"I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there was a major 'break' between the 2600 days and the Nintendo days. For a couple years, no one did much in the game industry, atari killed it with a glut of bad games."
Atari didn't kill the industry. Atari didn't have a licensing program for third party developers since it was the courts that allowed Activision (the world's first video game third-party company) to make Atari 2600 compatible games which ushered in the era of uncontrolled numbers of poorly produced games like "Custer's Revenge." Atari certainly didn't help matters with their version of Pac-Man, E.T., and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The market was also cluttered with too many consoles (Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Intellivision, Intellivision II, ColecoVision, Odyssey II, etc.) to sustain it, plus add the original home computer goldrush with the Commodore 64. Atari couldn't even police the third party developers because it would've triggered antitrust issues since they had roughly a 90% market share, home video game market and arcades.
Once the Atari era was over (when Warner sold Atari to Jack Tramiel to stop their stock slide which launched a hostile takeover attempt by future Fox owner Rupert Murdoch), Nintendo rebuilt the home console market in its own image. Their contract for Atari to own what became the NES worldwide (outside of Japan) wasn't signed (because Atari was sold off and received a change of management, which also allowed Amiga to cancel Atari's acquisition of it) and Nintendo was free. They instituted their restrictive third party program that prevented licensees in America from releasing the same titles on any other console (which is why the Atari 7800, the Sega Master System, and the NEC TurboGrafx16 all failed to get decent third party titles). Once the Tramiels came to their senses in 1986 and released the 7800 (which was ready for an '84 release), they couldn't get any titles on the system. Since they had not had any interest in purchasing the Atari arcade division (which would've been just $10 million more at the time), they didn't even have any of the home rights to any Atari (Games) arcade titles post-1984. Atari Games created the Tengen subsidiary and marketed their titles on the NES. I won't cover the mayhem that ensued after that because that's a totally different story.
However, the point is, you don't know your videogame history. Atari didn't cause the videogame collapse of 1982, no matter what G4's *Icons* show claims.
"Deep Impact did 2/3 of the business, which is hardly "destroyed". It did it on 1/2 the money, which is arguably a better investment."
Your stats are flawed. You didn't count pay-per-view (PPV) revenues nor broadcast network and cable deals. How many times do you see "Deep Impact" on broadcast or cable compared to Amageddon? You don't. You listed rentals, but not actual DVD/VHS sales. And with DVD sales, you'd have to include Buena Vista stats as well as Criterian Collection Edition stats too. There is no question which one made more money.
"You'll notice that the XBox has no trouble snatching up titles from companies like Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take 2 games, which is HQ'ed in New York."
That's a poor example. GTA Vice City took well over a year to hit the Xbox after the initial PS2 release. Sony has GTA San Andreas locked up on the PS2 next. That's not a success. I won't even go into details about Manhunt, yet another title from American company Rockstar that debuted on the PS2 first (before the Xbox). If Microsoft wants to beat fellow monopolist Sony, then it needs to start on a buying binge of American and European software companies. Of course, it would be best to spin off their Xbox division (and mix the PC gamers division with it too) and give it a chunk of that $60 billion in the bank thereby they wouldn't trigger anti-trust issues in the US and the EU. But too much hubris in Redmond will prevent that from happening.
"Pointing out the "central planning" aspect of the press release highlights its futility."
Gosh, it sounds like you would complain about Energy Star certification if it was something new today. Shakespeare had a comment about such a position, "doth protests too much", or something to that effect.
"It is true that methane emissions from cows are an issue. This is because methane is many, many times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat. But the net amount of carbon still remains the same."
Time Magazine had a story on that a few years ago. I reader smuggly wrote to them stating something like "it was a good thing that we [Americans] killed off all the buffalo when we did." Funny, in a callous manner.
"Majority of consumer electronic companies ALREADY pay royalties to Microsoft for Windows Mobile Pocket PC and Windows Smartphones..like Samsung, Toshiba, JVC, Hitachi, Panasonic, LG even Motorola make Microsoft Smartphones. Most of these companies had the option of using Palm OS or Linux and chose Windows Mobile..of their own FREE WILL!!"
Hmmm, let's think about this for a sec. All of those companies selected Windows Mobile for perhaps a couple of reasons. First, do you think they are paying royalties to Microsoft currently? Nope. They are receiving subsidies by Microsoft to try the product out. Motorola dropped out of Symbian, took the Microsoft cash, debuted a Microsoft based product, and plowed the money into Linux development for their phones. Motorola, like all the other Asian companies you mentioned, do not like Nokia. Nokia is the Microsoft of the cell phone market in their eyes. So they take some Microsoft cash and bring out smart phones to establish themselves based upon Microsoft footing the bill on the R&D, all the while they take their own resources and spend it on Linux for their future phones. They didn't choose PalmOS because PalmSource doesn't have $60 billion in the bank to entice them with. Plus, even though PalmOne and PalmSource are two different companies now, why would they select PalmOS for their offerings? That only legitimizes the Treo which they are competing against.
It is no secret Sony wanted to buy Palm, and they'd probably buy Apple too if management allowed it. The only reason why the Sony VAIO line of computers offers Windows is because Apple won't license OS X on x86 and Sony doesn't want to spend their own resources establishing a Sony owned OS that has no following currently. Just as soon as they feel Linux is up to par with Windows, that will be the day the VAIO line ships with Linux.
Sony, I repeat, will not support any Microsoft owned codec festering itself in Sony consumer electronics devices.
"It seems that HD-DVDs use the same wavelngth blue laser that Blu-Ray DVDs use accoring to the Blu-Ray FAQ. Also, sony has succesfully made a single head for reading regular DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, the head uses a 3-wavelength diode."
Excellent. Thanks for the info update. Yet more reason to skip HD-DVD and go directly to the Blu Ray format.
"It absolutely won't be -- the HDTV specification only allows for up to 1080i."
The 1080i requirement is for broadcast. There's nothing precluding the companies from issuing the films in 1080p other than their costs for remastering their content in that format. I certainly hope they back 1080p because that would be a good way to distinguish to a consumer a reason to buy the commercial home version (HD-DVD or Blu Ray) over simply saving a recorded broadcast version (I'm assuming the broadcast flag DRM will be easily cracked). No matter how you slice it, interlaced picture is a bad way to go, whether you throw 420 lines, 1080 lines, or 4000 lines at it.
"Now they expect consumers to shift again? No. It's too soon. And the fact that there's a format war on top of all that, will make both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray about as successful as SACD and DVD-A have been in replacing the good old audio CD -- i.e. not successful at all except for a handful of high-end enthusiasts."
The lollygagging of the RIAA to annoint a successor to the CD doomed them to witnessing it [the CD] being replaced by the MP3 format by computer savvy GenX (and GenY) music enthusiasts.
I will bet Blu-Ray will trump HD-DVD for a variety of reasons. First off, the majority of consumer electronics companies will balk at paying royalties to Microsoft for the Windows Media IP rights inherent in the HD-DVD format. So many of them are already pushed out of shape at paying royalties to Time Warner for DVD proper. Second, Sony (Apple, and others too) isn't behind HD-DVD at all.
HD-DVD is a flawed standard because of their insistence in retaining the red laser (with less capacity) instead of going the Blu-Ray route. Compatibility could be achieved by packing a separate red laser with the Blu-Ray equipment, much like how Sony packaged a separate laser in their early DVD players strictly to be used by audio cds. That's the way to go. And to cut Microsoft out of the royalty gravy train.
"Microsoft is NOT an innovator, so they need to get their ideas somewhere. I'd be willing to bet that they're biding their time, letting open source do free research and development for them. Then hand pick the best ideas for plugins, tabbed interfaces, etc and incorporate them into IE for Longhorn, which will then be shoved down the throats of the masses in 2006."
Seriously, groups like the Open Source Developers Network, EFF, FSF, and the Mozilla Foundation should start doing fundraisers so that they can file for patents on all the innovative ideas they come up with so that they can pre-emptively block the Microsoft's of the world from patenting such ideas. Being pro-active on that would be better than resorting to last minute reprieves each time one of these lame patents is granted.
It should be remembered that nothing about VisiCalc was patented and consequently, hardly anyone remembers the product yet Microsoft (Lotus, etc.) and others profited off their innovation.
"this is not a reason to swith from AIM, AOL isn't about to charge for anything Joe User cares about. This is without a doubt part of their plan to legitimize AIM for use in the work place and then chage buisnesses for advanced features that most end users wouldn't ever want."
You are absolutely correct. Its leveraging AOL's consumer power into breaking into an entrenched market for such services and getting on the gravy train. You should see how much money MCI and AT&T make on business conference calls. Its obscene. Granted, they profit because so many people in government cannot be bothered to sit in front of their computer and type messages over an IM client because so few of them can type over 40 wpm. This will all change when GenX and Y attain corporate power.
"The FCC never followed through on this - and now AOL is officially offering voice/video and charging for it to boot. So go ahead enormous corporations! Merge to your hearts content! Merge up and down the supply chain, across competitors, whatever you want - Its all good! We'll slap provisions on you to pretend we're protecting the marketplace but won't enforce them!"
(AOL) Time Warner filed papers for the FCC to remove the prohibition on adding advanced features to AIM and ICQ well over a year ago. Considering the growth of people using multiple IM clients, the FCC agreed with AOL's request and dropped the prohibition. The prohibition was bunk to begin with and it was instituted because the "Champion of the Consumer" named Bill Gates of Redmond Washington, cried to the FCC about AOL's IM monopoly and how they always moved to block out MSN Messenger from hacking into AOL's system. The FCC, for some strange reason (and this was during the Clinton Administration), agreed with the request made by Gates.
And then following on how hypocritical the FCC (and FTC) is, they allowed Comcast to purchase AT&T Broadband despite how anti-consumer Comcast is and how large a company this created; they blocked the attempt by Charles Ergin (EchoStar, ie Dish Network) from purchasing DirecTV, claiming it would create a satellite monopoly instead of viewing it as creating a major competitor to entrenched cable monopolies; and now they seem to be rubber stamping SBC's (oh, excuse me, I mean Cingular) attempt at acquiring AT&T Wireless. The FCC should be abolished, even if Chairman Powell is a TiVo fanatic.
They currently have the Lion's share of the IM Market, but doing something like charging for use would put the kibosh on that REAL quick."
Don't forget that Apple is not charging for iChat AV. iChat is Apple's version of AIM, and they had video on their platform before AOL added it to the official AIM. Granted, AOL had to wait for the FCC to drop the limits that were imposed during the AOL Time Warner merger (at Microsoft's behest, the moaning of Gates over AOL's IM monopoly) before they added "advanced features" such as video to their product. Now if AOL would only add "offline messages" to AIM how ICQ and Yahoo Messenger do...
And Microsoft would charge consumers too if AOL did. They wouldn't want to set theirselves up for further antitrust issues over something as simplistic as that. You'd see Microsoft "bundling" that to their MSN premium service.
"A theater in Portland was recently sued for that. Sadly, I don't remember the details, but I do remember a sharp decline in the number of commercials in the beginning. It's at the 10 minute mark."
Hmmm. I go to Portland once a month. There are a couple of pub/theatres up there. Its really cool to have a brew or a cider while watching a flick. Bubba Ho-Tep was even more enjoyable the second time around at that place.
As for traditional theatres in Portland, I don't recall the commercials at the Regal cinema being any longer than at the Regal here in Sac.
"Not having a mac I don't have any links to hand, but you can already get an app for Symbian phones (don't know if it's for series60 or UIQ or both) to do various bits of Mac remote control by bluetooth. I'd *conjecture* (given the leetness of applescript) one should be able to control airtunes (as it's just new stuff in iTunes) using that sort of arrangement."
There's a program for OS X that allows your Bluetooth enabled mobile phone to operate various things like change tracks in iTunes. Leo showed it on "Call for Help" about a month before the show was cancelled to make way for the merger between Comcast's G4 channel and TechTV. I doubt show notes that much in the past on the new g4techtv.com website yet, but you can probably find it on Leo's own site. I think its leoville.com or something.
"Yes, you will pay a premium for a Mac. You pay a premium because you get a premium."
And you were so gracious not even to bring up the fact that OS X IS a better operating system than Windows, and yet both machines are about the same price. Of course, Anonymous Coward would've countered by stating that "Linux is free, so big whup."
You also didn't note Gigabit Ethernet being on the G5.
"I've never had much luck with 2000 and less than 256 mb of ram, it does seem pretty tolerant of slow CPU speeds (I ran it on a P2 with 384 MB just fine). My boss is running it on a P3 with 256 and it's pretty unresponsive once outlook and ie are open"
My work computer here is a Dell P3 800 mhz with Win2000 as the OS. It ran like a dog at 128 megs. It would lock up if you had Outlook, Word, and a browser window of IE going at once. There was a big improvement when the memory was doubled. I'd hate to think what XP would do to this system.
"Windows 2000/XP is very quick with 128MB. Like some users have reported, less than 256MB and the latest Linux distros are pretty un-responsive as a desktop. Blame the newer KDE/GNOME."
What are you smoking? XP is recommended at 256 megs, and I've found it doesn't runs decently until you hit the 512 meg threshold. I think you are confusing OS X with XP. OS X 10.2 or 10.3 will run at 128 megs (better than 2000 or XP at that memory level), but obviously scales up better the more memory you throw at it.
With AMD and Intel increasing the cache size of their processors, the IBM/Apple/Motorola triumvirate needs to increase the cache size of their processors meant for PCs, err, Macs.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that IBM manufacturers the AMD chips.
I suggested this not only because I am an OS X fan but also for the fact that it would be nice for another *NIX "based" operating system to receive the highest DoD security certification. I know Apple is already on the path to reaching this certification, but since Solaris already has it, it would be nice for the Solaris coders to be working on OS X. Just wanted to clarify that.
"So no, a buyout would be terrible. Instead, IBM wants to hammer SCO and show that companies shouldn't mess with IBM. It wants to show that Linux is clean, and that IBM's AIX license is permanent. It wants to get all this in front of the courts for the world to see."
Whatever IP of dubious claim IBM would pick up in damage proceedings would be signed over to Novell so that all Unix IP would again be under the same roof. In return, Novell would grant IBM a perpetual license to it and then both companies would go ahead and start implementing whatever they wanted to in Linux and AIX. Hopefully, IBM would also share the IP booty with Apple for OS X.
"Now IBM just has to win in court with massive damages and they will own SCO--no purchase necessary. (The only sticky part will be on how to carve the turkey if multiple companies win big against SCO.)"
IBM would just offer their services equal to the amount of money the companies paid to license SCO IP. Part of the agreement would be that those companies could not sue IBM for SCO's misrepresentations; but of course, IBM would not shield the former directors of SCO from such claims. Then everybody wins and it is wiped under the carpet.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there was a major 'break' between the 2600 days and the Nintendo days. For a couple years, no one did much in the game industry, atari killed it with a glut of bad games."
Atari didn't kill the industry. Atari didn't have a licensing program for third party developers since it was the courts that allowed Activision (the world's first video game third-party company) to make Atari 2600 compatible games which ushered in the era of uncontrolled numbers of poorly produced games like "Custer's Revenge." Atari certainly didn't help matters with their version of Pac-Man, E.T., and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The market was also cluttered with too many consoles (Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Intellivision, Intellivision II, ColecoVision, Odyssey II, etc.) to sustain it, plus add the original home computer goldrush with the Commodore 64. Atari couldn't even police the third party developers because it would've triggered antitrust issues since they had roughly a 90% market share, home video game market and arcades.
Once the Atari era was over (when Warner sold Atari to Jack Tramiel to stop their stock slide which launched a hostile takeover attempt by future Fox owner Rupert Murdoch), Nintendo rebuilt the home console market in its own image. Their contract for Atari to own what became the NES worldwide (outside of Japan) wasn't signed (because Atari was sold off and received a change of management, which also allowed Amiga to cancel Atari's acquisition of it) and Nintendo was free. They instituted their restrictive third party program that prevented licensees in America from releasing the same titles on any other console (which is why the Atari 7800, the Sega Master System, and the NEC TurboGrafx16 all failed to get decent third party titles). Once the Tramiels came to their senses in 1986 and released the 7800 (which was ready for an '84 release), they couldn't get any titles on the system. Since they had not had any interest in purchasing the Atari arcade division (which would've been just $10 million more at the time), they didn't even have any of the home rights to any Atari (Games) arcade titles post-1984. Atari Games created the Tengen subsidiary and marketed their titles on the NES. I won't cover the mayhem that ensued after that because that's a totally different story.
However, the point is, you don't know your videogame history. Atari didn't cause the videogame collapse of 1982, no matter what G4's *Icons* show claims.
"Deep Impact did 2/3 of the business, which is hardly "destroyed". It did it on 1/2 the money, which is arguably a better investment."
Your stats are flawed. You didn't count pay-per-view (PPV) revenues nor broadcast network and cable deals. How many times do you see "Deep Impact" on broadcast or cable compared to Amageddon? You don't. You listed rentals, but not actual DVD/VHS sales. And with DVD sales, you'd have to include Buena Vista stats as well as Criterian Collection Edition stats too. There is no question which one made more money.
"You'll notice that the XBox has no trouble snatching up titles from companies like Rockstar Games, a subsidiary of Take 2 games, which is HQ'ed in New York."
That's a poor example. GTA Vice City took well over a year to hit the Xbox after the initial PS2 release. Sony has GTA San Andreas locked up on the PS2 next. That's not a success. I won't even go into details about Manhunt, yet another title from American company Rockstar that debuted on the PS2 first (before the Xbox). If Microsoft wants to beat fellow monopolist Sony, then it needs to start on a buying binge of American and European software companies. Of course, it would be best to spin off their Xbox division (and mix the PC gamers division with it too) and give it a chunk of that $60 billion in the bank thereby they wouldn't trigger anti-trust issues in the US and the EU. But too much hubris in Redmond will prevent that from happening.
"Pointing out the "central planning" aspect of the press release highlights its futility."
Gosh, it sounds like you would complain about Energy Star certification if it was something new today. Shakespeare had a comment about such a position, "doth protests too much", or something to that effect.
"It is true that methane emissions from cows are an issue. This is because methane is many, many times more effective than CO2 at trapping heat. But the net amount of carbon still remains the same."
Time Magazine had a story on that a few years ago. I reader smuggly wrote to them stating something like "it was a good thing that we [Americans] killed off all the buffalo when we did." Funny, in a callous manner.
"Majority of consumer electronic companies ALREADY pay royalties to Microsoft for Windows Mobile Pocket PC and Windows Smartphones..like Samsung, Toshiba, JVC, Hitachi, Panasonic, LG even Motorola make Microsoft Smartphones.
Most of these companies had the option of using Palm OS or Linux and chose Windows Mobile..of their own FREE WILL!!"
Hmmm, let's think about this for a sec. All of those companies selected Windows Mobile for perhaps a couple of reasons. First, do you think they are paying royalties to Microsoft currently? Nope. They are receiving subsidies by Microsoft to try the product out. Motorola dropped out of Symbian, took the Microsoft cash, debuted a Microsoft based product, and plowed the money into Linux development for their phones. Motorola, like all the other Asian companies you mentioned, do not like Nokia. Nokia is the Microsoft of the cell phone market in their eyes. So they take some Microsoft cash and bring out smart phones to establish themselves based upon Microsoft footing the bill on the R&D, all the while they take their own resources and spend it on Linux for their future phones. They didn't choose PalmOS because PalmSource doesn't have $60 billion in the bank to entice them with. Plus, even though PalmOne and PalmSource are two different companies now, why would they select PalmOS for their offerings? That only legitimizes the Treo which they are competing against.
It is no secret Sony wanted to buy Palm, and they'd probably buy Apple too if management allowed it. The only reason why the Sony VAIO line of computers offers Windows is because Apple won't license OS X on x86 and Sony doesn't want to spend their own resources establishing a Sony owned OS that has no following currently. Just as soon as they feel Linux is up to par with Windows, that will be the day the VAIO line ships with Linux.
Sony, I repeat, will not support any Microsoft owned codec festering itself in Sony consumer electronics devices.
"It seems that HD-DVDs use the same wavelngth blue laser that Blu-Ray DVDs use accoring to the Blu-Ray FAQ. Also, sony has succesfully made a single head for reading regular DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, the head uses a 3-wavelength diode."
Excellent. Thanks for the info update. Yet more reason to skip HD-DVD and go directly to the Blu Ray format.
"It absolutely won't be -- the HDTV specification only allows for up to 1080i."
The 1080i requirement is for broadcast. There's nothing precluding the companies from issuing the films in 1080p other than their costs for remastering their content in that format. I certainly hope they back 1080p because that would be a good way to distinguish to a consumer a reason to buy the commercial home version (HD-DVD or Blu Ray) over simply saving a recorded broadcast version (I'm assuming the broadcast flag DRM will be easily cracked). No matter how you slice it, interlaced picture is a bad way to go, whether you throw 420 lines, 1080 lines, or 4000 lines at it.
"Now they expect consumers to shift again? No. It's too soon. And the fact that there's a format war on top of all that, will make both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray about as successful as SACD and DVD-A have been in replacing the good old audio CD -- i.e. not successful at all except for a handful of high-end enthusiasts."
The lollygagging of the RIAA to annoint a successor to the CD doomed them to witnessing it [the CD] being replaced by the MP3 format by computer savvy GenX (and GenY) music enthusiasts.
I will bet Blu-Ray will trump HD-DVD for a variety of reasons. First off, the majority of consumer electronics companies will balk at paying royalties to Microsoft for the Windows Media IP rights inherent in the HD-DVD format. So many of them are already pushed out of shape at paying royalties to Time Warner for DVD proper. Second, Sony (Apple, and others too) isn't behind HD-DVD at all.
HD-DVD is a flawed standard because of their insistence in retaining the red laser (with less capacity) instead of going the Blu-Ray route. Compatibility could be achieved by packing a separate red laser with the Blu-Ray equipment, much like how Sony packaged a separate laser in their early DVD players strictly to be used by audio cds. That's the way to go. And to cut Microsoft out of the royalty gravy train.
"Microsoft is NOT an innovator, so they need to get their ideas somewhere. I'd be willing to bet that they're biding their time, letting open source do free research and development for them. Then hand pick the best ideas for plugins, tabbed interfaces, etc and incorporate them into IE for Longhorn, which will then be shoved down the throats of the masses in 2006."
Seriously, groups like the Open Source Developers Network, EFF, FSF, and the Mozilla Foundation should start doing fundraisers so that they can file for patents on all the innovative ideas they come up with so that they can pre-emptively block the Microsoft's of the world from patenting such ideas. Being pro-active on that would be better than resorting to last minute reprieves each time one of these lame patents is granted.
It should be remembered that nothing about VisiCalc was patented and consequently, hardly anyone remembers the product yet Microsoft (Lotus, etc.) and others profited off their innovation.
"this is not a reason to swith from AIM, AOL isn't about to charge for anything Joe User cares about. This is without a doubt part of their plan to legitimize AIM for use in the work place and then chage buisnesses for advanced features that most end users wouldn't ever want."
You are absolutely correct. Its leveraging AOL's consumer power into breaking into an entrenched market for such services and getting on the gravy train. You should see how much money MCI and AT&T make on business conference calls. Its obscene. Granted, they profit because so many people in government cannot be bothered to sit in front of their computer and type messages over an IM client because so few of them can type over 40 wpm. This will all change when GenX and Y attain corporate power.
"The FCC dropped that requirement due to MSN Messenger's success - AOL was no longer considered to have a monopoly."
Ahem, you meant to type *Yahoo Messenger.*
"The FCC never followed through on this - and now AOL is officially offering voice/video and charging for it to boot. So go ahead enormous corporations! Merge to your hearts content! Merge up and down the supply chain, across competitors, whatever you want - Its all good! We'll slap provisions on you to pretend we're protecting the marketplace but won't enforce them!"
(AOL) Time Warner filed papers for the FCC to remove the prohibition on adding advanced features to AIM and ICQ well over a year ago. Considering the growth of people using multiple IM clients, the FCC agreed with AOL's request and dropped the prohibition. The prohibition was bunk to begin with and it was instituted because the "Champion of the Consumer" named Bill Gates of Redmond Washington, cried to the FCC about AOL's IM monopoly and how they always moved to block out MSN Messenger from hacking into AOL's system. The FCC, for some strange reason (and this was during the Clinton Administration), agreed with the request made by Gates.
And then following on how hypocritical the FCC (and FTC) is, they allowed Comcast to purchase AT&T Broadband despite how anti-consumer Comcast is and how large a company this created; they blocked the attempt by Charles Ergin (EchoStar, ie Dish Network) from purchasing DirecTV, claiming it would create a satellite monopoly instead of viewing it as creating a major competitor to entrenched cable monopolies; and now they seem to be rubber stamping SBC's (oh, excuse me, I mean Cingular) attempt at acquiring AT&T Wireless. The FCC should be abolished, even if Chairman Powell is a TiVo fanatic.
"1. MSN Messenger
2. Yahoo! Messenger
3. Jabber"
They currently have the Lion's share of the IM Market, but doing something like charging for use would put the kibosh on that REAL quick."
Don't forget that Apple is not charging for iChat AV. iChat is Apple's version of AIM, and they had video on their platform before AOL added it to the official AIM. Granted, AOL had to wait for the FCC to drop the limits that were imposed during the AOL Time Warner merger (at Microsoft's behest, the moaning of Gates over AOL's IM monopoly) before they added "advanced features" such as video to their product. Now if AOL would only add "offline messages" to AIM how ICQ and Yahoo Messenger do...
And Microsoft would charge consumers too if AOL did. They wouldn't want to set theirselves up for further antitrust issues over something as simplistic as that. You'd see Microsoft "bundling" that to their MSN premium service.
"A theater in Portland was recently sued for that. Sadly, I don't remember the details, but I do remember a sharp decline in the number of commercials in the beginning. It's at the 10 minute mark."
Hmmm. I go to Portland once a month. There are a couple of pub/theatres up there. Its really cool to have a brew or a cider while watching a flick. Bubba Ho-Tep was even more enjoyable the second time around at that place.
As for traditional theatres in Portland, I don't recall the commercials at the Regal cinema being any longer than at the Regal here in Sac.
"Not having a mac I don't have any links to hand, but you can already get an app for Symbian phones (don't know if it's for series60 or UIQ or both) to do various bits of Mac remote control by bluetooth. I'd *conjecture* (given the leetness of applescript) one should be able to control airtunes (as it's just new stuff in iTunes) using that sort of arrangement."
There's a program for OS X that allows your Bluetooth enabled mobile phone to operate various things like change tracks in iTunes. Leo showed it on "Call for Help" about a month before the show was cancelled to make way for the merger between Comcast's G4 channel and TechTV. I doubt show notes that much in the past on the new g4techtv.com website yet, but you can probably find it on Leo's own site. I think its leoville.com or something.
"Yes, you will pay a premium for a Mac. You pay a premium because you get a premium."
And you were so gracious not even to bring up the fact that OS X IS a better operating system than Windows, and yet both machines are about the same price. Of course, Anonymous Coward would've countered by stating that "Linux is free, so big whup."
You also didn't note Gigabit Ethernet being on the G5.
"I've never had much luck with 2000 and less than 256 mb of ram, it does seem pretty tolerant of slow CPU speeds (I ran it on a P2 with 384 MB just fine). My boss is running it on a P3 with 256 and it's pretty unresponsive once outlook and ie are open"
My work computer here is a Dell P3 800 mhz with Win2000 as the OS. It ran like a dog at 128 megs. It would lock up if you had Outlook, Word, and a browser window of IE going at once. There was a big improvement when the memory was doubled. I'd hate to think what XP would do to this system.
"Windows 2000/XP is very quick with 128MB. Like some users have reported, less than 256MB and the latest Linux distros are pretty un-responsive as a desktop. Blame the newer KDE/GNOME."
What are you smoking? XP is recommended at 256 megs, and I've found it doesn't runs decently until you hit the 512 meg threshold. I think you are confusing OS X with XP. OS X 10.2 or 10.3 will run at 128 megs (better than 2000 or XP at that memory level), but obviously scales up better the more memory you throw at it.
With AMD and Intel increasing the cache size of their processors, the IBM/Apple/Motorola triumvirate needs to increase the cache size of their processors meant for PCs, err, Macs.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that IBM manufacturers the AMD chips.
"In New Mexico, possibly. But the federal paperwork is just starting, and they don't get 501c status until all the goats have been sacrificed."
r t. html
Goat sacrifices? Are you trying to tell me they are represented by Wolfram & Hart?
http://www.cityofangel.com/characters/wolframHa
"Apple gets their OS coders"
I suggested this not only because I am an OS X fan but also for the fact that it would be nice for another *NIX "based" operating system to receive the highest DoD security certification. I know Apple is already on the path to reaching this certification, but since Solaris already has it, it would be nice for the Solaris coders to be working on OS X. Just wanted to clarify that.
"So no, a buyout would be terrible. Instead, IBM wants to hammer SCO and show that companies shouldn't mess with IBM. It wants to show that Linux is clean, and that IBM's AIX license is permanent. It wants to get all this in front of the courts for the world to see."
Whatever IP of dubious claim IBM would pick up in damage proceedings would be signed over to Novell so that all Unix IP would again be under the same roof. In return, Novell would grant IBM a perpetual license to it and then both companies would go ahead and start implementing whatever they wanted to in Linux and AIX. Hopefully, IBM would also share the IP booty with Apple for OS X.
"Now IBM just has to win in court with massive damages and they will own SCO--no purchase necessary. (The only sticky part will be on how to carve the turkey if multiple companies win big against SCO.)"
IBM would just offer their services equal to the amount of money the companies paid to license SCO IP. Part of the agreement would be that those companies could not sue IBM for SCO's misrepresentations; but of course, IBM would not shield the former directors of SCO from such claims. Then everybody wins and it is wiped under the carpet.