seeking a court order instructing Google to comply with the subpoena. This isn't difficult to follow; why are you having such a hard time with it?
I'm glad you attempted to read TFA, but you might actually want to read the whole thing at some point.
"Google has refused to comply with the subpoena. A motion has been filed this week by US Department Of Justice to force Google to hand over the data."
Fox owns the rights to the TV show, and can outright refused to license the rights to any other station. They own it, and even though they aren't making any money off of it, they don't want anyone else to make any money off of it either.
If you think that DVD's look great compared to hi-def source material, your tv must not be that great. No, it isn't poor quality. But it is similar to the jump from VHS to DVD.
A widescreen DVD is encoded at 720x480. A 1080p hi-def display has a resolution of 1920x1080. That means the width is scaled by nearly a factor of 3, and the height is scaled by over a factor of 2.
You could display 4 widescreen DVD's on a 1080p display without losing detail and have a sizeable border between each.
Driving on snow definately helps teach the basics. However, driving on snow does not prepare you for having to apply those skills on dry pavement. I spun out on dry pavement during an emergency lane change because I couldn't turn the wheel fast enough to catch the car (I went sideways to the left, sideways to the right, sideways to the left, and back around for a 360, caught the spin, and pulled off onto the shoulder...). I can drift around in snow all day long with no problem, but it is a different beast when more traction is available.
They haven't done it for anything but the backcompat updates. I suppose it is possible they could try it, but they still have to deal with the set of users without net connections.
The bug has a large impact on the user (ie: high severity). Your statement implies that this bug should have been blatently obvious to anyone testing the game. Yet, given that you only know the impact and not the cause, it would be hard to speculate how 'obvious' the bug is.
So let's sit back for a minute and figure out if it is even reasonable to call this an obvious bug.
Not everyone playing the game has hit this bug, which means this problem doesn't happen every time you start the game. That makes it an intermittent bug -- ie: less obvious. So, how often does it happen? Well, it took about a week for the problem to surface, which suggest the repro rate for this particular problem is somewhere in the neighborhood of one in 2.1 million boots (assuming that 300,000 people bought the game and played it once per day). Hell, let's assume that it happens 100 times more often than that, once every 21,000 boots. That's a repro rate of 0.005%.
Looking a bit less obvious now, isn't it? I would suggest that it is not terribly surprising that neither Team Ninja or Microsoft caught this during QA.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't directly compare numbers, as Microsoft shuffled the divisions around a bit between FY06Q1 and FY06Q2.
You're looking at a single aspect of a static snapshot and using that perspective to judge future performance without actually thinking about what that snapshot represents.
Eternally selling one product at a loss is a bad thing. Microsoft isn't selling one product.
Game consoles are generally sold using a razor-blade model. Sell the razor at a loss (console), sell the blade at a profit (games). Revenue trending up generally means that you're selling more stuff, which is a very good thing for the future (more potential game sales).
Incorrect.
Revenue == total money in (money made from selling stuff)
Expenses == total money out (money spent building stuff)
Net income == revenue - expenses
I have read about it
So if somebody wants a more complicated control they are going to do it XML?
Well, since you've read about it and understand how it all works, why don't you explain to me the difference in "doing it in xml" vs writing one in C++?
Oh, you can't? Sorry, thank you, come again. Feel free to ignore this the same way you ignored being called on your previous bullshit.
So why have it in XML in the first place.
.net did or what swing does?
Software can easily manipulate data. Software cannot easily manipulate source code. This should be a somewhat obvious point demonstrated throughout the history of computing and the number of tools which (poorly) attempt to do so.
seems silly especially if the programmer will be using a GUI designer in the first place.
In a large software development project, the programmer is rarely the person responsible for coming up with the UI design. The programmer is not the UI designer.
Typically, the UI designer comes up with a dummy vb project or other component that prototypes the user interaction. This project can't be integrated in any form with the application being developed. They hand that off to the programmer who then has to re-create the interface envisioned by the UI designer.
How much easier would it be when the designer can just hand over the UI design and plug it in? How much easier is it to refresh that xml when the UI designer decides they want to change some aspect of how the UI interacts with the user?
Even if the programmer is the entity creating the UI design, this still makes the process easier, more efficient. Why do people code in C++ instead of assembly? Why do people code in Java instead of C++?
Mmm yea, but why? What is the advantage over what delphi did, what vb did, what
They provide basic controls. Want a more complicated control? You have to write it yourself. Here, that whole process is encapulated in the UI design.
Since when has any other GUI toolkit by any major vendor been only good for defining static layout? That's not innovation. That technology has been around for twenty years or more.
Bullshit. GUI toolkits in 1986 consisted of resource editors, and crappy ones at that. I welcome your forthcoming examples of 20 year old toolkits suitable for non-static UI layout.
Why don't you actually, I dunno, try to read about what this is before you start trying to wave the "it's from microsoft, it must be shit" flag? It is plainly obvious you haven't spent any time understanding how this technology works or what it does.
That's just it, the dev's don't code in XML. The XML defines what the UI looks like and how elements of the UI interact (either though more XML, or by referencing some code snippet). The XML is converted into a set of objects. Those objects are responsible for managing all of the fun nitty gritty details of the UI; they also have events that de which have events that the developers can interact with.
You can actually create a project where the UI management logic and the application logic is completely separate; you can change how the UI looks and responds to events without touching one piece of application logic.
I completely expect someone to create some sort of advanced tool to create this XML -- the same way I'd expect someone to use a tool to manipulate a resource file. However, that tool won't be limited to just defining a static layout -- THAT is the "innovative" part.
United States Google China
It's the same estimate they've been repeating since the console was launched: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9968123/from/RL.5/
Nope. This only effects kernal-mode drivers. User-mode drivers are not impacted.
Generally with consoles you decompress data on the fly. It allows you to read data off of the disc faster and it takes up less space in ram. The compression algorithm used by PC game installs is actually rather inefficient (good 'ol cabarc), and in a modern console it certainly isn't difficult to top. It also doesn't hurt that the graphics hardware natively supports dealing with compressed textures on the fly.
To my knowledge, none of the multi-disc ps2 games shipped on a DVD9 (4gb vs 8gb).
When was the last time you bought a PC game that wouldn't fit onto one DVD? They've been targeting > HD resolutions for years now.
They were served with a subpoena. They refused to provide the information. Now they're seeking a court order instructing Google to comply with the subpoena. This isn't difficult to follow; why are you having such a hard time with it?
I'm glad you attempted to read TFA, but you might actually want to read the whole thing at some point.
"Google has refused to comply with the subpoena. A motion has been filed this week by US Department Of Justice to force Google to hand over the data."
Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena
What exactly do you think a subpoena is?
Taking the time to transcode the video you want to save turns the 112 hours of available space to 900 hours.
Who cares if you can patent time travel. The first person to actually invent a time machine will just travel back in time and patent it first.
Fox owns the rights to the TV show, and can outright refused to license the rights to any other station. They own it, and even though they aren't making any money off of it, they don't want anyone else to make any money off of it either.
The GP was probably referring to the average number of bugs per line of code.
If you think that DVD's look great compared to hi-def source material, your tv must not be that great. No, it isn't poor quality. But it is similar to the jump from VHS to DVD.
A widescreen DVD is encoded at 720x480. A 1080p hi-def display has a resolution of 1920x1080. That means the width is scaled by nearly a factor of 3, and the height is scaled by over a factor of 2.
You could display 4 widescreen DVD's on a 1080p display without losing detail and have a sizeable border between each.
Driving on snow definately helps teach the basics. However, driving on snow does not prepare you for having to apply those skills on dry pavement. I spun out on dry pavement during an emergency lane change because I couldn't turn the wheel fast enough to catch the car (I went sideways to the left, sideways to the right, sideways to the left, and back around for a 360, caught the spin, and pulled off onto the shoulder ...). I can drift around in snow all day long with no problem, but it is a different beast when more traction is available.
They haven't done it for anything but the backcompat updates. I suppose it is possible they could try it, but they still have to deal with the set of users without net connections.
The bug has a large impact on the user (ie: high severity). Your statement implies that this bug should have been blatently obvious to anyone testing the game. Yet, given that you only know the impact and not the cause, it would be hard to speculate how 'obvious' the bug is.
So let's sit back for a minute and figure out if it is even reasonable to call this an obvious bug.
Not everyone playing the game has hit this bug, which means this problem doesn't happen every time you start the game. That makes it an intermittent bug -- ie: less obvious. So, how often does it happen? Well, it took about a week for the problem to surface, which suggest the repro rate for this particular problem is somewhere in the neighborhood of one in 2.1 million boots (assuming that 300,000 people bought the game and played it once per day). Hell, let's assume that it happens 100 times more often than that, once every 21,000 boots. That's a repro rate of 0.005%.
Looking a bit less obvious now, isn't it? I would suggest that it is not terribly surprising that neither Team Ninja or Microsoft caught this during QA.
Hardware is not perfect. Read errata on processors or motherboards sometime.