MythTV is a PVR, not some simple media player. It allows you to record TV programs and watch them later, like a Tivo. Or does your "modern OS" have this ability built in?
Ya, but remember that Generic TV and Rage128 PRO w/TV has been providing this functionality to most users since 1998. They are full Guide based PVR systems and do quite well, even though they are not hardware based encoders. (Yes the out of box included software is a real PVR)
BTW as for the MCE/Myth/Beyond debates - the reason people (like myself) have ended up with MCE boils down to consistency and a good remote that my FAMILY can pick up, watch TV, schedule a show. I personally could have been happy with a wireless mouse and just flipping to my applications that already did this.
Media Center is not for tech geeks, but it does bring stuff that 'us' tech geeks were doing to a family quite painlessly. This is why it has success...
What you are looking for is Vista. It will be so current as to have the next year's video accelerators as its requirement.
Ya, if next year's cards are AGP 4x and have 64mb of RAM and support the 3 year old Pixel Shader 2.0, then sure, that is a next year video card, and we are only talking about the high end Glass.(sic)
Or you can use your old 1Mb Video Card from 1995 and run Vista just like you would WindowsXP, themes and all...
Either way, not really a 'requirement' nor something requiring next year's Video Cards.
I will say though, when ATI and NVidia move to multi-processing concepts and cores, Vista will already be able to utilize this technology with the WDDM specifications. Just like it can already mutli-process 3D applications and even virtualize GPU RAM on the 3 year old cards.
(BTW I think a lot of the 3D rendering concepts in development in the open source world are quite good, it is just strange the one GNOME is playing around with at this stage is a 'dated' concept to give 'wiggle' to windows.)
Re:Can we still not convince Apple to Users the BE
on
Apple Unveils 24" iMac
·
· Score: 1
A 1900x1200 display only uses ~10mb of ram in 32 bit colour (for the screen buffer). The memory for textures, etc is the same regardless of screen resolution. It's no longer like the days of EGA/VGA where screen resolution was a function of your available video memory - the major consumer of video memory these days is textures...
Ok, do you really think SlashDot readers are this stupid?
Try WoW at 1920x1200 with medium detail even and see how much GPU RAM is utilized for textures... 128MB is what you call 'getting by'...
If I was talking about bit depth in correlation to pixels, then sure 128mb is fine. Even for the Bitmap composer in OSX 128mb is easily enough to handle the screen buffer at 1920x1200.
However this is NOT what I was refering to.
Maybe you haven't tried some of the latest games(like last two years) that can literally suck every MB out of a Video Card. Something Like Doom that won't even run at High Resolution unless your Video Card has 256mb to hold the textures when doing 1024x768...
Ok, considering the 3D features require 5 year old video cards, does this mean we can officially give GNOME the 'boot' and move on to projects that are at least working with respectible interfaces and approaching 3D with modern hardware?
I read this release several times thinking it was a joke post...
RC is a term used to describe where in the process code is
I'm sorry you don't get it...
Alpha = First draft of features and code goals
Beta = Migration through features and code goals, things shift, especially in an OS.
RC = A point where vendors, (OEMS, ISVs, Hardware Drivers, Software Developers) can bit check their products against a 'Release Candidate' that finalized drivers and software can be tested against. This is why it is called a Release Candidate - NOT a Beta and where the distinction lies.
If Release Candidate ALWAYS meant what you think it does, then there would NEVER be RC1, RC2, RC3 - as the later two would be redundant. Get It?
And if not, I'm sorry you are new to this or just want to play devils donkey. I have been involved in development far too long to argue such idiotic semantics over terms that are fairly standard if you have worked with Microsoft for the past 15 years.
If you want to call Vista Crap, then call Vista Crap, don't tip toe around saying that RC1 isn't RTM Quality. RC1s are never RTM Quality no matter what company is producing it - PERIOD
Re:Can we still not convince Apple to Users the BE
on
Apple Unveils 24" iMac
·
· Score: 1
If you want top of the line video in the mac, you buy a proper Mac Pro (you know, one of those ones in a seperate box with expansion slots), not an Imac.
I get ya; however, for middle of the line and even iMac you don't drop a 1920x1200 display on a unit and not pack enough RAM to run 3D applications on it at its native resolution realistically.
As for buying the top of the line Mac, you still get a 'middle level' Graphics Card and have to upgrade the Video the moment you pull it out of the Box for good graphics performance. (So much for the commercials of just plug it in, uh?)
There is no excuse for Apple STILL putting mid grade video in their products, they truly are starting to look more like the eMachines of the *nix world. BSD, Candy Desktop, and just enough hardware it gets by.
Re:Can we still not convince Apple to Users the BE
on
Apple Unveils 24" iMac
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
The Mac name was built on solid, easy to use home computers, not gaming rigs. Apple is not and likely will not be targeting hardcore gamers for a long time.
Ok, and what about our 3D, Video, and Graphic Designers that are being 'continually' POed at the low quality Video ALL Macs have offered for several years.
Why not buy a high end system if that is what you want? Even the top of the line Macs over the past 5 years have offered middle of the road GPU Chipsets.
Ok, so you say OSX isn't strong enough to be a gaming OS, if that is what you want to believe fine. However I only used gaming as a reference, there are other industries that DO take advantage of the Graphical capabilities, and Apple is falling way short.
Besides I disagree if Apple can't pull gaming up to an acceptable and 'expected' level, even on their middle of the road systems, Microsot is going to continue to wipe the floor with the Home consumer market.
I pointed out the other day that some of our Graphic Designers are already drooling over Vista because the Redraw and Real-Time Render Rates are 10x faster than WindowsXP and OSX. Apple needs to take notice and stop slacking here.
As for this being a middle of the road machine, you don't drop an eye catching 24" 1920x1200 display on a machine and not put in even enough Video RAM to run an OpenGL game at its native resolution realistically. I have a year old Laptop that can out bench these Macs, and that is REALLY REALLY sad.
Maybe that is middle of the road for what people have come to expect from Apple, and if that is true, maybe the 'quality' that once the Apple logo enstilled no longer is relevant.
So if your conclusions are correct, maybe Apple should partner with eMachines afterall and become the 'good enough for people that don't know better' computer company.
Can we still not convince Apple to Users the BEST?
on
Apple Unveils 24" iMac
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT or 7600GT with 128MB GDDR3 Video card
Why should Mac users have to settle for middle of the road Video performance, yet again. 1920x1200 displays, and yet 128mb Video cards from last year that will have trouble rendering a game at the monitor's native resolution. How does this make sense?
Where is the industry leader that the Mac name was built on? Everyone waited forever for a credible OS like OSX, and now Apple's hardware lineup has gone to middle of the road crap. Why?
Please, Mac users stand up and scream at Apple for something that can at least compete with a freaking 7lb Dell Laptop. These are Macs not glorified eMachines. Argh!
At least educate yourself on the proper usage of FUD.
A post spreading 'Fear' about Windows Stability and quality level because it is called a RC when it is still not completely RELEASE QUALITY with a RC tag.
A post with 'Uncertainty' about Windows RC1 status, when it is actually the accurate term for the milestone.
A post with 'Doubt' about the quality of Windows being called a RC when it is not fully optimized nor has the final visuals or sounds, even though it is API and Developer complete, which is what a RC is.
I think I know what FUD is, and bashing the RC naming of the 5600 build of Windows is exactly FUD. It is also false, misleading and full of crap, while spreading FUD about the build quality and/or naming of the Vista Build.
Now with that said, if you would have taken the time to read my post it brought up other issues of FUD that have been spread about Vista, and wasn't even specifically nailing this area of FUD, but it STILL is FUD.
So RC is no longer an acronym for "release candidate," since by MS's newspeak definition RCs are not candidates under consideration for release? In other news MS has decided HTML no longer stands for Hyper Text Markup Language, but now means "stuff you see in explorer" and MS has declared themselves fully compliant with this new definition and their marketing department is now claiming 100% accurate HTML rendering.
I don't care how long MS has been using marketing terms to try to call a chicken a goose. If it is not a candidate for release, it shouldn't be called an RC.
You can pretend that this is MS screwing with the English Lexicon or MS is trying to pass a painted pig off as a Horse, but the reality is this is a very common usage of a RC milestone naming.
During the BETA process a lot of internals change to match the design goals of the Alpha builds. In Vista alone, the WPF/.NET 3.0 APIs have shifted almost monthly during the course of the last year. A lot of Vista changes have been for compatibility and security and have DIRECTLY affected how Drivers work and software works. Even Drivers compiled for the January Beta of Vista (depending on the Driver) would very much fail due to the internal changes to even the July Vista Release. This is how Betas work.
(Watch the Leopard Beta if you don't believe me, and yes I have tech members participating.)
Now that Vista is at RC1 nothing major should change internally that would affect software or driver development. Hence why it is a RC milestone.
People also act like this is a marketing ploy or a gimmick, yet MS has been very clear about this in the release notes and in the press. Just as they were with WinNT3.1 RC1, Win98 RC1, Win2k RC1 as well, the same bar and naming conventions were used then as well.
So if Microsoft is messing with the language, you should have told them this 15 years ago when they started this practice and THEIR definition of what a RC is.
Also while people are smacking on MS for calling this a RC, they should also call up Corel and correct them, as well as Novel, Adobe, and even Apple. As well as MANY Open Source projects that I am personally involved in that go to RC when they are no longer changing internally, but NOT YET RTM quality.
This is not a MS issue, rather a public perception issue.
The strange thing is I am here trying to help people understand a standard terminology in defense of Vista being dubbed RC1, and yet it is more stable and secure than a lot of RTM OSes (including WinME, Win2K, and even the latest pay for bug fixes version of OSX 10.x).
thought that was the point of a beta. Alpha "This looks good", Beta "This is how it'll be, but we need to iron the bugs out", and RC "I think we've ironed out the bugs now!"
Seriously, if I label something RC, it means I think it's done, and it's only because I've labelled things "done" in the past, only to find out that everyone and their uncle uncovered new and exciting bugs.
This may be true in the company you work in, or with other betas you may have been involved in.
However, I can attest that RC does NOT mean it is Release Quality, it is usually a 'developer' milestone for software and HARDWARE vendors to position themselves behind.
This has been true of EVERY MS Beta I know of since 1990, and also products from other companies like from Corel to Adobe to even Apple that I have been a beta tester in.
MS has made this VERY clear in their press releases, as they have with all their previous OS and Application Betas that also hit RC status. If you think it means RELEASE COMPLETE, then people are either misleading you or you are just not paying attention.
Vista RC1 doesn't even have all the 'visuals' or 'sounds' that will be in the RTM, it doesn't even pretend to be a RELEASE QUALITY or FEATURE COMPLETE from an end user's standpoint build.
Just like Win2K, RC1 was the time software and hardware developers put effort into ensure compatibility and driver availability, just as you will see with Vista RC1.
This is not news, nor MS trying to pull a fast one, this is as standard as it gets. Truly...
Wow a poorly written, bloviating rant from an anonymous post... And yet with nothing to refute a fact or ad a fact. What is the word, oh ya, trolling...
The extra layers of code between the application and the hardware do extract their toll, yes. Just as they did on Windows NT before Microsoft gave up on the strong separation of components in the system and started running GDI (Microsoft's core graphics code) inside the kernel in NT 4.0.
But the flipside of this is that the stability of NT took a big dive with NT4, and it really hasn't recovered.
Um, but this is no longer true with Vista, Video Drivers have been moved back to User level, and with other new 'unique' GPU technologies in Vista to gain performance, it is performing faster than XP.
In the timeframe, moving Video to a lower Ring WAS the right choice for NT at the time, but you are correct that Video Driver Stability could cause the system to BSOD.
WindowsXP addressed with stability, especially in RC2, but the model was outdated for the new generation of GPU interaction MS had planned for Vista.
In Vista the Video not only runs at a higher level again, but it also is doing things no other OS GPU model has ever even tried. Things like GPU mult-tasking with virtual GPU RAM concepts.
This is why you can run Halo or pick a Game in Vista at a full FPS on the desktop along side 'other' games running at full FPS and even do the Flip 3D, and watch them run side by side angled on the screen at full FPS.
In Vista you can even kill the Video Driver and Vista will recover without interrupting applications, something again most OSes cannot do, including OSX. In theory you could rip your Video Card out of your system Running Vista, put it back in the computer and be right back where you started.
And security and stability go hand-in-hand. Microsoft has always put performance above security and stability, and the result is that even Apple's less-than-stellar approach to security has produced a system that's far less susceptible to attacks at all levels. Half the security alerts about OS X are problems in internal firewalls that Microsoft doesn't even bother to implement in any usable way, and could only be exploited if the system was already compromised.
This is a decision Microsoft made with Win2k and WinXP, they went for compatibility over security and it WAS a BAD decision. They should of broke crappy 3rd Pary applications, Period.
Vista addresses this is a very big way. NT always had a lot of security, Vista finally ENFORCES it. Some applications get the 'need admin approval', but it is worth it to have the enhanced stability. This is how OSX handles Security as well as other *nixes, but MS goes one step further as there is not ANY equivalent to a ROOT level account. So even an Administration level account doesn't get full ROOT access, as it would in OSX or other *nixes that use a similar model.
As for the firewalls and other security measures, you are bit confused. MS's WinXP firewall DID work, even though it was not as robust as it could have been.
Vista again changes this with a full OSI Application Layer Firewall technology. Nothing gets in or out without specific Administration approval. I am sure people will argue there are better Firewall technologies on the market, but NONE that ship by defaut and are configured as secure as the Vista Firewall technologies.
'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One
Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.
This means that the product is feature complete and 99% of the OS bits and all the APIs are how they will be in the final release.
Why was Beta2-Pre-RC1 NOT a RC. Simple, from a developer's standpoint the OS was not feature complete.
RC1 is the FIRST release that that.NET 3.0 and other new API systems are finalized for syntax, so developers can start testing new products against the OS and not have to worry about API changes.
Sure things will be optimized, and this will be polished, but this IS A RC solely based on the definition that MS has used FOR YEARS. It is feature complete for developers...
(So aside from all the Joke at MS and other FUD, this is technically a RC, and even though it is not a 'finished' polished product, it is the first feature complete versions, especially from the API standpoint.)
This is NO different than they did with Win2k RC1 which was actually less stable than Vista RC1, but AGAIN it was API feature complete for developers, hence why it was called a RC and not a Beta, just as this release.
As for proof of this, look at the Win2k Beta history, or even lookt that Vista Beta History, the.NET 3.0 APIs were changing on a monthy basis up until July, as you will notice that there were.NET3.0/WinFX releases each month, with the APIs for the developers changing. And that is just ONE new API subsystem of Vista.
So once again repeat,"This is a RC, this is a RC because it is API and Developer complete."
The biggest problem that Apple is found to face with BootCamp is that Native Intel OSX applications in contrast to Native Windows Versions of the same software run faster under Windows.
This is not something that will sway Mac people, but for technically aware people and 'DEVERLOPERS' it is a telling piece of evidence.
When you have the exact hardware and Native Intel applications and they consistently run faster under Windows than OSX, Apple has a problem.
It has started to become a growing image problem for Apple in some of the on the fence fans, but it is more increasing becoming an issue for developers. Why develop an OSX version if your software will just run faster on Windows and OSX users are 'increasing' becoming dual boot OS users because of Boot Camp.
Gaming is the first blow that will hit Apple on this, but as other companies that Apple has been less than kind to in the past will start to abandon OSX versions and the costs for a low market share. Especially if they can hit a % of the Mac users that are dual booting anyway.
The final hit that could really pop OSX is Vista. Sure it is late, lacking features promised, etc. But it is a rewrite of the NT core and is faster than XP if you have 512mb of RAM, and the Video performance is even a leap beyond XP and a bigger leap beyond anything that OSX can currently provide. Vista is cute, pretty, easier than XP, and could sway a lot of OSX users that are on the fence, especially if their software is running faster under Vista. (A good example of this is in Video Production and handling Graphic Design, where Vista blows XP away in performance and again is far ahead of the performance you find in OSX.)
Our designers are already stepping up to move to Vista just because the handling of large images and even XP applications like CorelDraw/AI/Photoshop have not only a raw handling performance, but the redraw performance is 10x what XP is currently doing. (Test it if you can Grap RC1 of Vista and Corel or AI and notice the speed of complex drawing panning and zooming not only in comparison to XP, but even do comparisons to OSX. It is a big difference and will win a lot of people that deal with high data media. (Even some of our designers that have been in love with OSX are putting in Vista boxes already for graphic design projects.)
The Video Rendering system in Vista is going to hurt Apple hard, as it is isn't just a Bitmap Buffer being used from the GPU, that gave OSX a bit of an edge in some applications over XP.
The only thing that surprises me is seeing the Apple shills travelling off apple.slashdot.org to do their moderating.
Usually they hover over appledotslashdot.
I think I am still a bit surprised by the Apple 'love' and free pass that SlashDot and SlashDoters give to Apple.
I have been around a fairly long time in the tech world, working on and part of the development projects for everything from XWindows and BSD to even being an external MS NT consultant in the early 90s.
Why on earth is Apple allowed to basically RAPE the Open Source world, and because of it does use BSD it is given some free pass on screwing with things most SlashDot users are completely against.
Yet if you point this out people think you are a MS Fanboi, and it should be all BSD/Linux/Etc users that are the most outraged by a lot of things Apple has done, not only with bastardizing Open Source 'as Apple sees fit' to their legal strong arm tactics, DRM, Closed Markets, etc.
It's always fun to look for bad guys in situations like this, but both Apple and Mr. "Cache" here are wearing white hats
And this post gets marked +? WTF
When people have posted in the past about MS trying to protect its customers by keeping hacks out of the press people here whine and scream and yell that only full disclosure is the answer and MS is evil for trying to keep the hack from being made public before their patch is ready.
And today I read this post on SlashDot where Apple is a 'good guy' in the same situtation?
Rose colored glasses for Apple are really thick I guess... (Geesh)
Chances are even a generic OEM DVD Writer comes with write software that is able to do the simple backups you are requesting. (Although I am with many users, just add a new hard drive for backups, even a USB external is going to be about 50-100 bucks and will be virtually instant in comparison to DVD and just as reliable if not more.)
WindowsXP pre-dates DVD Writing as the norm of the time (2001), so it doesn't inherently support it (which draws out the OSX and Linux crowds of telling you to get a real OS and then they list 20 command line tools that are fairly cumbersome.)
Since it appears you are using Windows, when you can, move to Vista, Backups are easy, able to use DVDs, and can do full system bit by bit as well as file/folder backups, all with a couple of clicks.
but I didn't ever encounter a limit on any other OS.
Ok, not sure about what 'limit' you are talking about, but virtual and even Page File Sizes (depending on OS) are based on the OS and CPU architecture.
A 32bit OS is going to be limited to 4GB of RAM unless they use the (IA32) extensions, it doesn't matter if it is Windows, BSD, Linux or DonkeyOS.
The way this RAM is broken up can be different and that is where there are some gives and takes in each OS. Windows for example natively will only allow an application to have 2GB of RAM, leaving the additional RAM for the kernel/processes. There is an override for this that allows Windows to allocate 4GB processes as well, and with a give and take in the Kernel allocation.
So for a 32bit System, Windows normall allows for 4GB to 64GB of Physical RAM depending on the version of Windows and whether IA32 is used or not.
On a 32bit Windows OS, the PAGEFILE, is in theory limited to 16 terabytes. (Considerbly more than Physical RAM)
On Windows 64bit, in theory the physical RAM limit is 16 terabytes, with a 512 terabyte limit on the pagefile, but again, since most of the 64bit architectures like AMD64 don't give a full 64bit memory address space, this is not able to be fully used.
So again, not sure what limits you are talking about and why you think Windows or any other OS would have inherent benefits when they are hardware limited based on the CPU/Architecture.
Score 5 for this comment? Windows can't live without swap memory. 0 is automatically ignored (and other small values), and Windows decides to use as much as it wants. This is easily verified by running DirectX Siagnostic Tool, dxdiag.exe.
In Windows 2000/XP you can't disable swap memory- plain and simple. Swap size can be reduced, that's all, but Windows will only follow your seeting until need arises (and that won't be when Windows has ran out of RAM, as other have explained).
Actually they can be turned off in WindowsXP, easily, with no problems what so ever if you have a large memory footprint.
In fact, the way Windows DOES handle memory it is better at running without a paging file than most OSes because it will not shove in crap loads of content to the pagefile anticipating the application will use it.
Windows Vista also can and will run will without a pagefile, without incident.
Where windows has 'sucked' at pagefiles in the past is that it will give priority to file operations that are non-application load related and use the RAM Cache, thereby paging existing applications to the Hard Drive. (This is changed in Vista, file copy operations should no longer consume RAM Cache at the expense of applications.)
Apparently Windows Vista will not ship with any 'inherent' ability to play HD content, just as WindowsXP didn't ship with any inherent ability to play DVD content.
The only thing of note from the story is the push of signed 64bit drivers and the fact they will raise the 'possibility' that the next generation HD players will allow the content to run on the computer. But knowing WinDVD and other companies that will be in this market, I truly don't see this becoming much of an issue.
So, as it turns out, not much of a story, so we can all just move along.
Yep, and we still feel sorry for all the Mac users that got dupped by Intel and Apple.
Oh, BTW the 64bit Duo is out now, just in time for 'better' 64bit support in the new OSX. Sounds like more hardware and software sales in Apple's future. (
PS. Everyone throwing away their outdate Mac Notebooks they bought this year should donate them to a school, so they can be wiped and BSD or even Windows can be installed for the children.)
I bet Linux will step up to the plate and be able to play HD.
This is possible, but not 'legally', so if any DRM hacks do come out of Open Source they will be available for all OSes, just like DVD region and decryption hacks.
I think you are correct that the movies companies are taking a big hand in content restriction here, but we don't have to buy their crap.
I think MS attitude on this is probably the right choice to keep them out of further lawsuits. This way if users run hacks to play DRMed HD content on Vista 32, then they have no responsibility in the process...
(Also for everyone shouting OSX, BSD, Linux - they are not going to be playing HD content through standard or legal methods either. Even OSX's driver model is 'too' open for movie companies to allow HD playback, and if they do allow Apple to do it with OSX, MS will simply be able to use that as precident to add the functionality into Vista 32.)
The sad part is this is pushing a lot of people to Vista 64, but with the signed driver constraints, not a lot of drivers work with Vista 64bit.
"Famously, Qantas quote that they have never had a fatal jet airliner accident. While this is true, the Australian national airline suffered several losses in its early days, before the widespread adoption of the jet engine in civilian aviation. "
Do you even realize what the partner base is? The chance this was in 'end user' or set in any production senerio would be quite rare.
The problem was a slip in the 'to manufacturing process', it isn't like the product is crap, nor is a cause for concern. The Build difference from the posted RC to the RTM was a flag as something internally had reverted on part of the OS file versions.
For once MS acutally caught a problem before it got wide distribution, isn't this what they should be doing?
This story is kind of old, since it was news back in July when MS pulled it. Why is this now Slashdot news? Are the editors that slow or what? Oh, wait this is SlashDot - the Fox News of Technology.:)
Slashdot Mirror
MythTV is a PVR, not some simple media player. It allows you to record TV programs and watch them later, like a Tivo. Or does your "modern OS" have this ability built in?
Ya, but remember that Generic TV and Rage128 PRO w/TV has been providing this functionality to most users since 1998. They are full Guide based PVR systems and do quite well, even though they are not hardware based encoders. (Yes the out of box included software is a real PVR)
BTW as for the MCE/Myth/Beyond debates - the reason people (like myself) have ended up with MCE boils down to consistency and a good remote that my FAMILY can pick up, watch TV, schedule a show. I personally could have been happy with a wireless mouse and just flipping to my applications that already did this.
Media Center is not for tech geeks, but it does bring stuff that 'us' tech geeks were doing to a family quite painlessly. This is why it has success...
What you are looking for is Vista. It will be so current as to have the next year's video accelerators as its requirement.
Ya, if next year's cards are AGP 4x and have 64mb of RAM and support the 3 year old Pixel Shader 2.0, then sure, that is a next year video card, and we are only talking about the high end Glass.(sic)
Or you can use your old 1Mb Video Card from 1995 and run Vista just like you would WindowsXP, themes and all...
Either way, not really a 'requirement' nor something requiring next year's Video Cards.
I will say though, when ATI and NVidia move to multi-processing concepts and cores, Vista will already be able to utilize this technology with the WDDM specifications. Just like it can already mutli-process 3D applications and even virtualize GPU RAM on the 3 year old cards.
(BTW I think a lot of the 3D rendering concepts in development in the open source world are quite good, it is just strange the one GNOME is playing around with at this stage is a 'dated' concept to give 'wiggle' to windows.)
A 1900x1200 display only uses ~10mb of ram in 32 bit colour (for the screen buffer). The memory for textures, etc is the same regardless of screen resolution.
It's no longer like the days of EGA/VGA where screen resolution was a function of your available video memory - the major consumer of video memory these days is textures...
Ok, do you really think SlashDot readers are this stupid?
Try WoW at 1920x1200 with medium detail even and see how much GPU RAM is utilized for textures... 128MB is what you call 'getting by'...
If I was talking about bit depth in correlation to pixels, then sure 128mb is fine. Even for the Bitmap composer in OSX 128mb is easily enough to handle the screen buffer at 1920x1200.
However this is NOT what I was refering to.
Maybe you haven't tried some of the latest games(like last two years) that can literally suck every MB out of a Video Card. Something Like Doom that won't even run at High Resolution unless your Video Card has 256mb to hold the textures when doing 1024x768...
Ok, considering the 3D features require 5 year old video cards, does this mean we can officially give GNOME the 'boot' and move on to projects that are at least working with respectible interfaces and approaching 3D with modern hardware?
I read this release several times thinking it was a joke post...
RC is a term used to describe where in the process code is
I'm sorry you don't get it...
Alpha = First draft of features and code goals
Beta = Migration through features and code goals, things shift, especially in an OS.
RC = A point where vendors, (OEMS, ISVs, Hardware Drivers, Software Developers) can bit check their products against a 'Release Candidate' that finalized drivers and software can be tested against. This is why it is called a Release Candidate - NOT a Beta and where the distinction lies.
If Release Candidate ALWAYS meant what you think it does, then there would NEVER be RC1, RC2, RC3 - as the later two would be redundant. Get It?
And if not, I'm sorry you are new to this or just want to play devils donkey. I have been involved in development far too long to argue such idiotic semantics over terms that are fairly standard if you have worked with Microsoft for the past 15 years.
If you want to call Vista Crap, then call Vista Crap, don't tip toe around saying that RC1 isn't RTM Quality. RC1s are never RTM Quality no matter what company is producing it - PERIOD
If you want top of the line video in the mac, you buy a proper Mac Pro (you know, one of those ones in a seperate box with expansion slots), not an Imac.
I get ya; however, for middle of the line and even iMac you don't drop a 1920x1200 display on a unit and not pack enough RAM to run 3D applications on it at its native resolution realistically.
As for buying the top of the line Mac, you still get a 'middle level' Graphics Card and have to upgrade the Video the moment you pull it out of the Box for good graphics performance. (So much for the commercials of just plug it in, uh?)
There is no excuse for Apple STILL putting mid grade video in their products, they truly are starting to look more like the eMachines of the *nix world. BSD, Candy Desktop, and just enough hardware it gets by.
The Mac name was built on solid, easy to use home computers, not gaming rigs. Apple is not and likely will not be targeting hardcore gamers for a long time.
Ok, and what about our 3D, Video, and Graphic Designers that are being 'continually' POed at the low quality Video ALL Macs have offered for several years.
Why not buy a high end system if that is what you want?
Even the top of the line Macs over the past 5 years have offered middle of the road GPU Chipsets.
Ok, so you say OSX isn't strong enough to be a gaming OS, if that is what you want to believe fine. However I only used gaming as a reference, there are other industries that DO take advantage of the Graphical capabilities, and Apple is falling way short.
Besides I disagree if Apple can't pull gaming up to an acceptable and 'expected' level, even on their middle of the road systems, Microsot is going to continue to wipe the floor with the Home consumer market.
I pointed out the other day that some of our Graphic Designers are already drooling over Vista because the Redraw and Real-Time Render Rates are 10x faster than WindowsXP and OSX. Apple needs to take notice and stop slacking here.
As for this being a middle of the road machine, you don't drop an eye catching 24" 1920x1200 display on a machine and not put in even enough Video RAM to run an OpenGL game at its native resolution realistically. I have a year old Laptop that can out bench these Macs, and that is REALLY REALLY sad.
Maybe that is middle of the road for what people have come to expect from Apple, and if that is true, maybe the 'quality' that once the Apple logo enstilled no longer is relevant.
So if your conclusions are correct, maybe Apple should partner with eMachines afterall and become the 'good enough for people that don't know better' computer company.
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT or 7600GT with 128MB GDDR3 Video card
Why should Mac users have to settle for middle of the road Video performance, yet again. 1920x1200 displays, and yet 128mb Video cards from last year that will have trouble rendering a game at the monitor's native resolution. How does this make sense?
Where is the industry leader that the Mac name was built on? Everyone waited forever for a credible OS like OSX, and now Apple's hardware lineup has gone to middle of the road crap. Why?
Please, Mac users stand up and scream at Apple for something that can at least compete with a freaking 7lb Dell Laptop. These are Macs not glorified eMachines. Argh!
At least educate yourself on the proper usage of FUD.
A post spreading 'Fear' about Windows Stability and quality level because it is called a RC when it is still not completely RELEASE QUALITY with a RC tag.
A post with 'Uncertainty' about Windows RC1 status, when it is actually the accurate term for the milestone.
A post with 'Doubt' about the quality of Windows being called a RC when it is not fully optimized nor has the final visuals or sounds, even though it is API and Developer complete, which is what a RC is.
I think I know what FUD is, and bashing the RC naming of the 5600 build of Windows is exactly FUD. It is also false, misleading and full of crap, while spreading FUD about the build quality and/or naming of the Vista Build.
Now with that said, if you would have taken the time to read my post it brought up other issues of FUD that have been spread about Vista, and wasn't even specifically nailing this area of FUD, but it STILL is FUD.
So RC is no longer an acronym for "release candidate," since by MS's newspeak definition RCs are not candidates under consideration for release? In other news MS has decided HTML no longer stands for Hyper Text Markup Language, but now means "stuff you see in explorer" and MS has declared themselves fully compliant with this new definition and their marketing department is now claiming 100% accurate HTML rendering.
I don't care how long MS has been using marketing terms to try to call a chicken a goose. If it is not a candidate for release, it shouldn't be called an RC.
You can pretend that this is MS screwing with the English Lexicon or MS is trying to pass a painted pig off as a Horse, but the reality is this is a very common usage of a RC milestone naming.
During the BETA process a lot of internals change to match the design goals of the Alpha builds. In Vista alone, the WPF/.NET 3.0 APIs have shifted almost monthly during the course of the last year. A lot of Vista changes have been for compatibility and security and have DIRECTLY affected how Drivers work and software works. Even Drivers compiled for the January Beta of Vista (depending on the Driver) would very much fail due to the internal changes to even the July Vista Release. This is how Betas work.
(Watch the Leopard Beta if you don't believe me, and yes I have tech members participating.)
Now that Vista is at RC1 nothing major should change internally that would affect software or driver development. Hence why it is a RC milestone.
People also act like this is a marketing ploy or a gimmick, yet MS has been very clear about this in the release notes and in the press. Just as they were with WinNT3.1 RC1, Win98 RC1, Win2k RC1 as well, the same bar and naming conventions were used then as well.
So if Microsoft is messing with the language, you should have told them this 15 years ago when they started this practice and THEIR definition of what a RC is.
Also while people are smacking on MS for calling this a RC, they should also call up Corel and correct them, as well as Novel, Adobe, and even Apple. As well as MANY Open Source projects that I am personally involved in that go to RC when they are no longer changing internally, but NOT YET RTM quality.
This is not a MS issue, rather a public perception issue.
The strange thing is I am here trying to help people understand a standard terminology in defense of Vista being dubbed RC1, and yet it is more stable and secure than a lot of RTM OSes (including WinME, Win2K, and even the latest pay for bug fixes version of OSX 10.x).
thought that was the point of a beta. Alpha "This looks good", Beta "This is how it'll be, but we need to iron the bugs out", and RC "I think we've ironed out the bugs now!"
Seriously, if I label something RC, it means I think it's done, and it's only because I've labelled things "done" in the past, only to find out that everyone and their uncle uncovered new and exciting bugs.
This may be true in the company you work in, or with other betas you may have been involved in.
However, I can attest that RC does NOT mean it is Release Quality, it is usually a 'developer' milestone for software and HARDWARE vendors to position themselves behind.
This has been true of EVERY MS Beta I know of since 1990, and also products from other companies like from Corel to Adobe to even Apple that I have been a beta tester in.
MS has made this VERY clear in their press releases, as they have with all their previous OS and Application Betas that also hit RC status. If you think it means RELEASE COMPLETE, then people are either misleading you or you are just not paying attention.
Vista RC1 doesn't even have all the 'visuals' or 'sounds' that will be in the RTM, it doesn't even pretend to be a RELEASE QUALITY or FEATURE COMPLETE from an end user's standpoint build.
Just like Win2K, RC1 was the time software and hardware developers put effort into ensure compatibility and driver availability, just as you will see with Vista RC1.
This is not news, nor MS trying to pull a fast one, this is as standard as it gets. Truly...
Wow a poorly written, bloviating rant from an anonymous post... And yet with nothing to refute a fact or ad a fact. What is the word, oh ya, trolling...
How original.
The extra layers of code between the application and the hardware do extract their toll, yes. Just as they did on Windows NT before Microsoft gave up on the strong separation of components in the system and started running GDI (Microsoft's core graphics code) inside the kernel in NT 4.0.
But the flipside of this is that the stability of NT took a big dive with NT4, and it really hasn't recovered.
Um, but this is no longer true with Vista, Video Drivers have been moved back to User level, and with other new 'unique' GPU technologies in Vista to gain performance, it is performing faster than XP.
In the timeframe, moving Video to a lower Ring WAS the right choice for NT at the time, but you are correct that Video Driver Stability could cause the system to BSOD.
WindowsXP addressed with stability, especially in RC2, but the model was outdated for the new generation of GPU interaction MS had planned for Vista.
In Vista the Video not only runs at a higher level again, but it also is doing things no other OS GPU model has ever even tried. Things like GPU mult-tasking with virtual GPU RAM concepts.
This is why you can run Halo or pick a Game in Vista at a full FPS on the desktop along side 'other' games running at full FPS and even do the Flip 3D, and watch them run side by side angled on the screen at full FPS.
In Vista you can even kill the Video Driver and Vista will recover without interrupting applications, something again most OSes cannot do, including OSX. In theory you could rip your Video Card out of your system Running Vista, put it back in the computer and be right back where you started.
And security and stability go hand-in-hand. Microsoft has always put performance above security and stability, and the result is that even Apple's less-than-stellar approach to security has produced a system that's far less susceptible to attacks at all levels. Half the security alerts about OS X are problems in internal firewalls that Microsoft doesn't even bother to implement in any usable way, and could only be exploited if the system was already compromised.
This is a decision Microsoft made with Win2k and WinXP, they went for compatibility over security and it WAS a BAD decision. They should of broke crappy 3rd Pary applications, Period.
Vista addresses this is a very big way. NT always had a lot of security, Vista finally ENFORCES it. Some applications get the 'need admin approval', but it is worth it to have the enhanced stability. This is how OSX handles Security as well as other *nixes, but MS goes one step further as there is not ANY equivalent to a ROOT level account. So even an Administration level account doesn't get full ROOT access, as it would in OSX or other *nixes that use a similar model.
As for the firewalls and other security measures, you are bit confused. MS's WinXP firewall DID work, even though it was not as robust as it could have been.
Vista again changes this with a full OSI Application Layer Firewall technology. Nothing gets in or out without specific Administration approval. I am sure people will argue there are better Firewall technologies on the market, but NONE that ship by defaut and are configured as secure as the Vista Firewall technologies.
'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One
.NET 3.0 and other new API systems are finalized for syntax, so developers can start testing new products against the OS and not have to worry about API changes.
.NET 3.0 APIs were changing on a monthy basis up until July, as you will notice that there were .NET3.0/WinFX releases each month, with the APIs for the developers changing. And that is just ONE new API subsystem of Vista.
Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.
This means that the product is feature complete and 99% of the OS bits and all the APIs are how they will be in the final release.
Why was Beta2-Pre-RC1 NOT a RC. Simple, from a developer's standpoint the OS was not feature complete.
RC1 is the FIRST release that that
Sure things will be optimized, and this will be polished, but this IS A RC solely based on the definition that MS has used FOR YEARS. It is feature complete for developers...
(So aside from all the Joke at MS and other FUD, this is technically a RC, and even though it is not a 'finished' polished product, it is the first feature complete versions, especially from the API standpoint.)
This is NO different than they did with Win2k RC1 which was actually less stable than Vista RC1, but AGAIN it was API feature complete for developers, hence why it was called a RC and not a Beta, just as this release.
As for proof of this, look at the Win2k Beta history, or even lookt that Vista Beta History, the
So once again repeat,"This is a RC, this is a RC because it is API and Developer complete."
PERIOD.
The biggest problem that Apple is found to face with BootCamp is that Native Intel OSX applications in contrast to Native Windows Versions of the same software run faster under Windows.
This is not something that will sway Mac people, but for technically aware people and 'DEVERLOPERS' it is a telling piece of evidence.
When you have the exact hardware and Native Intel applications and they consistently run faster under Windows than OSX, Apple has a problem.
It has started to become a growing image problem for Apple in some of the on the fence fans, but it is more increasing becoming an issue for developers. Why develop an OSX version if your software will just run faster on Windows and OSX users are 'increasing' becoming dual boot OS users because of Boot Camp.
Gaming is the first blow that will hit Apple on this, but as other companies that Apple has been less than kind to in the past will start to abandon OSX versions and the costs for a low market share. Especially if they can hit a % of the Mac users that are dual booting anyway.
The final hit that could really pop OSX is Vista. Sure it is late, lacking features promised, etc. But it is a rewrite of the NT core and is faster than XP if you have 512mb of RAM, and the Video performance is even a leap beyond XP and a bigger leap beyond anything that OSX can currently provide. Vista is cute, pretty, easier than XP, and could sway a lot of OSX users that are on the fence, especially if their software is running faster under Vista. (A good example of this is in Video Production and handling Graphic Design, where Vista blows XP away in performance and again is far ahead of the performance you find in OSX.)
Our designers are already stepping up to move to Vista just because the handling of large images and even XP applications like CorelDraw/AI/Photoshop have not only a raw handling performance, but the redraw performance is 10x what XP is currently doing. (Test it if you can Grap RC1 of Vista and Corel or AI and notice the speed of complex drawing panning and zooming not only in comparison to XP, but even do comparisons to OSX. It is a big difference and will win a lot of people that deal with high data media. (Even some of our designers that have been in love with OSX are putting in Vista boxes already for graphic design projects.)
The Video Rendering system in Vista is going to hurt Apple hard, as it is isn't just a Bitmap Buffer being used from the GPU, that gave OSX a bit of an edge in some applications over XP.
The only thing that surprises me is seeing the Apple shills travelling off apple.slashdot.org to do their moderating.
Usually they hover over appledotslashdot.
I think I am still a bit surprised by the Apple 'love' and free pass that SlashDot and SlashDoters give to Apple.
I have been around a fairly long time in the tech world, working on and part of the development projects for everything from XWindows and BSD to even being an external MS NT consultant in the early 90s.
Why on earth is Apple allowed to basically RAPE the Open Source world, and because of it does use BSD it is given some free pass on screwing with things most SlashDot users are completely against.
Yet if you point this out people think you are a MS Fanboi, and it should be all BSD/Linux/Etc users that are the most outraged by a lot of things Apple has done, not only with bastardizing Open Source 'as Apple sees fit' to their legal strong arm tactics, DRM, Closed Markets, etc.
It's always fun to look for bad guys in situations like this, but both Apple and Mr. "Cache" here are wearing white hats
And this post gets marked +? WTF
When people have posted in the past about MS trying to protect its customers by keeping hacks out of the press people here whine and scream and yell that only full disclosure is the answer and MS is evil for trying to keep the hack from being made public before their patch is ready.
And today I read this post on SlashDot where Apple is a 'good guy' in the same situtation?
Rose colored glasses for Apple are really thick I guess... (Geesh)
Chances are even a generic OEM DVD Writer comes with write software that is able to do the simple backups you are requesting. (Although I am with many users, just add a new hard drive for backups, even a USB external is going to be about 50-100 bucks and will be virtually instant in comparison to DVD and just as reliable if not more.)
WindowsXP pre-dates DVD Writing as the norm of the time (2001), so it doesn't inherently support it (which draws out the OSX and Linux crowds of telling you to get a real OS and then they list 20 command line tools that are fairly cumbersome.)
Since it appears you are using Windows, when you can, move to Vista, Backups are easy, able to use DVDs, and can do full system bit by bit as well as file/folder backups, all with a couple of clicks.
but I didn't ever encounter a limit on any other OS.
Ok, not sure about what 'limit' you are talking about, but virtual and even Page File Sizes (depending on OS) are based on the OS and CPU architecture.
A 32bit OS is going to be limited to 4GB of RAM unless they use the (IA32) extensions, it doesn't matter if it is Windows, BSD, Linux or DonkeyOS.
The way this RAM is broken up can be different and that is where there are some gives and takes in each OS. Windows for example natively will only allow an application to have 2GB of RAM, leaving the additional RAM for the kernel/processes. There is an override for this that allows Windows to allocate 4GB processes as well, and with a give and take in the Kernel allocation.
So for a 32bit System, Windows normall allows for 4GB to 64GB of Physical RAM depending on the version of Windows and whether IA32 is used or not.
On a 32bit Windows OS, the PAGEFILE, is in theory limited to 16 terabytes. (Considerbly more than Physical RAM)
On Windows 64bit, in theory the physical RAM limit is 16 terabytes, with a 512 terabyte limit on the pagefile, but again, since most of the 64bit architectures like AMD64 don't give a full 64bit memory address space, this is not able to be fully used.
So again, not sure what limits you are talking about and why you think Windows or any other OS would have inherent benefits when they are hardware limited based on the CPU/Architecture.
Score 5 for this comment? Windows can't live without swap memory. 0 is automatically ignored (and other small values), and Windows decides to use as much as it wants. This is easily verified by running DirectX Siagnostic Tool, dxdiag.exe.
In Windows 2000/XP you can't disable swap memory- plain and simple. Swap size can be reduced, that's all, but Windows will only follow your seeting until need arises (and that won't be when Windows has ran out of RAM, as other have explained).
Actually they can be turned off in WindowsXP, easily, with no problems what so ever if you have a large memory footprint.
In fact, the way Windows DOES handle memory it is better at running without a paging file than most OSes because it will not shove in crap loads of content to the pagefile anticipating the application will use it.
Windows Vista also can and will run will without a pagefile, without incident.
Where windows has 'sucked' at pagefiles in the past is that it will give priority to file operations that are non-application load related and use the RAM Cache, thereby paging existing applications to the Hard Drive. (This is changed in Vista, file copy operations should no longer consume RAM Cache at the expense of applications.)
http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/archive/2006 /08/24/450081.aspx
Apparently Windows Vista will not ship with any 'inherent' ability to play HD content, just as WindowsXP didn't ship with any inherent ability to play DVD content.
The only thing of note from the story is the push of signed 64bit drivers and the fact they will raise the 'possibility' that the next generation HD players will allow the content to run on the computer. But knowing WinDVD and other companies that will be in this market, I truly don't see this becoming much of an issue.
So, as it turns out, not much of a story, so we can all just move along.
Uh, the core duo is 32bit.
Yep, and we still feel sorry for all the Mac users that got dupped by Intel and Apple.
Oh, BTW the 64bit Duo is out now, just in time for 'better' 64bit support in the new OSX. Sounds like more hardware and software sales in Apple's future. (
PS. Everyone throwing away their outdate Mac Notebooks they bought this year should donate them to a school, so they can be wiped and BSD or even Windows can be installed for the children.)
(/smile)
I bet Linux will step up to the plate and be able to play HD.
This is possible, but not 'legally', so if any DRM hacks do come out of Open Source they will be available for all OSes, just like DVD region and decryption hacks.
I think you are correct that the movies companies are taking a big hand in content restriction here, but we don't have to buy their crap.
I think MS attitude on this is probably the right choice to keep them out of further lawsuits. This way if users run hacks to play DRMed HD content on Vista 32, then they have no responsibility in the process...
(Also for everyone shouting OSX, BSD, Linux - they are not going to be playing HD content through standard or legal methods either. Even OSX's driver model is 'too' open for movie companies to allow HD playback, and if they do allow Apple to do it with OSX, MS will simply be able to use that as precident to add the functionality into Vista 32.)
The sad part is this is pushing a lot of people to Vista 64, but with the signed driver constraints, not a lot of drivers work with Vista 64bit.
>>Qantas never crashed.
:)
"Famously, Qantas quote that they have never had a fatal jet airliner accident. While this is true, the Australian national airline suffered several losses in its early days, before the widespread adoption of the jet engine in civilian aviation. "
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
Most of Microsoft's voluminous partner base
:)
Do you even realize what the partner base is? The chance this was in 'end user' or set in any production senerio would be quite rare.
The problem was a slip in the 'to manufacturing process', it isn't like the product is crap, nor is a cause for concern. The Build difference from the posted RC to the RTM was a flag as something internally had reverted on part of the OS file versions.
For once MS acutally caught a problem before it got wide distribution, isn't this what they should be doing?
This story is kind of old, since it was news back in July when MS pulled it. Why is this now Slashdot news? Are the editors that slow or what? Oh, wait this is SlashDot - the Fox News of Technology.