BTW, if you use my script, recognize I'm an idiot and I got the lines that print the results backwards.
(However, like I said, in the end I violated the blindness goal enough that I didn't really use that script; the problems I said I have with the Theora codec were actually based on the Theora codec, and not on an H.264 incorrectly identified by my script as Theora.
I have to respectfully disagree, even based on your clip. In particular, I notice a lot of artifacts around the edges of objects, especially when moving. Some times I wrote down as being particularly noticeable were 3:47, 4:13, and 4:31. The branch at 4:11 was a bit artifacty, and IMO the opening "The Peach Open Movie Project Presents" lettering wasn't even a contest between the two.
I was watching both in VLC in full-screen mode on a 22" screen. I'm not convinced VLC actually has great quality, but I don't know of anything else I have that'll play Theora at the moment. I tried to do the test blind, even coming up with the script I pasted below (in case anyone else wants to try it; just change the 'theora' and 'h264' functions at top and run in Bash), but I bungled things a little bit and basically managed to spoil myself. I do think it's hard to compare a clip that's close to 5 minutes long; alternating between 10 second clips would be much better.
In addition, the Theora version responds terribly to random seeks, with portions of the pre-seek image remaining on screen sometimes for several seconds. (I realize this isn't particularly relevant to the power needed for decompression, but it did mean that I couldn't just seek to the same place and compare, and it presents another practical objection.)
function h264 { /cygdrive/p/Program\ Files\ \(x86\)/VideoLAN/VLC/vlc -f --no-video-title-show bbb_youtube_h264_499kbit.mp4 }
function theora { /cygdrive/p/Program\ Files\ \(x86\)/VideoLAN/VLC/vlc -f --no-video-title-show bbb_theora_486kbit.ogv }
if [[ $RANDOM -le 16536 ]]; then
printf "Press Enter to start...\n"
read FOO
while [[ $FOO != "no" ]]; do
h264
printf "Press Enter to start second video\n"
read FOO
theora
printf "Again?\n"
read FOO
done
printf "First: Theora\n" else
printf "Press Enter to start...\n"
read FOO
while [[ $FOO != "no" ]]; do
theora
printf "Press Enter to start second video\n"
read FOO
h264
printf "Again?\n"
read FOO
done
That statement is totally oblivious of reallity, just like the statement wLAN is flawless on linux. Don't get me wrong, I am a linux user myself, and would never dream of the nightmare to install windows.
What makes you think I'm talking about Linux? Flash works fine on 64-bit Windows, and if you're interested in the practicality of what will prevent the adoption of 64-bit OSs, looking at what goes on with 64-bit Linux doesn't seem particularly relevant to be honest.
Also, are you trying to run the 64-bit Flash alpha, or are you running the 32-bit build with a 32-bit browser?
"Only" because Firefox refuses to use something like DirectShow to use whatever codecs are available on the system.
See here for why; they aren't necessarily bad reasons, but changing their opinion on this matter would largely solve the H.264 codec patent issue as far as Firefox is concerned.
That's the point, dummy. The post I replied to stated that the unavailability of a 64-bit Flash build was a hindrance to the spread of 64-bit OSs. ("Since flash is not fully supported in 64-bit. 64-bit OS:es will not be able to be widely spread. Try to sell a computer with a new hardware architecture until the day flash supports that new architecture.")
This statement, of course, is complete BS for precisely the reason you and I are pointing out.
(That said, there is a 64-bit experimental build of Flash available for Linux, so saying it's not publicly out isn't 100% correct, just... like 99%.)
Since flash is not fully supported in 64-bit. 64-bit OS:es will not be able to be widely spread.
There are a couple different problems with this statement... I'll just say that I'm posting this from a 64-bit OS and a browser that runs Flash just fine. (Well, as fine as a Flash can be run anyway, which is "not very", but that's sort of beside the point.)
An example of what you're missing is, well, consider menu (or button) bar placement. On a mouse-based UI, there's no downside to putting that at the top of the screen. On a touch-based UI, putting that at the top of the screen means your hand covers up the screen when you use it.
As another example, consider scroll bar placement. (This makes less sense with stuff like the iPhone's Safari, where the whole screen basically is the scroll area.) If it's fixed to the right side of the screen, I won't use your app on a touch device. I'm left handed, so having it on the right means that I can't both scroll and see where the present cursor puts the document. I have a Tablet PC (and love it), and used it pretty heavily for a while. Going back to a "normal" computer, it felt really awkward for a while to have the scroll bars back on the right sides of the windows. (Fortunately you can move the location of the scroll bar on both OneNote and Firefox, which by far are the two programs I use most in tablet mode.)
Prepaid rates are great if you use a small number (15-30) minutes a month...
You can do way more than 30 min/month and still do better with prepaid.
I've had AT&T the last few years, and started with them back when they were still Cingular, and have only had prepaid. (There was a couple year break when I didn't have a cell phone.) For a while I was using their pay-as-you go thing, and paying like $20/month; for the last couple years I've had pick-your-plan for $30/month. That costs 10 or 15 cents a minute which comes out of the $30, which gives you no less than 200 minutes a month for $30. At least last time I checked, I'm pretty sure the cheapest post-paid plan from either AT&T or Verizon was $40/month.
T-mobile is comparable at higher times: $10 + 10 cents/minute, which again would give you 200 minutes for $30 month.
The parent is mostly full of crap. The game plays perfectly fine without the Cerberus network thing; that only gets you some DLC (currently a tiny amount). If you want ME2 proper, you don't need to have the card at all.
There's no online component to the game; all that stuff about permabanning cheaters and such doesn't make any sense.
I assume you're referring to the Cerberus Network card.
Actually I was being sarcastic, the point being that "get the game free and pay to contact the servers" doesn't really work very well when it's a single-player game that doesn't have any substantial online component.
If your iMac dies, you get another computer or fix it.
But why do I have to get a new screen if the motherboard goes kaput?
What if your laptop dies and you want to keep using the screen?
Yes, it's very similar, except that there are almost 30 years of precedent for manufacturing desktop computers with separate screens, but none that I know of for manufacturing laptops with separate screens, nor any terribly good way to go about it considering the lack of any standard.
It's the same, silly argument. If you can't live with the known limitations of a system, don't freaking buy it.
I haven't. But that's exactly my point: it's really too bad that Apple refuses to make a system that meets (what I feel are) perfectly reasonable requirements.
I think the poster was implying that could attach your current monitor for a dual-monitor setup if you don't have one. Now if you had two monitors or if you wanted to stay with a single monitor system, it doesn't help you.
Gah... But then what do I do when the iMac has outlived its life? I have to go buy a new monitor. I can't detach the monitor I'm using with the iMac, then use that with my new computer.
A MacPro is really intended for professionals and not consumers. If you were editing digital video for a living like Peter Jackson on the LOTR trilogy, you would get a MacPro. For normal, consumer usage like surfing and email, it's overkill.
But that's exactly my point... Apple doesn't sell anything close to what I want: a nicely expandable, not all-in-one, consumer-grade computer. IMO that's not too much to ask -- it's basically the only genre of desktop I would consider buying -- and yet Apple doesn't sell it.
That's fine but it misses the point. I already have a monitor, that I fully expect to be good not just for the life of my current computer but through the next one as well. Why should I pay for another one? In other words, yeah, sure, the iMacs have nice monitors, and probably at a competitive price. But it's not worth it. (It's a less extreme version of the Mac Pro: giving $3000 to Apple would result in a damn nice computer, but I can't justify paying anywhere close to $3000 on a computer.)
This is exactly my problem. I probably wouldn't get a Mac even if they sold what I wanted (I like to build my computers), but now it's not even worth considering. The Mac Mini is too low end for what I'd consider a desktop box (9400M graphics?); it's not too much more than a laptop in a desktop form factor. The iMacs make me waste a couple hundred dollars on a monitor when I already have one in exchange for not being able to upgrade it like I would want. The Mac Pros, which otherwise fit what I want, are too damn expensive.
Where's the $1000 Mac Pro version with just a typical Core 2 and more typical consumer parts? As long as Apple doesn't sell one, I won't be getting an Apple.
(Things are better in the laptop world, except I've really fallen in love with my tablet PC. Time will tell whether I still consider that important after classes are done, but at least for now Apple doesn't really sell what I want in that area either.)
If it does things intelligently, which I'm sure it does, it makes sure as much as possible of the browser is initialized off of the process is forked. I'm pretty sure Win32 is the same as Linux w.r.t forks - those pages are mapped COW and don't actually impact the memory usage.
And I'm *positive* you're wrong. Unless you mess with the Native NT API's process create (this is, I think, officially undocumented), Windows process creation works entirely differently from Unix's. You don't get fork() at all, just something like the fork/exec combination.
I haven't tried it, and the reviews look variable....but it fits what you were talking about (mostly).
Given the reviews I'd say "somewhat" rather than "mostly", and even then only for the FPS games really. Still doesn't help if Blizzard doesn't release Starcraft for consoles.
I don't see why some game vendors don't just start supporting usb mouse and keyboard for stuff....there's nothing technical in the way, that I know of.
My understanding is that at least one of the console makers (I forget if it's Sony or MS) expressly disallows this for whatever reasons.
OK, I've read the books a few times and I'm pretty sure Frodo failed in the end and succumbed to the temptation to (attempt to) become the new Dark Lord.
Think after that point... like he's shot (though not by Frodo) outside of Bag End.
Why bother running Windows for gaming when all the good games are for consoles anyway?
When you can hook up a mouse for a FPS, or mouse and keyboard for a RTS game (Starcraft 2, just around the corner!), you can talk about all the good games being available for consoles.
Major attack vector: Acrobat Reader. Security company publishes intrusion analysis in pdf format. If you clicked it, you may be part of the problem.
This is Slashdot. Who clicks on the article links?
On a serious note, the Link Alert extension for Firefox will put an icon following links that go to a PDF file. (I know that the/. editors kindly put "(PDF)" after it, but to be honest I tuned it out, and if I felt like reading TFA would have just clicked.)
People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs, with no simply way to revert to the old setup.
Except that, for the keyboard drivers, Office 2007 does continue to recognize the old office shortcuts.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, if you use my script, recognize I'm an idiot and I got the lines that print the results backwards.
(However, like I said, in the end I violated the blindness goal enough that I didn't really use that script; the problems I said I have with the Theora codec were actually based on the Theora codec, and not on an H.264 incorrectly identified by my script as Theora.
I have to respectfully disagree, even based on your clip. In particular, I notice a lot of artifacts around the edges of objects, especially when moving. Some times I wrote down as being particularly noticeable were 3:47, 4:13, and 4:31. The branch at 4:11 was a bit artifacty, and IMO the opening "The Peach Open Movie Project Presents" lettering wasn't even a contest between the two.
I was watching both in VLC in full-screen mode on a 22" screen. I'm not convinced VLC actually has great quality, but I don't know of anything else I have that'll play Theora at the moment. I tried to do the test blind, even coming up with the script I pasted below (in case anyone else wants to try it; just change the 'theora' and 'h264' functions at top and run in Bash), but I bungled things a little bit and basically managed to spoil myself. I do think it's hard to compare a clip that's close to 5 minutes long; alternating between 10 second clips would be much better.
In addition, the Theora version responds terribly to random seeks, with portions of the pre-seek image remaining on screen sometimes for several seconds. (I realize this isn't particularly relevant to the power needed for decompression, but it did mean that I couldn't just seek to the same place and compare, and it presents another practical objection.)
That statement is totally oblivious of reallity, just like the statement wLAN is flawless on linux. Don't get me wrong, I am a linux user myself, and would never dream of the nightmare to install windows.
What makes you think I'm talking about Linux? Flash works fine on 64-bit Windows, and if you're interested in the practicality of what will prevent the adoption of 64-bit OSs, looking at what goes on with 64-bit Linux doesn't seem particularly relevant to be honest.
Also, are you trying to run the 64-bit Flash alpha, or are you running the 32-bit build with a 32-bit browser?
This is an issue for browsers like Firefox.
"Only" because Firefox refuses to use something like DirectShow to use whatever codecs are available on the system.
See here for why; they aren't necessarily bad reasons, but changing their opinion on this matter would largely solve the H.264 codec patent issue as far as Firefox is concerned.
It runs flash in 32-bit mode, dummy.
That's the point, dummy. The post I replied to stated that the unavailability of a 64-bit Flash build was a hindrance to the spread of 64-bit OSs. ("Since flash is not fully supported in 64-bit. 64-bit OS:es will not be able to be widely spread. Try to sell a computer with a new hardware architecture until the day flash supports that new architecture.")
This statement, of course, is complete BS for precisely the reason you and I are pointing out.
(That said, there is a 64-bit experimental build of Flash available for Linux, so saying it's not publicly out isn't 100% correct, just... like 99%.)
Since flash is not fully supported in 64-bit. 64-bit OS:es will not be able to be widely spread.
There are a couple different problems with this statement... I'll just say that I'm posting this from a 64-bit OS and a browser that runs Flash just fine. (Well, as fine as a Flash can be run anyway, which is "not very", but that's sort of beside the point.)
If I had an international trademark and $35 billion in cash and short term investments, I would sue people even if I knew I would lose.
And I would call you an asshole who's abusing the system, and costing other people the money that they take home to feed their families and pay rent.
OOo 3.2 is feature-competitive with Office 2007 (with the exception of the playskool ribbon).
And Impress/PowerPoint.
An example of what you're missing is, well, consider menu (or button) bar placement. On a mouse-based UI, there's no downside to putting that at the top of the screen. On a touch-based UI, putting that at the top of the screen means your hand covers up the screen when you use it.
As another example, consider scroll bar placement. (This makes less sense with stuff like the iPhone's Safari, where the whole screen basically is the scroll area.) If it's fixed to the right side of the screen, I won't use your app on a touch device. I'm left handed, so having it on the right means that I can't both scroll and see where the present cursor puts the document. I have a Tablet PC (and love it), and used it pretty heavily for a while. Going back to a "normal" computer, it felt really awkward for a while to have the scroll bars back on the right sides of the windows. (Fortunately you can move the location of the scroll bar on both OneNote and Firefox, which by far are the two programs I use most in tablet mode.)
Prepaid rates are great if you use a small number (15-30) minutes a month...
You can do way more than 30 min/month and still do better with prepaid.
I've had AT&T the last few years, and started with them back when they were still Cingular, and have only had prepaid. (There was a couple year break when I didn't have a cell phone.) For a while I was using their pay-as-you go thing, and paying like $20/month; for the last couple years I've had pick-your-plan for $30/month. That costs 10 or 15 cents a minute which comes out of the $30, which gives you no less than 200 minutes a month for $30. At least last time I checked, I'm pretty sure the cheapest post-paid plan from either AT&T or Verizon was $40/month.
T-mobile is comparable at higher times: $10 + 10 cents/minute, which again would give you 200 minutes for $30 month.
I got it with my copy and I didn't get the collector's edition.
Perhaps that varies between PC and console versions?
The parent is mostly full of crap. The game plays perfectly fine without the Cerberus network thing; that only gets you some DLC (currently a tiny amount). If you want ME2 proper, you don't need to have the card at all.
There's no online component to the game; all that stuff about permabanning cheaters and such doesn't make any sense.
I assume you're referring to the Cerberus Network card.
Actually I was being sarcastic, the point being that "get the game free and pay to contact the servers" doesn't really work very well when it's a single-player game that doesn't have any substantial online component.
Games should be distributed for free, and gamers should pay a monthly fee for each game to access the servers.
I'm sure that'd work really well for a game like Mass Effect 2.
That is a rather obtuse and silly scenario.
Why?
If your iMac dies, you get another computer or fix it.
But why do I have to get a new screen if the motherboard goes kaput?
What if your laptop dies and you want to keep using the screen?
Yes, it's very similar, except that there are almost 30 years of precedent for manufacturing desktop computers with separate screens, but none that I know of for manufacturing laptops with separate screens, nor any terribly good way to go about it considering the lack of any standard.
It's the same, silly argument. If you can't live with the known limitations of a system, don't freaking buy it.
I haven't. But that's exactly my point: it's really too bad that Apple refuses to make a system that meets (what I feel are) perfectly reasonable requirements.
I think the poster was implying that could attach your current monitor for a dual-monitor setup if you don't have one. Now if you had two monitors or if you wanted to stay with a single monitor system, it doesn't help you.
Gah... But then what do I do when the iMac has outlived its life? I have to go buy a new monitor. I can't detach the monitor I'm using with the iMac, then use that with my new computer.
A MacPro is really intended for professionals and not consumers. If you were editing digital video for a living like Peter Jackson on the LOTR trilogy, you would get a MacPro. For normal, consumer usage like surfing and email, it's overkill.
But that's exactly my point... Apple doesn't sell anything close to what I want: a nicely expandable, not all-in-one, consumer-grade computer. IMO that's not too much to ask -- it's basically the only genre of desktop I would consider buying -- and yet Apple doesn't sell it.
That's fine but it misses the point. I already have a monitor, that I fully expect to be good not just for the life of my current computer but through the next one as well. Why should I pay for another one? In other words, yeah, sure, the iMacs have nice monitors, and probably at a competitive price. But it's not worth it. (It's a less extreme version of the Mac Pro: giving $3000 to Apple would result in a damn nice computer, but I can't justify paying anywhere close to $3000 on a computer.)
This is exactly my problem. I probably wouldn't get a Mac even if they sold what I wanted (I like to build my computers), but now it's not even worth considering. The Mac Mini is too low end for what I'd consider a desktop box (9400M graphics?); it's not too much more than a laptop in a desktop form factor. The iMacs make me waste a couple hundred dollars on a monitor when I already have one in exchange for not being able to upgrade it like I would want. The Mac Pros, which otherwise fit what I want, are too damn expensive.
Where's the $1000 Mac Pro version with just a typical Core 2 and more typical consumer parts? As long as Apple doesn't sell one, I won't be getting an Apple.
(Things are better in the laptop world, except I've really fallen in love with my tablet PC. Time will tell whether I still consider that important after classes are done, but at least for now Apple doesn't really sell what I want in that area either.)
If it does things intelligently, which I'm sure it does, it makes sure as much as possible of the browser is initialized off of the process is forked. I'm pretty sure Win32 is the same as Linux w.r.t forks - those pages are mapped COW and don't actually impact the memory usage.
And I'm *positive* you're wrong. Unless you mess with the Native NT API's process create (this is, I think, officially undocumented), Windows process creation works entirely differently from Unix's. You don't get fork() at all, just something like the fork/exec combination.
I haven't tried it, and the reviews look variable....but it fits what you were talking about (mostly).
Given the reviews I'd say "somewhat" rather than "mostly", and even then only for the FPS games really. Still doesn't help if Blizzard doesn't release Starcraft for consoles.
I don't see why some game vendors don't just start supporting usb mouse and keyboard for stuff....there's nothing technical in the way, that I know of.
My understanding is that at least one of the console makers (I forget if it's Sony or MS) expressly disallows this for whatever reasons.
OK, I've read the books a few times and I'm pretty sure Frodo failed in the end and succumbed to the temptation to (attempt to) become the new Dark Lord.
Think after that point... like he's shot (though not by Frodo) outside of Bag End.
Why bother running Windows for gaming when all the good games are for consoles anyway?
When you can hook up a mouse for a FPS, or mouse and keyboard for a RTS game (Starcraft 2, just around the corner!), you can talk about all the good games being available for consoles.
Major attack vector: Acrobat Reader. Security company publishes intrusion analysis in pdf format. If you clicked it, you may be part of the problem.
This is Slashdot. Who clicks on the article links?
On a serious note, the Link Alert extension for Firefox will put an icon following links that go to a PDF file. (I know that the /. editors kindly put "(PDF)" after it, but to be honest I tuned it out, and if I felt like reading TFA would have just clicked.)
You should tell that to 95% of the people posting in this story.
(Not saying that he's right... just that the /. crowd is remarkably prejudicial against the conclusion.)
People who memorized countless shortcut keys and menus for Office '97 through 2003 suddenly have to reacquaint themselves with the shortcut bar for n00bs, with no simply way to revert to the old setup.
Except that, for the keyboard drivers, Office 2007 does continue to recognize the old office shortcuts.