I think there are a few reasons why RIM didn't catch up.
Part of it was complacency. Upper management believed for far too long that RIM was unbeatable, and by the time they actually changed course it was too late.
Part of it was a lack of talent. RIM tried to make an all touch screen phone early on (the Storm came out in 2008) and it was terrible. By the Storm 2 it was obvious that the development team at RIM couldn't handle a keypad-less world, and that BB's OS couldn't keep up with the iPhone.
Part of it was poor choices. RIM worked to change OSes to fix that fact that the old BB OS didn't handle touch very well, but they made the mistake of biting on the iPad hype and they put out a tablet with the new OS before a smartphone with the new OS. The tablet failed miserably, which lost all momentum for RIM's new platform.
Part of it was a lack of vision. RIM has had some good ideas, they just lack the vision to take them that extra step. They had the first great communication platform with BBM, but they didn't think to make it seamless with texting like Apple did iMessage. They basically had the popular Kindle Fire before Amazon did, but they didn't think to try and take the "cheaper than iPad market" until it was too late.
And finally part of it was the market they catered to. Business users are often not a fan of rapid change, especially if that means the IT department has to redo how executives get their email every year. RIM ignored the consumer market for too long- when the iPhone started getting tons of fun apps you got the sense that RIM was happy its phone wasn't a "toy." By the time Apple's "toy" had added in some business functionality to encompass RIM's target market, RIM had nothing fun to offer consumers and fight Apple on their own turf. By the time they had their fun "toy" device (the Playbook, its in the name) they had to rush it out so quickly that it completely didn't fit their core market (it didn't even have email). Hence today's news.
Linux/Unix desktop environments at the moment appear to be all about the colour of the bicycled shed, rather than things that ACTUALLY matter to end users / developers such as a stable ABI.
That is why Android will probably end up being the consumer Linux OS.
The problem is that all of those people you listed (Mom, Dad, Grandma, etc.) go to people like us for advice when they are going to buy a computer product.
And for the iPad what will we tell them?
"It sucks"
So unless Apple has some "magic" that removes nerds as council for such purchases they might be in trouble.
In the end I don't think this will be real popular, and it will be the lack of Flash that makes it unpopular- and no HTML5 is not the answer...
I am not saying that Flash or Silverlight is superior to HTML5 in any way. Flash in particular is proprietary junk. Flash versions for not popular systems (PowerPC, Linux, etc) are usually terrible, and playback of Flash requires WAY more CPU use than it should- on an Atom Netbook fullscreen Flash plays poorly in OSX. I bet Flash on one of these iPads would be super terrible on the 1GHz CPU- Steve Jobs probably considers keeping Flash out of the app store a quality control measure.
With that said the appeal of the Netbook market (which Jobs very blatantly backwards admitted is the competitors to the iPad) was that consumers could get REAL computers for cheap prices at a low size. A Netbook is supposed to be more than a gloried Pocket PC- it is a secondary system when you need more power than an Smartphone can provide. And one of the real barriers that separate a Smartphone and a laptop in 2010 is the ability to use "real" Flash. Even if all of sites switch over to HTML5 in the next year (a very optimistic goal considering that fact that IE use is so high), is it a guarantee that the iPad can play back the content well? Review will soon tell us, and then we will know if this first gen iPad has a promising future or not...
Honestly the form factor for the iPad is perfect- anyone with a brain could figure that the natural progression for Netbooks was for them to ditch the keyboards for touchscreens. Any decent SciFi since the original Star Trek has shown us how important tablet PCs will be in the future.
But the current iPad misses that mark by a great deal because it is not a full featured computer. Is is a bigger Smartphone, with all the limitations of that market.
Until an iPad can do everything a laptop can for say a college student (lacking Flash kills that- my college age sister couldn't go a day without her Hulu) or a business executive (lacking real Microsoft Office kills that for when you REALLY need Office) that what you are really looking at is a EXPENSIVE secondary "toy" for a large part of the market that currently buys laptops. Which is basically the market Netbooks have now (I will admit for serious work they are a toy), but the difference is that a Netbook costs as much as a game console, while a iPad costs as much as a REAL 15inch Windows laptop.
I can guess what Apple is thinking- that there is enough apps in the App Store to do everything that most "real" people do with computers. If someone wants a real computer for something specific then they are advanced enough to shell out the thousand bucks for a real Mac laptop. But I get the feeling that the iPad is purposefully neutered with a kiddie slope OS to ensure that it does not dig into the Mac Book market. Can't wait to see if people can Hackintosh the thing like was done to the AppleTV.
For these reason I am very disappointed in the iPad. The likelihood is that I am wrong and it might have a bright future- as it is it could revolutionize the Medical Industry. And if Apple cuts a deal with Adobe and Microsoft down the line (or HTML5 adoption increases at a brisk pace) then maybe later versions of the device will change everyone's lives and change how we think about computers. But today, as it is today, it is the most underwhelming release of a new Apple product since the AppleTV came out...
And for that I blame the fact that it was maybe one of the worst kept secrets in Apple's recent history, and for that reason a hype machine began that makes it so that even an incredible life-changing device fails to live up to expectations set for it (aka the PS3 effect)....
As the growing recession drags on, there is a new martyr of the minute for those who are caught now (but only at private companies) bathing in government dollars. AIG and its cohorts may have created the most sensational recent example of poor use of taxpayer funds, yet overlooked in the national media dialog is how many old ideas concerning government spending have been reinvented to represent different concepts in this time of crisis.
In the most recent stimulus bill- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009- a massive $787 billion dollars in spending was unleashed from the public coffers in a very expedited manor. The president challenged the congress to oppose the bill, saying âoewhat we canâ(TM)t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way.â The public demands action to our growing economic problems, and the modern media made sure Obamaâ(TM)s version of the story was soon clear to the American public.
The narrative about the economy has always had a few sides. Universities around the nation have for a long time incubated a non-decisive discourse on the economy. Two schools of thought have been debated back and forth in academia: Adam Smithâ(TM)s model touting the greater benefits of the free market vs. John Maynard Keynesâ(TM)s economic model that stipulates that government spending is the best way to get through an economic crises.
With our current federal policy the Democratically Controlled government has declared a winner between the two, and the mainstream media seems happy to report that this decision will apparently allow the nation to put this nasty recession thing behind us. You canâ(TM)t blame them though- it makes good sense on the surface for the media to come to this conclusion. If the current nationally agreed upon model is a Keynesian one of government spending, then who better to do the job-if you go by the past century of the American narrative-than the Democrats. One of the old favorite Republican adages is to call the Democrats âoetax and spend librals.â Nowadays Obama is proud to boast the Democratic Partyâ(TM)s credentials are spenders of the publicâ(TM)s coin. FDR and his legacy of spending during the Depression is heeded as the new best old way to do things. But the new Democratic Party canâ(TM)t get support for the same projects Roosevelt did; they needed new ideas to capture the heart of the nation. So where did the Democratic Party look for these new ideas? The same place they kept their old ones.
One big part of the conversation is so called âoeGreen Collared Jobsâ that are to be created by the millions due to government spending contained in the stimulus package. Suddenly the subject of saving the environment became less about losing jobs (from private corporations that are negatively affected by environmental regulation) to making them through new government spending on environmental projects. In the age where Keynes is king, the idea that subsidized industries are less efficient than private ones that are affected by free market forces is all of a sudden a good thing.
Yet there is an important question the media never asked during the passage of the important bill. What mechanisms or provisions are in the legislation to guarantee that the jobs created by its passing will be American ones? On Obamaâ(TM)s website it states that he plans to âoehelp create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.â The problem is that the wind-turbines, solar farms and clean coal factories that Obama professes to be enamored with can be full of parts made in China. In fact, we all know it would be cheaper to build the bits there and put the final product together here. That is what America is good at nowadays. The website never specifies that the 5 million jobs be American ones.
But jobs installing wind-turbines and putting together
Forget this mess and just use the wonderful Play On software to stream Hulu UPnP style to your media box (whether its a computer, a PS3, a Xbox360, a Popcorn hour, etc.). Lets not pretend for a second what the content providers want for their content is what happens with it (TPB anyone?)
Personally I can see this working out bad for Boxee. It is currently my second favorite XBMC fork (behind the rocking Plex) and I was looking forward to make my folks a new HTPC to give them Boxee in their living room, but without Hulu Boxee is much less useful.
Personally I use Play On to stream Hulu, Netflix and the like to my Plex computer hooked up to my TV so I am not missing out, but they were excited.
Now Boxee is just a second rate XBMC with needless social networking bolted on. Personally I would much rather keep Plex (with its working surround sound support and better Apple remote integration).
Honestly though I bet someone will get Boxee back having Hulu with some sort of unofficial plugin soon. Thats what the major media companies don't understand- it doesn't matter what they want what matters is what is technically possible. If someone cool is possible to do technically someone somewhere you can buy the law will work out the solution and spread it back to the exact people the media companies think they have control over.
Disclaimer: I don't work or develop for Play On or Plex. Just giving props to amazing software.
Currently no regular consumers seem to be up in arms about iTunes DRM because it mostly people are just buying music. Music is usually a personal thing so the most annoying part of DRM (the lack of ability to move or share) doesn't come up. Not many people have many iPods for themselves (I have three, but only honestly one is my main iPod, the rest are older models) and their family and synch to the same account. My 52 year old mom does not want the same music collection as my 17 year old sister. So they have different account and neither knows that they can't share what they have (because they don't want to).
Move forward 5 years when movies and television go more digital and it will be much different. TV and movies are more of shared experience- there are a million emo bands but only a few $250 million blockbuster movies a year. In that time when our broadband pipes are bigger and DVD fade away, suddenly the lack of the ability to put "Finding Nemo" on everyones iPod on the way to the Grand Canyon will be a big deal. Since you can't (unnerdily) burn an iTunes movie to a DVD the biggest way of getting around music DRM is gone.
Maybe in the digital movie age DRM will be a bigger deal. Or everyone will just stream all the content they want (like Youtube. Hulu, Netflix) on 4G wireless connections and the thought of purchasing monolithic media files will be very dinosaur. Who knows, but either way does not boast well for the iTunes business model.
But don't listen to me, I am just a Rapidshare addict that won't touch any digital media that is not in a mkv, avi or MP3 file. In fact, my favorite part of fixing the extended family's computer at Christmas is that I make every copy of iTunes I see import in high bitrate MP3. That way if they ever put a CD on their iPods I want, I can "magically" (to them) just get it off and play in my digital media kingdom.
You a little deliberately short on specifics, your comment might be worthwhile if you were able to pinpoint a device that shipped with Linux on it where the creator of that product has dropped support, but is still around. Even so, you're still very vague with what's supported or not.
I have one where a device's manufacturer created open source drivers for it that worked great with Linux at the time but now is very difficult to use: My Plextor Convertx. Granted that is not exactly what you asked for (since its drivers work with a Linux device, it is not a Linux device itself), but I wasted almost a week this year getting it to work with the newest Ubuntu with no success. The experience shook my faith in the whole "make open drivers for your device and Linux will support it forever" argument I have heard zealots shovel to hardware makers. And to think I bought it for Linux compatibility!
However, as my wife wants the iphone, I have to ask how this problem works. I thought most systems used flash for youtube - which leads me to the question of how does the iphone use youtube if it doesn't use flash?
When you click on a Youtube link on the iPhone's mobile Safari it takes you to the iPhone Youtube program. What this program does (from what I have been told) is stream the video from an Apple server that transcodes the Youtube video into a x264 video that the iPhone's video chip has special acceleration for. The iPhone has no flash, but I guess considering its audience Apple thought it "good enough" to allow people on Youtube.
Honestly MythTV is really missing the boat. If the project wants to flourish and survive in the next few years, it needs to get off PC hardware. Only nerds will dedicate extra resources to have another PC just to hook up to a TV. I mean, I do but I am in the minority.
If MythTv really wants to open the floodgates, it needs to make a LiveCD that works on the PS3. Use the Mplayer that was already made to work on the SPUs (so no extra work as far as programming goes) stick it with a cool frontend and include the drivers that work with USB tuners.
I know people will say "well then do it, it is a free project." And to that I will say I have tried. There exists everything out there- drivers for PS3 and Plextor USB devices, a SPU mplayer, and the fact that the PS3 can use non game OSes. Its just that after months of work I was not skilled enough (sorry world) to put such a distro together.
But imagine- if there was a way by burning one CD and buying one device (or two if you want dual tuning) that would turn PS3s into DVRs. It could open a whole new market for MythTV. Unfortunately the MythTV developers (especially the ones making the LiveCD or Mythbuntu) are only focused on PCs.
Oh well...that is why I have both a PS3 and a PC hooked up to my TV. The luxuries of nerd I guess...
I would abstain but that, to me, is tantamount to treasonous behavior. It is my duty to vote, it is my job, it is a requirement for me personally. As a side note, it pisses me off when I hear people complain about the current government and they tell me that they didn't vote.
This is one thing I love about living in Texas. Since my state will go red no matter what (and electoral college votes are all that matter) I can chose to not vote or vote for a third party without it feeling like I am wasting something.
Looking on newegg, Core 2 Duos seem to hover around $200, while Athlon 64 X2s hover around $100.
.
For less than $100 you can get a Pentium Dual-Core, which is just a cut down Core 2 Duo. These chips are big with enthusiasts because they overclock very well. Intel decided to keep the Pentium brand around because it had better public recognition than celeron (which is basically what they are, but Intel still makes even weaker and cheaper celeron chips based on Core2duos for the absolute bottom of the market). These chips compete well with comparably priced AMD offerings.
Also another important area where Intel kills AMD is in Quad-Cores. The Q6600 in my computer is the same price as a Phenom Quad core at the same clock speeds, but is often faster in real world usage. Also my Q6600 has been out for more than a year than the equivalent AMD chip. AMD's troubles have to do with the fact that they lost a cycle by designing a "real" Quad core in the Phenoms, while Intel's Quad core consisting of two Core2Duos glued together was able to come out much faster and offer similar or better performance than the more "elegant" AMD solution. Even AMD now admits they should have make a glued Quad core, instead of rushing the Phenoms. When the Phenoms came out their many documented bugs really hurt AMD's reputation.
Intel tried the gluing idea with the Pentium D's when the X2s came out as competition prior to the Core2duo design, but I can tell you that my Q6600 is much better because the Core2Duos produce much less heat allowing less elegant solutions like gluing to work. The Pentium D system I have sounds like a vacuum cleaner all the time. (As a side note: gluing is my way of saying two different chips on the same die).
But don't take my word for it. I am an admitted Intel fan boy because I prefer how Intel employs developers to work on X drivers for their GPUs (including the king of X himself Keith Packard), rather then AMD/ATI's way of releasing the specs and allowing others to do that work for them. Even though AMD is starting to hire people for this very recently, but there is a lot of ground to make up. Also I love how my Intel computer can (illegally I admit) run OSX for on a Quad Core for less than $2000. The people that try to stick OSX86 on AMD hardware seem to have many more problems.
If they used their new virtualization technology (which actually isn't half bad, the beta even lets you take multiple snapshots, unlike vmware server), they could theoretically build in a "compatibility" model that could be enabled/disabled but could run older windows applications even if they new OS is radically different in how it handles such things.
And with hindsight being 20/20, we all now know this OS should have been Vista. Half the problems have to do with performance and compatibility because of old cruft...
With OSx86, is it really a workable machine that she could use everyday or is it just a hacky experimental thing?
I use my Hackintosh with nearly the same hardware for everyday. It replaced a Hackitosh I used everyday since 2006. The main difference mine has with hers (and the parents) is the lack of the 8xxx series Nvidia card and a better CPU. Since those are brand new they have a little more trouble to work than a 7xxx series card (like my 7900 GS). In fact, almost every problem the parent poster has (except the network thing) has to do with the newness of the graphics card.
If you don't want to replace it temporarily, then your best bet for ease is wait for a 10.4.3 disk to show up on the Pirate Bay in a few months. By then all the problems with 8xxx series cards should be fixed. Here is a guide for that motherboard to help you.
Honestly my policy with Hackintosh is that I love it for myself (four core Mac for less than half what a Mac Pro costs) but I would not subject my friends and family to it (well, except my mom, but she lives in the same town as me for support). The main reason for keeping it to myself is that you can't upgrade without following a guide. At first I thought that was not that bad (I just told my mom "don't ever except any upgrades") but I learned the hard way that computer users are conditioned to just click "Yes" to everything without reading what it says, and so upgrades happen and OSX86 installs get screwed. If you think your GF can have good mouse control and you or her can get through that guide then give it a shot in a few months. OSX86 overall is VERY stable in my experience when set up right, and can be very rewarding.
If you buy a compatible PC for $500 and the OS costs another $500, you're still only paying $1000 for an expandable Mac desktop, which is a bargain compared to the Mac Pro.
Which is why Apple will never do it, and some fly-by-night is trying to fill the niche.
But Macs come with all that stuff already, so, again, why do you need slots?
For those type of future upgrades. The point was not actual features, but future standards that upgradeable hardware can move up to. What happens when USB3 come out, or Bluetooth 2, or some other standard not on the table now? In Mac-land, that means buying a new Mac unless you bought the biggest and most expensive one. In PC-land that means a new PCI (or PCI express) card - slots that even the cheapest PC have.
To me, the biggest reason to get a desktop PC is to allow for such upgrades. I'd rather have a laptop attached to a monitor than some sort of iMac. All the non-upgradeablility of a laptop with the lack of portableness of a desktop. Wonderful combination.
It would be like Netscape's Revenge--10 years later, it's decision to open the codebase comes back to haunt and harass MS when they are battling so many fronts.
Not only is it Netscape's revenge for Firefox's increase in market-share or financial success, but it now it seems that Firefox is working to achieve Netscape's greater vision. This vision is worse to Microsoft than the mere thought of losing market-share: running applications through a web browser and making the OS obsolete. Microsoft's infamous monopoly case before the DOJ was due to extreme tactics they undertook to kill Netscape's vision. They have even killed IE itself for a while before the second browser war in order to keep IE from getting there. Now other browsers like Firefox, Opera, and Safari are able to get to the point where the OS matters less and less despite MS best efforts.
I can put together a PC that will be more than adequate for gaming for $750. The lowest end PC you're realistically to find is $400. Add in your XBOX 360, and you're looking at about the same price. So there are no cost savings either way.
But this exact point is why the Xbox exists- MS realized that the second part of the equation is no longer needed at some point. I sold computers for a few years to regular consumers and let me tell you- 90% buy them just to get on the internet. Web browsing. Thats it. I already know of one friend that basically doesn't use a PC anymore- the Wii's web browser allows him to do anything he wants to do. And even though that sounds icky to me (480p web browsing sucks), I honestly COULD get by for a while with my PS3 running Linux running Firefox on a 720p or higher TV. But I am picky (I need tabs). I bet the built in PS3 or Xbox360 web browser (I'm assuming it has one as both the PS3 and Wii do) would suffice for most. The web reads fine on them.
So within a console generation people will discover that their kids' gaming machines do everything they want from their computer (check their bank statements online and their ebay auctions) and they will stop doing the "buy the $400 PC" part. Then consoles win in a big way...
Slashdot Mirror
I think there are a few reasons why RIM didn't catch up.
Part of it was complacency. Upper management believed for far too long that RIM was unbeatable, and by the time they actually changed course it was too late.
Part of it was a lack of talent. RIM tried to make an all touch screen phone early on (the Storm came out in 2008) and it was terrible. By the Storm 2 it was obvious that the development team at RIM couldn't handle a keypad-less world, and that BB's OS couldn't keep up with the iPhone.
Part of it was poor choices. RIM worked to change OSes to fix that fact that the old BB OS didn't handle touch very well, but they made the mistake of biting on the iPad hype and they put out a tablet with the new OS before a smartphone with the new OS. The tablet failed miserably, which lost all momentum for RIM's new platform.
Part of it was a lack of vision. RIM has had some good ideas, they just lack the vision to take them that extra step. They had the first great communication platform with BBM, but they didn't think to make it seamless with texting like Apple did iMessage. They basically had the popular Kindle Fire before Amazon did, but they didn't think to try and take the "cheaper than iPad market" until it was too late.
And finally part of it was the market they catered to. Business users are often not a fan of rapid change, especially if that means the IT department has to redo how executives get their email every year. RIM ignored the consumer market for too long- when the iPhone started getting tons of fun apps you got the sense that RIM was happy its phone wasn't a "toy." By the time Apple's "toy" had added in some business functionality to encompass RIM's target market, RIM had nothing fun to offer consumers and fight Apple on their own turf. By the time they had their fun "toy" device (the Playbook, its in the name) they had to rush it out so quickly that it completely didn't fit their core market (it didn't even have email). Hence today's news.
Linux/Unix desktop environments at the moment appear to be all about the colour of the bicycled shed, rather than things that ACTUALLY matter to end users / developers such as a stable ABI.
That is why Android will probably end up being the consumer Linux OS.
What really amazes me are the number of smart people here who don't see the potential of the device for power users as well...
Because it hasn't been Jailbroken yet. That is when the iPhone got useful for nerds....
There is no loss of function
For even regular people not having Flash IS a loss of function!
The problem is that all of those people you listed (Mom, Dad, Grandma, etc.) go to people like us for advice when they are going to buy a computer product.
And for the iPad what will we tell them?
"It sucks"
So unless Apple has some "magic" that removes nerds as council for such purchases they might be in trouble.
That's just a list of software. Word is that MS is looking at Office for iPad. Software can be ported.
Sure MS Office CAN be ported on day, but until it is the iPad is less useful for real work than a Netbook that can run MS Office today....
Everyone who has handled one says it's really fast.
That isn't very impressive. ANY computer made in the last five years browses the web quickly when you take away the bloat that is Flash.
My dream computer is a Dell running OS X.
Umm, then do it. Its called hackintoshing and it has been around for a while.
My HP Mini 311 netbook runs OSX like a dream for $100 less than an iPad...
In the end I don't think this will be real popular, and it will be the lack of Flash that makes it unpopular- and no HTML5 is not the answer...
I am not saying that Flash or Silverlight is superior to HTML5 in any way. Flash in particular is proprietary junk. Flash versions for not popular systems (PowerPC, Linux, etc) are usually terrible, and playback of Flash requires WAY more CPU use than it should- on an Atom Netbook fullscreen Flash plays poorly in OSX. I bet Flash on one of these iPads would be super terrible on the 1GHz CPU- Steve Jobs probably considers keeping Flash out of the app store a quality control measure.
With that said the appeal of the Netbook market (which Jobs very blatantly backwards admitted is the competitors to the iPad) was that consumers could get REAL computers for cheap prices at a low size. A Netbook is supposed to be more than a gloried Pocket PC- it is a secondary system when you need more power than an Smartphone can provide. And one of the real barriers that separate a Smartphone and a laptop in 2010 is the ability to use "real" Flash. Even if all of sites switch over to HTML5 in the next year (a very optimistic goal considering that fact that IE use is so high), is it a guarantee that the iPad can play back the content well? Review will soon tell us, and then we will know if this first gen iPad has a promising future or not...
Honestly the form factor for the iPad is perfect- anyone with a brain could figure that the natural progression for Netbooks was for them to ditch the keyboards for touchscreens. Any decent SciFi since the original Star Trek has shown us how important tablet PCs will be in the future.
But the current iPad misses that mark by a great deal because it is not a full featured computer. Is is a bigger Smartphone, with all the limitations of that market.
Until an iPad can do everything a laptop can for say a college student (lacking Flash kills that- my college age sister couldn't go a day without her Hulu) or a business executive (lacking real Microsoft Office kills that for when you REALLY need Office) that what you are really looking at is a EXPENSIVE secondary "toy" for a large part of the market that currently buys laptops. Which is basically the market Netbooks have now (I will admit for serious work they are a toy), but the difference is that a Netbook costs as much as a game console, while a iPad costs as much as a REAL 15inch Windows laptop.
I can guess what Apple is thinking- that there is enough apps in the App Store to do everything that most "real" people do with computers. If someone wants a real computer for something specific then they are advanced enough to shell out the thousand bucks for a real Mac laptop. But I get the feeling that the iPad is purposefully neutered with a kiddie slope OS to ensure that it does not dig into the Mac Book market. Can't wait to see if people can Hackintosh the thing like was done to the AppleTV.
For these reason I am very disappointed in the iPad. The likelihood is that I am wrong and it might have a bright future- as it is it could revolutionize the Medical Industry. And if Apple cuts a deal with Adobe and Microsoft down the line (or HTML5 adoption increases at a brisk pace) then maybe later versions of the device will change everyone's lives and change how we think about computers. But today, as it is today, it is the most underwhelming release of a new Apple product since the AppleTV came out...
And for that I blame the fact that it was maybe one of the worst kept secrets in Apple's recent history, and for that reason a hype machine began that makes it so that even an incredible life-changing device fails to live up to expectations set for it (aka the PS3 effect)....
As the growing recession drags on, there is a new martyr of the minute for those who are caught now (but only at private companies) bathing in government dollars. AIG and its cohorts may have created the most sensational recent example of poor use of taxpayer funds, yet overlooked in the national media dialog is how many old ideas concerning government spending have been reinvented to represent different concepts in this time of crisis.
In the most recent stimulus bill- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009- a massive $787 billion dollars in spending was unleashed from the public coffers in a very expedited manor. The president challenged the congress to oppose the bill, saying âoewhat we canâ(TM)t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way.â The public demands action to our growing economic problems, and the modern media made sure Obamaâ(TM)s version of the story was soon clear to the American public.
The narrative about the economy has always had a few sides. Universities around the nation have for a long time incubated a non-decisive discourse on the economy. Two schools of thought have been debated back and forth in academia: Adam Smithâ(TM)s model touting the greater benefits of the free market vs. John Maynard Keynesâ(TM)s economic model that stipulates that government spending is the best way to get through an economic crises.
With our current federal policy the Democratically Controlled government has declared a winner between the two, and the mainstream media seems happy to report that this decision will apparently allow the nation to put this nasty recession thing behind us. You canâ(TM)t blame them though- it makes good sense on the surface for the media to come to this conclusion. If the current nationally agreed upon model is a Keynesian one of government spending, then who better to do the job-if you go by the past century of the American narrative-than the Democrats. One of the old favorite Republican adages is to call the Democrats âoetax and spend librals.â
Nowadays Obama is proud to boast the Democratic Partyâ(TM)s credentials are spenders of the publicâ(TM)s coin. FDR and his legacy of spending during the Depression is heeded as the new best old way to do things. But the new Democratic Party canâ(TM)t get support for the same projects Roosevelt did; they needed new ideas to capture the heart of the nation. So where did the Democratic Party look for these new ideas? The same place they kept their old ones.
One big part of the conversation is so called âoeGreen Collared Jobsâ that are to be created by the millions due to government spending contained in the stimulus package. Suddenly the subject of saving the environment became less about losing jobs (from private corporations that are negatively affected by environmental regulation) to making them through new government spending on environmental projects. In the age where Keynes is king, the idea that subsidized industries are less efficient than private ones that are affected by free market forces is all of a sudden a good thing.
Yet there is an important question the media never asked during the passage of the important bill. What mechanisms or provisions are in the legislation to guarantee that the jobs created by its passing will be American ones? On Obamaâ(TM)s website it states that he plans to âoehelp create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.â
The problem is that the wind-turbines, solar farms and clean coal factories that Obama professes to be enamored with can be full of parts made in China. In fact, we all know it would be cheaper to build the bits there and put the final product together here. That is what America is good at nowadays. The website never specifies that the 5 million jobs be American ones.
But jobs installing wind-turbines and putting together
Personally I can see this working out bad for Boxee. It is currently my second favorite XBMC fork (behind the rocking Plex) and I was looking forward to make my folks a new HTPC to give them Boxee in their living room, but without Hulu Boxee is much less useful.
Personally I use Play On to stream Hulu, Netflix and the like to my Plex computer hooked up to my TV so I am not missing out, but they were excited.
Now Boxee is just a second rate XBMC with needless social networking bolted on. Personally I would much rather keep Plex (with its working surround sound support and better Apple remote integration).
Honestly though I bet someone will get Boxee back having Hulu with some sort of unofficial plugin soon. Thats what the major media companies don't understand- it doesn't matter what they want what matters is what is technically possible. If someone cool is possible to do technically someone somewhere you can buy the law will work out the solution and spread it back to the exact people the media companies think they have control over.
Disclaimer: I don't work or develop for Play On or Plex. Just giving props to amazing software.
Move forward 5 years when movies and television go more digital and it will be much different. TV and movies are more of shared experience- there are a million emo bands but only a few $250 million blockbuster movies a year. In that time when our broadband pipes are bigger and DVD fade away, suddenly the lack of the ability to put "Finding Nemo" on everyones iPod on the way to the Grand Canyon will be a big deal. Since you can't (unnerdily) burn an iTunes movie to a DVD the biggest way of getting around music DRM is gone.
Maybe in the digital movie age DRM will be a bigger deal. Or everyone will just stream all the content they want (like Youtube. Hulu, Netflix) on 4G wireless connections and the thought of purchasing monolithic media files will be very dinosaur. Who knows, but either way does not boast well for the iTunes business model.
But don't listen to me, I am just a Rapidshare addict that won't touch any digital media that is not in a mkv, avi or MP3 file. In fact, my favorite part of fixing the extended family's computer at Christmas is that I make every copy of iTunes I see import in high bitrate MP3. That way if they ever put a CD on their iPods I want, I can "magically" (to them) just get it off and play in my digital media kingdom.
It is possible to load OSX without a hackintosh CD. I don't know if they are doing it in the hardware this way, but it is possible.
I have one where a device's manufacturer created open source drivers for it that worked great with Linux at the time but now is very difficult to use: My Plextor Convertx. Granted that is not exactly what you asked for (since its drivers work with a Linux device, it is not a Linux device itself), but I wasted almost a week this year getting it to work with the newest Ubuntu with no success. The experience shook my faith in the whole "make open drivers for your device and Linux will support it forever" argument I have heard zealots shovel to hardware makers. And to think I bought it for Linux compatibility!
However, as my wife wants the iphone, I have to ask how this problem works. I thought most systems used flash for youtube - which leads me to the question of how does the iphone use youtube if it doesn't use flash?
When you click on a Youtube link on the iPhone's mobile Safari it takes you to the iPhone Youtube program. What this program does (from what I have been told) is stream the video from an Apple server that transcodes the Youtube video into a x264 video that the iPhone's video chip has special acceleration for. The iPhone has no flash, but I guess considering its audience Apple thought it "good enough" to allow people on Youtube.
I will add that I don't think the iPhone will get flash for a while, as Apple and Adobe are fighting about how many resources Flash takes.
If MythTv really wants to open the floodgates, it needs to make a LiveCD that works on the PS3. Use the Mplayer that was already made to work on the SPUs (so no extra work as far as programming goes) stick it with a cool frontend and include the drivers that work with USB tuners.
I know people will say "well then do it, it is a free project." And to that I will say I have tried. There exists everything out there- drivers for PS3 and Plextor USB devices, a SPU mplayer, and the fact that the PS3 can use non game OSes. Its just that after months of work I was not skilled enough (sorry world) to put such a distro together.
But imagine- if there was a way by burning one CD and buying one device (or two if you want dual tuning) that would turn PS3s into DVRs. It could open a whole new market for MythTV. Unfortunately the MythTV developers (especially the ones making the LiveCD or Mythbuntu) are only focused on PCs.
Oh well...that is why I have both a PS3 and a PC hooked up to my TV. The luxuries of nerd I guess...
This is one thing I love about living in Texas. Since my state will go red no matter what (and electoral college votes are all that matter) I can chose to not vote or vote for a third party without it feeling like I am wasting something.
.
For less than $100 you can get a Pentium Dual-Core, which is just a cut down Core 2 Duo. These chips are big with enthusiasts because they overclock very well. Intel decided to keep the Pentium brand around because it had better public recognition than celeron (which is basically what they are, but Intel still makes even weaker and cheaper celeron chips based on Core2duos for the absolute bottom of the market). These chips compete well with comparably priced AMD offerings.
Also another important area where Intel kills AMD is in Quad-Cores. The Q6600 in my computer is the same price as a Phenom Quad core at the same clock speeds, but is often faster in real world usage. Also my Q6600 has been out for more than a year than the equivalent AMD chip. AMD's troubles have to do with the fact that they lost a cycle by designing a "real" Quad core in the Phenoms, while Intel's Quad core consisting of two Core2Duos glued together was able to come out much faster and offer similar or better performance than the more "elegant" AMD solution. Even AMD now admits they should have make a glued Quad core, instead of rushing the Phenoms. When the Phenoms came out their many documented bugs really hurt AMD's reputation.
Intel tried the gluing idea with the Pentium D's when the X2s came out as competition prior to the Core2duo design, but I can tell you that my Q6600 is much better because the Core2Duos produce much less heat allowing less elegant solutions like gluing to work. The Pentium D system I have sounds like a vacuum cleaner all the time. (As a side note: gluing is my way of saying two different chips on the same die).
But don't take my word for it. I am an admitted Intel fan boy because I prefer how Intel employs developers to work on X drivers for their GPUs (including the king of X himself Keith Packard), rather then AMD/ATI's way of releasing the specs and allowing others to do that work for them. Even though AMD is starting to hire people for this very recently, but there is a lot of ground to make up. Also I love how my Intel computer can (illegally I admit) run OSX for on a Quad Core for less than $2000. The people that try to stick OSX86 on AMD hardware seem to have many more problems.
If they used their new virtualization technology (which actually isn't half bad, the beta even lets you take multiple snapshots, unlike vmware server), they could theoretically build in a "compatibility" model that could be enabled/disabled but could run older windows applications even if they new OS is radically different in how it handles such things.
And with hindsight being 20/20, we all now know this OS should have been Vista. Half the problems have to do with performance and compatibility because of old cruft...
Dell has wanted OSX since it went to Intel...
I use my Hackintosh with nearly the same hardware for everyday. It replaced a Hackitosh I used everyday since 2006. The main difference mine has with hers (and the parents) is the lack of the 8xxx series Nvidia card and a better CPU. Since those are brand new they have a little more trouble to work than a 7xxx series card (like my 7900 GS). In fact, almost every problem the parent poster has (except the network thing) has to do with the newness of the graphics card.
If you don't want to replace it temporarily, then your best bet for ease is wait for a 10.4.3 disk to show up on the Pirate Bay in a few months. By then all the problems with 8xxx series cards should be fixed. Here is a guide for that motherboard to help you.
Honestly my policy with Hackintosh is that I love it for myself (four core Mac for less than half what a Mac Pro costs) but I would not subject my friends and family to it (well, except my mom, but she lives in the same town as me for support). The main reason for keeping it to myself is that you can't upgrade without following a guide. At first I thought that was not that bad (I just told my mom "don't ever except any upgrades") but I learned the hard way that computer users are conditioned to just click "Yes" to everything without reading what it says, and so upgrades happen and OSX86 installs get screwed. If you think your GF can have good mouse control and you or her can get through that guide then give it a shot in a few months. OSX86 overall is VERY stable in my experience when set up right, and can be very rewarding.
Which is why Apple will never do it, and some fly-by-night is trying to fill the niche.
For those type of future upgrades. The point was not actual features, but future standards that upgradeable hardware can move up to. What happens when USB3 come out, or Bluetooth 2, or some other standard not on the table now? In Mac-land, that means buying a new Mac unless you bought the biggest and most expensive one. In PC-land that means a new PCI (or PCI express) card - slots that even the cheapest PC have.
To me, the biggest reason to get a desktop PC is to allow for such upgrades. I'd rather have a laptop attached to a monitor than some sort of iMac. All the non-upgradeablility of a laptop with the lack of portableness of a desktop. Wonderful combination.
Not only is it Netscape's revenge for Firefox's increase in market-share or financial success, but it now it seems that Firefox is working to achieve Netscape's greater vision. This vision is worse to Microsoft than the mere thought of losing market-share: running applications through a web browser and making the OS obsolete. Microsoft's infamous monopoly case before the DOJ was due to extreme tactics they undertook to kill Netscape's vision. They have even killed IE itself for a while before the second browser war in order to keep IE from getting there. Now other browsers like Firefox, Opera, and Safari are able to get to the point where the OS matters less and less despite MS best efforts.
But this exact point is why the Xbox exists- MS realized that the second part of the equation is no longer needed at some point. I sold computers for a few years to regular consumers and let me tell you- 90% buy them just to get on the internet. Web browsing. Thats it. I already know of one friend that basically doesn't use a PC anymore- the Wii's web browser allows him to do anything he wants to do. And even though that sounds icky to me (480p web browsing sucks), I honestly COULD get by for a while with my PS3 running Linux running Firefox on a 720p or higher TV. But I am picky (I need tabs). I bet the built in PS3 or Xbox360 web browser (I'm assuming it has one as both the PS3 and Wii do) would suffice for most. The web reads fine on them.
So within a console generation people will discover that their kids' gaming machines do everything they want from their computer (check their bank statements online and their ebay auctions) and they will stop doing the "buy the $400 PC" part. Then consoles win in a big way...