Of course John Dvorak likes the XBox 360: 1. It's made by Microsoft 2. It's not made by Apple
I'm no Dvorak fan, but you honestly have no idea who he is do you?
He has been one of the strongest and biggest name Mac proponents in the industry for the last 15 years. He also has incredible amounts of disdain for Microsoft.
Shipping something which is essentially a dumb client to Windows XP Media Edition and is incapable of storing video doesn't sound like supporting entertainment of all forms to me. Even the the original XBox could be hacked into such a system, suggesting that MS deliberately crippled their new console
Sad, you really don't get it... The XBox 360 is a Media Hub, not a Media SERVER. You use your computers and SERVERS to SERVER the media to it...
So does Microsoft have a patent on AJAX? Can they leverage their parenting of the technology to stifle progress once again? Who owns AJAX?
When has Microsoft EVER leveraged a patent to stifle progress? Hell even their FAT and other crap they made is widely used for free, and they have sought NOTHING from it.
Myths are like Rancors, hard to kill, even though they don't exist.
At best, this is a little early to say. PS3 hardware looked a lot better when it was announced at E3... I guess sony also has the edge of seeing current trend in buying and can make last minute changes.
I do not think now you have to be spitting on nvidia just because the xbox got an ATI card... for years nvidia powered the original xbox, and that xbox was a faster hardware than the PS3
Well I was going off the development notes that were recently released/leaked concerning the NVidia.
I also wasn't trying to dog the NVidia cards, in fact I have several, including a GeforceFX Go 6800 Ultra in my laptop that is my baby, and I have yet to run a game at 1920x1200 with anti-aliasing and not get close to 60fps.
The NVidia technology is good, but the GPU that is going into the PS3 has been set by SONY not necessarily NVIdia due to costs, hence why were won't see a GPU in the realm of the 7800 and instead will be in the 6800 range, although they are working on whether it will be a single or duel GPU... The cell again hasn't met the promises Sony was hoping for.
Personally, I think the best source of photo printing is at a photo lab. If a photo is worth printing out, do it properly, so it gets printed with inks that wont fade with time. And certainly in my case, it's still cheaper. Home photo printers are a costly gimick. *(gimmick)
Ok, many of the items in the posted article are inaccurate or misleading at best. But that aside, let's address your issue.
Chemical print longevity on average falls far behind what is capable of Ink Jet technologies.
Epson introduced archival Inks standard on many of their printers over 6 years ago. The initial products provided 70-80 archival life, and the extended archive in subsequent models are rated for 200 years. You will NOT find this in a photo lab.
Additionally, to just dismiss ink jet printers is kind of missing the point of what they are for. If you are looking for LONG TERM storage of any images, turning them into a digital form and putting them a form of long live Optical storage is true 'preservation'.
So as for your inks that won't fade with time, A) Photo labs don't usually use Inks, it is a 'developed' chemical print. B) Chemical printing solutions have even more problems with photo fading, and if you don't believe this, go dig out a color photo you had printed even 10 years ago, the fade has already begun.
Where if you wanted long term you could pick up an Epson Printer, 200 year inks and paper, and seal the photo to prevent ozone and in air chemical contamination.
BTW as for one fact in the Article from the post that is misleading, it implies what is 'NEW' about the inks in the Epson R300 is that they have a 70-80 year archival status. However this is NOT what is NEW about these inks.
Go read on the dye/pigment based ink differences, and also notice do to the non-heat heads used by Epson that most of their printers are capable of using either type of ink, depending on the model. This means using a pigment instead of a dye based ink, they can print on richer variations in media and be sun fast for years. An example of this would be a banner for outside, as the ink on the banner comes down to being a form of paint and not an absorbed ink.
Nice NDA's the review sites had to sign.. not a single actual gameplay screenshot! (from a sensible camera angle anyway) I suppose that's because from afar the graphics look exactly the same as they did on the old systems.. blocky and unsharp due to the low resolution.
Ok, find a WalMart... Yes they are almost everywhere, I can even give you directions to one in Germany.
Find the XBox 360 Kiosk that has been there for almost a month now, and play the games for yourself.
Trust me, at times, if you aren't the one playing you would swear it was a cut scene or a real film, when it is the actual game. Most people walking by think it is a film or at the very least a pre-rendered cut scene, when it is the actually game, running smooth with tons of AI and action surrounding you.
Even though us average SlashDot people don't want to hear this, but the reality is the real XBox 360 meets everything E3 promised, and since the boxes are faster and do nice anti-aliasing, the games are smoother and look even better than the E3 demos running on dual G5s with dual Video.
PS3 will have a hard time matching the game quality, not only does the 360 do graphics and sound right, but there is enough processing power left over for an intelligent game and lots of side and ambient action.
Especially considering the PS3 went from being a Cell only system, then to a Cell and NVidia system when the Cell couldn't be adapted fast enough to do the quality of video they wanted, and now we are finding out the PS3's NVidia subsystem is in the 6800 Class of PC Cards, not even the current 7800s.
The Video in the XBox 360 is based on ATI technologies we won't see in PC Video cards until at least the second Quarter of next year.
So you can basically match the processing and GPU power of PS3 with current PC hardware, where it would be hard to match processing and GPU power of the XBox 360 at this point without some serious coin and tweaking. Not bad for 300-400 US.
After watching them destroy fan bases in their online games like Star Wars Galaxies and Everquest, I can't wait to see what insane ideas they come up next. This DRM thing isn't surprising after watching their 'great ideas' destroy Lucas Arts and SOE's games, let alone the people that were wrapped up in them.
Should we try to guess what new features Sony is working on FOR THE CONSUMER?
Maybe when you plug in your new PS3, if you don't accept the EULA, it instantly shocks you to death.
Or Maybe they have a new online game for the PS3 that is filled with subliminal marketing to sell Sony products that failed in the marketplace.
And in the process, they will use as much open source code as possible, and then claim they invented it and go on to claim ownership of BSD and Linux. LOL
Ok, had to be a bit silly today, but Sony lately is acting like a chicken with its head cut off and don't know how to regain whatever it is they have lost or think they might lose (i.e. XBox 360 might have them scared) I know World of Warcraft made them go 'oh crap' and destroy virtually all of their online games that were once what the industry looked to for quality and consistency. So much for consistency, and you can guess the quality part.
I don't think NVIDIA would let Microsoft do this, as they own the rights to the graphics card used in the Xbox.
It has nothing to do with NVidia, comes down to cost plain and simple. Why add in another $40 to the hardware when you can achieve the majority of what you want by taking advantage of a faster CPU/GPU.
For the offset cost for Microsoft and hence the consumer, a person could buy an Original XBox practically.
Also, as for NVidia, if Microsoft wanted to include the 'essentials' of hardware from the original XBox, they could use any GPU, just as long as they met the specifications of hardware level DirectX support.
Game development on the XBox abstracted the actual GPU for the most part, since it was basically a Windows 2000 OS running DirectX and games were built using this modded DirectX environment.
NVidia made out well in the XBox deal, they basically got enough development money (before royalties) to drive the Geforce4 TI and FX series of card technology, and then per unit sales on top of that. In a freaky way, Microsoft bascially paid for the R&D that later became the Ti and FX series of cards, which was a very good thing for NVidia and the PC consumers as well.
Just like we will see ATI technology from the 360 brought into PC Video cards in the next year, again R&D MS paid for, that ATI will be able to capitalize on.
However notice the owership differences between the XBox and the new 360, the GPU and CPU are both owned by Microsoft this time. So at least ATI can't decide they want more money later on like NVIdia did and it also won't lock Microsoft, they can have whoever they want produce the chips.
I stand by the knighthoods-for-services comment though - why do so many prominent businessmen get knighthoods do you think? For making vast profits for their companies? Surely that is what they are paid for. So why?
Again, disagree still...
You think Sir Elton John was knighted because of all the money he made for a company?
Or do you think it had to do with all the charity, fund raising, donation and benefits he does?
I'm sure there are crap people that have been knighted or crap reasons, but SPECIFICALLY his philanthropy was WHY Bill G. was knighted...
You missed out the word "honourary" - he isn't a "proper" knight.
Anyway - most knighthoods are for services rendered to the governmant of the time...
Actually, he isn't BRITISH either, so he can't be a REAL Knight if you want to get specific about it.
But for some silly reason, England and the Queen thought his efforts were worth the title, even if it honorary and he doesn't get to be called Sir Bill G.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
He donates more money than rich countries like the US for this type of research and care to the world.
I don't care what you think of MS or Windows, this is about someone with money actually doing good with it, I wish I could say the same for other people in our industry with a large amount of company made wealth. So even if you hate Windows and Dell forced you to buy it at some point, it should make you feel better than it may have been your $80 bucks that went to help people in the world and not just buy another CEO(CSA) a new car.
Why do people keep comparing Microsoft's practices of monopolistic abuse to Apple's? To abuse a monopoly, you have to have it first. And no, Apple has a monopoly of Apple's products argument does not count.
*Shake head* Seesh! You'd think reading this over and over, even a stupid person will learn something.
Well this is the common assumption based on the rulings and as presented to the people, but in actual terms Microsoft was NEVER convicted of being a monopoly.
They were charged with basically being the 800lb gorilla and using that to extend their presense and maket dominance, but they are still NOT or have legally been deemed a monopoly.
So, they aren't any different than Apple, except like you said, they have 90% of the market share - but that does not make them a monopoly, successful, not a monopoly.
When you can't buy a computer and run anything on it but MS OSes, and there is NO other choices in the world, then they could be moved to a monopoly - but to say they are that now, would be saying OSX is not a real OS, and all the Open Source variants for Intel/Amd based PCs are not REAL OSes or competition either. Sort of shooting your own market to label MS...
(PS the only examples of Dell and other companies 'bundling' Windows by default on the computer no matter if you wanted it or not, was a contract by the manufactuers that they signed with Microsoft. They were never forced to do an exclusive bundling of Windows on all computers to get it cheaper. And this NOT out of the norm in software bundling licensing. My company has even sold bundling licenses, where if the manufacturer agrees to pay us for every computer they sell a few bucks, they can install our software on every computer they sell...)
Tell me, who has Apple told, "You may only bundle iTunes if it is the only media player you bundle?"
HP sold iPods, bundled iTunes, and STILL bundled Windows Media Player. When Apple first sold iPods to PC users, they bundled MusicMatch. When Apple first sold iPods to PC users, they sold them through Dell.
So can you name anyone that Apple restricted iPod or iTunes distribution bundles? Because Dell certainly never bundled iTunes, and HP never stopped bundling MusicMatch
Ok, I serious might have missed something great here... So this isn't a troll response, but a true question.
All I have ever known is that to download music to your iPod or purchase music for your iPod you had to use iTunes - no execptions. Even books bought through audible.com needs iTunes to dowload the books to the iPod last time I looked.
Windows Players and regular MP3s (non iPods), can use any software they want to download music to the device, pick any store they want, and aren't required to use Media Player to downoad the content. Even Audible again, uses their own software to download the books to alll the non (iPod) players, but plugs into iTunes for an iPod, because you have to use iTunes and Apples control their DRM for the content.
Where with other players, if hte publisher wants control of the media(music), they can use MS's DRM or their own, and their own players, or even install their DRM into Windows Media player if they choose, they can pick any tool and their own technology if they want.
To a certain degree DRM and iPods is pretty much all Apple controlled at this point, and one point of control is the requirement of iTunes. Where such a single point doesn't exist for other players - they can use their own stuff, use Media Player, use MS's DRM, make up their own DRM, etc...
I am fully willing to believe I missed some transition, so please correct my assumptions about the iTunes and Apple DRM necessity for an iPod.
(Not a troll post, just wanting to see how far off I am on this, truly.)
Microsoft has no plans, or better yet - has plans to keep.Net Windows only - selling.Net for other platfoms is not an option (no-one would pay for it) and it would add strength to those other platforms. So why bother? People have Java for that stuff...
Actually, the MS guys 'encourage' other platforms to implement.NET if they want, and even give them skinny on the basics of the framework if they would want to do so.
However, since these are NOT Microsoft's OSes, they are not going to program the.NET interoperability for the OSes manufacturers.
But Microsoft isn't closed about lettting them exist.
Just like the XAML and XPS of Windows Vista, Microsoft will not make the tools for reading this data, viewing it onscreen or printing for non-Microsoft OSes; however, they give any developer all the tools they would want to create a full implementation of these technologies on their favorite OS, bascially giving the Open Source and Mac world FREE access to Microsoft's developerment, ideas, and technologies - even if they aren't writing the source code for you. (Apple doesn't even do this, do you see Apple ANYWHERE encouraging or allowing people to use QuickDraw or Carbon on other OSes? - NO, they won't even help non OSX versions of BSD run or know how to run the GUI portions of OSX. Microsoft on the other hand is like, this is great technology, take it and use it wherever you want.)
Closed does not always mean 'closed' in the classical sense, Microsoft's ideas of 'closed' have been surprising more open than people realize.
You can take things like the NT Kernel and go, ya it is so closed it hard for people to get information of all the things it is designed to do. But it is a big piece of Mystery that they need to keep the intellectual concepts in check on. There are no other successful hybrid Kernels like NT. Business wins here...
But then you can also look at 100s of other products and applications that Microsoft will give developers the tools to implement or even COPY them on other platforms, Microsoft just isn't going to take the time to do it themselves.
Even take the notorious.DOC format and the original.RTF format, Microsoft LETS these companies read these files on alternative platforms, and even GIVES them the XML based document structure - don't think Wordperfect and Open Office just magically were able to crack a file format.
It wasn't that 'closed' of a fle format, go to msdn if you don't believe this. Microsoft just wasn't going to write the import and export filters for these companies. Additionally, you will notice that these companies do a GOOD job of reading and writing.DOC formats, it is when the.DOC contains concepts like INK and Embedded Objects, Sound, Pictures that opening a.DOC document in these other wordprocessors that it gets dodgy, as they don't always have equivalent technologies to implement the features in the.DOC file, even if it knows how to read them. Take the redact add-in for.DOC files - if the other WordProcessors don't have redaction abilities, these things are lost..
My two cents for the day, and even if you disagree with me, fact check it, or at least ponder what I have said. (Part of my coments regarding the XPS distribution cannot currently be proven as it would break NDAs to quote the sources.)
PS News of month that everyone here should go pay attention to (Since my articles never get accepted)...
I warned all of us/.ers a long time ago, and now it is about to become an integrated shipping product.
Go Look at Windows 2003 R2, and see what Microsoft is stacking on NT to ensure they have the edge.
Right now Microsoft is currently making its UNIX subsystem for Windows fee to anyone that wants to download it, but Microsoft has beefed up the Unix subsystem (not the o
I'm not against making things easier, but what happens when the tools don't work properly? I think at the very least, a decent understanding of the underpinnings should be required learning.
True, that is why we can't put faith in any ONE company or set of AI ideas. We need the borlands and the open source world, just like we need Microsoft(don't choke) and VS.
When one fails, the others carry the ball...
In old school terms of visual development this has already happened, Visual Basic had a hold on this world until version 4.0 - MS blew it BIG time. Delphi from borland was there to pick up the market and evolve the concepts past what MS was doing in the Windows world.
They both bounce back and forth in the Windows world, and there are a few other tools that have some good ideas if both of these companies blow it.
Additonally, we can take their ideas and concepts and bring them into what ever world WE WANT. Let MS or Borland create new concepts, intelligences for development, and we can use and extend these models back in our own tools or OSes.
That is why it is SO important to understand MS VS, or at least understand what it DOES WELL. We have to know this to ever compete, or take advantage of it.
It kills me that so many people that are anti-Microsoft, know SO LITTLE about MS, except the sound bites and their brief experiences. Whether we like it or not, there are things we should know about the NT foundation of Windows, and what Microsoft has DONE well in terms of innovation.
It would be like being a liberal that never turned on Fox news or Rush. You are basically sticking your head in the sand and going, la la la, I don't want to know, even if it is good or there is truth or something quite innovative in concept at the very least.
I wish there was a way to shock people into doing this. What will happen is Microsoft will truly blow the doors off the technological community, and the shock or wake up call will be people getting left in the dust because they didn't pay attention. (And I hope I am so wrong about this.)
Yes there is some improvments Media Center needs, and 2005 addressed some of this.
BTW 2005 does have Multi-Tuner support, I don't know where you missed this if you have been in the beta's like myself.
However, even in the current beta I am in, I am one of peeps pushing Microsoft to make Media Center more - make a Media Server version that is a basic server for your home, with 5-10 tuners in the box if you want, and handle all your incoming video, telephone, fax, and broadband, and distribute this media server to the rest of the televisions and computers in the house. (Using Wireless if youw want).
There is no need we should have a Media Center PC in every room we want this functionality, extenders are great, but when the main Media Center PC is designed as Media Server, they are missng the next generation in Home Server and Media distribution.
I find that Media Center works quite well as a PVR, no it isn't as simple and consistent some of the stand alone DVR units, but these are closed boxes as well, where I can watch my Media center recorded shows from any place in the house, no matter what computer they were recorded on. This is where the stand alond DVR market is finally waking up, but still there is not network sharking of shows yet.
And like my laptop example, that is just freaking handy that I can go anywhere in the us, and if there is a cable where I'm staying, I tell it where I am, and it just records my shows I like. You can't do this wit TiVo or even someo of the other PC based PVR products...
Also remember Media Center was pretty novel of an PVR implementation for PCs when it was released, sure we are seeing more of them now, but before Media Center there were not really any UNIFIED PVR software applications, if you wanted to record with a Tuner Card, you were forced to their software (which is usually pretty bad)... So MS gets some kudos for trying to standardize the PC PVR movement.
Yes there is FUD, but some of this FUD is true...
on
Fighting FUD with Humor
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes there is FUD, but some of this FUD is true...
There are severe exaggerations in Linux usability for example; but we can't be morons and miss the 'truth' in this.
On the computers at my Grandmother's house - True story(200mhz P, to a new 3.4ghz system now.) - My Grandparents have been able to drop an XP install CD in all their computers, type in the code and their computer works faster and better than when they first purchased it. No install problems, driver problems.
And that is a solid arument, sure most of US are smart enough to wrestle any distribution to install and run well on any piece of hardware, but for the people that surf the web, write email, write letters and video conference with their grandkids - Linux and FreeBSD is NOT YET THAT MATURE on the desktop.
We can argue it is, and it truly isn't. We know this inside somewhere, but hate to admit it.
There is NO distribution yet that has the driver support, or hardward support, or 99% success rate of install that WindowsXP does...
That is where we are failing, and until we admit things like this to ourselves, this will NEVER get better.
Whether the 'old' timers (myself being one) like the abstraction of low level coding and what is becoming mainstream, this is an evolution of development.
Visual Basic back in 1992 was in of itself a massive advance for this type of programming and programming understanding. Look at all the 1000s of VB applications from this time period by people that truly had very little coding experience.
However, some of the VB programs from this time were quite effective.
I think the biggest injustice to programming and the programming community as a whole, is the lack of UI guidelines, and understanding usability and User Interaction and User Flow.
How many times have you grabbed a GOOD program, with brillant LOW LEVEL coded features, but the interface to the application work about as well as a broken pay phone.
So sure VS can remove the user from 'low level coding', but this is NOT always a bad thing.
As development EVOLVES, there is NO REASON with the AI in the development tools and the AI in the code produced by these development tools should not be used. Why should a person in the 21st century truly have to fully understand memory allocation, advanced recursion, or even see program past advanced event handlers, as that is what programs ARE - event handlers...
Why do we have to beat down development tools just because they remove the developer from having to DO THINGS THE Tool or Compiler should DO FOR YOU? This is what makes advanced devleopment and the progression of better applications bloom.
Go back to the VB of 1992, it was a major eplosion for application availability. Sure some of the programs were crap and from people that had no idea of coding, but there were also serious developers that didn't want to take time to screw with all the crap that a developer in THIS DAY and AGE should not have to do.
I welcome development tools advancement. Sure there is some fundamental coding knowledge that everyone should know, but you can't blame these tools for this.
I could have the same arguments about many projects in the Open Source world, they are brilliant, but since the coders have little undertsanding of usability or UI guidelines, they applications are virtually worthless to anyone that is not a geek.
I'm not even arguing VS is the best set of tools out there, Borland still makes some really great development environments. I still like Delphi, and am amazed of how tight the code it produces, and yet how much it DOES FOR ME, even if I do know how to do the things it is doing for me is irrelevant.
We not only need to support development that is beyond a text editor and command line compiler, but we also need to support development tools that try to structure and help users with usability for the people that will be using the applications. PERIOD.
VS and Borland products are pretty good, but they could even be better - imagine a development environment that gives a flag when it notices a break in usability, or gives a compile warning after it 'intellectually' sees the appliction has many inconsistencies that would confuse the user.
Additionally, VS is even dated for what the new Microsoft Development and technologies are introducing. VS2005 barely touches the abilities of future Windows development - that is why the 'Expression' like of products will be used to augment the UI and User experiene for VS applications.
Give the world a couple of years, and the foundations of 'native' understanding being built into the next generation of Windows Vista, WILL change not only the user experience, but the development world. Leapfrogging concepts of today.
Go look up some of the concepts Microsoft has introduced and HAS that are often overlooked, go do a search on the last PDC. There are things in Vista that move development to a new level of understanding and functionality for not only developers, but what the users will start to see in the next 5 years.
It is like one of the brains behind the XAML and XPS systems in
I have four computers in my home running media center edition 2004 and now 2005. They use both internal and external USB 2.0 tuners.
I have NEVER seen the voice and audio not sync on ANY of the systems. And the picture quality is at the control of the tuner, but is outstanding in comparison to the old TiVo and Cable DVR units I have used, especailly when pushing the images to a LARGE 8' HD Display.
These articles are insane, and you give them credibility by even posting them here?
What if I wrote one on how all TV Tuners look crappy on Linux (Which is NOT true), would you just post it here as well?
What the hell has happened to Slashdot. This once use to be a respected Tech and Open Source news site, and now even in places you wouldn't expect, to make fun of something, I hear and see techs calling it a 'Slashdot Article'. And here you are, once again proving them right.
BTW, Even one of My Media Center systems is a freaking Laptop I use on the Road, and I tell it what city I am in, give it a cable feed, and my shows are STILL recorded perfectly, no matter where I am on the road, in fact, it wakes itself up using ACPI and records the shows if I hibernate or turn the computer off... It don't get anymore convienient than this...
You want audio and video and install issues - go try Beyond TV, it works great sometimes, but there are times it is plain crap on a system. It won't even recognize a Wave Input audio source... (Just to let you know Media Center is not my first DVR or PC based solution - And I still own a Beyond TV current Licnse, just in case it ever does work better.)
The difference between the two is that Apple's software WORKS while Microsoft's SUCKS. It's obvious, based on your comments, that you appear to be a Windows (tm) user and, well, therefor shall get what you deserve. Enjoy.
Clever, well probably as clever as "you" can get...
Due to the nature of my work, I probably use more different OSes in one day than you even know exist... Don't paint me with a brush, just because you have an 'everything MS does sucks' bias.
I never even said anything about how good or bad Apple or MS's software was, that is an assumption about me you made.
"Assumption is the intuition of fools" - The Net Avenger
Apple didn't have to give anything back to *BSD (the nature of the license). They did. Maybe they had to give something back to KHTML / Konqueror. They did and did more.
And how much intellectual credibility would you be willing to bet on this?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I can say it with a straight face, because the argument I offered are the reason I have never cared for him or his reviews...
Of course John Dvorak likes the XBox 360:
1. It's made by Microsoft
2. It's not made by Apple
I'm no Dvorak fan, but you honestly have no idea who he is do you?
He has been one of the strongest and biggest name Mac proponents in the industry for the last 15 years. He also has incredible amounts of disdain for Microsoft.
Shipping something which is essentially a dumb client to Windows XP Media Edition and is incapable of storing video doesn't sound like supporting entertainment of all forms to me. Even the the original XBox could be hacked into such a system, suggesting that MS deliberately crippled their new console
Sad, you really don't get it... The XBox 360 is a Media Hub, not a Media SERVER. You use your computers and SERVERS to SERVER the media to it...
So does Microsoft have a patent on AJAX? Can they leverage their parenting of the technology to stifle progress once again? Who owns AJAX?
When has Microsoft EVER leveraged a patent to stifle progress? Hell even their FAT and other crap they made is widely used for free, and they have sought NOTHING from it.
Myths are like Rancors, hard to kill, even though they don't exist.
At best, this is a little early to say. PS3 hardware looked a lot better when it was announced at E3...
I guess sony also has the edge of seeing current trend in buying and can make last minute changes.
I do not think now you have to be spitting on nvidia just because the xbox got an ATI card... for years nvidia powered the original xbox, and that xbox was a faster hardware than the PS3
Well I was going off the development notes that were recently released/leaked concerning the NVidia.
I also wasn't trying to dog the NVidia cards, in fact I have several, including a GeforceFX Go 6800 Ultra in my laptop that is my baby, and I have yet to run a game at 1920x1200 with anti-aliasing and not get close to 60fps.
The NVidia technology is good, but the GPU that is going into the PS3 has been set by SONY not necessarily NVIdia due to costs, hence why were won't see a GPU in the realm of the 7800 and instead will be in the 6800 range, although they are working on whether it will be a single or duel GPU... The cell again hasn't met the promises Sony was hoping for.
Take Care.
Personally, I think the best source of photo printing is at a photo lab. If a photo is worth printing out, do it properly, so it gets printed with inks that wont fade with time. And certainly in my case, it's still cheaper. Home photo printers are a costly gimick. *(gimmick)
Ok, many of the items in the posted article are inaccurate or misleading at best. But that aside, let's address your issue.
Chemical print longevity on average falls far behind what is capable of Ink Jet technologies.
Epson introduced archival Inks standard on many of their printers over 6 years ago. The initial products provided 70-80 archival life, and the extended archive in subsequent models are rated for 200 years. You will NOT find this in a photo lab.
Additionally, to just dismiss ink jet printers is kind of missing the point of what they are for. If you are looking for LONG TERM storage of any images, turning them into a digital form and putting them a form of long live Optical storage is true 'preservation'.
So as for your inks that won't fade with time, A) Photo labs don't usually use Inks, it is a 'developed' chemical print. B) Chemical printing solutions have even more problems with photo fading, and if you don't believe this, go dig out a color photo you had printed even 10 years ago, the fade has already begun.
Where if you wanted long term you could pick up an Epson Printer, 200 year inks and paper, and seal the photo to prevent ozone and in air chemical contamination.
BTW as for one fact in the Article from the post that is misleading, it implies what is 'NEW' about the inks in the Epson R300 is that they have a 70-80 year archival status. However this is NOT what is NEW about these inks.
Go read on the dye/pigment based ink differences, and also notice do to the non-heat heads used by Epson that most of their printers are capable of using either type of ink, depending on the model. This means using a pigment instead of a dye based ink, they can print on richer variations in media and be sun fast for years. An example of this would be a banner for outside, as the ink on the banner comes down to being a form of paint and not an absorbed ink.
Nice NDA's the review sites had to sign.. not a single actual gameplay screenshot! (from a sensible camera angle anyway) I suppose that's because from afar the graphics look exactly the same as they did on the old systems.. blocky and unsharp due to the low resolution.
Ok, find a WalMart... Yes they are almost everywhere, I can even give you directions to one in Germany.
Find the XBox 360 Kiosk that has been there for almost a month now, and play the games for yourself.
Trust me, at times, if you aren't the one playing you would swear it was a cut scene or a real film, when it is the actual game. Most people walking by think it is a film or at the very least a pre-rendered cut scene, when it is the actually game, running smooth with tons of AI and action surrounding you.
Even though us average SlashDot people don't want to hear this, but the reality is the real XBox 360 meets everything E3 promised, and since the boxes are faster and do nice anti-aliasing, the games are smoother and look even better than the E3 demos running on dual G5s with dual Video.
PS3 will have a hard time matching the game quality, not only does the 360 do graphics and sound right, but there is enough processing power left over for an intelligent game and lots of side and ambient action.
Especially considering the PS3 went from being a Cell only system, then to a Cell and NVidia system when the Cell couldn't be adapted fast enough to do the quality of video they wanted, and now we are finding out the PS3's NVidia subsystem is in the 6800 Class of PC Cards, not even the current 7800s.
The Video in the XBox 360 is based on ATI technologies we won't see in PC Video cards until at least the second Quarter of next year.
So you can basically match the processing and GPU power of PS3 with current PC hardware, where it would be hard to match processing and GPU power of the XBox 360 at this point without some serious coin and tweaking. Not bad for 300-400 US.
Just wait...
After watching them destroy fan bases in their online games like Star Wars Galaxies and Everquest, I can't wait to see what insane ideas they come up next. This DRM thing isn't surprising after watching their 'great ideas' destroy Lucas Arts and SOE's games, let alone the people that were wrapped up in them.
Should we try to guess what new features Sony is working on FOR THE CONSUMER?
Maybe when you plug in your new PS3, if you don't accept the EULA, it instantly shocks you to death.
Or Maybe they have a new online game for the PS3 that is filled with subliminal marketing to sell Sony products that failed in the marketplace.
And in the process, they will use as much open source code as possible, and then claim they invented it and go on to claim ownership of BSD and Linux. LOL
Ok, had to be a bit silly today, but Sony lately is acting like a chicken with its head cut off and don't know how to regain whatever it is they have lost or think they might lose (i.e. XBox 360 might have them scared) I know World of Warcraft made them go 'oh crap' and destroy virtually all of their online games that were once what the industry looked to for quality and consistency. So much for consistency, and you can guess the quality part.
I don't think NVIDIA would let Microsoft do this, as they own the rights to the graphics card used in the Xbox.
It has nothing to do with NVidia, comes down to cost plain and simple. Why add in another $40 to the hardware when you can achieve the majority of what you want by taking advantage of a faster CPU/GPU.
For the offset cost for Microsoft and hence the consumer, a person could buy an Original XBox practically.
Also, as for NVidia, if Microsoft wanted to include the 'essentials' of hardware from the original XBox, they could use any GPU, just as long as they met the specifications of hardware level DirectX support.
Game development on the XBox abstracted the actual GPU for the most part, since it was basically a Windows 2000 OS running DirectX and games were built using this modded DirectX environment.
NVidia made out well in the XBox deal, they basically got enough development money (before royalties) to drive the Geforce4 TI and FX series of card technology, and then per unit sales on top of that. In a freaky way, Microsoft bascially paid for the R&D that later became the Ti and FX series of cards, which was a very good thing for NVidia and the PC consumers as well.
Just like we will see ATI technology from the 360 brought into PC Video cards in the next year, again R&D MS paid for, that ATI will be able to capitalize on.
However notice the owership differences between the XBox and the new 360, the GPU and CPU are both owned by Microsoft this time. So at least ATI can't decide they want more money later on like NVIdia did and it also won't lock Microsoft, they can have whoever they want produce the chips.
I stand by the knighthoods-for-services comment though - why do so many prominent businessmen get knighthoods do you think? For making vast profits for their companies? Surely that is what they are paid for. So why?
Again, disagree still...
You think Sir Elton John was knighted because of all the money he made for a company?
Or do you think it had to do with all the charity, fund raising, donation and benefits he does?
I'm sure there are crap people that have been knighted or crap reasons, but SPECIFICALLY his philanthropy was WHY Bill G. was knighted...
You missed out the word "honourary" - he isn't a "proper" knight.
Anyway - most knighthoods are for services rendered to the governmant of the time...
Actually, he isn't BRITISH either, so he can't be a REAL Knight if you want to get specific about it.
But for some silly reason, England and the Queen thought his efforts were worth the title, even if it honorary and he doesn't get to be called Sir Bill G.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
He donates more money than rich countries like the US for this type of research and care to the world.
I don't care what you think of MS or Windows, this is about someone with money actually doing good with it, I wish I could say the same for other people in our industry with a large amount of company made wealth. So even if you hate Windows and Dell forced you to buy it at some point, it should make you feel better than it may have been your $80 bucks that went to help people in the world and not just buy another CEO(CSA) a new car.
Please mod down, this is an urban myth...
Even trying to find a way to bash MS and Bill G. when doing nothing but giving money away to help people.
Go look up why he was knighted and keep the urban troll myths somewhere else.
Why do people keep comparing Microsoft's practices of monopolistic abuse to Apple's? To abuse a monopoly, you have to have it first. And no, Apple has a monopoly of Apple's products argument does not count.
*Shake head*
Seesh! You'd think reading this over and over, even a stupid person will learn something.
Well this is the common assumption based on the rulings and as presented to the people, but in actual terms Microsoft was NEVER convicted of being a monopoly.
They were charged with basically being the 800lb gorilla and using that to extend their presense and maket dominance, but they are still NOT or have legally been deemed a monopoly.
So, they aren't any different than Apple, except like you said, they have 90% of the market share - but that does not make them a monopoly, successful, not a monopoly.
When you can't buy a computer and run anything on it but MS OSes, and there is NO other choices in the world, then they could be moved to a monopoly - but to say they are that now, would be saying OSX is not a real OS, and all the Open Source variants for Intel/Amd based PCs are not REAL OSes or competition either. Sort of shooting your own market to label MS...
(PS the only examples of Dell and other companies 'bundling' Windows by default on the computer no matter if you wanted it or not, was a contract by the manufactuers that they signed with Microsoft. They were never forced to do an exclusive bundling of Windows on all computers to get it cheaper. And this NOT out of the norm in software bundling licensing. My company has even sold bundling licenses, where if the manufacturer agrees to pay us for every computer they sell a few bucks, they can install our software on every computer they sell...)
Take Care,
The Net Avenger
Tell me, who has Apple told, "You may only bundle iTunes if it is the only media player you bundle?"
HP sold iPods, bundled iTunes, and STILL bundled Windows Media Player.
When Apple first sold iPods to PC users, they bundled MusicMatch.
When Apple first sold iPods to PC users, they sold them through Dell.
So can you name anyone that Apple restricted iPod or iTunes distribution bundles? Because Dell certainly never bundled iTunes, and HP never stopped bundling MusicMatch
Ok, I serious might have missed something great here... So this isn't a troll response, but a true question.
All I have ever known is that to download music to your iPod or purchase music for your iPod you had to use iTunes - no execptions. Even books bought through audible.com needs iTunes to dowload the books to the iPod last time I looked.
Windows Players and regular MP3s (non iPods), can use any software they want to download music to the device, pick any store they want, and aren't required to use Media Player to downoad the content. Even Audible again, uses their own software to download the books to alll the non (iPod) players, but plugs into iTunes for an iPod, because you have to use iTunes and Apples control their DRM for the content.
Where with other players, if hte publisher wants control of the media(music), they can use MS's DRM or their own, and their own players, or even install their DRM into Windows Media player if they choose, they can pick any tool and their own technology if they want.
To a certain degree DRM and iPods is pretty much all Apple controlled at this point, and one point of control is the requirement of iTunes. Where such a single point doesn't exist for other players - they can use their own stuff, use Media Player, use MS's DRM, make up their own DRM, etc...
I am fully willing to believe I missed some transition, so please correct my assumptions about the iTunes and Apple DRM necessity for an iPod.
(Not a troll post, just wanting to see how far off I am on this, truly.)
Microsoft has no plans, or better yet - has plans to keep .Net Windows only - selling .Net for other platfoms is not an option (no-one would pay for it) and it would add strength to those other platforms. So why bother? People have Java for that stuff...
.NET if they want, and even give them skinny on the basics of the framework if they would want to do so.
.NET interoperability for the OSes manufacturers.
.DOC format and the original .RTF format, Microsoft LETS these companies read these files on alternative platforms, and even GIVES them the XML based document structure - don't think Wordperfect and Open Office just magically were able to crack a file format.
.DOC formats, it is when the .DOC contains concepts like INK and Embedded Objects, Sound, Pictures that opening a .DOC document in these other wordprocessors that it gets dodgy, as they don't always have equivalent technologies to implement the features in the .DOC file, even if it knows how to read them. Take the redact add-in for .DOC files - if the other WordProcessors don't have redaction abilities, these things are lost..
/.ers a long time ago, and now it is about to become an integrated shipping product.
Actually, the MS guys 'encourage' other platforms to implement
However, since these are NOT Microsoft's OSes, they are not going to program the
But Microsoft isn't closed about lettting them exist.
Just like the XAML and XPS of Windows Vista, Microsoft will not make the tools for reading this data, viewing it onscreen or printing for non-Microsoft OSes; however, they give any developer all the tools they would want to create a full implementation of these technologies on their favorite OS, bascially giving the Open Source and Mac world FREE access to Microsoft's developerment, ideas, and technologies - even if they aren't writing the source code for you. (Apple doesn't even do this, do you see Apple ANYWHERE encouraging or allowing people to use QuickDraw or Carbon on other OSes? - NO, they won't even help non OSX versions of BSD run or know how to run the GUI portions of OSX. Microsoft on the other hand is like, this is great technology, take it and use it wherever you want.)
Closed does not always mean 'closed' in the classical sense, Microsoft's ideas of 'closed' have been surprising more open than people realize.
You can take things like the NT Kernel and go, ya it is so closed it hard for people to get information of all the things it is designed to do. But it is a big piece of Mystery that they need to keep the intellectual concepts in check on. There are no other successful hybrid Kernels like NT. Business wins here...
But then you can also look at 100s of other products and applications that Microsoft will give developers the tools to implement or even COPY them on other platforms, Microsoft just isn't going to take the time to do it themselves.
Even take the notorious
It wasn't that 'closed' of a fle format, go to msdn if you don't believe this. Microsoft just wasn't going to write the import and export filters for these companies. Additionally, you will notice that these companies do a GOOD job of reading and writing
My two cents for the day, and even if you disagree with me, fact check it, or at least ponder what I have said. (Part of my coments regarding the XPS distribution cannot currently be proven as it would break NDAs to quote the sources.)
PS News of month that everyone here should go pay attention to (Since my articles never get accepted)...
I warned all of us
Go Look at Windows 2003 R2, and see what Microsoft is stacking on NT to ensure they have the edge.
Right now Microsoft is currently making its UNIX subsystem for Windows fee to anyone that wants to download it, but Microsoft has beefed up the Unix subsystem (not the o
Um, no. You can use different players with iTunes.
I think you read the point of this article and my post BACKWARDS...
I'm not against making things easier, but what happens when the tools don't work properly? I think at the very least, a decent understanding of the underpinnings should be required learning.
True, that is why we can't put faith in any ONE company or set of AI ideas. We need the borlands and the open source world, just like we need Microsoft(don't choke) and VS.
When one fails, the others carry the ball...
In old school terms of visual development this has already happened, Visual Basic had a hold on this world until version 4.0 - MS blew it BIG time. Delphi from borland was there to pick up the market and evolve the concepts past what MS was doing in the Windows world.
They both bounce back and forth in the Windows world, and there are a few other tools that have some good ideas if both of these companies blow it.
Additonally, we can take their ideas and concepts and bring them into what ever world WE WANT. Let MS or Borland create new concepts, intelligences for development, and we can use and extend these models back in our own tools or OSes.
That is why it is SO important to understand MS VS, or at least understand what it DOES WELL. We have to know this to ever compete, or take advantage of it.
It kills me that so many people that are anti-Microsoft, know SO LITTLE about MS, except the sound bites and their brief experiences. Whether we like it or not, there are things we should know about the NT foundation of Windows, and what Microsoft has DONE well in terms of innovation.
It would be like being a liberal that never turned on Fox news or Rush. You are basically sticking your head in the sand and going, la la la, I don't want to know, even if it is good or there is truth or something quite innovative in concept at the very least.
I wish there was a way to shock people into doing this. What will happen is Microsoft will truly blow the doors off the technological community, and the shock or wake up call will be people getting left in the dust because they didn't pay attention. (And I hope I am so wrong about this.)
LOL I should of put a ((tm) by my new word... Dammit, now everyone is using it...
Wow, how ridiculous...
We all know only Apple can do things like this, and get praise for doing it at the same time...
iTunes anyone?
I have to diagree to some degree...
Yes there is some improvments Media Center needs, and 2005 addressed some of this.
BTW 2005 does have Multi-Tuner support, I don't know where you missed this if you have been in the beta's like myself.
However, even in the current beta I am in, I am one of peeps pushing Microsoft to make Media Center more - make a Media Server version that is a basic server for your home, with 5-10 tuners in the box if you want, and handle all your incoming video, telephone, fax, and broadband, and distribute this media server to the rest of the televisions and computers in the house. (Using Wireless if youw want).
There is no need we should have a Media Center PC in every room we want this functionality, extenders are great, but when the main Media Center PC is designed as Media Server, they are missng the next generation in Home Server and Media distribution.
I find that Media Center works quite well as a PVR, no it isn't as simple and consistent some of the stand alone DVR units, but these are closed boxes as well, where I can watch my Media center recorded shows from any place in the house, no matter what computer they were recorded on. This is where the stand alond DVR market is finally waking up, but still there is not network sharking of shows yet.
And like my laptop example, that is just freaking handy that I can go anywhere in the us, and if there is a cable where I'm staying, I tell it where I am, and it just records my shows I like. You can't do this wit TiVo or even someo of the other PC based PVR products...
Also remember Media Center was pretty novel of an PVR implementation for PCs when it was released, sure we are seeing more of them now, but before Media Center there were not really any UNIFIED PVR software applications, if you wanted to record with a Tuner Card, you were forced to their software (which is usually pretty bad)... So MS gets some kudos for trying to standardize the PC PVR movement.
Yes there is FUD, but some of this FUD is true...
There are severe exaggerations in Linux usability for example; but we can't be morons and miss the 'truth' in this.
On the computers at my Grandmother's house - True story(200mhz P, to a new 3.4ghz system now.) - My Grandparents have been able to drop an XP install CD in all their computers, type in the code and their computer works faster and better than when they first purchased it. No install problems, driver problems.
And that is a solid arument, sure most of US are smart enough to wrestle any distribution to install and run well on any piece of hardware, but for the people that surf the web, write email, write letters and video conference with their grandkids - Linux and FreeBSD is NOT YET THAT MATURE on the desktop.
We can argue it is, and it truly isn't. We know this inside somewhere, but hate to admit it.
There is NO distribution yet that has the driver support, or hardward support, or 99% success rate of install that WindowsXP does...
That is where we are failing, and until we admit things like this to ourselves, this will NEVER get better.
Whether the 'old' timers (myself being one) like the abstraction of low level coding and what is becoming mainstream, this is an evolution of development.
Visual Basic back in 1992 was in of itself a massive advance for this type of programming and programming understanding. Look at all the 1000s of VB applications from this time period by people that truly had very little coding experience.
However, some of the VB programs from this time were quite effective.
I think the biggest injustice to programming and the programming community as a whole, is the lack of UI guidelines, and understanding usability and User Interaction and User Flow.
How many times have you grabbed a GOOD program, with brillant LOW LEVEL coded features, but the interface to the application work about as well as a broken pay phone.
So sure VS can remove the user from 'low level coding', but this is NOT always a bad thing.
As development EVOLVES, there is NO REASON with the AI in the development tools and the AI in the code produced by these development tools should not be used. Why should a person in the 21st century truly have to fully understand memory allocation, advanced recursion, or even see program past advanced event handlers, as that is what programs ARE - event handlers...
Why do we have to beat down development tools just because they remove the developer from having to DO THINGS THE Tool or Compiler should DO FOR YOU? This is what makes advanced devleopment and the progression of better applications bloom.
Go back to the VB of 1992, it was a major eplosion for application availability. Sure some of the programs were crap and from people that had no idea of coding, but there were also serious developers that didn't want to take time to screw with all the crap that a developer in THIS DAY and AGE should not have to do.
I welcome development tools advancement. Sure there is some fundamental coding knowledge that everyone should know, but you can't blame these tools for this.
I could have the same arguments about many projects in the Open Source world, they are brilliant, but since the coders have little undertsanding of usability or UI guidelines, they applications are virtually worthless to anyone that is not a geek.
I'm not even arguing VS is the best set of tools out there, Borland still makes some really great development environments. I still like Delphi, and am amazed of how tight the code it produces, and yet how much it DOES FOR ME, even if I do know how to do the things it is doing for me is irrelevant.
We not only need to support development that is beyond a text editor and command line compiler, but we also need to support development tools that try to structure and help users with usability for the people that will be using the applications. PERIOD.
VS and Borland products are pretty good, but they could even be better - imagine a development environment that gives a flag when it notices a break in usability, or gives a compile warning after it 'intellectually' sees the appliction has many inconsistencies that would confuse the user.
Additionally, VS is even dated for what the new Microsoft Development and technologies are introducing. VS2005 barely touches the abilities of future Windows development - that is why the 'Expression' like of products will be used to augment the UI and User experiene for VS applications.
Give the world a couple of years, and the foundations of 'native' understanding being built into the next generation of Windows Vista, WILL change not only the user experience, but the development world. Leapfrogging concepts of today.
Go look up some of the concepts Microsoft has introduced and HAS that are often overlooked, go do a search on the last PDC. There are things in Vista that move development to a new level of understanding and functionality for not only developers, but what the users will start to see in the next 5 years.
It is like one of the brains behind the XAML and XPS systems in
I have four computers in my home running media center edition 2004 and now 2005. They use both internal and external USB 2.0 tuners.
I have NEVER seen the voice and audio not sync on ANY of the systems. And the picture quality is at the control of the tuner, but is outstanding in comparison to the old TiVo and Cable DVR units I have used, especailly when pushing the images to a LARGE 8' HD Display.
These articles are insane, and you give them credibility by even posting them here?
What if I wrote one on how all TV Tuners look crappy on Linux (Which is NOT true), would you just post it here as well?
What the hell has happened to Slashdot. This once use to be a respected Tech and Open Source news site, and now even in places you wouldn't expect, to make fun of something, I hear and see techs calling it a 'Slashdot Article'. And here you are, once again proving them right.
BTW, Even one of My Media Center systems is a freaking Laptop I use on the Road, and I tell it what city I am in, give it a cable feed, and my shows are STILL recorded perfectly, no matter where I am on the road, in fact, it wakes itself up using ACPI and records the shows if I hibernate or turn the computer off... It don't get anymore convienient than this...
You want audio and video and install issues - go try Beyond TV, it works great sometimes, but there are times it is plain crap on a system. It won't even recognize a Wave Input audio source... (Just to let you know Media Center is not my first DVR or PC based solution - And I still own a Beyond TV current Licnse, just in case it ever does work better.)
Argh...
The difference between the two is that Apple's software WORKS while Microsoft's SUCKS. It's obvious, based on your comments, that you appear to be a Windows (tm) user and, well, therefor shall get what you deserve. Enjoy.
Clever, well probably as clever as "you" can get...
Due to the nature of my work, I probably use more different OSes in one day than you even know exist... Don't paint me with a brush, just because you have an 'everything MS does sucks' bias.
I never even said anything about how good or bad Apple or MS's software was, that is an assumption about me you made.
"Assumption is the intuition of fools" - The Net Avenger
Apple didn't have to give anything back to *BSD (the nature of the license). They did. Maybe they had to give something back to KHTML / Konqueror. They did and did more.
And how much intellectual credibility would you be willing to bet on this?