Digital broadcasts are going to be mandated by the FCC in just a few years. You aren't going to be able to buy a non HD-capable tv a few years from now. It isn't a matter of waiting for the userbase to grow -- it WILL grow; consumers have no choice in the matter.
I have seen games that do not billboard enemies, trees, environmental objects, etc. You're complaining about crappy games, not limitations of the hardware.
You keep talking about benefiting the average user -- if you're playing a racing game, does the average user benefit from a fully modeled 3d spectator as they whip by the stands a 200mph? No, they don't. Do they benefit from more visible detail in the distance which allows them to make a more precise turn? Yes, they do.
I guess you're definition of a mid-range card and an acceptable fps is different than mine. An ATI Radeon 9800 XT will run Doom3 at 1280x1024 with all the goodies turned on at about 30fps.
To put things into a bit more perspective, Doom 3 has been released for the Xbox, and it looks/runs just fine. Lower res textures and fewer polygons, but the core look and feel of the game remains intact.
Microsoft seems to think that it will be reasonable to force every game for the 360 to be released supporting 720p. We'll see if they can pull it off...
I personally won't be buying an HD set for gaming. I'll get one when I get one. The whole thing is really a non-issue for me, but to say that the status quo is better than raising the bar seems shortsighted to me.
You've actually never watched a DVD on a large plasma screen have you? They don't look so good. DVDs look "good" on a normal tube because the tube blurs the image. They're better than any technology we have out there (it beats the pants off of VHS), but the "quality" of DVDs is still pretty horrid.
Games can always use more pixels. It makes it possible to display more information. It makes split screen play bearable. It allows you to see more detail where you need it. Saying that you ought to be able render something that takes a professional studio hours (for a single frame) before upping the resolution is a rediculous statement to make.
You don't need "higher rez" on computers because they won't work in low-rez applications -- you need it because people want more than 10 lines of text on the screen at a time. The detail is what is important, not the lack thereof.
The xbox may be sold at a loss, but it is NOT being sold at a significant loss. The big things killing Microsoft with the production costs of the box are the hard drive, the video hardware, and the cpu. They're still paying the same prices for the chips as they were when they first started manufacturing the device...
The HD components aren't a significant cost, and some of that can be "made up" with the sale of cables to connect the device to the TV...
If you're not convinced, you need to take a second look at how weak the graphics hardware is on current generation consoles. Look at what a budget video card today is capable of vs a top of the line card from 2001. The difference in performance is amazing.
Now compare a current midrange card to a budget card from ~2001. This is essentially the leap being made by the next generation consoles.
HD resolution is NOT a stretch for any kind of modern hardware -- low resolution for pc games these days is 1024x768, which is very near what HD games will be rendering at.
White hat - someone who hacks machines with non-malicious intent; they report the problems and do no harm. Ie: the good guys.
Black hat - someone who hacks machines with malicious intent. Ie: the bad guys.
Grey hat - someone in between a white hat and a black hat. In this case, the hackers are acting as a White hack, as they are reporting the problem. But they're also acting as a black hat by publishing the vulnerability.
It is actually there to serve Microsoft's interests and harm other interests. Which is why Microsoft is trying to stick those terms in there and the EU antitrust litigators are opposing it.
So you would rather have patents owned by Microsoft integrated into OSS software, and later on not be able to tell which OSS software has incorporates MS patents and which ones don't? Sounds an aweful lot like something MS could spread a whole boatload of FUD about...
The very purpose of the antitrust remedy is for people to be able to use competing applications. It is Microsoft attempting to ADD IN terms granting them an ability to sue people and subvert the legal remedy.
The legal remedy requires that MS make certain things available with reasonable terms. It does not require them to give it away to everyone for free. You may wish it did, but it doesn't.
Without that deliverately introduced incompatibility no one would ever be sued for using the GPL application. It is the incompatibility creating the suability.
Microsoft owns the IP. You need a license to use their IP to be compliant with IP laws. The EU isn't re-appropriating Microsoft IP and putting it into the public domain.
The GPL was deliberately designed to exclude contributions not owned by the community. The community doesn't own Microsoft IP. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do in this case.
You forget that software is only a small part of the patent landscape. Any attempt to change the nature of patents will be met with massive resistance from other industries (the biggie being drug companies IMO).
It requires a notice to be 'prominately' displayed in the source code, licenses, and documentation distributed with an application. This is similar in nature to the BSD advertising clause, and is incompatible with the GPL as it imposes a restriction on what someone down the line can do with the software.
While the paranoid may claim that it is there for the sole purpose of being incompatible, it is actually there to protect everyone's interests. The last thing you would want is to pick up a piece of GPL software, use it in a commercial application, and get sued for it.
It doesn't preclude "free" implementations. It requires the addition of a notice to any software which consumes it (similar to how the GPL requires you to include the GPL with copies of your software, or software you derive and distribute).
This requirement makes it GPL incompatible, but hardly precludes free implementations.
Any and every piece of "hardware" that the bus connects to can be different. The processor can connect to any bus that is pin compatible -- nothing says that the bus has to be exactly like what you'd find in a typical PC. Apple will certainly want to support certain standard interfaces for peripherals -- however, nothing says they have to implement those mechanisms the same way they are implemented for a PC.
They don't have to consider 20 years worth of legacy crap that the design of the PC has to consider. Nothing precludes them from designing a very Apple specific piece of hardware that isn't capable of running Windows.
The operating system never fails to start due to product activiation. At most it will ask you to re-activate windows within 3 days. If it has been more than 3 months since you last activated, the automated activation process can be used. Otherwise you have to activate over the phone; phone activation, at worst, requires a 5 minute phone call.
You will only need to re-activate windows if you significantly change your hardware (ie: several components). Just swapping out the MOBO won't typically do it unless it is one of those "every component on the mobo" boards.
If you can't get on the phone within 3 days of bringing the machine back online, and you regularly replace half the components in your servers every 4 months, you've got other problems you need to deal with before worrying about product activation.
The countries participating would essentially be withdrawing from the WIPO treaty, negating any protective benefits it provides for goods produced in those countries.
Additionally, given the current state of trade relations between the US and Europe, and given the kind of money we're talking about here, I can imagine a WTO complaint being made (which Europe would lose) and retaliatory sanctions being levied on European imports by the US government. This, IMO, would also be the beginnings of a formal trade war between the two continents (things have been marching in that direction for awhile now; steel, produce, aerospace, etc).
I don't see it happening unless it is done solely out of spite.
Consumers would have to pay higher prices for software, a negative. And you are correct that importing the software isn't the greatest solution in the world, also a negative. It also certainly wouldn't be business as usual. However, companies aren't going to switch their businesses to a new system overnight -- the software and training isn't there. It may be a gradual process perhaps, but it definately won't be an overnight one.
I disagree with you on the usability of OS X over Windows (I can't stand the OS X ui), but I will grant you it is definately not a barrier to its use. The barrier for Apple/OS X is its cost and featureset. I don't see many features that are necessary in an enterprise environment (it may have them, but I don't know of them), which would be another barrier to adoption. I also don't believe Apple is targeting that sort of enviornment.
What I'm getting at is that it isn't the end of the world for Microsoft if they pull out of the EU, and that the primary losers of a pullout would be consumers in the EU; consultants and vendors would be having a party in the streets.
Microsoft's physical presence would no longer exist in Europe. This would not prevent companies from importing Microsoft products from non EU countries. Of course, the EU could ban the importation of Microsoft software, but that would have much greater implications on trade between the US and Europe (and I would not be terribly surprised if the WTO got involved; it'd be a big mess).
Your second statement would be rather amusing for a different reason, as the moment that Windows is no longer a monopoly they are no longer subject to the restrictions imposed by the EU commission, and would allow them to re-enter the market.
I also believe that you are assuming that the only thing preventing the adoption of Linux is Microsoft's monopoly status. While you are free to believe that, I would choose to disagree with you here and would suspect that the effect on Microsoft's business external to Europe would be much smaller than you predict.
This does, of course, ignore any an all effects such a move would have on consumers in Europe which are rather negative across the board.
Slashdot Mirror
Digital broadcasts are going to be mandated by the FCC in just a few years. You aren't going to be able to buy a non HD-capable tv a few years from now. It isn't a matter of waiting for the userbase to grow -- it WILL grow; consumers have no choice in the matter.
I have seen games that do not billboard enemies, trees, environmental objects, etc. You're complaining about crappy games, not limitations of the hardware.
You keep talking about benefiting the average user -- if you're playing a racing game, does the average user benefit from a fully modeled 3d spectator as they whip by the stands a 200mph? No, they don't. Do they benefit from more visible detail in the distance which allows them to make a more precise turn? Yes, they do.
I guess you're definition of a mid-range card and an acceptable fps is different than mine. An ATI Radeon 9800 XT will run Doom3 at 1280x1024 with all the goodies turned on at about 30fps.
...
To put things into a bit more perspective, Doom 3 has been released for the Xbox, and it looks/runs just fine. Lower res textures and fewer polygons, but the core look and feel of the game remains intact.
Microsoft seems to think that it will be reasonable to force every game for the 360 to be released supporting 720p. We'll see if they can pull it off
I personally won't be buying an HD set for gaming. I'll get one when I get one. The whole thing is really a non-issue for me, but to say that the status quo is better than raising the bar seems shortsighted to me.
You've actually never watched a DVD on a large plasma screen have you? They don't look so good. DVDs look "good" on a normal tube because the tube blurs the image. They're better than any technology we have out there (it beats the pants off of VHS), but the "quality" of DVDs is still pretty horrid.
Games can always use more pixels. It makes it possible to display more information. It makes split screen play bearable. It allows you to see more detail where you need it. Saying that you ought to be able render something that takes a professional studio hours (for a single frame) before upping the resolution is a rediculous statement to make.
You don't need "higher rez" on computers because they won't work in low-rez applications -- you need it because people want more than 10 lines of text on the screen at a time. The detail is what is important, not the lack thereof.
The xbox may be sold at a loss, but it is NOT being sold at a significant loss. The big things killing Microsoft with the production costs of the box are the hard drive, the video hardware, and the cpu. They're still paying the same prices for the chips as they were when they first started manufacturing the device...
The HD components aren't a significant cost, and some of that can be "made up" with the sale of cables to connect the device to the TV...
He probably hasn't, but I doubt he's interested in buying new VHS tapes when a better alternative is available...
If you're not convinced, you need to take a second look at how weak the graphics hardware is on current generation consoles. Look at what a budget video card today is capable of vs a top of the line card from 2001. The difference in performance is amazing.
Now compare a current midrange card to a budget card from ~2001. This is essentially the leap being made by the next generation consoles.
HD resolution is NOT a stretch for any kind of modern hardware -- low resolution for pc games these days is 1024x768, which is very near what HD games will be rendering at.
They are properly using terminology.
White hat - someone who hacks machines with non-malicious intent; they report the problems and do no harm. Ie: the good guys.
Black hat - someone who hacks machines with malicious intent. Ie: the bad guys.
Grey hat - someone in between a white hat and a black hat. In this case, the hackers are acting as a White hack, as they are reporting the problem. But they're also acting as a black hat by publishing the vulnerability.
It is actually there to serve Microsoft's interests and harm other interests. Which is why Microsoft is trying to stick those terms in there and the EU antitrust litigators are opposing it.
...
So you would rather have patents owned by Microsoft integrated into OSS software, and later on not be able to tell which OSS software has incorporates MS patents and which ones don't? Sounds an aweful lot like something MS could spread a whole boatload of FUD about
The very purpose of the antitrust remedy is for people to be able to use competing applications. It is Microsoft attempting to ADD IN terms granting them an ability to sue people and subvert the legal remedy.
The legal remedy requires that MS make certain things available with reasonable terms. It does not require them to give it away to everyone for free. You may wish it did, but it doesn't.
Without that deliverately introduced incompatibility no one would ever be sued for using the GPL application. It is the incompatibility creating the suability.
Microsoft owns the IP. You need a license to use their IP to be compliant with IP laws. The EU isn't re-appropriating Microsoft IP and putting it into the public domain.
The GPL was deliberately designed to exclude contributions not owned by the community. The community doesn't own Microsoft IP. This is exactly what the GPL is designed to do in this case.
Let's hope "ET" doesn't share your views on extraterrestial contact/discovery.
You forget that software is only a small part of the patent landscape. Any attempt to change the nature of patents will be met with massive resistance from other industries (the biggie being drug companies IMO).
It requires a notice to be 'prominately' displayed in the source code, licenses, and documentation distributed with an application. This is similar in nature to the BSD advertising clause, and is incompatible with the GPL as it imposes a restriction on what someone down the line can do with the software.
While the paranoid may claim that it is there for the sole purpose of being incompatible, it is actually there to protect everyone's interests. The last thing you would want is to pick up a piece of GPL software, use it in a commercial application, and get sued for it.
It doesn't preclude "free" implementations. It requires the addition of a notice to any software which consumes it (similar to how the GPL requires you to include the GPL with copies of your software, or software you derive and distribute).
This requirement makes it GPL incompatible, but hardly precludes free implementations.
Put it in print a few more times and it will be. :)
It seems a lot of sites of moved to the slightly-less-annoying Flash-based interfaces if they want to do some things.
Just what do you think Flash is anyway? (its an ActiveX control)
Remember, GPL software is a subset of open source software ... Their license doesn't have to be GPL compatible.
"[Intel said the] Pentium D and the 945 chipsets do not have unannounced DRM technology embedded in them"
Is this like one of those "This statement is false" paradoxes?
Any and every piece of "hardware" that the bus connects to can be different. The processor can connect to any bus that is pin compatible -- nothing says that the bus has to be exactly like what you'd find in a typical PC. Apple will certainly want to support certain standard interfaces for peripherals -- however, nothing says they have to implement those mechanisms the same way they are implemented for a PC.
They don't have to consider 20 years worth of legacy crap that the design of the PC has to consider. Nothing precludes them from designing a very Apple specific piece of hardware that isn't capable of running Windows.
The x86 processor is just a CPU, not the computer architecture. Nothing says it has to be anywhere near compatible with a modern PC.
Nope. You're reading slashdot. :)
The operating system never fails to start due to product activiation. At most it will ask you to re-activate windows within 3 days. If it has been more than 3 months since you last activated, the automated activation process can be used. Otherwise you have to activate over the phone; phone activation, at worst, requires a 5 minute phone call.
You will only need to re-activate windows if you significantly change your hardware (ie: several components). Just swapping out the MOBO won't typically do it unless it is one of those "every component on the mobo" boards.
Read http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php for more information about how product activation works and when it kicks in.
If you can't get on the phone within 3 days of bringing the machine back online, and you regularly replace half the components in your servers every 4 months, you've got other problems you need to deal with before worrying about product activation.
The countries participating would essentially be withdrawing from the WIPO treaty, negating any protective benefits it provides for goods produced in those countries.
Additionally, given the current state of trade relations between the US and Europe, and given the kind of money we're talking about here, I can imagine a WTO complaint being made (which Europe would lose) and retaliatory sanctions being levied on European imports by the US government. This, IMO, would also be the beginnings of a formal trade war between the two continents (things have been marching in that direction for awhile now; steel, produce, aerospace, etc).
I don't see it happening unless it is done solely out of spite.
That act would be in violation of WIPO copyright treaty.
Consumers would have to pay higher prices for software, a negative. And you are correct that importing the software isn't the greatest solution in the world, also a negative. It also certainly wouldn't be business as usual. However, companies aren't going to switch their businesses to a new system overnight -- the software and training isn't there. It may be a gradual process perhaps, but it definately won't be an overnight one.
I disagree with you on the usability of OS X over Windows (I can't stand the OS X ui), but I will grant you it is definately not a barrier to its use. The barrier for Apple/OS X is its cost and featureset. I don't see many features that are necessary in an enterprise environment (it may have them, but I don't know of them), which would be another barrier to adoption. I also don't believe Apple is targeting that sort of enviornment.
What I'm getting at is that it isn't the end of the world for Microsoft if they pull out of the EU, and that the primary losers of a pullout would be consumers in the EU; consultants and vendors would be having a party in the streets.
Microsoft's physical presence would no longer exist in Europe. This would not prevent companies from importing Microsoft products from non EU countries. Of course, the EU could ban the importation of Microsoft software, but that would have much greater implications on trade between the US and Europe (and I would not be terribly surprised if the WTO got involved; it'd be a big mess).
Your second statement would be rather amusing for a different reason, as the moment that Windows is no longer a monopoly they are no longer subject to the restrictions imposed by the EU commission, and would allow them to re-enter the market.
I also believe that you are assuming that the only thing preventing the adoption of Linux is Microsoft's monopoly status. While you are free to believe that, I would choose to disagree with you here and would suspect that the effect on Microsoft's business external to Europe would be much smaller than you predict.
This does, of course, ignore any an all effects such a move would have on consumers in Europe which are rather negative across the board.
APIs are not interchangable. You can't replace foo API with bar API and expect applications written against the foo API to use the bar API instead.
Firefox and Opera don't "export" any internal functionality to 3rd party applications.