Aero/Glass consumes about 10-30mb of RAM, I don't think this is the issue.
Vista likes RAM for the simple fact that it scales extra RAM beyond application/OS usage and standard caching. So as you keep adding RAM, Vista will continue to speed up applications, especially load times and applications like games or applications with user content that accesses GBs of data. This doesn't mean Vista NEEDS this RAM, it just means that it is pretty smart about taking advantage of unused RAM for prefetch caching based on the application or the user's usage patterns.
Has anyone considered that the DRAM demand isn't as high as expected, since 1GB is the sweet spot for Vista, and a lot of users were already using 1GB?
The revolutionary thing about the iPhone is not that it uses a multitouch screen (although that is pretty new, too - if you know of any other cell phones that do that, I'd love to hear about it). The revolutionary thing is how it uses the touch screen. Have you ever seen a cell phone ad that focused on usability? That's pretty damn revolutionary if you ask me. Which you don't, of course... but... it still is! HA!
Yes I agree the usability is the key Apple is banking on.
However this doesn't mean other phones haven't addressed usability. Some motorola interfaces aren't bad, and then there is Windows Mobile 5 and 6 that offer a comfortable level of usability. Phones with advanced features are not horrible to use like they were 5 years ago.
I hope Apple's usability is beyond everyone else, as it is elevate the expectation of users.
I still do wish that Apple would not have dismissed some of the technical features people like myself have come to expect in phones, like 3G speeds.
I apologize for my original post, it was an emotional OMG type of post, rather than just laying out facts.
Thanks for responding, and yes I would have asked you what you thought if I knew you.:)
Wow, typical Apple bashing. I think people like you get upset when people are engaged by technology
I admit my post was a bit emotional or over the top, but I wasn't trying to Apple bash, but instead try to give people a wake up call.
The iPhone isn't evil or bad, but also isn't a major technology advance and I wanted to get this across to people. (Although I did go a bit into orbit.)
I have been around phones for literally years that offer solid applications, and a full multimedia (aka iPod) experience in addition to being a good phone and PDA.
iPhone is kind of cool, but is driven more by marketing than actual features. With the exception of the paradigm moving to a multi-touch screen, it offers nothing new, and disappoints by not offering true high speed cellular performance.
I have had 3G speeds for over 3yrs, and am used to using my phone alone or with my laptop on the beach with DSL like speeds. I am also use to using my phone as my second media device with 8gb of storage that I can change in and out and even Sync over Bluetooth or WiFi.
Apple's marketing is awesome, they could sell ice to penguins, but that doesn't mean their ice is revolutionary.
PS I apologize for going Postal on Apple in my original post, it was more emotional than what I intended when all I wanted to do is shake some reality back into the conversation.
My problem is the non-informed SlashDot crowd that tries to paint the iPhone as revolutionary or 'technically' advanced, when it is not.
It is just simple convergence with an Apple Logo, plain and simple.
This doesn't make it horrible or bad either. My original post was a bit over the top trying to make my point of how average the iPhone is compared to other technologies, but I wanted to get some people to think about it realistically.
If someone has tons of iTunes content and needs a new phone, this is fine choice for them. The iPhone isn't evil nor does it seem to be a bad design, however I am personally disappointed Apple is skipping several technologies like 3G level online performance.
Also for people that are wanting multi-media in their pocket, there are some really good products already out there, and you can use WMP and either buy tracks online or even do a subscription and have access to 3 million songs for $15 a month. The iPhone level of convergence already exists in many other phones; it just doesn't have the Apple marketing machine.
PS Thanks for responding and bring me back out of orbit.:)
don't think anyone would argue, seriously, that Vista is better than XP
Actually there are, but they are technical engineers or OS theorists, of course that doesn't compare to the 'brilliance' of the average SlashDot user.
Seriously Vista is a major step forward from XP in architecture and creating a new paradigm for development. Even look at the stupid Surface Computer from MS, the simple demos it is running is all Vista UI development technologies, and even the applications used in the presentation of the Surface computer are barely more than a few lines of coding, let alone taking advantage of the new video subsystem and I/O optimization that allow the input cameras to work effortlessly.
Some people still belive Win2K is better than XP as well, I feel sorry for them. XP is faster, more reliable, and more resilient (Just system restore alone is a technology that makes XP a must have over Win2k).
So go look up OS theorists or engineers that actually study these technologies, they get it even if the SlashDot world puts it head in the sand and pretends and tries to yell that Vista is like the horrible WinME.
Basically go find a technically minded article written with knowledge of OS kernel technologies and you will find Vista isn't the dog we would like to believe it is.
PS. Yes I'm writing this post from an old 2004 laptop, 1Gb RAM, 5600 64mb Video, running Vista.
Application load times 3-10x faster than XP CorelDraw/AI screen render 10-20x faster than XP OpenGL Game performance (CoX) 20% faster than XP with High Quality textures (XP couldn't even run with HQ Textures because of only 64mb dedicated VRAM) DirectX Game performance 10% faster than XP Glass/Aero enabled UI and all the other 'extra' features of Vista running just fine.
So do you see why as an OS engineer I don't just blindly buy into the Vista is crap SlashDot mentallity? Also if I was just an average end user and saw my computer perform better, while getting a lot of new usablitly and features, how I would think Vista was pretty cool?
Vista has a few rough edges, but they are less rough than XP, and less rough than even anomolies in something that is supposed to be polished like OS X. Remember this statement the next time you are using OS X and have to open a shell to config something or set permissions and yet in Windows this stuff is all available in the GUI. (How on earth did Apple allow this to happen and not have GUI options for everything?)
Vista Rough Edges: The protected video in Vista does kind of suck, but it is also the reason HD-DVD and Blu-Ray approved Vista, it is also why CableCard 1.0 works on Vista. So in theory it sounds bad, but as a consumer that doesn't know crap, they are running these technologies without any thought and are happy. Not all forms of DRM are evil for well meaning content providers, just because the RIAA and others are total dicks about it. MS could have left out the protected Video pipelines, but then only using Hacks would users be able to plug in CableCard or play HD-DVD, and that is far from effortless as it is now.
If you want to beat MS, at least pay attention to what they are doing right, if not OSS software will suffer from technologies they could be embracing and extending that come from outside the OSS world.
Even look at application level development in the OSS world, the UIs look like 1998, and the innovation tends to be 'copying' old MS technology. Why not at least freaking copy the new MS UI technologies or go past it.
Example: OpenGL UI for *nix, it is going to give you the OS X and Aero features, but it is not going to give you the driver power of Vista's WDDM that does things no other OS can currently do, from GPU multitasking and GPU RAM Virtualization, to even having a perfmance kernel/user mode mixed model. (Yes OS X limited mixed kernel/user video driver model, but it is far from the Vista WDDM and this is important for the OSS to recognize.)
As one/.'er said about the Microsoft Surface "if only it fitted in my shirt pocket.."
Wow the iPhone has cameras inside it that can see your fingers touch the screen, and see objects that are set next to it? OMG that is freaking revolutionary!
Oh, wait, NVM, it is just a freaking touch screen capable of sensing a couple points at the same time, wow, that is something out of the 80s, I love the new retro technology movement at Apple.
So a phone that you can touch in a couple places, that is out---. Oh wait, I can do that aready with my freaking RAZR, they are called BUTTONS, and I can press several at the same time. I also can store 8GB of Music and Video and Watch REAL BROADBAND TV broadcasts and access the internet at near DSL speeds. Wake me up when Apple catches up.
Actually I'm not being fair, my RAZR only cost $40 bucks with renewal, we should compare the iPhone to other products in its price class.
Here is a touch screen Phone with a keyboard that is from sometime last year or older, has everything from Bluetooth to WiFi, and can buy music online using WMP or be used as a portable media player for Video and music. (PS you can run custom apps on it, and even remote desktop to your home or office computer on the screen.)
PS The reason I had this link handy is that some of my friends at EDS in Europe were showing me the phones they have been using for quite a while and how absurd the whole iPhone thing is to them.
Is it me, or only non-techs and Mac users the ones that think the iPhone is great? I would say the iPhone is special, but only in reference to a short bus...
So where is this mythical 1.0 card that is currently commercially available WITHOUT purchasing a complete system? The only card that I've seen is the ATI card which is only sold to system manufacturers.
Try Google, there are lots of links to these 'mythical' things...
If the drivers for an OS sucks, the OS sucks. Full stop
But they don't. The drivers supplied by some companies suck, but there are good XP drivers from the same companies still available that still work.
Does OSX, Linux, BSD have to scrap drivers with every version or kernel change? Some have to be changed, but most recompile or just work. The same goes for Windows, except MS went out of their way to keep the XP portions of the driver systems in tact to ensure that even if a Vista driver wasn't available, it works like XP and even something that has changed as much as Video, still works fine.
So I agree that if the drivers suck, Stop. However, Vista has Vista and 99% of XP drivers, so you often have two options for drivers in case one sucks. This is far from the drivers sucking or a Stop, it is actually the opposite as you get newly optimized drivers or can use the old stand bys if there is a problem waiting on the new driver for Vista.
This is also very different from Linux when there were NO drivers available, even though you want to draw a comparison. Vista isn't left out in the cold with no device support, Vista people just have to put in the freaking XP driver, and go on until a Vista driver is (if ever) made available. This is still the NT architecture and most of the driver subsystem works the same, and the areas that don't work the same have legacy pipes in Vista to enable XP driver modes.
To get cablecard support you need a cablelabs certified PC.
You can't buy a cablecard tuner for a PC - Vista or otherwise. The only PC-based option is to buy a PC that the manufacturer had certified as a complete system (software, hardware, monitor, etc).
Um, no... The only certification is for CableCard 2.0 with two-way interactive content, and even then if the drivers hold up and the local Cable Company allows it, it will work because of the protect process driver system in Vista that was also required for HD,Blu DVD. However CableCard 2.0 UI elements are not in Vista because the two-way UI needs are very different between cable providers, so additional software is needed as Media Center doesn't have native support, but does allow plugins for this software. (It already easier to just use online or IPTV with Media Center and will be the death of Cable because of CableLabs strangle hold on 2.0 if they don't get their act together.)
However, because there is no protected driver model in other OSes, I would be surprised if any other OS will be able to use CableCard anytime soon.
Back to the point... CableCard 1.0 is licensed for Vista and requires no system certification. So you can just slap a 1.0 card in Vista and it does work.
but its alright that I can instantly swap from a sword to a lute in combat to cast spells without having to do anything.
You have two hands, sword/knife in one, lute in other. This is why you can't carry two handed weapons and why some other classes can wield two weapons cause they also have two hands.
I didn't think you were really this stupid and were just trying to make a point, sorry for my incorrect assumption.
Go look up immersion, I suggest a good dictionary or go check out Raph's site, he knows something about MMOs.;)
Ok, most people realize that the MFRs write the drivers, not MS. And yes Vista specific driver support is lacking in some areas, as moving to the new audio model, video model, network stack, etc can be tricky for native driver support in Vista.
However, I can understand why you would use this as a dig against Vista, but the thing you and others miss, 'just install the freaking XP drivers'. 99% of XP drivers work just fine on Vista, as MS left in legacy hooks for XP drivers that even work entirely different than the Vista model drivers.
Sadly, Vista has more drivers for it than any other OS in history, although they are not all native 'Vista' drivers, but when you add in the Win2K and XP drivers that work just fine, it makes the device support numbers massive.
There is a balance, but people like you push for easy and others push for simulating the real world.
If you follow the timeline of SWG, it started out very real, and edges were polished. However it can be clearly defined that they destroyed the game when the dumbed it down with the CU and then the NGE. Both were attempts to make the game 'easier' and closer to what you are pushing as an ideal game.
In the end the game is easier, but boring. SWG went from the most immersive and complex MMO to the easiest and least complex MMO by pushing to make the game easier for people like you.
One example would be healing in the game. In pre-cu(the real era) you couldn't magically heal, you had to have a crafted medical pack in your inventory and the skills to use it. In the post NGE (easy game) you can just hit a button and magically heal yourself. Sure it is easier, but is it a better game? 300,000 people would argue that it isn't, and they didn't realize that harder was a better game until it was taken from them. Go look up any old time SWG user, they get what you lose by making everything automatic or easy.
If changing tools to mine or hack wood is too hard for you, then maybe the game is outside your idea of a game. I think if the game was 'fully' automated, you would find it extremely boring. But then again, there are about 10,000 SWG customers that actually like the NGE(easy) version of SWG over the pre-cu(Real/Hard). Of course most people assume they are mentally in the 10-15yr old range, and so far this tends to hold true.
Truly don't discount games because they make you work or are challenging. If you want easy and automatic or to win easily, just play Solitaire and cheat.
Why do I have to change tools every time I switch between mining copper and chopping wood? I mean really, can't the game figure out that obviously I want to use the axe in my bag to chop wood?
Heck, why doesn't the game just realize you want to be level 50 and instantly grind your toon for you, computers are smart enough to do this too.
This is called immersion, and is a psychological aspect of MMOs to bring realism to the player. Bringing real world 'thought' into a game can bring it a lot of success, this is why SWG originally was so popular as it was a very open sandbox of a game. Some people got it, others didn't. The people that got it were die hard fans and would spend hours crafting clothes and gather resources or fighting rancors because of the high level of social interaction and immersion in the game.
If everything was automatic why even play a game? Would you play Halo2 if the game automatically would align your shots so you never missed as well?
I have played LoTRO and can say it isn't the best game ever made, but it does have a polished interface, polished combat, great graphics, and for the RPer offers a lot of online entertainment with friends by having a level of immersion. It also is a good game for people into the LoTR books and gives people an alternative to the cartoony looking WoW.
Sadly the same cannot be said of many other new games that were 'supposed' to be the next big thing like Vanguard, etc that are horribly designed and have the polished quality of bad Alpha code.
PS. I actually like scholar, as it is more of a social or explorative crafting profession and you don't just hang out in one field growing pipeweed. If you are camping one area for pots, then you are missing the point of being a scholar.
I personally give the game a 4 out of 5 myself, but that is because I prefer the more open ended games without the RP Quests, and why my heart still longs for an open-ended sandbox 'virtual world' like the pre-CU SWG gave players. It was more than Star Wars or a game, it was a virtual world where people lived, as you could do everything from fish, hardcore PVP, build a museum, or just be a doctor and run around and save people.
Did the industry and Google learn nothing from the mistakes Microsoft made?
Even MS has done a 180 and with Vista broke all the internal/external links that made XP/ActiveX/IE such a mess. So if MS is smart enough to learn from their mistakes you would thing a company like Google would not go out of their way to emulate the same bad security ideas.
Is it just me, or is Google racing to be the next big evil? Gmail scanning, search data compiling, Firefox reporting, desktop document reporting, and now making really stupid software design decisions?
Have you even looked at specs on the more recent plasma and LCD TVs?
Yes, and DLP has ALSO improved. The thing most people seem to forget about plasma, is they 'degrade' in picture quality over time, as in 5-10 years. So go pet your new plasma and tell yourself how proud you bought the 'best' technology, then in 5 years when it starts to washout, you can go buy a new one, or maybe look at DLP technology.
Plasma and LCD are great for a flat TV. PERIOD. They are NOT the best technology for displaying images. Rear and Front projection DLP are much better technologies in the 'lower cost' spectrum.
Surely a flat-screen technology (TFT, Plasma, whatever) coupled with one of the newer multi-touch sensitive technologies would be better?
Um, not really.
First thing to note is that it is not 'multi-touch', but image sensing input, so it can distiguish all aspects of a hand, pen, or recognize items placed on the surface, this is far far beyond a multi-point touch screen technology.
This also means that with work, barcodes on the items will not always be necessary, as the system will eventually be able to image recognize devices, however this will be an evolution, just like developing drivers for every device.
The second thing is they are using DLP for imaging. DLP has features over Plasma and LCD in both refresh speed, contrast ratios, etc.(Anyone that owns a projector for watching movies and using their computer in the last 5 years knows the benefits of DLP.)
I don't know how thin this specific device will get, but a rear projected image can get fairly thin using a distorted directional optical system, so they could make the display a couple of inches thick if needed. Go look up some of the new DLP display technologies that are being pushed for mobile devices, because they can get the size down to smaller than most people expect.
Honestly, this is something new for me. What difference does your browser make?
Do a search on the ties between Google and Firefox.
BTW Since this article hit SlashDot, Google's CEO announced that they were moving forward with a new information collection system so that they could provide services even more invasive than the incorrect allegations from this article against MS.
Also notice, that article never made it to SlashDot, but CNN covered it. So much for Slashdot being on top of tech news when CNN's morning show is better informing their viewers.
I dont know what you mean by "even a lot of small companies..."
I started to read your post, thinking you were being insightful, but then came to this. You either didn't comprehend what I was saying or are purposely using it as a hyperbolic tangent.
I said 'even small companies', as in mom and pop shops, have to adhere to legal constraints on dissemination of information contained on their computers, including employee activity. (This was in no way a reference to MS.)
Even a small town insurance agency cannot let users or software have any access to specific information by law, and this would make running Windows in the scenario that you seem to think will happen, illegal. This is why I mentioned that many insurance companies are aware of tracking software and prohibit GoogleBar and Gmail accounts for agents.
Here is the problem with your argument in whole, you are 'assuming' what will happen, and you are exaggerating the MS EULA's rights to information that MS may collect.
I find arguments like yours very troubling, as you would be the type of person to be afraid of what could potentially happen in the future like this, yet go to Subway and hand your CC to a 16yr old that has a good memory. What do you think is more risky?
There are also tons of outlets and 'opt in' portions of society that you are already signed up for that gives out far more information than you and other are describing in your worse case scenario.
Go look up the call log information Verizon or ATT tracks and how easily they handed this over to the NSA. Even your power company can report your usage and address and other personal information to any inquiries. And even just using a CC provides more information to the CC Company than MS could possibly get from you buying something online, as the CC has all the information and doesn't have to 'guess' anything about you.
And you are right, most people wouldn't know and don't know, as most people don't check the 'opt out' box on the CC applications, etc.
However, this was ALSO a point I am trying to get through. If what you are suggesting does happen, it will become illegal for people to use Windows, and these are state and local laws, not something MS could sweep in and easily change as you suggest. So even stupid people WOULD be made aware of it when their parent company or contracting partners demand they stop using Windows. (Look up state insurance laws as I cite in my example several times now.)
- without their permission? You mean like WGA and numerous other components in Windows that the closest thing to permission is "Agree to this EULA or dont use any of our software"? Yeah... I can see it happening. Fits their track record very nicely.
99% of Windows users obtained the copy Legally and don't give a crap whether MS Update only allows legal updates and usage. I don't fully support WGA, but I do know where it came from and it wasn't originally devised to harm customers but to stop rampant illegal copy distributing companies via OEM channels.
However if MS tells all Windows users, we will gather info on you, or you can't use Windows, MS will see the most massive Windows Exodus since WindowsME.
If MS is this stupid, then you should be rooting for them to do this. Even casual users will catch wind of this and move to something else.
Not to EVEN mention this can't happen in corporate America where information, including user research, on the corporate computers is protected under law via tradesecrets, etc. And they would have NO CHOICE but to give MS the finger.
Even a lot of small companies by law cannot share information like this let alone expose it to any company or individual, so if you think MS expects Windows to force users to give up this type of information, then either you or MS is insane. (This goes from small insurance agencies through most industry all the way up to companies that have government contracts.)
(PS Even insurance companies that have a strong legal and IT deparment working together will not allow agents to have GMail accounts for this reason, specifically.)
So if you think MS is going to do this and tie it to IE or Windows, then you should cheer them on, as it will be a true nail in the coffin of Windows.
Since your eyes can only detect about 16,000 colors, it's a moot point, made all the mooter that even the best calibrated monitor can't show you low percentages of cyan or yellow. A well-calibrated monitor's best aspect is good gray balance, which tells you at a glance how much contrast is in your shot and whether or not you're losing detail in the highlights. Other than that, it's all about Photoshop's info palette, boys and girls.
This was supposed to be a joke, right?
First, lets take the Apple displays in question, bring up a linear gradient, and if you can see stair steps, then your eye can perceive more colors than the display can produce.
I have heard lots of people argue that with dithering, blah blah blah, no one can tell the difference. Well I must be a Graphic Designer with god like eyes, as I can just look at a laptop display (running in 24bit/32bit mode) and still tell you approximately what bit the LCD itself natively supports.
The last 18bit LCD display I bought, was on a laptop in 1998. (Mainly because that is all that was available.) For Apple to be providing comparable or lower quality displays today is not only insane, but dishonest when they market them as a graphic platform.
As for the number of colors a human eye can see and distinguish, let me summarize this for you.
It is technically not clear because of what people classify as distinctive colors and other complexities like lighting sources, variances, reflection, and how the brain and eye work together to form the perceived image.
However, even conservative estimates put human vision in the Millions of colors at the very least, with agreed variance between individuals where some areas of color are non-distinct to some individuals and clearly apparent to others. (i.e. We all see some colors better than others.)
So if you eyes can only see 16,000 colors, you are very color blind or just uninformed.
PS Your argument about variance between CMYK and RGB is relatively moot when it comes to this issue. This argument is better suited for print matching to output devices like ink-jet printer from the screen
You do realize the article is about a 'theoretical' set of algorithms, and is not even working software, let alone something MS has ever stated they would use or plan on using or ever plan on installing without consent.
You act like this is working software already on people's computers without their permission. Geesh.
Google on the other hand leaves the 'opt out' in their EULAs and most of the users of the search engine, mail, Firefox have NO idea that their data is CURRENTLY and ACTIVELY being used. Also I have no 'opt out' when I send an email to a friend stupid enough to use GMail, my email to them is scanned without MY permission.
This whole article is about a clever person talking about theoretical ways to gather information by GUESSING about the person. PERIOD. If people want to go all hyperbole with this, then they are the same people that would buy into a story about MS mice turning into evil robots and killing people some day.
Get Real, and stop adding to this insane distortion of reality.
I may even be able to find my code dating from late 1984 which did this in the software which I was writing at the time.
Ok, instead of addressing MacPaint, I flat out should have just reminded people that MS Word was released in 1983, and has prior art owned by MS going back to 1981.(Yes we all know Simonyi came to MS from Xerox, but we are specifically talking about his work on Word and a 'simple' innovation that came out of this team at MS.)
Hell go look this stuff up on Wiki if you really don't remember.
For old timers like yourself, it should be EASY to remember, as the MS Mouse became popular because MS bundled it with MS Word in 1983 because using a Mouse with a PC was very uncommon in 1983.
So if you are going to claim that Mac and MacPaint had select and modify concepts in it before it ever existed, you are really pushing reality.
I tend to think this is all overhype, because even if true it isn't something new for tons of companies.
I also find it amazing that the same people that are being so hard on the allegations of what MS is doing are the same ones that for the past year have defended companies like Google for DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, except the Google twist is they have been using FireFox and GMail in addition to searches for tracking people and marketing data. (FireFox users, if you don't already know this, you are stupid.)
Again, tell me why this is a big deal when they accuse MS of doing it, but something to shrug off when Google is doing it, has admitted to doing it, has ties with Firefox to specifically gather data on ALL platforms, and even goes through people's GMail and anyone that sends something to someone using GMail?
This is not to even mention the 1000s of advertising companies that ALREADY do this for every freaking AD on the internet, even here on SlashDot, you are being monitored based on the ADs you click on.
For the GP post, the NSA and Windows Myths are crazy, part of the reason Uncle Sam was pissed at Vista is MS wouldn't make a backdoor for BitLocker, so if you think MS is cooperating with the NSA beyond the standard obligations that OSX and even Linux has complied, you are high.
Besides if the NSA wants information, having a hook inside an OS would be the LEAST effective way of getting it. They could gleam 10 of 1000s of times the data from just monitoring network traffic, which they already do and have done since the 1980s.
And thanks to ignore the Law Bush and Gonzo, the NSA has been doing this with all domestic traffic and voice communications now too without any warrants. If people want to bitch about Big Brother, they should look to Washinton DC, not Washington State.
I will immediately have all my team managers working on projects stop doing anything but managing others. How stupid was I that a manager should be able to do the job of his/her employees?
Strangely my parents were small business management consultants for over 30 years, and they would fire an idiot like you in about 10 secs.
You can't manage people if you can't understand or do the work the people under you are doing. PERIOD. (Unless you are really bad manager.)
No wonder so many companies are going to shit.
Think bottom up, not top down management... K?
Even as big as MS is, there are small projects like PopFly that run like a small business, and roles are not clearly defined by title or prior title to entering the project.
Slashdot Mirror
people are using Vista without Aero Glass?
Aero/Glass consumes about 10-30mb of RAM, I don't think this is the issue.
Vista likes RAM for the simple fact that it scales extra RAM beyond application/OS usage and standard caching. So as you keep adding RAM, Vista will continue to speed up applications, especially load times and applications like games or applications with user content that accesses GBs of data. This doesn't mean Vista NEEDS this RAM, it just means that it is pretty smart about taking advantage of unused RAM for prefetch caching based on the application or the user's usage patterns.
Has anyone considered that the DRAM demand isn't as high as expected, since 1GB is the sweet spot for Vista, and a lot of users were already using 1GB?
How about a link to where a mere mortal can actually BUY one, today
Again, call your cable company, they are the ones that supply these because it is their service and would be specific to features of their service.
(Just like you usually can't buy a digital box for your Charter service from BestBuy.)
Take Care...
The revolutionary thing about the iPhone is not that it uses a multitouch screen (although that is pretty new, too - if you know of any other cell phones that do that, I'd love to hear about it). The revolutionary thing is how it uses the touch screen. Have you ever seen a cell phone ad that focused on usability? That's pretty damn revolutionary if you ask me. Which you don't, of course... but... it still is! HA!
:)
Yes I agree the usability is the key Apple is banking on.
However this doesn't mean other phones haven't addressed usability. Some motorola interfaces aren't bad, and then there is Windows Mobile 5 and 6 that offer a comfortable level of usability. Phones with advanced features are not horrible to use like they were 5 years ago.
I hope Apple's usability is beyond everyone else, as it is elevate the expectation of users.
I still do wish that Apple would not have dismissed some of the technical features people like myself have come to expect in phones, like 3G speeds.
I apologize for my original post, it was an emotional OMG type of post, rather than just laying out facts.
Thanks for responding, and yes I would have asked you what you thought if I knew you.
Wow, typical Apple bashing. I think people like you get upset when people are engaged by technology
I admit my post was a bit emotional or over the top, but I wasn't trying to Apple bash, but instead try to give people a wake up call.
The iPhone isn't evil or bad, but also isn't a major technology advance and I wanted to get this across to people. (Although I did go a bit into orbit.)
I have been around phones for literally years that offer solid applications, and a full multimedia (aka iPod) experience in addition to being a good phone and PDA.
iPhone is kind of cool, but is driven more by marketing than actual features. With the exception of the paradigm moving to a multi-touch screen, it offers nothing new, and disappoints by not offering true high speed cellular performance.
I have had 3G speeds for over 3yrs, and am used to using my phone alone or with my laptop on the beach with DSL like speeds. I am also use to using my phone as my second media device with 8gb of storage that I can change in and out and even Sync over Bluetooth or WiFi.
Apple's marketing is awesome, they could sell ice to penguins, but that doesn't mean their ice is revolutionary.
PS I apologize for going Postal on Apple in my original post, it was more emotional than what I intended when all I wanted to do is shake some reality back into the conversation.
Take Care...
I agree with you completely.
:)
My problem is the non-informed SlashDot crowd that tries to paint the iPhone as revolutionary or 'technically' advanced, when it is not.
It is just simple convergence with an Apple Logo, plain and simple.
This doesn't make it horrible or bad either. My original post was a bit over the top trying to make my point of how average the iPhone is compared to other technologies, but I wanted to get some people to think about it realistically.
If someone has tons of iTunes content and needs a new phone, this is fine choice for them. The iPhone isn't evil nor does it seem to be a bad design, however I am personally disappointed Apple is skipping several technologies like 3G level online performance.
Also for people that are wanting multi-media in their pocket, there are some really good products already out there, and you can use WMP and either buy tracks online or even do a subscription and have access to 3 million songs for $15 a month. The iPhone level of convergence already exists in many other phones; it just doesn't have the Apple marketing machine.
PS Thanks for responding and bring me back out of orbit.
don't think anyone would argue, seriously, that Vista is better than XP
Actually there are, but they are technical engineers or OS theorists, of course that doesn't compare to the 'brilliance' of the average SlashDot user.
Seriously Vista is a major step forward from XP in architecture and creating a new paradigm for development. Even look at the stupid Surface Computer from MS, the simple demos it is running is all Vista UI development technologies, and even the applications used in the presentation of the Surface computer are barely more than a few lines of coding, let alone taking advantage of the new video subsystem and I/O optimization that allow the input cameras to work effortlessly.
Some people still belive Win2K is better than XP as well, I feel sorry for them. XP is faster, more reliable, and more resilient (Just system restore alone is a technology that makes XP a must have over Win2k).
So go look up OS theorists or engineers that actually study these technologies, they get it even if the SlashDot world puts it head in the sand and pretends and tries to yell that Vista is like the horrible WinME.
Basically go find a technically minded article written with knowledge of OS kernel technologies and you will find Vista isn't the dog we would like to believe it is.
PS. Yes I'm writing this post from an old 2004 laptop, 1Gb RAM, 5600 64mb Video, running Vista.
Application load times 3-10x faster than XP
CorelDraw/AI screen render 10-20x faster than XP
OpenGL Game performance (CoX) 20% faster than XP with High Quality textures (XP couldn't even run with HQ Textures because of only 64mb dedicated VRAM)
DirectX Game performance 10% faster than XP
Glass/Aero enabled UI and all the other 'extra' features of Vista running just fine.
So do you see why as an OS engineer I don't just blindly buy into the Vista is crap SlashDot mentallity? Also if I was just an average end user and saw my computer perform better, while getting a lot of new usablitly and features, how I would think Vista was pretty cool?
Vista has a few rough edges, but they are less rough than XP, and less rough than even anomolies in something that is supposed to be polished like OS X. Remember this statement the next time you are using OS X and have to open a shell to config something or set permissions and yet in Windows this stuff is all available in the GUI. (How on earth did Apple allow this to happen and not have GUI options for everything?)
Vista Rough Edges: The protected video in Vista does kind of suck, but it is also the reason HD-DVD and Blu-Ray approved Vista, it is also why CableCard 1.0 works on Vista. So in theory it sounds bad, but as a consumer that doesn't know crap, they are running these technologies without any thought and are happy. Not all forms of DRM are evil for well meaning content providers, just because the RIAA and others are total dicks about it. MS could have left out the protected Video pipelines, but then only using Hacks would users be able to plug in CableCard or play HD-DVD, and that is far from effortless as it is now.
If you want to beat MS, at least pay attention to what they are doing right, if not OSS software will suffer from technologies they could be embracing and extending that come from outside the OSS world.
Even look at application level development in the OSS world, the UIs look like 1998, and the innovation tends to be 'copying' old MS technology. Why not at least freaking copy the new MS UI technologies or go past it.
Example: OpenGL UI for *nix, it is going to give you the OS X and Aero features, but it is not going to give you the driver power of Vista's WDDM that does things no other OS can currently do, from GPU multitasking and GPU RAM Virtualization, to even having a perfmance kernel/user mode mixed model. (Yes OS X limited mixed kernel/user video driver model, but it is far from the Vista WDDM and this is important for the OSS to recognize.)
Vista's WDDM has made ATI and NVidia rethin
As one /.'er said about the Microsoft Surface "if only it fitted in my shirt pocket.."
e nuk/products/smartphones/40_sp_range/60_htc/70_v16 05/70_specs/p_specification.jsp
Wow the iPhone has cameras inside it that can see your fingers touch the screen, and see objects that are set next to it? OMG that is freaking revolutionary!
Oh, wait, NVM, it is just a freaking touch screen capable of sensing a couple points at the same time, wow, that is something out of the 80s, I love the new retro technology movement at Apple.
So a phone that you can touch in a couple places, that is out---. Oh wait, I can do that aready with my freaking RAZR, they are called BUTTONS, and I can press several at the same time. I also can store 8GB of Music and Video and Watch REAL BROADBAND TV broadcasts and access the internet at near DSL speeds. Wake me up when Apple catches up.
Actually I'm not being fair, my RAZR only cost $40 bucks with renewal, we should compare the iPhone to other products in its price class.
Here is a touch screen Phone with a keyboard that is from sometime last year or older, has everything from Bluetooth to WiFi, and can buy music online using WMP or be used as a portable media player for Video and music. (PS you can run custom apps on it, and even remote desktop to your home or office computer on the screen.)
http://www.business.vodafone.com/site/bus/public/
PS The reason I had this link handy is that some of my friends at EDS in Europe were showing me the phones they have been using for quite a while and how absurd the whole iPhone thing is to them.
Is it me, or only non-techs and Mac users the ones that think the iPhone is great? I would say the iPhone is special, but only in reference to a short bus...
So where is this mythical 1.0 card that is currently commercially available WITHOUT purchasing a complete system? The only card that I've seen is the ATI card which is only sold to system manufacturers.
l ecards-in-time-for-the-vista-media-center/
Try Google, there are lots of links to these 'mythical' things...
http://www.pvrwire.com/2006/11/19/multistream-cab
Heck even call your local Cable Company...
If the drivers for an OS sucks, the OS sucks. Full stop
But they don't. The drivers supplied by some companies suck, but there are good XP drivers from the same companies still available that still work.
Does OSX, Linux, BSD have to scrap drivers with every version or kernel change? Some have to be changed, but most recompile or just work. The same goes for Windows, except MS went out of their way to keep the XP portions of the driver systems in tact to ensure that even if a Vista driver wasn't available, it works like XP and even something that has changed as much as Video, still works fine.
So I agree that if the drivers suck, Stop. However, Vista has Vista and 99% of XP drivers, so you often have two options for drivers in case one sucks. This is far from the drivers sucking or a Stop, it is actually the opposite as you get newly optimized drivers or can use the old stand bys if there is a problem waiting on the new driver for Vista.
This is also very different from Linux when there were NO drivers available, even though you want to draw a comparison. Vista isn't left out in the cold with no device support, Vista people just have to put in the freaking XP driver, and go on until a Vista driver is (if ever) made available. This is still the NT architecture and most of the driver subsystem works the same, and the areas that don't work the same have legacy pipes in Vista to enable XP driver modes.
To get cablecard support you need a cablelabs certified PC.
You can't buy a cablecard tuner for a PC - Vista or otherwise. The only PC-based option is to buy a PC that the manufacturer had certified as a complete system (software, hardware, monitor, etc).
Um, no... The only certification is for CableCard 2.0 with two-way interactive content, and even then if the drivers hold up and the local Cable Company allows it, it will work because of the protect process driver system in Vista that was also required for HD,Blu DVD. However CableCard 2.0 UI elements are not in Vista because the two-way UI needs are very different between cable providers, so additional software is needed as Media Center doesn't have native support, but does allow plugins for this software. (It already easier to just use online or IPTV with Media Center and will be the death of Cable because of CableLabs strangle hold on 2.0 if they don't get their act together.)
However, because there is no protected driver model in other OSes, I would be surprised if any other OS will be able to use CableCard anytime soon.
Back to the point...
CableCard 1.0 is licensed for Vista and requires no system certification. So you can just slap a 1.0 card in Vista and it does work.
but its alright that I can instantly swap from a sword to a lute in combat to cast spells without having to do anything.
;)
You have two hands, sword/knife in one, lute in other. This is why you can't carry two handed weapons and why some other classes can wield two weapons cause they also have two hands.
I didn't think you were really this stupid and were just trying to make a point, sorry for my incorrect assumption.
Go look up immersion, I suggest a good dictionary or go check out Raph's site, he knows something about MMOs.
I guess Vista isn't all it's hyped up to be...
Ok, most people realize that the MFRs write the drivers, not MS. And yes Vista specific driver support is lacking in some areas, as moving to the new audio model, video model, network stack, etc can be tricky for native driver support in Vista.
However, I can understand why you would use this as a dig against Vista, but the thing you and others miss, 'just install the freaking XP drivers'. 99% of XP drivers work just fine on Vista, as MS left in legacy hooks for XP drivers that even work entirely different than the Vista model drivers.
Sadly, Vista has more drivers for it than any other OS in history, although they are not all native 'Vista' drivers, but when you add in the Win2K and XP drivers that work just fine, it makes the device support numbers massive.
There is a balance, but people like you push for easy and others push for simulating the real world.
If you follow the timeline of SWG, it started out very real, and edges were polished. However it can be clearly defined that they destroyed the game when the dumbed it down with the CU and then the NGE. Both were attempts to make the game 'easier' and closer to what you are pushing as an ideal game.
In the end the game is easier, but boring. SWG went from the most immersive and complex MMO to the easiest and least complex MMO by pushing to make the game easier for people like you.
One example would be healing in the game. In pre-cu(the real era) you couldn't magically heal, you had to have a crafted medical pack in your inventory and the skills to use it. In the post NGE (easy game) you can just hit a button and magically heal yourself. Sure it is easier, but is it a better game? 300,000 people would argue that it isn't, and they didn't realize that harder was a better game until it was taken from them. Go look up any old time SWG user, they get what you lose by making everything automatic or easy.
If changing tools to mine or hack wood is too hard for you, then maybe the game is outside your idea of a game. I think if the game was 'fully' automated, you would find it extremely boring. But then again, there are about 10,000 SWG customers that actually like the NGE(easy) version of SWG over the pre-cu(Real/Hard). Of course most people assume they are mentally in the 10-15yr old range, and so far this tends to hold true.
Truly don't discount games because they make you work or are challenging. If you want easy and automatic or to win easily, just play Solitaire and cheat.
Why do I have to change tools every time I switch between mining copper and chopping wood? I mean really, can't the game figure out that obviously I want to use the axe in my bag to chop wood?
Heck, why doesn't the game just realize you want to be level 50 and instantly grind your toon for you, computers are smart enough to do this too.
This is called immersion, and is a psychological aspect of MMOs to bring realism to the player. Bringing real world 'thought' into a game can bring it a lot of success, this is why SWG originally was so popular as it was a very open sandbox of a game. Some people got it, others didn't. The people that got it were die hard fans and would spend hours crafting clothes and gather resources or fighting rancors because of the high level of social interaction and immersion in the game.
If everything was automatic why even play a game? Would you play Halo2 if the game automatically would align your shots so you never missed as well?
I have played LoTRO and can say it isn't the best game ever made, but it does have a polished interface, polished combat, great graphics, and for the RPer offers a lot of online entertainment with friends by having a level of immersion. It also is a good game for people into the LoTR books and gives people an alternative to the cartoony looking WoW.
Sadly the same cannot be said of many other new games that were 'supposed' to be the next big thing like Vanguard, etc that are horribly designed and have the polished quality of bad Alpha code.
PS. I actually like scholar, as it is more of a social or explorative crafting profession and you don't just hang out in one field growing pipeweed. If you are camping one area for pots, then you are missing the point of being a scholar.
I personally give the game a 4 out of 5 myself, but that is because I prefer the more open ended games without the RP Quests, and why my heart still longs for an open-ended sandbox 'virtual world' like the pre-CU SWG gave players. It was more than Star Wars or a game, it was a virtual world where people lived, as you could do everything from fish, hardcore PVP, build a museum, or just be a doctor and run around and save people.
Did the industry and Google learn nothing from the mistakes Microsoft made?
Even MS has done a 180 and with Vista broke all the internal/external links that made XP/ActiveX/IE such a mess. So if MS is smart enough to learn from their mistakes you would thing a company like Google would not go out of their way to emulate the same bad security ideas.
Is it just me, or is Google racing to be the next big evil? Gmail scanning, search data compiling, Firefox reporting, desktop document reporting, and now making really stupid software design decisions?
Have you even looked at specs on the more recent plasma and LCD TVs?
Yes, and DLP has ALSO improved. The thing most people seem to forget about plasma, is they 'degrade' in picture quality over time, as in 5-10 years. So go pet your new plasma and tell yourself how proud you bought the 'best' technology, then in 5 years when it starts to washout, you can go buy a new one, or maybe look at DLP technology.
Plasma and LCD are great for a flat TV. PERIOD. They are NOT the best technology for displaying images. Rear and Front projection DLP are much better technologies in the 'lower cost' spectrum.
Surely a flat-screen technology (TFT, Plasma, whatever) coupled with one of the newer multi-touch sensitive technologies would be better?
Um, not really.
First thing to note is that it is not 'multi-touch', but image sensing input, so it can distiguish all aspects of a hand, pen, or recognize items placed on the surface, this is far far beyond a multi-point touch screen technology.
This also means that with work, barcodes on the items will not always be necessary, as the system will eventually be able to image recognize devices, however this will be an evolution, just like developing drivers for every device.
The second thing is they are using DLP for imaging. DLP has features over Plasma and LCD in both refresh speed, contrast ratios, etc.(Anyone that owns a projector for watching movies and using their computer in the last 5 years knows the benefits of DLP.)
I don't know how thin this specific device will get, but a rear projected image can get fairly thin using a distorted directional optical system, so they could make the display a couple of inches thick if needed. Go look up some of the new DLP display technologies that are being pushed for mobile devices, because they can get the size down to smaller than most people expect.
Honestly, this is something new for me. What difference does your browser make?
Do a search on the ties between Google and Firefox.
BTW Since this article hit SlashDot, Google's CEO announced that they were moving forward with a new information collection system so that they could provide services even more invasive than the incorrect allegations from this article against MS.
Also notice, that article never made it to SlashDot, but CNN covered it. So much for Slashdot being on top of tech news when CNN's morning show is better informing their viewers.
I dont know what you mean by "even a lot of small companies..."
I started to read your post, thinking you were being insightful, but then came to this. You either didn't comprehend what I was saying or are purposely using it as a hyperbolic tangent.
I said 'even small companies', as in mom and pop shops, have to adhere to legal constraints on dissemination of information contained on their computers, including employee activity. (This was in no way a reference to MS.)
Even a small town insurance agency cannot let users or software have any access to specific information by law, and this would make running Windows in the scenario that you seem to think will happen, illegal. This is why I mentioned that many insurance companies are aware of tracking software and prohibit GoogleBar and Gmail accounts for agents.
Here is the problem with your argument in whole, you are 'assuming' what will happen, and you are exaggerating the MS EULA's rights to information that MS may collect.
I find arguments like yours very troubling, as you would be the type of person to be afraid of what could potentially happen in the future like this, yet go to Subway and hand your CC to a 16yr old that has a good memory. What do you think is more risky?
There are also tons of outlets and 'opt in' portions of society that you are already signed up for that gives out far more information than you and other are describing in your worse case scenario.
Go look up the call log information Verizon or ATT tracks and how easily they handed this over to the NSA. Even your power company can report your usage and address and other personal information to any inquiries. And even just using a CC provides more information to the CC Company than MS could possibly get from you buying something online, as the CC has all the information and doesn't have to 'guess' anything about you.
And you are right, most people wouldn't know and don't know, as most people don't check the 'opt out' box on the CC applications, etc.
However, this was ALSO a point I am trying to get through. If what you are suggesting does happen, it will become illegal for people to use Windows, and these are state and local laws, not something MS could sweep in and easily change as you suggest. So even stupid people WOULD be made aware of it when their parent company or contracting partners demand they stop using Windows. (Look up state insurance laws as I cite in my example several times now.)
Get it yet?
- without their permission? You mean like WGA and numerous other components in Windows that the closest thing to permission is "Agree to this EULA or dont use any of our software"? Yeah... I can see it happening. Fits their track record very nicely.
99% of Windows users obtained the copy Legally and don't give a crap whether MS Update only allows legal updates and usage. I don't fully support WGA, but I do know where it came from and it wasn't originally devised to harm customers but to stop rampant illegal copy distributing companies via OEM channels.
However if MS tells all Windows users, we will gather info on you, or you can't use Windows, MS will see the most massive Windows Exodus since WindowsME.
If MS is this stupid, then you should be rooting for them to do this. Even casual users will catch wind of this and move to something else.
Not to EVEN mention this can't happen in corporate America where information, including user research, on the corporate computers is protected under law via tradesecrets, etc. And they would have NO CHOICE but to give MS the finger.
Even a lot of small companies by law cannot share information like this let alone expose it to any company or individual, so if you think MS expects Windows to force users to give up this type of information, then either you or MS is insane. (This goes from small insurance agencies through most industry all the way up to companies that have government contracts.)
(PS Even insurance companies that have a strong legal and IT deparment working together will not allow agents to have GMail accounts for this reason, specifically.)
So if you think MS is going to do this and tie it to IE or Windows, then you should cheer them on, as it will be a true nail in the coffin of Windows.
Since your eyes can only detect about 16,000 colors, it's a moot point, made all the mooter that even the best calibrated monitor can't show you low percentages of cyan or yellow. A well-calibrated monitor's best aspect is good gray balance, which tells you at a glance how much contrast is in your shot and whether or not you're losing detail in the highlights. Other than that, it's all about Photoshop's info palette, boys and girls.
This was supposed to be a joke, right?
First, lets take the Apple displays in question, bring up a linear gradient, and if you can see stair steps, then your eye can perceive more colors than the display can produce.
I have heard lots of people argue that with dithering, blah blah blah, no one can tell the difference. Well I must be a Graphic Designer with god like eyes, as I can just look at a laptop display (running in 24bit/32bit mode) and still tell you approximately what bit the LCD itself natively supports.
The last 18bit LCD display I bought, was on a laptop in 1998. (Mainly because that is all that was available.) For Apple to be providing comparable or lower quality displays today is not only insane, but dishonest when they market them as a graphic platform.
As for the number of colors a human eye can see and distinguish, let me summarize this for you.
It is technically not clear because of what people classify as distinctive colors and other complexities like lighting sources, variances, reflection, and how the brain and eye work together to form the perceived image.
However, even conservative estimates put human vision in the Millions of colors at the very least, with agreed variance between individuals where some areas of color are non-distinct to some individuals and clearly apparent to others. (i.e. We all see some colors better than others.)
So if you eyes can only see 16,000 colors, you are very color blind or just uninformed.
PS Your argument about variance between CMYK and RGB is relatively moot when it comes to this issue. This argument is better suited for print matching to output devices like ink-jet printer from the screen
You do realize the article is about a 'theoretical' set of algorithms, and is not even working software, let alone something MS has ever stated they would use or plan on using or ever plan on installing without consent.
You act like this is working software already on people's computers without their permission. Geesh.
Google on the other hand leaves the 'opt out' in their EULAs and most of the users of the search engine, mail, Firefox have NO idea that their data is CURRENTLY and ACTIVELY being used. Also I have no 'opt out' when I send an email to a friend stupid enough to use GMail, my email to them is scanned without MY permission.
This whole article is about a clever person talking about theoretical ways to gather information by GUESSING about the person. PERIOD. If people want to go all hyperbole with this, then they are the same people that would buy into a story about MS mice turning into evil robots and killing people some day.
Get Real, and stop adding to this insane distortion of reality.
I may even be able to find my code dating from late 1984 which did this in the software which I was writing at the time.
Ok, instead of addressing MacPaint, I flat out should have just reminded people that MS Word was released in 1983, and has prior art owned by MS going back to 1981.(Yes we all know Simonyi came to MS from Xerox, but we are specifically talking about his work on Word and a 'simple' innovation that came out of this team at MS.)
Hell go look this stuff up on Wiki if you really don't remember.
For old timers like yourself, it should be EASY to remember, as the MS Mouse became popular because MS bundled it with MS Word in 1983 because using a Mouse with a PC was very uncommon in 1983.
So if you are going to claim that Mac and MacPaint had select and modify concepts in it before it ever existed, you are really pushing reality.
I tend to think this is all overhype, because even if true it isn't something new for tons of companies.
I also find it amazing that the same people that are being so hard on the allegations of what MS is doing are the same ones that for the past year have defended companies like Google for DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, except the Google twist is they have been using FireFox and GMail in addition to searches for tracking people and marketing data. (FireFox users, if you don't already know this, you are stupid.)
Again, tell me why this is a big deal when they accuse MS of doing it, but something to shrug off when Google is doing it, has admitted to doing it, has ties with Firefox to specifically gather data on ALL platforms, and even goes through people's GMail and anyone that sends something to someone using GMail?
This is not to even mention the 1000s of advertising companies that ALREADY do this for every freaking AD on the internet, even here on SlashDot, you are being monitored based on the ADs you click on.
For the GP post, the NSA and Windows Myths are crazy, part of the reason Uncle Sam was pissed at Vista is MS wouldn't make a backdoor for BitLocker, so if you think MS is cooperating with the NSA beyond the standard obligations that OSX and even Linux has complied, you are high.
Besides if the NSA wants information, having a hook inside an OS would be the LEAST effective way of getting it. They could gleam 10 of 1000s of times the data from just monitoring network traffic, which they already do and have done since the 1980s.
And thanks to ignore the Law Bush and Gonzo, the NSA has been doing this with all domestic traffic and voice communications now too without any warrants. If people want to bitch about Big Brother, they should look to Washinton DC, not Washington State.
Wow, you are right.
I will immediately have all my team managers working on projects stop doing anything but managing others. How stupid was I that a manager should be able to do the job of his/her employees?
Strangely my parents were small business management consultants for over 30 years, and they would fire an idiot like you in about 10 secs.
You can't manage people if you can't understand or do the work the people under you are doing. PERIOD. (Unless you are really bad manager.)
No wonder so many companies are going to shit.
Think bottom up, not top down management... K?
Even as big as MS is, there are small projects like PopFly that run like a small business, and roles are not clearly defined by title or prior title to entering the project.