According to who? I've never seen any scientific studies to support such a claim, so I presume you're just making things up as you go to support what you already believe.
People will go to HD eventually, it's just at this point it's not $xxx better, where $xxx is the cost to go HD. This is different from VHS to DVD, where people were much more willing to spend the $yyy to make the switch because it was percieved to be that much better. That's the general feeling I get from almost everyone, except for the early adaptors that already have it, and the ones that simply don't care, but feel free to point out any scientific studies you know about that say otherwise.
As for "newer", well, HDTVs have been around for a decade now, which may be "new" on a cosmic scale, but it's a pretty long time by any reasonable metric. And before you say it, yes, even the earliest CRT HDTVs were quite close to full 1080 resolution... in fact that's the primary reason 1080i was chosen as the highest broadcast standard.
While HD has been available for a while, people haven't been buying them enmass. Heck, there are brand new non-HD TVs being made and sold right now, and they sell quite well. There is still a huge base of non-HD TVs out there.
I jumped on the dual-processor bandwagon pretty much the instant that commodity CPUs officially supported it. Namely, the Athlon MP.
Wandering off-topic, but you were kind of late for that bandwagon. Dual processors was supported by the original Pentium, though the Athlon MP might have been the first attempt by AMD to do so.
The 6X increase from DVD to highdef isn't as dramatic as the 2-3X increase from VHS to DVD?
No, it isn't. It's like the difference between a $50 stereo and a $200 stereo, and the $200 stereo to a $800 stereo. People can tell that the HD is better, but it doesn't seem that much better. Especially since the eye has limited resolution, and people generally don't sit with their nose against the TV.
No. A small, cheap TV can do 1080 just fine. And basically any computer monitor made in the past 10 years will give you most of the resolution of HD.
A small, cheap TV is going to be downconverting, because there is no way a cheap TV is going to have 1080 lines of resolution, unless perhaps it is a newer CRT. And don't forget the millions of existing TVs out there that probably won't get replaced for a long time.
The thing is, for VHS to DVD the advantage was obvious. No more eating tapes, no more rewinding, and the difference in picture and sound quality was dramatic even on a cheap no-name 19" CRT TV. The conversion to HD doesn't have this advantage. The increase in quality is not as dramatic, and you're only really going to see it on a large, expensive TV (or a high-res computer monitor I suppose). Furthermore, you don't have the advantages of going from a magnetic tape to an optical disk either, but you do have the disadvantage of even more DRM.
People will start buying them when they don't cost much more than the DVD, or are at the same price, or a DVD version is no longer available, but I wouldn't expect things to pick up until that happens.
Maybe because that $13,000 Hyundai is going to be somewhat reliable, and will have a nice warranty attached to it, while a $10,000 BMW is going to break down constantly requiring expensive service and its warranty period has long expired?
It's a real shame that none of the Japanese automakers have managed to hire some of the good designers from the German builders to get that famous reliability combined with that famous usability.
They'd have a hit for sure.
Yeah, I'm sure the sheer ugliness of the latest Japanese cars combined with the terrible iDrive system would be a huge hit. Wait, what were you saying?
You'd have trouble getting an average American sedan or SUV up to 90--not that crazy when doing 70 is generally allowed outside civiliation.
Pretty much every US car made in the last decade can go to 90 MPH. The handling might start to get a little dicey, especially on that SUV, but they have more than enough power.
The Korean cars have come a long way. The new ones are quite good, possibly to the point where they are on par with some of the Japanese makers (who, in my opinion, have been slipping as of recently). They've already done a pretty good job at beating the Americans in the economy car segment. It's just that they are still tarnished by their reputation from the 1980's-1990's, and that's going to take some time for that to go away.
Vista does not have the XP style start menu. It's interesting that Vista does not have Luna either - it's almost like XP's UI didn't exist and we went straight from 2000 to Vista.
IE6 (all operating systems) 35.22% FF (all operating systems and versions) 18.35% IE7 (all OS) 18.15% Other.. the rest
May I ask what "the rest" is, being that it's about 29% of your numbers? I would guess that Safari, IE5, and Opera are probably at about 5% combined, so that leaves a bit to be accounted for.
It's not normal for XP. My Sempron 3000 idles at about 2% or so. When I have Opera open with about 12 tabs, Winamp playing an internet radio station, and my IM client running it still 'idles' at about 5-10%, which seems reasonable.
Well, if you are going to split hairs, I would call none of them a Personal Computer, as MacOS, Windows, and Linux are all set up for multiple users and have been for some time (in the case of Linux it's always been that way).
That's a shame, because you'd note that they work very well in the Mac environment.
The point is that if all the first hand experience that a user has with Apple software is their really terrible Windows programs, why would they want a computer built by the same company? Most people don't think "Well, it has to run better on a Mac", they are going to think "Wow, Macs must really suck if the whole OS is as bad as iTunes".
That would be fine if the $5 solitiare game was competing on a level playing field with the free solitiare game. The whole point is that if Apple controls all the doors and holds all the keys, then they aren't competing on a level playing field.
After all, Apple started the iTunes store selling songs for $1, that you could get for free anywhere else. They maintained that if you make the experience pleasant and easy enough, people will pay money over free alternatives - and they were by and large correct. Why would the thinking and the model be any different for iPhone applications?
In the iTunes situation, by getting the free songs from eMule, Kazaa, etc. you were also committing copyright infringement and opening yourself up to lawsuits from the RIAA. iTunes offered a way for users to "go legit" fairly inexpensively. On the other hand, there isn't any copyright infringement involved in loading 3rd party applications that are freely given away. Hence, paying Apple for the applications because they won't let you load your own for free is seen as nickel-and-diming the customer, exactly as it is on other phones.
Well, if you break for lunch, you don't take the props with you. You turn them over to the Prop Master, who stores them safely. If there are multiple copies of the same prop, then the prop given back to the actor after lunch might not be the same one they turned in before lunch
Why would they continously be changing props like that, provided the original prop wasn't broken or damaged in some way? People keep saying this, and it makes no sense. By doing that you're just introducing a chance for continuity errors if the props aren't exactly the same. No one wants to reshoot scenes needlessly, that's why they hire a Prop Master whose only job is to keep that kind of stuff straight.
Besides, I'm sure Mr. Spiner, as an experienced actor, knows how these things work, and wouldn't say anything if he wasn't sure that the one purchased was a fake. I suppose he could be lying, but why would he do that?
There probably was more than one prop, but the trouble is that the Christie's catalog claims it was "worn by Brent Spiner" in the episodes in question, and Brent Spiner claims that he only used one prop and it is accounted for, heck the claims by Christie are false.
No, he's not saying that techies can't shop at an Apple store or use a Mac, it's just that Apple stores aren't geared for techies. You seriously couldn't figure that out?
If you ask me, the dying breed of flat CRT TVs look the best of anything. They have great color, great contrast, look good from all angles, don't have a proeblem with non-native resolutions, and can manage to display SD content without looking like total crap. The only problem is that a 36" set is huge and heavy, and they don't get bigger than that.
I think the main reason people buy the LCDs is mostly because of the cool factor, but they also have the advantage of being a lot smaller and less heavy.
Slashdot Mirror
End result being a phone that you had to pay full retail for, and still be locked into a 2 year contract? Yeah, that was a real win for us.
According to who? I've never seen any scientific studies to support such a claim, so I presume you're just making things up as you go to support what you already believe.
People will go to HD eventually, it's just at this point it's not $xxx better, where $xxx is the cost to go HD. This is different from VHS to DVD, where people were much more willing to spend the $yyy to make the switch because it was percieved to be that much better. That's the general feeling I get from almost everyone, except for the early adaptors that already have it, and the ones that simply don't care, but feel free to point out any scientific studies you know about that say otherwise.
As for "newer", well, HDTVs have been around for a decade now, which may be "new" on a cosmic scale, but it's a pretty long time by any reasonable metric. And before you say it, yes, even the earliest CRT HDTVs were quite close to full 1080 resolution... in fact that's the primary reason 1080i was chosen as the highest broadcast standard.
While HD has been available for a while, people haven't been buying them enmass. Heck, there are brand new non-HD TVs being made and sold right now, and they sell quite well. There is still a huge base of non-HD TVs out there.
I jumped on the dual-processor bandwagon pretty much the instant that commodity CPUs officially supported it. Namely, the Athlon MP.
Wandering off-topic, but you were kind of late for that bandwagon. Dual processors was supported by the original Pentium, though the Athlon MP might have been the first attempt by AMD to do so.
The 6X increase from DVD to highdef isn't as dramatic as the 2-3X increase from VHS to DVD?
No, it isn't. It's like the difference between a $50 stereo and a $200 stereo, and the $200 stereo to a $800 stereo. People can tell that the HD is better, but it doesn't seem that much better. Especially since the eye has limited resolution, and people generally don't sit with their nose against the TV.
No. A small, cheap TV can do 1080 just fine. And basically any computer monitor made in the past 10 years will give you most of the resolution of HD.
A small, cheap TV is going to be downconverting, because there is no way a cheap TV is going to have 1080 lines of resolution, unless perhaps it is a newer CRT. And don't forget the millions of existing TVs out there that probably won't get replaced for a long time.
The thing is, for VHS to DVD the advantage was obvious. No more eating tapes, no more rewinding, and the difference in picture and sound quality was dramatic even on a cheap no-name 19" CRT TV. The conversion to HD doesn't have this advantage. The increase in quality is not as dramatic, and you're only really going to see it on a large, expensive TV (or a high-res computer monitor I suppose). Furthermore, you don't have the advantages of going from a magnetic tape to an optical disk either, but you do have the disadvantage of even more DRM.
People will start buying them when they don't cost much more than the DVD, or are at the same price, or a DVD version is no longer available, but I wouldn't expect things to pick up until that happens.
Maybe because that $13,000 Hyundai is going to be somewhat reliable, and will have a nice warranty attached to it, while a $10,000 BMW is going to break down constantly requiring expensive service and its warranty period has long expired?
It's a real shame that none of the Japanese automakers have managed to hire some of the good designers from the German builders to get that famous reliability combined with that famous usability.
They'd have a hit for sure.
Yeah, I'm sure the sheer ugliness of the latest Japanese cars combined with the terrible iDrive system would be a huge hit. Wait, what were you saying?
A 16" portable tv isn't that far away from the typical computer monitor, you know.
You'd have trouble getting an average American sedan or SUV up to 90--not that crazy when doing 70 is generally allowed outside civiliation.
Pretty much every US car made in the last decade can go to 90 MPH. The handling might start to get a little dicey, especially on that SUV, but they have more than enough power.
The Korean cars have come a long way. The new ones are quite good, possibly to the point where they are on par with some of the Japanese makers (who, in my opinion, have been slipping as of recently). They've already done a pretty good job at beating the Americans in the economy car segment. It's just that they are still tarnished by their reputation from the 1980's-1990's, and that's going to take some time for that to go away.
LOL. Next time try reading the entire comment before responding to it.
Vista does not have the XP style start menu. It's interesting that Vista does not have Luna either - it's almost like XP's UI didn't exist and we went straight from 2000 to Vista.
IE6 (all operating systems) 35.22%
FF (all operating systems and versions) 18.35%
IE7 (all OS) 18.15%
Other.. the rest
May I ask what "the rest" is, being that it's about 29% of your numbers? I would guess that Safari, IE5, and Opera are probably at about 5% combined, so that leaves a bit to be accounted for.
How can you call any computer with a multi-user OS (be it Windows, OSX, or Linux) a "personal computer"?
It's not normal for XP. My Sempron 3000 idles at about 2% or so. When I have Opera open with about 12 tabs, Winamp playing an internet radio station, and my IM client running it still 'idles' at about 5-10%, which seems reasonable.
Well, if you are going to split hairs, I would call none of them a Personal Computer, as MacOS, Windows, and Linux are all set up for multiple users and have been for some time (in the case of Linux it's always been that way).
Well, you can pick and choose how you want. How much was a gallon of gasoline back in the 1980's? How about a modest suburban home?
You can do all the hand waving you want, but it won't change the fact that the iPhone is the way it is because that's the way Apple wanted it to be.
That's a shame, because you'd note that they work very well in the Mac environment.
The point is that if all the first hand experience that a user has with Apple software is their really terrible Windows programs, why would they want a computer built by the same company? Most people don't think "Well, it has to run better on a Mac", they are going to think "Wow, Macs must really suck if the whole OS is as bad as iTunes".
That would be fine if the $5 solitiare game was competing on a level playing field with the free solitiare game. The whole point is that if Apple controls all the doors and holds all the keys, then they aren't competing on a level playing field.
After all, Apple started the iTunes store selling songs for $1, that you could get for free anywhere else. They maintained that if you make the experience pleasant and easy enough, people will pay money over free alternatives - and they were by and large correct. Why would the thinking and the model be any different for iPhone applications?
In the iTunes situation, by getting the free songs from eMule, Kazaa, etc. you were also committing copyright infringement and opening yourself up to lawsuits from the RIAA. iTunes offered a way for users to "go legit" fairly inexpensively. On the other hand, there isn't any copyright infringement involved in loading 3rd party applications that are freely given away. Hence, paying Apple for the applications because they won't let you load your own for free is seen as nickel-and-diming the customer, exactly as it is on other phones.
Well, if you break for lunch, you don't take the props with you. You turn them over to the Prop Master, who stores them safely. If there are multiple copies of the same prop, then the prop given back to the actor after lunch might not be the same one they turned in before lunch
Why would they continously be changing props like that, provided the original prop wasn't broken or damaged in some way? People keep saying this, and it makes no sense. By doing that you're just introducing a chance for continuity errors if the props aren't exactly the same. No one wants to reshoot scenes needlessly, that's why they hire a Prop Master whose only job is to keep that kind of stuff straight.
Besides, I'm sure Mr. Spiner, as an experienced actor, knows how these things work, and wouldn't say anything if he wasn't sure that the one purchased was a fake. I suppose he could be lying, but why would he do that?
There probably was more than one prop, but the trouble is that the Christie's catalog claims it was "worn by Brent Spiner" in the episodes in question, and Brent Spiner claims that he only used one prop and it is accounted for, heck the claims by Christie are false.
No, he's not saying that techies can't shop at an Apple store or use a Mac, it's just that Apple stores aren't geared for techies. You seriously couldn't figure that out?
If you ask me, the dying breed of flat CRT TVs look the best of anything. They have great color, great contrast, look good from all angles, don't have a proeblem with non-native resolutions, and can manage to display SD content without looking like total crap. The only problem is that a 36" set is huge and heavy, and they don't get bigger than that.
I think the main reason people buy the LCDs is mostly because of the cool factor, but they also have the advantage of being a lot smaller and less heavy.