I think why I liked 2000 so much was that it was NT done right, a well written and stable OS without a lot of clutter. I think that if Vista really was a new OS, not just enhancements to their existing codebase, then we'd be okay with it.
I think Windows 2000 was an ok release for the NT line, but I disagree on a couple of aspects.
1) WindowsXP is so far the most stable version of NT, as well as the fastest. On comperable hardware, WindowsXP SP2 will outperform Windows 2000 by 10-20% even with the themes and other added services to XP turned ON.
2) Vista, and even XP, are more than just 'things' added to the Win2K NT codebase. The entire kernel has been update considerably in both incarnations, with Vista sporting the most vast kernel changes since NT was released. (Things like memory management, portions of the security system, how drivers interoperate, to even moving the Video back to a higher Ring for stability and the WDDM management in Vista without losing performance because of a few direct call tricks now added to the kernel.)
I find it strange that there are still people that think Win2k is the 'best' version of NT released. There are many changes in XP that are not just cosmetic, but relative to the performance of each application, how the system handles security, and even how the system handles stability. (One example for stability is XPs ability to not only do DLL isolation beyond what Win2k could, but it can even trap bad calls by third party applications and 'correct' the call to prevent the application from crashing or being forced to close as would happen in Win2k)
Everyone that is still stuck on Win2k, should take a serious look at XP with new eyes and do some research on it, there is a lot of information about the kernel changes. Also keep an eye on Vista, as more and more information about the changes in employs and why these are a good thing.
(One specific example that affect end users is how Vista uses Virtual memory in a much smarter way, where a Win2k/XP system with 1gb of RAM would page quit a bit of memory to the hard drive and let the memory cache offset this, Vista is smarter about what does go to Virtual RAM, so the system even in its current Beta stage is noticably more snappy because of the low amount of paging that occurs.)
Windows 2000 was good because it was built on "NT Technology". Or, in other words, it was built on "New Technology Technology" (since NT originally meant "New Technology").
Brought to us by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Actually, that is the coined term in the media, originally the development team were working on a RISC Simulator for the Intel i860 N-Ten systems, and the team and the nickname eventually became NT from that.
People have also thought it was Networking Technology and various other terms, when NT was released, the people at Micrsoft would never confirm or deny any meaning that NT had, and publically said it didn't stand for anything.
Also should be noted that everything from Microsoft Since Windows 2000 has been based on NT technology, just like WindowsXP, Windows 2003 Server, and even WindowsCE is a brother of NT technology. Hence why you can run a full BSD *nix subsystem on Win2k through Vista that equally exists with the Win32/64 subsystems. (This is why when people try to reference Windows based on a Win3.x or Win9x context, it a different OS from the ground up and has no relevance to modern Windows versions.)
This Message brought to you by the NSA checking up on the Department of Redundancy Department. (BTW, speak louder in your bedroom, the microphones in the bedside lamps sometimes have trouble picking up everything you and your spouse say.)
You might know this already, but Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is uses the same codebase as Windows Server 2003.
Actually a lot of the code base and the recompiling was also added to WindowsXP SP2, that is why WindowsXP SP2 is more than just a security update, it will improve performance as well.
Well, most people don't have anywhere to get Windows Server 2003 at something close to a reasonable price for workstation use, other than with BitTorrent and the like (which many people wouldn't dare, or care enough to try). But yeah, Server 2003 is without a doubt the best version of Windows NT 5 around
Just an FYI, if someone really wants to work with Windows 2003 server, there are tons of 120day evaluation versions they can get their hands on, even off the Microsoft Web site.
If you are doing testing or running it in a virtual environment, you can keep re-installing and using it for as long as you need. The 120day version just isn't a good choice for a production environment for long term use, as you would have to recreate all the domain, sharing, services, and user settings every six months, but it is doable...
I also agree that Windows 2003 Server was probably the best 'release' level OS version of Windows for security and stability. When it was first released, it even ran on the desktop faster than WinXP. This is why SP2 of WinXP is important, as it brought a lot of the Windows 2003 code base in the WindowsXP desktop line, more security, faster, etc.
All this 'MS conspiracy' kills me, here read what others are saying actually happened. Like MS offered to ship Flash with Vista even in their negotiation with Adobe.
They also removed MS's own XPS format from Office so the industry wouldn't think it was MS's decision to not provide PDF and favor their document format...
Well, hard to market as a game machine......when the new Macs can dual boot into Windows and run the SAME games at faster speeds under Windows than OSX.
Unless Apple would just market the hardware, then sure, great game machines when you boot them into Windows, although they have under powered video cards.
(And yes, even with native Intel based OSX games, not just emulated)
Sleep mode, like it or not, is still throwing energy out the window.
Um, NO...
Sleep is basically Standby, except after a longer period of inactivity it hibernates the machine AUTOMATICALLY. (This uses NO power.)
So I do not know where people from the article or Slashdot got this SO MESSED UP that Sleep will increase energy costs, but is about the most feked up amazing bit of misinformation in a while.
Ok, just so everyone is on the same page. Sleep is just an Option, you can choose, Standby, Sleep, Hibernate.
The same features that existed in XP are there (you know the STUFF that is support via ACPI, etc.) You can also configure your computer so when you close your lid it does any of the above, or when you it the sleep or the power button it can do any of the above... These are all configurable just like XP, but are actually easier to find to set. They are all ALSO options on the 'Start' button (in earlier betas they were not, so maybe this is why people think Sleep is the only power saving option.)
People here are really not so stupid to think that hibernate and standby where removed from Vista, just because Microsoft added in a new thing called Sleep, which is basicaly a form of StandBy that will automatically hibernate after a period of time? Oh wait this is SlashDot, nvm...
In reality to use Exchange to its full potential you need an exchange server, if you are realistically deploying Exchange you will be using Active Directory, if you want centralised Rights Management you need the centralised server component, if you want the nice new collaboration tools you need sharepoint. Hell you also need to be running Windows (presumably XP).
1) This is not about exchange and needing outlook for exchange. Besides, you REALLY don't, the Web Mail inteface for the latest Exchange is quite rich if you want to go that route.
2) You don't need MS server products to use the Office collaborative features, products like Merak and IpSwitch offer quite nice collaboration suites for the server that are very cheap, and INTEGRATE with Office and Outlook.
3) The 'Nice New' collaboration tools are NOT truly new. Microsoft Office has shipped with Sharepoint and Server side collaboation features since Office 2000. These are just the 'newer' versions of them. Which is why stating that Office 2007 needs the server crap to work any differently than Office for the last 7 years is insane.
We have been testing Office 2007 in both senerios, with the server side Exchange, Sharepoint all the bells and whistles. We also have been testing it without ANY MS on the servers still share files and even non run from non-MS mail servers. Guess what, there is virtually no difference, even for the hard core Office employees.
The only real difference to the employees is the Sharepoint Site, which is something that you don't even need Office to run, it is a free download for any Windows Server. And it is not a 'tool' of Office, but a tool to create a Company Web/Intranet Site without any HTML coding. Sure Office can use it to save a file to the sharepoint site, just like in previous versions, but that doesn't have really anything to do with Office unless the people are already using Sharepoint Sites for their Intranets.
People are way to uptight about any 'server' side requirements for functionality in Office 2007. It isn't any different than Office for the last 7 years, truly, and you aren't 'losing' features by not having a MS server with Sharepoint and Exchange, they are 'external' to Office in this sense.
I am upset that an Athlon X2 4200, with 4 gigs of ddr-400, a sata2 80 gig drive, and an atix1300 with 265mb on the card only gets a 3 out of 5 on the stupid rating system. Especially when everything works smooth, including the 3d page flip. I do feel that the "minimum requirements" that microsoft posted are of course a joke but that's nothing new.
Don't worry about the rating you have, it will change.
The performance rating system is something that is still a work in progress. It is also something many have talked about in the beta.
We have seen systems with a 2.4ghz P4, 1Gb of RAM, and a 5600 NVidia 128mb Video card get a swimmingly 5 on the scale and a system with almost twice the CPU, twice the RAM, running a RAID with a new NVidia 512mb Card get a 3 on the score. We even have a system that is all 5s on each test with an overall rating of 3, so there is some messed up code in how it weighs the score. Besides it is should never be a replacement for a real benchmarking tool.
They have said not to take the numbers seriously at this stage of the beta, and from what we have seen, ya, don't take them serious.
Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.
I really don't want to debate this, and I think this is kind of trivial.
With that said, what you are referring to about allowing employees to have 'admin' rights on their systems is not a big issue up until this point, as the UAP system in Vista wasn't even close to a final stage until a month or two ago, and is still being tweaked to accomodate applications that were written by 3rd parties with the Win9x mindset.
What MS has been doing currently is NOT running their employees at Admin level in the sense I think you are refering to either. They have been running the computers in the new Vista Admin mode, which is like a 'default' user on OSX. Understand?
It is not the Root Admin level like previous versions of Windows. Even the actual administrator account on Vista doesn't get the conceptual 'root' access level.
What the other article was talking about was forcing MS users to not even get the 'admin' rights to make changes to their systems, which would include installing software, etc. This would be more like a hybrid between a User and Power User in the old Windows Security Groups.
Microsoft is turning down their employee 'admin' rights to ensure older applications that try to run with user credentials that never cared about NT security before still run properly in the restricted level of access.
There is no big story on this, nor a big story on lack of security. Vista is bring the abstraction between administrator and root security, to a point that even exceeds most *nix environments, while still not making it too tough on users. Think of it like a combination of the way *nixes do security with a combination of having NO Root account whatsoever to ensure people will NEVER be running with higher priveledges than they should.
Sure, you're right, nobody has to buy those server technologies to use Office 2007: but if they don't, they may decide they don't have to buy Office 2007 at all. And I think that's mostly what people are saying here. We're all aware that a guy off the company LAN is still likely to be able to use Office without any issues -- it's just that he may decide it's not worth bothering, and for Microsoft, that's a big issue.
It is like this... People are putting WAY TOO MUCH EMPHASIS on the Server technologies of Office. It is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENT in 2007 than it was in Office 2000 even.
Office 2000 had sharepoint server side components, and outlook worked with exchange then as well.
This really has VERY little to do with the functionality of Office, trust someone that uses it BOTH senerios.
Microsoft surely wants you to use Office and the Server side 'features' are BONUS features for offices to make things easier, but are NOT a requirement.
Even the scheduling and calendaring that you mention would be lost is NOT true, you can still use these features even without any Server collaboration software. The second part is you are NOT locked into the MS technologies if you want to use the SERVER side features. Go look at IceWarp and their software, it offers many of the server side features that INTEGRATE with Office just as if it was a MS product running on the server.
I also think people DO NOT FULLY understand what SharePoint is and WHY it is... Sharepoint is FREE if you are running a Windows Server, and its SOLE purpose is in creating a Web Internet/Intranet WITHOUT programming or HTML knowledge, that gives companies a place to share ideas, tasks, and documents. It has been around for a long time, and sure the newest version has some really keen features that are appealing, but linking this to Office as some sort of knock to Office or saying it is a 'requirement' for Office is COMPLETELY FALSE.
I don't totally disagree with you or many others here, but the level of misunderstand or importance placed on the server side features that Office can use are OVERLY stated to the point of being ridiculous.
As for people rushing out to Upgrade to Office 2007, I think you are right that people with Office 2003 will probably not be the first mass group to upgrade. However for people that are still using OfficeXP or earlier, this is a good point to upgrade for them, and that would more of the target market. If you watch MS and the Office product lines, their upgrade clients on their products are usually from the a couple of versions prior to the current product release.
Also Office 2007 is not a dud, as witnessed by the Mac and Windows community for the last 20 years. Of all the 'teams' at Microsoft, the Office teams seems to be one of the most consistent at 'innovation' and putting out solid releases. The only other team at Microsoft I have this high of respect for would be the compiler and development tool nerds.
Some Office features require sharepoint server. SharePoint Portal Server 2003 requires "one of the following servers: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition, or Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, plus the latest service pack (see Other for additional requirements). Running SharePoint Portal Server 2003 on Windows Server 2003 Web Edition requires SQL Server 2000 to be installed on a separate computer.". And in order to use clients with Windows Server, you will need server cals or Windows 2000/XP Pro license for each client workstation.
Ok read this to yourself, please... Unless you are planning on running Office 2007 on Wine, you will HAVE a Windows CAL, as Home Edition of XP won't even work in a Domain environment in the first place...
Nope. Exchange CALs give right to run Outlook. Outlook or Office itself does not provide Exchange client license.
Exchange has two TYPES of CALs. One is the server side license and the other is the client.
And again, my point is that YOU DO NOT NEED EXCHANGE to use Outlook, and YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SHAREPOINT SERVER to use Microsoft Office UNLESS you are specifically USING THE SHAREPOINT SERVER 'SHARING' Features...
People arguing that you 'need' a Sharepoint server for Office is like arguing that you need a print server for the new Ink jet you just purchased, which is pretty ridiculous.
Sure if you are using the Sharepoint SERVER FEATURES that OFFICE CAN ACCESS then of course you would need a Sharepoint Server. Geesh...
Most people and even MOST companies don't need the Sharepoint Server features, and additionally, if they are already running a Windows Server, dropping sharepoint server services on it is not a big task.
May be misleading but so far if you want to utilise all the features of this office package you will probably need:
Exchange Share point Rights Management Active Directory
Plus the associated CALS, and OS licenses, the technical staff, the hardware and the training for your user base. Oh and there are NO alternatives for use with MS Office (correct me if I am wrong), Personally I'd rather build my own out of the bits that are available in OpenSource land, use the features that I (my company) needs and lump the rest, but thats not everyones cup of tea. All I really want in life is Visio for linux, or a decent clone, preferably with the network architect toolkit or similar.
Um, No... Oh and also NO....
Where do people get this information? Are you really in the beta, because if you are, meet me in the groups and we can discuss this, because what you wrote is about as insane as it gets.
Just for an example: Outlook works and 'collaborates' quite well with ANY Mail server, you can eve do Office forms, Replies and a lot of the other features, including LDAP support all with a simple and even FREE mail server softare. If your Mail server supports POP3 or IMAP, you are quite set with Outlook.
Sure Outlook is ALSO an exchange client and will use the exchange features, but NEITHER require each other, understand?
As for these others: Share point Rights Management Active Directory
Do you even know what you are talking about? Active Directory is something not even used by Office unless you are running a SERVER VERSION of Office, which 99.9% of the people using Office do not. Also the 'Active Directory' requirements are NOT even exclusive to Windows Server Active Directory Server.
As for the CALS, do you NOT realize that each VERSION of Office is its own CAL? That is what it is, a client application, there are no additional server CALs needed. Even Outlook qualifies to be a full CAL for Exchange.
You need to read up quite a bit before making outlandish posts.
Oh, also you state 'rights management' WTF are you even talking about?
Most Apple applications themselves tend to be a bit 'bloated'. No matter how fast the kernel is, you have a bit of a bloated GUI construct (especially in terms of RAM Usage) then add on the RAM used by some of the built in applications, and ouch.
And no, not all of Apple application are bloated, safari isn't bad in terms of size and performance in comparison to some of their other creations like iPhoto, etc...
You can almost pick through the applications included on OSX and see where the developers just were rushing to get the product working and the ones that performance and RAM usage were seriously taken into account.
Even iTunes is not built for speed nor does it seem to care about a low RAM footprint.
OSX performance needs to be debated, but in three parts at the very least. The Kernel OS Layer, The GUI Layer, and the included Application level.
Here is what is really sad, Vista in Beta is snappy with 512mb and 512mb is the 'recommended' RAM for optimal performance as well. (Of course that is if it ever ships, but in the meantime, a Beta OS full of debug code should not feel snappier than an OS that has been refined for last 6 years like OSX.
Exactly, that is why people screaming that ODF is just a 'publish' format with NO REGARD to being able to have the content in an editible fashion are truly missing the whole ODF movement.
I think the one broken leg that RIAA has is songs are recorded in the memory, so it's not a traditional radio broadcast.
I wonder if RIAA won this case, would it affect MP3 players which allow recording of radio?
No, and yes...
MOST XM receivers DO NOT have the ability to store songs, they only buffer a few seconds. The exception is a few of the newer portable units and higher end deck units.
I would esitmate 90% of the XM customer base has the traditional XM Receivers with ANALOG outputs, even though the units are receiving a digital broadcast.
So in this sense, XM is NO different than other radio stations.
The problem I think they are trying to use against XM is that it provides so much music content at single time, that you can usually find a song you like to listen to, or a talk show you want to listen to. So this is where this scares RIAA.
However, Cable & Sat. Companies have provided 100s of music channels in the same capacity, and hence yet, we don't see RIAA fighting them, because they know they would easily lose based on the fair use rulings from VCRs in the 80s.
I can actually record songs from my Sat./Cable easier than from my XM, as we almost all have DVRs for our Cable/Sat. and even companies like Dish Network sell portable players that allow you to offload the shows/songs/content to portable players.
This is really sticky and said that RIAA think they can get away with this. XM isn't even the maker of the portable receivers that allow you to record the songs form their service, that is who the RIAA should try to go after in the first place, but again, this would go back to the VCR rulings because they are 'device' manf. and not content providers.
In an ironic story, Australia just legalized the 'fair use' of VCRs and DVRs this last week (even though people there have used them illegally). And back in the 'land of the free' USA, we are witnessing a regression of persoanl freedom once again.
We now have so much capability both analog and digital, that we all could record every album in CD quality using our computers etc, and this is just by pulling the songs from 'regular' broadcasts.
If the RIAA gets their wish, that is what we will end up doing rather than paying them money. We can then support bands and labels that don't support RIAA or send donations to the bands we like and bypass them all together. Becareful what you wish for, RIAA...
HDMI is just a superset of DVI with inherent HDCP support instead of being tacked on. Supports YCbCr as well as RGB over digital. Serial based so you can stretch that HDMI cable a lot further than DVI. Also supports control signals.
I don't see how getting rid of HDMI will help anyone. Analogue video should be long dead, especially at higher resolutions, the distortion is terrible.
I know HDCP is a pain but it really isn't that intrusive.
Ok, I don't consider myself to be the brightest person, but this was really bad even for me.
I read what I posted this morning and even shocked myself at how screwed up I was...
Thank you for pointing this out, much to my chagrin.
The sad part is this is the second time this week I have jumbled HDMI and HDCP, and the really sad part, is I wrote a technical article of the ramifications of HDCP about six months ago, so you would think I wouldn't have read HDMI and thought HDCP. Geesh...
(With Humility I crawl back to my corner and call this a bad week, my entire post was crap with regard to HDMI.)
blu-ray uses h.264 for movie compression, not wmv-hd.
Actually GO LOOK THIS UP for more information, but here is a short explaination from wikipedia.
The BD-ROM format specifies at least three video codecs: MPEG-2, the standard used for DVDs; MPEG-4's H.264/AVC codec; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9. The first of these only allows for about two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer BD-ROM, but the addition of the two more advanced codecs allows up to four hours per layer.
Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use MPEG-4 and VC-1 as well as MPEG-2. (Hint: VC-1 and WMV9 and WMV-HD are ALL the same format.)
It is easy to see that you are not a stupid or uniformed person, but things like this amaze me, because you are like most tech savy people I encounter that have somehow missed this information about HD formats. I have literally seen people gasp when I explain WMV9 is VC-1 and a standard now that is supported by all the HD Content/Media providers.
There are even Cable companies that are using VC-1 for HD broadcast content.
Evil? Why are they evil? Have they killed countless millions of people? Have they disenfranchised an entire population and brought them under a brutal dictatorship? Have they done scientific experiments on unwilling human-beings? Have they enslaved millions of people to do their bidding in extremely harsh and abusive environments? Have they ever attempted ethnic cleansing?
Well if you consider their online communities SOE has done all of this. Any SWG player will tell you that they murdered people, professions, a community, and destroyed a world that people 'virtually' considered their home. They even destroyed the resources of the world. (No other MMO before or since had such a strong social structure that was destroyed by the SOE gods of ignorance.)
So let's just say they are 'virtually evil'...
Oh, and the nefarious root-kits are kind of evil too...
That is, does the file format have an accessibility problem since it does not include its own speech synthesizer and video-rendering functionality?
Wow you really don't get it or are trying to mislead people intentionally.
I never suggested that 'format' should have inherent functions for synth or video rendering. However they should be able to 'contain' this data, just as if they contain the Word "Donkey" in Helvetica and Red. And that doesn't mean the format needs a font rendering engine in it either.
Thank you for making my point for me. ODF is not subject to this problem,
After all that and you still think what I was saying is the same? Geesh...
If people are JUST using ODF for a publish format because INTERNALLY they are using MORE COMPLEX document formats for their work, then this defeats ODF completely, and is the opposite of what you are saying that ODF solves this. How can ODF solve a problem IF IT CANNOT SUPPORT THE INTERALLY NEEDED FEATURES SO PEOPLE USE OTHER FORMATS?
Let's say the guy working at the desk next to yours is using WordprocessorX, and keeps all his 'internally' saved documents in this because ODF loses all the advanced graphics and formatting. Now it is 10 years later and you want to open his work, but WordprocessorX no longer exists, how in the hell is ODF going to help you do that? Get it yet? This is WHY ODF must support more than 'basics' or like I said we should just render everything to a freaking IMAGE to publish it, ODF will just as worthless to someone wanting to edit the document in the future.
Not to mention things in a document that can be saved that are 'non-visible' containers.
But that's exactly what Massachussetts chose ODF for: a publishing format. You may want the selection of ODF to mean more than that, but it's not
Then fine, they should pick a freaking image format that is fully rendered. PERIOD. ODF is not complex enough to even be a 'complete' publish format, it has no support for advanced or inline layering, etc etc... So they would be better off using Tiff as 1200dpi or freaking MicroFilm.
Why are people so in love with ODF as it is now they won't fight to actually make it work, like I am trying to do?
HDMI can NOT be added, but you don't get HDMI at all with X360/Wii so I consider that moot.
I don't think people understand fully what HDMI is...
It 'can' be added to the 360 because the chipsets in the 360 support it, but have no 'current' need for it. Watch with the HD-DVD addon that would NEED the HDMI interface for this to be included as well in the addon. (Remember 360 is just a PC with modified PC chipsets, and the ones in the 360 have Video HDMI compliance.)
HDMI is a signialling technology for encryption. If Sony leaves this OUT of the Basic PS3 that already has blu-ray, there is no way to add this on.
I will have to chuck my X360 if I want to watch HD movies since it has no HDMI port.
Well no... You can ALREADY watch HD movies on a 360, it is called WMV-HD, and is the same codec used in HD-DVD and Blu-ray. This compression is at the level that it allows for a HD movie to fit on a single DVD. Go look up T2 Extreme Edition for an example...
----
Final note though, with any luck HDMI will be killed off, if we can keep Movie publishers from implementing it. It is not necessary for HD content playback, it is up to the MOVIE title to specifify whether it requires it or not.
The reason I made this an 'issue' on the PS3 basic is that PEOPLE will buy these expecting to watch HD Blu-Ray movies and if the movies do have HDMI requirements, the Basic PS3 is screwed...
XBox 360 with 20GB hard drive ($400) + HD-DVD drive addon ($100?) + 1 year XBox Live ($50) = $550.
Playstation 3 with 20GB hard drive ($500) + Bluray drive (included) + 5 years online (included) = $500.
Looks good when you don't give all the facts...
The Basic PS3 is crippled, it has almost no peripheral support, not even memory stick. And these items CANNOT be upgrade or added on later, so you HAVE TO BUY the upper end PS3 to get the full use of it and things like HDMI.
At least if you buy the XBox Basic, it is the same freaking unit, sans-HD, sans mini-remote. Both of which youc an add on to the lower end XBox 360.
Summary:
XBox 360 Basic = Just not as many bundled options but they can ALL be purchased later on
PS3 Base = Crippled PS3 that CANNOT be upgraded to support all of the upper end PS3 features.
So which company is actually trying to make the unit affordable and yet not lock the user into a model they have to trade in or pitch when they decide they want the upper end unit? Hmm...
Sony has so lost their minds, and not only with the PS3. The whole Blu-Ray catastrophy, them clinging to 'their' technology to the point they are losing industry support daily and SOE (Sony Online) that has did everything they could do WRONG to drive customers to other games. (Shall we even mention the mass subscription drop of SWG? And the developer exodus because of the SOE changes in not only SWG but EQII?)
Sony is messing up big time in the gaming world, the PS3 is just the latest bastard creation where they didn't listen to the market or the players.
As for games, they can't even hold developers to the PS3 platform because of the lack of developer support and CRAP development tools for it.
They have a great Cell processor technology and even Sony doesn't seem to understand the best ways to get the most out of it, let alone provide developers with tools to do so.
In comparison to XBox360, developers can use OpenGL and DirectX (XNA) technologies and still get the most out of the multiprocessor system without being specialists in multi-cpu game design. Let alone the fact that one development process can produce a PC and XBox title without having to port the title or develop textures and meshes at lower levels between the platforms to get the games to work.
DirectX support and cross platform ease is the ONLY reason the original XBox had a chance in a new market and still today it is what is giving the 360 the edge for futuring gaming and also helping to enrich the PC gaming market as well.
You can have your PS3, just make sure you buy the more expensive one, so you don't have to chuck the 'basic' model later on when you find you want to watch HD movies...
didn't say that, Microsoft did. It's a quote from their Tablet PC API documentation.
But the Microsoft 'quote' assumes the data will not be stripped away by another 'editor', the quote is talking about keeping ink in a 'viewable' only type of context.
Even if the applicaiton does hold the GIF and returns it preserving the ink, the INK that matches to the 'words' will NOW be different.
Ink is not only the gesture of writing, the strokes, the image, but also links to words that are recognized.
The Microsoft Quote is for keeping the 'Ink' in a documents, and letting it be viewed as a 'gif' and still re-openable by a Ink aware application.
When you open this document in an 'editor' the whole Ink structure is lost, even if the application preserves the embedded Gif data.
Understand? So the Microsoft quote is correct, but is pulled a bit out of context...
Slashdot Mirror
I think why I liked 2000 so much was that it was NT done right, a well written and stable OS without a lot of clutter. I think that if Vista really was a new OS, not just enhancements to their existing codebase, then we'd be okay with it.
I think Windows 2000 was an ok release for the NT line, but I disagree on a couple of aspects.
1) WindowsXP is so far the most stable version of NT, as well as the fastest. On comperable hardware, WindowsXP SP2 will outperform Windows 2000 by 10-20% even with the themes and other added services to XP turned ON.
2) Vista, and even XP, are more than just 'things' added to the Win2K NT codebase. The entire kernel has been update considerably in both incarnations, with Vista sporting the most vast kernel changes since NT was released. (Things like memory management, portions of the security system, how drivers interoperate, to even moving the Video back to a higher Ring for stability and the WDDM management in Vista without losing performance because of a few direct call tricks now added to the kernel.)
I find it strange that there are still people that think Win2k is the 'best' version of NT released. There are many changes in XP that are not just cosmetic, but relative to the performance of each application, how the system handles security, and even how the system handles stability. (One example for stability is XPs ability to not only do DLL isolation beyond what Win2k could, but it can even trap bad calls by third party applications and 'correct' the call to prevent the application from crashing or being forced to close as would happen in Win2k)
Everyone that is still stuck on Win2k, should take a serious look at XP with new eyes and do some research on it, there is a lot of information about the kernel changes. Also keep an eye on Vista, as more and more information about the changes in employs and why these are a good thing.
(One specific example that affect end users is how Vista uses Virtual memory in a much smarter way, where a Win2k/XP system with 1gb of RAM would page quit a bit of memory to the hard drive and let the memory cache offset this, Vista is smarter about what does go to Virtual RAM, so the system even in its current Beta stage is noticably more snappy because of the low amount of paging that occurs.)
Windows 2000 was good because it was built on "NT Technology". Or, in other words, it was built on "New Technology Technology" (since NT originally meant "New Technology").
Brought to us by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Actually, that is the coined term in the media, originally the development team were working on a RISC Simulator for the Intel i860 N-Ten systems, and the team and the nickname eventually became NT from that.
People have also thought it was Networking Technology and various other terms, when NT was released, the people at Micrsoft would never confirm or deny any meaning that NT had, and publically said it didn't stand for anything.
Also should be noted that everything from Microsoft Since Windows 2000 has been based on NT technology, just like WindowsXP, Windows 2003 Server, and even WindowsCE is a brother of NT technology. Hence why you can run a full BSD *nix subsystem on Win2k through Vista that equally exists with the Win32/64 subsystems. (This is why when people try to reference Windows based on a Win3.x or Win9x context, it a different OS from the ground up and has no relevance to modern Windows versions.)
This Message brought to you by the NSA checking up on the Department of Redundancy Department.
(BTW, speak louder in your bedroom, the microphones in the bedside lamps sometimes have trouble picking up everything you and your spouse say.)
You might know this already, but Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is uses the same codebase as Windows Server 2003.
Actually a lot of the code base and the recompiling was also added to WindowsXP SP2, that is why WindowsXP SP2 is more than just a security update, it will improve performance as well.
Well, most people don't have anywhere to get Windows Server 2003 at something close to a reasonable price for workstation use, other than with BitTorrent and the like (which many people wouldn't dare, or care enough to try). But yeah, Server 2003 is without a doubt the best version of Windows NT 5 around
Just an FYI, if someone really wants to work with Windows 2003 server, there are tons of 120day evaluation versions they can get their hands on, even off the Microsoft Web site.
If you are doing testing or running it in a virtual environment, you can keep re-installing and using it for as long as you need. The 120day version just isn't a good choice for a production environment for long term use, as you would have to recreate all the domain, sharing, services, and user settings every six months, but it is doable...
I also agree that Windows 2003 Server was probably the best 'release' level OS version of Windows for security and stability. When it was first released, it even ran on the desktop faster than WinXP. This is why SP2 of WinXP is important, as it brought a lot of the Windows 2003 code base in the WindowsXP desktop line, more security, faster, etc.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/06/02/microsoft_to_rem ove_pdf_from_office2007/
All this 'MS conspiracy' kills me, here read what others are saying actually happened. Like MS offered to ship Flash with Vista even in their negotiation with Adobe.
They also removed MS's own XPS format from Office so the industry wouldn't think it was MS's decision to not provide PDF and favor their document format...
Well, hard to market as a game machine... ...when the new Macs can dual boot into Windows and run the SAME games at faster speeds under Windows than OSX.
Unless Apple would just market the hardware, then sure, great game machines when you boot them into Windows, although they have under powered video cards.
(And yes, even with native Intel based OSX games, not just emulated)
Sleep mode, like it or not, is still throwing energy out the window.
Um, NO...
Sleep is basically Standby, except after a longer period of inactivity it hibernates the machine AUTOMATICALLY. (This uses NO power.)
So I do not know where people from the article or Slashdot got this SO MESSED UP that Sleep will increase energy costs, but is about the most feked up amazing bit of misinformation in a while.
Ok, just so everyone is on the same page. Sleep is just an Option, you can choose, Standby, Sleep, Hibernate.
The same features that existed in XP are there (you know the STUFF that is support via ACPI, etc.) You can also configure your computer so when you close your lid it does any of the above, or when you it the sleep or the power button it can do any of the above... These are all configurable just like XP, but are actually easier to find to set. They are all ALSO options on the 'Start' button (in earlier betas they were not, so maybe this is why people think Sleep is the only power saving option.)
People here are really not so stupid to think that hibernate and standby where removed from Vista, just because Microsoft added in a new thing called Sleep, which is basicaly a form of StandBy that will automatically hibernate after a period of time? Oh wait this is SlashDot, nvm...
In reality to use Exchange to its full potential you need an exchange server, if you are realistically deploying Exchange you will be using Active Directory, if you want centralised Rights Management you need the centralised server component, if you want the nice new collaboration tools you need sharepoint. Hell you also need to be running Windows (presumably XP).
1) This is not about exchange and needing outlook for exchange. Besides, you REALLY don't, the Web Mail inteface for the latest Exchange is quite rich if you want to go that route.
2) You don't need MS server products to use the Office collaborative features, products like Merak and IpSwitch offer quite nice collaboration suites for the server that are very cheap, and INTEGRATE with Office and Outlook.
3) The 'Nice New' collaboration tools are NOT truly new. Microsoft Office has shipped with Sharepoint and Server side collaboation features since Office 2000. These are just the 'newer' versions of them. Which is why stating that Office 2007 needs the server crap to work any differently than Office for the last 7 years is insane.
We have been testing Office 2007 in both senerios, with the server side Exchange, Sharepoint all the bells and whistles. We also have been testing it without ANY MS on the servers still share files and even non run from non-MS mail servers. Guess what, there is virtually no difference, even for the hard core Office employees.
The only real difference to the employees is the Sharepoint Site, which is something that you don't even need Office to run, it is a free download for any Windows Server. And it is not a 'tool' of Office, but a tool to create a Company Web/Intranet Site without any HTML coding. Sure Office can use it to save a file to the sharepoint site, just like in previous versions, but that doesn't have really anything to do with Office unless the people are already using Sharepoint Sites for their Intranets.
People are way to uptight about any 'server' side requirements for functionality in Office 2007. It isn't any different than Office for the last 7 years, truly, and you aren't 'losing' features by not having a MS server with Sharepoint and Exchange, they are 'external' to Office in this sense.
I am upset that an Athlon X2 4200, with 4 gigs of ddr-400, a sata2 80 gig drive, and an atix1300 with 265mb on the card only gets a 3 out of 5 on the stupid rating system. Especially when everything works smooth, including the 3d page flip. I do feel that the "minimum requirements" that microsoft posted are of course a joke but that's nothing new.
Don't worry about the rating you have, it will change.
The performance rating system is something that is still a work in progress. It is also something many have talked about in the beta.
We have seen systems with a 2.4ghz P4, 1Gb of RAM, and a 5600 NVidia 128mb Video card get a swimmingly 5 on the scale and a system with almost twice the CPU, twice the RAM, running a RAID with a new NVidia 512mb Card get a 3 on the score. We even have a system that is all 5s on each test with an overall rating of 3, so there is some messed up code in how it weighs the score. Besides it is should never be a replacement for a real benchmarking tool.
They have said not to take the numbers seriously at this stage of the beta, and from what we have seen, ya, don't take them serious.
Wow it runs on at least one computer. Excellent! Good job Microsoft.
Anyone one else got it working yet? Maybe you can get your story posted to Slashdot too.
Well we have it running of several 'different' computers.
So I guess that proves they are even out doing Apple and OSX which only runs on about 6 different computers, right?
(Smile, it is a joke.)
Wasn't there a slashdot reference to an article in the last week where Microsoft "was considering" removing admin access from their employees? That doesn't sound like "eating their own dogfood". As long as they're all running Windows with the highest access levels (admin), they're potentially missing serious security problems.
I really don't want to debate this, and I think this is kind of trivial.
With that said, what you are referring to about allowing employees to have 'admin' rights on their systems is not a big issue up until this point, as the UAP system in Vista wasn't even close to a final stage until a month or two ago, and is still being tweaked to accomodate applications that were written by 3rd parties with the Win9x mindset.
What MS has been doing currently is NOT running their employees at Admin level in the sense I think you are refering to either. They have been running the computers in the new Vista Admin mode, which is like a 'default' user on OSX. Understand?
It is not the Root Admin level like previous versions of Windows. Even the actual administrator account on Vista doesn't get the conceptual 'root' access level.
What the other article was talking about was forcing MS users to not even get the 'admin' rights to make changes to their systems, which would include installing software, etc. This would be more like a hybrid between a User and Power User in the old Windows Security Groups.
Microsoft is turning down their employee 'admin' rights to ensure older applications that try to run with user credentials that never cared about NT security before still run properly in the restricted level of access.
There is no big story on this, nor a big story on lack of security. Vista is bring the abstraction between administrator and root security, to a point that even exceeds most *nix environments, while still not making it too tough on users. Think of it like a combination of the way *nixes do security with a combination of having NO Root account whatsoever to ensure people will NEVER be running with higher priveledges than they should.
Sure, you're right, nobody has to buy those server technologies to use Office 2007: but if they don't, they may decide they don't have to buy Office 2007 at all. And I think that's mostly what people are saying here. We're all aware that a guy off the company LAN is still likely to be able to use Office without any issues -- it's just that he may decide it's not worth bothering, and for Microsoft, that's a big issue.
It is like this... People are putting WAY TOO MUCH EMPHASIS on the Server technologies of Office. It is VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENT in 2007 than it was in Office 2000 even.
Office 2000 had sharepoint server side components, and outlook worked with exchange then as well.
This really has VERY little to do with the functionality of Office, trust someone that uses it BOTH senerios.
Microsoft surely wants you to use Office and the Server side 'features' are BONUS features for offices to make things easier, but are NOT a requirement.
Even the scheduling and calendaring that you mention would be lost is NOT true, you can still use these features even without any Server collaboration software. The second part is you are NOT locked into the MS technologies if you want to use the SERVER side features. Go look at IceWarp and their software, it offers many of the server side features that INTEGRATE with Office just as if it was a MS product running on the server.
I also think people DO NOT FULLY understand what SharePoint is and WHY it is... Sharepoint is FREE if you are running a Windows Server, and its SOLE purpose is in creating a Web Internet/Intranet WITHOUT programming or HTML knowledge, that gives companies a place to share ideas, tasks, and documents. It has been around for a long time, and sure the newest version has some really keen features that are appealing, but linking this to Office as some sort of knock to Office or saying it is a 'requirement' for Office is COMPLETELY FALSE.
I don't totally disagree with you or many others here, but the level of misunderstand or importance placed on the server side features that Office can use are OVERLY stated to the point of being ridiculous.
As for people rushing out to Upgrade to Office 2007, I think you are right that people with Office 2003 will probably not be the first mass group to upgrade. However for people that are still using OfficeXP or earlier, this is a good point to upgrade for them, and that would more of the target market. If you watch MS and the Office product lines, their upgrade clients on their products are usually from the a couple of versions prior to the current product release.
Also Office 2007 is not a dud, as witnessed by the Mac and Windows community for the last 20 years. Of all the 'teams' at Microsoft, the Office teams seems to be one of the most consistent at 'innovation' and putting out solid releases. The only other team at Microsoft I have this high of respect for would be the compiler and development tool nerds.
Some Office features require sharepoint server. SharePoint Portal Server 2003 requires "one of the following servers: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition, or Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, plus the latest service pack (see Other for additional requirements). Running SharePoint Portal Server 2003 on Windows Server 2003 Web Edition requires SQL Server 2000 to be installed on a separate computer.". And in order to use clients with Windows Server, you will need server cals or Windows 2000/XP Pro license for each client workstation.
Ok read this to yourself, please... Unless you are planning on running Office 2007 on Wine, you will HAVE a Windows CAL, as Home Edition of XP won't even work in a Domain environment in the first place...
Nope. Exchange CALs give right to run Outlook. Outlook or Office itself does not provide Exchange client license.
Exchange has two TYPES of CALs. One is the server side license and the other is the client.
And again, my point is that YOU DO NOT NEED EXCHANGE to use Outlook, and YOU DO NOT NEED ANY SHAREPOINT SERVER to use Microsoft Office UNLESS you are specifically USING THE SHAREPOINT SERVER 'SHARING' Features...
People arguing that you 'need' a Sharepoint server for Office is like arguing that you need a print server for the new Ink jet you just purchased, which is pretty ridiculous.
Sure if you are using the Sharepoint SERVER FEATURES that OFFICE CAN ACCESS then of course you would need a Sharepoint Server. Geesh...
Most people and even MOST companies don't need the Sharepoint Server features, and additionally, if they are already running a Windows Server, dropping sharepoint server services on it is not a big task.
May be misleading but so far if you want to utilise all the features of this office package you will probably need:
Exchange
Share point
Rights Management
Active Directory
Plus the associated CALS, and OS licenses, the technical staff, the hardware and the training for your user base. Oh and there are NO alternatives for use with MS Office (correct me if I am wrong), Personally I'd rather build my own out of the bits that are available in OpenSource land, use the features that I (my company) needs and lump the rest, but thats not everyones cup of tea. All I really want in life is Visio for linux, or a decent clone, preferably with the network architect toolkit or similar.
Um, No... Oh and also NO....
Where do people get this information? Are you really in the beta, because if you are, meet me in the groups and we can discuss this, because what you wrote is about as insane as it gets.
Just for an example:
Outlook works and 'collaborates' quite well with ANY Mail server, you can eve do Office forms, Replies and a lot of the other features, including LDAP support all with a simple and even FREE mail server softare. If your Mail server supports POP3 or IMAP, you are quite set with Outlook.
Sure Outlook is ALSO an exchange client and will use the exchange features, but NEITHER require each other, understand?
As for these others:
Share point
Rights Management
Active Directory
Do you even know what you are talking about? Active Directory is something not even used by Office unless you are running a SERVER VERSION of Office, which 99.9% of the people using Office do not. Also the 'Active Directory' requirements are NOT even exclusive to Windows Server Active Directory Server.
As for the CALS, do you NOT realize that each VERSION of Office is its own CAL? That is what it is, a client application, there are no additional server CALs needed. Even Outlook qualifies to be a full CAL for Exchange.
You need to read up quite a bit before making outlandish posts.
Oh, also you state 'rights management' WTF are you even talking about?
Kernel and Kernel Theory Aside...
Most Apple applications themselves tend to be a bit 'bloated'. No matter how fast the kernel is, you have a bit of a bloated GUI construct (especially in terms of RAM Usage) then add on the RAM used by some of the built in applications, and ouch.
And no, not all of Apple application are bloated, safari isn't bad in terms of size and performance in comparison to some of their other creations like iPhoto, etc...
You can almost pick through the applications included on OSX and see where the developers just were rushing to get the product working and the ones that performance and RAM usage were seriously taken into account.
Even iTunes is not built for speed nor does it seem to care about a low RAM footprint.
OSX performance needs to be debated, but in three parts at the very least. The Kernel OS Layer, The GUI Layer, and the included Application level.
Here is what is really sad, Vista in Beta is snappy with 512mb and 512mb is the 'recommended' RAM for optimal performance as well. (Of course that is if it ever ships, but in the meantime, a Beta OS full of debug code should not feel snappier than an OS that has been refined for last 6 years like OSX.
OCR software is, shall we say, less than perfect
Exactly, that is why people screaming that ODF is just a 'publish' format with NO REGARD to being able to have the content in an editible fashion are truly missing the whole ODF movement.
I think the one broken leg that RIAA has is songs are recorded in the memory, so it's not a traditional radio broadcast.
I wonder if RIAA won this case, would it affect MP3 players which allow recording of radio?
No, and yes...
MOST XM receivers DO NOT have the ability to store songs, they only buffer a few seconds. The exception is a few of the newer portable units and higher end deck units.
I would esitmate 90% of the XM customer base has the traditional XM Receivers with ANALOG outputs, even though the units are receiving a digital broadcast.
So in this sense, XM is NO different than other radio stations.
The problem I think they are trying to use against XM is that it provides so much music content at single time, that you can usually find a song you like to listen to, or a talk show you want to listen to. So this is where this scares RIAA.
However, Cable & Sat. Companies have provided 100s of music channels in the same capacity, and hence yet, we don't see RIAA fighting them, because they know they would easily lose based on the fair use rulings from VCRs in the 80s.
I can actually record songs from my Sat./Cable easier than from my XM, as we almost all have DVRs for our Cable/Sat. and even companies like Dish Network sell portable players that allow you to offload the shows/songs/content to portable players.
This is really sticky and said that RIAA think they can get away with this. XM isn't even the maker of the portable receivers that allow you to record the songs form their service, that is who the RIAA should try to go after in the first place, but again, this would go back to the VCR rulings because they are 'device' manf. and not content providers.
In an ironic story, Australia just legalized the 'fair use' of VCRs and DVRs this last week (even though people there have used them illegally). And back in the 'land of the free' USA, we are witnessing a regression of persoanl freedom once again.
We now have so much capability both analog and digital, that we all could record every album in CD quality using our computers etc, and this is just by pulling the songs from 'regular' broadcasts.
If the RIAA gets their wish, that is what we will end up doing rather than paying them money. We can then support bands and labels that don't support RIAA or send donations to the bands we like and bypass them all together. Becareful what you wish for, RIAA...
Sad...
I'm not sure if you know what HDMI is yourself.
HDMI is just a superset of DVI with inherent HDCP support instead of being tacked on. Supports YCbCr as well as RGB over digital. Serial based so you can stretch that HDMI cable a lot further than DVI. Also supports control signals.
I don't see how getting rid of HDMI will help anyone. Analogue video should be long dead, especially at higher resolutions, the distortion is terrible.
I know HDCP is a pain but it really isn't that intrusive.
Ok, I don't consider myself to be the brightest person, but this was really bad even for me.
I read what I posted this morning and even shocked myself at how screwed up I was...
Thank you for pointing this out, much to my chagrin.
The sad part is this is the second time this week I have jumbled HDMI and HDCP, and the really sad part, is I wrote a technical article of the ramifications of HDCP about six months ago, so you would think I wouldn't have read HDMI and thought HDCP. Geesh...
(With Humility I crawl back to my corner and call this a bad week, my entire post was crap with regard to HDMI.)
blu-ray uses h.264 for movie compression, not wmv-hd.
Actually GO LOOK THIS UP for more information, but here is a short explaination from wikipedia.
The BD-ROM format specifies at least three video codecs: MPEG-2, the standard used for DVDs; MPEG-4's H.264/AVC codec; and VC-1, a codec based on Microsoft's Windows Media 9. The first of these only allows for about two hours of high-definition content on a single-layer BD-ROM, but the addition of the two more advanced codecs allows up to four hours per layer.
Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use MPEG-4 and VC-1 as well as MPEG-2. (Hint: VC-1 and WMV9 and WMV-HD are ALL the same format.)
It is easy to see that you are not a stupid or uniformed person, but things like this amaze me, because you are like most tech savy people I encounter that have somehow missed this information about HD formats. I have literally seen people gasp when I explain WMV9 is VC-1 and a standard now that is supported by all the HD Content/Media providers.
There are even Cable companies that are using VC-1 for HD broadcast content.
Take Care.
Evil? Why are they evil? Have they killed countless millions of people? Have they disenfranchised an entire population and brought them under a brutal dictatorship? Have they done scientific experiments on unwilling human-beings? Have they enslaved millions of people to do their bidding in extremely harsh and abusive environments? Have they ever attempted ethnic cleansing?
Well if you consider their online communities SOE has done all of this. Any SWG player will tell you that they murdered people, professions, a community, and destroyed a world that people 'virtually' considered their home. They even destroyed the resources of the world. (No other MMO before or since had such a strong social structure that was destroyed by the SOE gods of ignorance.)
So let's just say they are 'virtually evil'...
Oh, and the nefarious root-kits are kind of evil too...
That is, does the file format have an accessibility problem since it does not include its own speech synthesizer and video-rendering functionality?
Wow you really don't get it or are trying to mislead people intentionally.
I never suggested that 'format' should have inherent functions for synth or video rendering. However they should be able to 'contain' this data, just as if they contain the Word "Donkey" in Helvetica and Red. And that doesn't mean the format needs a font rendering engine in it either.
Thank you for making my point for me. ODF is not subject to this problem,
After all that and you still think what I was saying is the same? Geesh...
If people are JUST using ODF for a publish format because INTERNALLY they are using MORE COMPLEX document formats for their work, then this defeats ODF completely, and is the opposite of what you are saying that ODF solves this. How can ODF solve a problem IF IT CANNOT SUPPORT THE INTERALLY NEEDED FEATURES SO PEOPLE USE OTHER FORMATS?
Let's say the guy working at the desk next to yours is using WordprocessorX, and keeps all his 'internally' saved documents in this because ODF loses all the advanced graphics and formatting. Now it is 10 years later and you want to open his work, but WordprocessorX no longer exists, how in the hell is ODF going to help you do that? Get it yet? This is WHY ODF must support more than 'basics' or like I said we should just render everything to a freaking IMAGE to publish it, ODF will just as worthless to someone wanting to edit the document in the future.
Not to mention things in a document that can be saved that are 'non-visible' containers.
But that's exactly what Massachussetts chose ODF for: a publishing format. You may want the selection of ODF to mean more than that, but it's not
Then fine, they should pick a freaking image format that is fully rendered. PERIOD. ODF is not complex enough to even be a 'complete' publish format, it has no support for advanced or inline layering, etc etc... So they would be better off using Tiff as 1200dpi or freaking MicroFilm.
Why are people so in love with ODF as it is now they won't fight to actually make it work, like I am trying to do?
HDMI can NOT be added, but you don't get HDMI at all with X360/Wii so I consider that moot.
I don't think people understand fully what HDMI is...
It 'can' be added to the 360 because the chipsets in the 360 support it, but have no 'current' need for it. Watch with the HD-DVD addon that would NEED the HDMI interface for this to be included as well in the addon. (Remember 360 is just a PC with modified PC chipsets, and the ones in the 360 have Video HDMI compliance.)
HDMI is a signialling technology for encryption. If Sony leaves this OUT of the Basic PS3 that already has blu-ray, there is no way to add this on.
I will have to chuck my X360 if I want to watch HD movies since it has no HDMI port.
Well no... You can ALREADY watch HD movies on a 360, it is called WMV-HD, and is the same codec used in HD-DVD and Blu-ray. This compression is at the level that it allows for a HD movie to fit on a single DVD. Go look up T2 Extreme Edition for an example...
----
Final note though, with any luck HDMI will be killed off, if we can keep Movie publishers from implementing it. It is not necessary for HD content playback, it is up to the MOVIE title to specifify whether it requires it or not.
The reason I made this an 'issue' on the PS3 basic is that PEOPLE will buy these expecting to watch HD Blu-Ray movies and if the movies do have HDMI requirements, the Basic PS3 is screwed...
XBox 360 with 20GB hard drive ($400) + HD-DVD drive addon ($100?) + 1 year XBox Live ($50) = $550.
Playstation 3 with 20GB hard drive ($500) + Bluray drive (included) + 5 years online (included) = $500.
Looks good when you don't give all the facts...
The Basic PS3 is crippled, it has almost no peripheral support, not even memory stick. And these items CANNOT be upgrade or added on later, so you HAVE TO BUY the upper end PS3 to get the full use of it and things like HDMI.
At least if you buy the XBox Basic, it is the same freaking unit, sans-HD, sans mini-remote. Both of which youc an add on to the lower end XBox 360.
Summary:
XBox 360 Basic = Just not as many bundled options but they can ALL be purchased later on
PS3 Base = Crippled PS3 that CANNOT be upgraded to support all of the upper end PS3 features.
So which company is actually trying to make the unit affordable and yet not lock the user into a model they have to trade in or pitch when they decide they want the upper end unit? Hmm...
Sony has so lost their minds, and not only with the PS3. The whole Blu-Ray catastrophy, them clinging to 'their' technology to the point they are losing industry support daily and SOE (Sony Online) that has did everything they could do WRONG to drive customers to other games. (Shall we even mention the mass subscription drop of SWG? And the developer exodus because of the SOE changes in not only SWG but EQII?)
Sony is messing up big time in the gaming world, the PS3 is just the latest bastard creation where they didn't listen to the market or the players.
As for games, they can't even hold developers to the PS3 platform because of the lack of developer support and CRAP development tools for it.
They have a great Cell processor technology and even Sony doesn't seem to understand the best ways to get the most out of it, let alone provide developers with tools to do so.
In comparison to XBox360, developers can use OpenGL and DirectX (XNA) technologies and still get the most out of the multiprocessor system without being specialists in multi-cpu game design. Let alone the fact that one development process can produce a PC and XBox title without having to port the title or develop textures and meshes at lower levels between the platforms to get the games to work.
DirectX support and cross platform ease is the ONLY reason the original XBox had a chance in a new market and still today it is what is giving the 360 the edge for futuring gaming and also helping to enrich the PC gaming market as well.
You can have your PS3, just make sure you buy the more expensive one, so you don't have to chuck the 'basic' model later on when you find you want to watch HD movies...
Less Secure we Complain More Secure we Complain?
Can we just pick a side..
Do we hate Vista because it will be more secure and that is causing Third party applicaiton problems?
Or do we hate Vista because it is not secure enough?
Or do we hate Vista becuase it is more secure but prompts for passwords when doing Root level activities and that will confuse people?
We have to pick a story, we can't be on the opposite side of the fence as each story is released.
Maybe we should just hate Vista just to hate Vista but at least stop contradicting ourselves?
didn't say that, Microsoft did. It's a quote from their Tablet PC API documentation.
But the Microsoft 'quote' assumes the data will not be stripped away by another 'editor', the quote is talking about keeping ink in a 'viewable' only type of context.
Even if the applicaiton does hold the GIF and returns it preserving the ink, the INK that matches to the 'words' will NOW be different.
Ink is not only the gesture of writing, the strokes, the image, but also links to words that are recognized.
The Microsoft Quote is for keeping the 'Ink' in a documents, and letting it be viewed as a 'gif' and still re-openable by a Ink aware application.
When you open this document in an 'editor' the whole Ink structure is lost, even if the application preserves the embedded Gif data.
Understand? So the Microsoft quote is correct, but is pulled a bit out of context...