Because you are not making any sense. You seem to speak with some puritanical zeal, that if I want to switch I must suffer for it.
These are not cars, or different incompatible gaming systems. These are computers and dual booting is a relatively trivial matter and I have set up dual boots a number of times. Win98/Win2k initially when there were certain games that only worked on Win98. Win2k/Linux when I wanted to try out linux.
This is a perfectly logical way to make transitions easier. To somehow suggest you make the transition as painfull as possible is either zealotry or lunancy.
I have specific required bits of windows software, that I only use something like once/month, such as Garmin GPS software, that doesn't have a Mac equivalent. I require this software and there is no Mac equivalents. My choices are don't get a Mac or replace everything when I do which would more than double the cost of entry.
Booting into windows a couple of times/month until the day I replace all my legacy apps seems quite reasonable to me.
"Yes, I do expect you to ditch all of your old stuff."
Those are simply the words of a an absolutist zealot (or Troll). It is perfectly rational to make a transition in stages rather than throw out years of accumulated software. Some of it like my Garmin GPS software just doesn't run on Macs. I only use this software about 1/month on average, so it is hardly arduous to reboot for that. At some future date when I buy a new GPS, mac software will be a requirement. I could list others but I think it would make no difference to a trolling zealot.
Eventually when I no longer need dual booting then I can do without it, but it is not practical to simply "ditch all your old stuff". When in the interim I can get the best of both worlds.
So which way to the first full dual booting machine? Some hacking to get around Windows EFI issues to get a dual booting mac going, or full shipping OSX hacked to real functionality on Generic PC's?
Yeah I know OSX on generics has been done, but to keep the race fair lets make it official shipping OSX which is suppossed to be harder to hack.
Personally I am interested in a new dual booting machine and would prefer the windows on Mac option as that probably needs less hacking to get it to work and will likely be more stable.
I am a potential switcher(from windows). I have used windows for almost 10 years now. Do you just expect me to ditch all the programs/games etc from that period of time. It will take me years to replace all my utils/apps, I will never replace old classic games, I may still like to play, like Baldurs Gate 2, or Total Annihilation...
That is not too hard to grasp is it?
Now if you already use a Mac, of course you don't care, but as a potential Windows switcher, I care enough that I won't buy unless I can take my old software with me.
A: Clock for clock the G5 is faster than the Pentium 4 architecture, so you were told the truth.
B: Clock for clock the Pentium M based Core Duo chip is faster than the G5. So again the truth.
Mix in some marketing (aka exagerations) and you have your situation.
Statement A: was meaningless because the P4 architecture always ran at a much faster clock speed which made it faster in actual use. So Intel in practical terms has pretty much always been faster.
It helps to ignore marketing and think for yourself what you want.
I never bought a Mac before but I might get one this year becasue I like the new architecture. I am waiting on a new Mini. I hope it uses the new Core Duo and runs cool and quiet. I hope they aren't putting the core solo in the mini as I would have to keep waiting...
I have never had a failure on one of my archive disks going back to 1997. But I keep these in individual cases stored vertically etc...
Stuff that is not replacable (my personal photos) I burn on two different disk types. I always use high quality disks. Using Fuji TY dvd R+ right now. I believe DVD R disks are a bit more rugged than CD R.
My car disks live in my car in Ottawa Canada. Brutal humid hot summers, I have a set of CD-r in a visor holder. Most of these disks have been in the car for 5 straight years. When I park a disk in my player it often stays for a week at a time. My CD player ejects disks so hot you don't want to touch them. Here I have a few skippers, but each one that skips is also skratched to pieces. Either way. 5 years of torture and most are still fine. I don't think any skip that are not scratched up.
I feel pretty secure about my well cared for indoor disks lasting ten years. Though I will start moving my CD-R backups to DVD.
In ten years, terrabyte storage should be common and cheap.
I suspect both HD-DVD and BD-DVD will be comercial failures just like SACD and DVD-A for similar reasons. HD-DVD and BD-DVD are the last gasps of locked to physical disk formats.
After this I think the time has past for disk based formats. I think Bill Gates (and I am no fan) was right on this one.
All we need are container classes for video like.mov.avi and codecs. You deliver on whatever storage medium you want. Downloads, Hard disks, HVD (holgraphic), whatever.
I still hold that interlacing should never have been part of the HD standard.
I read something on AVSforum that BD has 1080P mastering for it's disks, while BD has 1080i, but with proper flags.
Personally I would prefer the 1080p mastering. It keeps all interlacing issues in the disk mastering stage wether the original source was Video or Film. That would only leave frame rate issues to deal with.
To handle that it seems like multiscan rate display would be the ideal solution. 50Hz,60Hz and 72Hz would handle the common frame rates without judder.
Oh well maybe in another 5-10 years the next standard will be free of interlace and with well defined frame rates and compatible displays/players.
2006 is going to be the year of 1080p, the early adopters (read geeks with money) are going to prefer to run a true 1080p source into at true 1080p display. I know I won't by a new display until I know it supports 1080p.
It also looks like BD movies will be 1080p native. Not sure what the 720p/1080i implies about the movies for HD-DVD:
In addition to 1920x1080p HD master quality, consumers will benefit from Blu-ray Disc's immense improvements over current DVD technology including enhanced menu navigation, increased added-value and new interactive capabilities.
And you can get a Sony PS3 for $500 that will have BD with 1080P. All vapor right now. The Pioneer deinterlacing was for DVD's not BD.
I don't know where you get the film source reference. Deinterlacing current DVD's still causes a bit of a mess in a lot of systems unless they have excellent deinterlacers, if it was merely a frame combine there wouldn't be an issue.
1080p is not just flicker reduction. It will remove all the jumpiness and motion artifacts that plague 1080i. Since most 1080 displays are native progressive all the 1080i signals are deinterlaced and produce artifacts in the process. These are almost inevitable as you can't simply combine 1080i frames as they are not from the same time and object will have moved between the two fields of the full frame. In short this is a mess.
1080P signal with 1080p monitor is the way to go. Another win for Blu Ray, though I hope both flop with their DRM (Draconion Restriction Managment).
It does matter because most 1080i deinterlacing sucks. Interlacing should never have been in the standard. It is a hideous compromise that falls apart when fast motion happens. You can't simply merge the frames and show at half the rate because each half of the frame happens at a different time.
De-Interlacing is difficult enough that most 720p sets just throw out one field and upsize the remaining one...
If this is what they are doing, it presents a significant advantage for BD-rom as I saw 1080P as their standard and since only the lunatic fringe of early adopters is likely to buy they are going to want 1080p.
"I use proxomitron, I maintain an opera modded set at www.streamload.com/jp10558/public."
As a long time Opera user, proxomitron was in my arsenal for better user agent spoofing, but eventually I found this solution too cumbersome. I don't plan to revisit. We need simpler solutions to expand the userbase. Proxo is much more work than extensions.
"Double click the URL - shift or ctrl shift click the go to url. "
I am talking about non link text URLs, when you just highlight a bit of text that is a link, a term you want to search in a search engine, dictionary. This is all simple and works as I want it to in FF. But I just tried holding shift with the context does seem to get it in a new tab, but again a little more cumbersome.
I wish I didn't miss this Q&A. I used Opera for years, but after getting into Firefox at 1.0 I find it near impossible to go back. I keep installing both at new releases, but Opera invariable falls to the wayside in my usage.
The only cure I see is real encouragement of a plug-in/extension architecture. And a more consistent (with FF) rendering model.
I must have:
Flash block. I tried one of the suggested opera user scripts in the past and it failed. No flash block no Opera. It is that simple. By flashblock I mean the same functionality of the plug-in. Plays flash only when clicked. Domain white listing an optional nicety.
A bunch of little text utils that let me, launch text URLs in other tabs, launch a search in another tab, or a definition in another tab.
There are others, but these are just a sample of simple things they could do to get me back.
But there is one other problem. Rendering issues: I surf relentlessly and I got fed up with Operas different rendering, images often hide the text I am trying to read. It became too frustrating to deal with. Can't they try to emulate the Firefox rendering? Screw IE, but FF is now enough of a standard that it could be emulated. I think the alternate browsers should try to be consistent on rendering.
Also Opera doesn't work with my bank, which is also a pain.
The above is the kind of thing that makes users give up. I used Opera for years, but firefox just works with less frustration.
What I want in a browser.
I want a browser that lets me have a quiet no animation/no noise browse experience, but allows me to click to play the functionality I want when I deem I want it, not crammed down my throat when I don't.
I want simply convenience items to launch a search/web page/dictionary of highlighted text in another tab. Opera tends to overwrite the tab I am in.
I want the rendering to be clean enough that text is not obscured by images. I realize these are probably poor pages, that have some violation of some standard. The point is that is always going to happen. Opera needs to have the same handling of bad pages as firefox, because we are always going to have bad pages and most will be tested with firefox, but not Opera.
And of course I want compatibility. Firefox offers it good enough for me, IE only stuff gets ignored by me and it is becoming fewer sites these days. A more perfected Firefox emulation would be nice.
Bottom line, firefox is giving me what I want, even if I have to use plug-ins to do it. As a long time Opera user I see the slicker engine underpinning the browser and the built in power and elegance of many features, AND I WANT TO USE IT AGAIN, but I am missing simple critical things for my browsing experience.
Please Opera devs, pay attention to these things. If you lose longtime users such as myself, what are you chances of growing market share to an apreciable amount?
I agree. I meant that rather generically. Most of the time, my collection is played from my computer hard disk. My friends have a variety of players and some have HD players in their cars.
But I think the phenomena is very significant. My own modest collection always seemed wanting when played from individual disk, but once digitized and played on Random it seems abundant. I have lost the desire to even look for more music and the same phenomena seems to have engulfed others I know as well.
I am waiting to see how the RIAA will try to stop us from enjoying our music collections in this manner.
I have noticed a phenomena not mentioned. Once I ripped my collection, then weeded the collection of the songs I really didn't like, then I had a condensed collection of all my favorite music. Put it on random play and it is like my own private radio station.
On random I have enough music that I never get sick of my own collection.
The implication for me: I don't listen to music radio anymore, ever! Think about it, I don't actually hear new music anymore. I have all the music I need. This is what they really need to fear. I notice my friends doing the same as well.
I do think other factors are crap music, while others discount boycott, I have been on a 3+ year boycott of RIAA now and it will never end. I don't need any more music, so their near monopoly is now dead to me. If I encounter a new band in a small venue that I like, I could by their album straight from them, but the RIAA will never get another penny of my money.
RIAA has more to fear from the IPOD than from downloads. Big random play collections replace the need for new music once it reaches a critical mass.
Santana has the Suncomm protection referred to in this current slashdot article. While it is not a rootkit, it still more DRM crap with yet another security hole.
Corporations are sometimes their own worse enemy. It has gotten to the point that I feel safer downloading my music from complete strangers on the internet than buying it in a store.
The other farce in this fiasco is that these methods of protection are so easy to defeat that "anyone" who actually uploads music would not be slowed down for even a second.
So we have an extreme example of a rights denial system that penalizes in the extreme the clueless who never were going to upload anyway, and does nothing, not one iota, to stop uploaders.
Earth to idiots at corp HQ. Sony will feel the pain for years to come on this one. If I were an artist, I would be looking for a "no DRM" clause in my contracts when dealing with these morons.
Of course they could stop offering content without a paid login account. Or they could get de-indexed from google.
But no they don't want either of those. They realize google drives traffic (revenues) to their sites. All this is really about is asking for a handout. Google provides a free service that makes website owners money, but hey google makes money in the process, so whine and cry and maybe get a piece of that action as well.
Let us know when you are serious and want to opt out, until then quit the whining.
Meanwhile the rest of the world gets back to fighting to drive up their google rankings.
In my experience there are big dividends for colocation. In our last move our corporate brightlights decided to let people choose seating based on rank/seniority. So all the old timers/managers get the windows and everyone else is more or less randomly distributed. Talk about useless. Now you listen to conversations from people you don't actually work with.
Previously I shared a space with 3 other guys I worked with. There was constant communication asking about changes others had made. The rationale for x, When y would be checked in. No email, phone calls when no one was there. A much higher level of efficiency and everyone in the group had a handle on what everyone was doing. You need quiet, put on the headphones. But really this was the best work environment I had. Good teamates with a developing camaraderie. I would choose over a personal hardwall office.
Now I sit next to a bunch of people who don't share work with me. I have to track down teamates for discussion. Even worse now, is people in other countries. Telecommuting, yeah right. Sometimes you need to get to someones desk and talk F2F to get the results you need. Between countries they have a much easier time letting your requests slide. Management pays zero concern to colocation. This environment sucks. I would now prefer a private office.
I was long one of those geeks building my own computers, snorting derisively at the Mac price/power ratio...
But somewhere along the way my attitude changed and I am looking for something fresh. I am getting tired of sorting out MB conflicts, windows conflicts etc...
I have also come to the point where the power curve is really flattening. My many years old Athlon is still adequate in power for all my needs. Any PC I buy will likely last me many years now.
Everything is lining up now and buy a well packaged quiet little box that just works has very much appeal. Moving away from windows at the same time also is very sweet.
Heck even without PVR functionality I am there. I download most of my TV anyway. Just make sure it has digital Audio output this time. H264 1080p decoding would be nice, but I dont' expect that is likely. Other than that meeting my needs is a no brainer. Hacking a dual boot support for legacy Win2k should be doable as well I imagine. It will make the transition so much easier.
I really am confused about this standing in line to pay top dollar for bleeding edge buggy product. More money than brains?
Same goes for nutbars who camp out see the first showing of a movie. Hello, you can see it 12 times a day for the next 2 weeks.
I guess these are also your basic "first post" morons as well.
I might at some point once they have sorted out the bugs, dropped the price and have a good selection of games consider one of these machines, but it is nuts to buy into they hype of being one of the "first" million customers...
Slashdot Mirror
Because you are not making any sense. You seem to speak with some puritanical zeal, that if I want to switch I must suffer for it.
These are not cars, or different incompatible gaming systems. These are computers and dual booting is a relatively trivial matter and I have set up dual boots a number of times. Win98/Win2k initially when there were certain games that only worked on Win98. Win2k/Linux when I wanted to try out linux.
This is a perfectly logical way to make transitions easier. To somehow suggest you make the transition as painfull as possible is either zealotry or lunancy.
I have specific required bits of windows software, that I only use something like once/month, such as Garmin GPS software, that doesn't have a Mac equivalent. I require this software and there is no Mac equivalents. My choices are don't get a Mac or replace everything when I do which would more than double the cost of entry.
Booting into windows a couple of times/month until the day I replace all my legacy apps seems quite reasonable to me.
"Yes, I do expect you to ditch all of your old stuff."
Those are simply the words of a an absolutist zealot (or Troll). It is perfectly rational to make a transition in stages rather than throw out years of accumulated software. Some of it like my Garmin GPS software just doesn't run on Macs. I only use this software about 1/month on average, so it is hardly arduous to reboot for that. At some future date when I buy a new GPS, mac software will be a requirement. I could list others but I think it would make no difference to a trolling zealot.
Eventually when I no longer need dual booting then I can do without it, but it is not practical to simply "ditch all your old stuff". When in the interim I can get the best of both worlds.
So which way to the first full dual booting machine? Some hacking to get around Windows EFI issues to get a dual booting mac going, or full shipping OSX hacked to real functionality on Generic PC's?
Yeah I know OSX on generics has been done, but to keep the race fair lets make it official shipping OSX which is suppossed to be harder to hack.
Personally I am interested in a new dual booting machine and would prefer the windows on Mac option as that probably needs less hacking to get it to work and will likely be more stable.
I am a potential switcher(from windows). I have used windows for almost 10 years now. Do you just expect me to ditch all the programs/games etc from that period of time. It will take me years to replace all my utils/apps, I will never replace old classic games, I may still like to play, like Baldurs Gate 2, or Total Annihilation...
That is not too hard to grasp is it?
Now if you already use a Mac, of course you don't care, but as a potential Windows switcher, I care enough that I won't buy unless I can take my old software with me.
A: Clock for clock the G5 is faster than the Pentium 4 architecture, so you were told the truth.
B: Clock for clock the Pentium M based Core Duo chip is faster than the G5. So again the truth.
Mix in some marketing (aka exagerations) and you have your situation.
Statement A: was meaningless because the P4 architecture always ran at a much faster clock speed which made it faster in actual use. So Intel in practical terms has pretty much always been faster.
It helps to ignore marketing and think for yourself what you want.
I never bought a Mac before but I might get one this year becasue I like the new architecture. I am waiting on a new Mini. I hope it uses the new Core Duo and runs cool and quiet. I hope they aren't putting the core solo in the mini as I would have to keep waiting...
I have never had a failure on one of my archive disks going back to 1997. But I keep these in individual cases stored vertically etc...
Stuff that is not replacable (my personal photos) I burn on two different disk types. I always use high quality disks. Using Fuji TY dvd R+ right now. I believe DVD R disks are a bit more rugged than CD R.
My car disks live in my car in Ottawa Canada. Brutal humid hot summers, I have a set of CD-r in a visor holder. Most of these disks have been in the car for 5 straight years. When I park a disk in my player it often stays for a week at a time. My CD player ejects disks so hot you don't want to touch them. Here I have a few skippers, but each one that skips is also skratched to pieces. Either way. 5 years of torture and most are still fine. I don't think any skip that are not scratched up.
I feel pretty secure about my well cared for indoor disks lasting ten years. Though I will start moving my CD-R backups to DVD.
In ten years, terrabyte storage should be common and cheap.
Fully utilizing dvd quality is probably at the wall for the majority of people already.
Encumber it with draconian DRM and high prices and I don't really think BD/HD is going anywhere.
Long live DVD.
I suspect both HD-DVD and BD-DVD will be comercial failures just like SACD and DVD-A for similar reasons. HD-DVD and BD-DVD are the last gasps of locked to physical disk formats.
.mov .avi and codecs. You deliver on whatever storage medium you want. Downloads, Hard disks, HVD (holgraphic), whatever.
After this I think the time has past for disk based formats. I think Bill Gates (and I am no fan) was right on this one.
All we need are container classes for video like
Good link. What a mess is all I can say.
I still hold that interlacing should never have been part of the HD standard.
I read something on AVSforum that BD has 1080P mastering for it's disks, while BD has 1080i, but with proper flags.
Personally I would prefer the 1080p mastering. It keeps all interlacing issues in the disk mastering stage wether the original source was Video or Film. That would only leave frame rate issues to deal with.
To handle that it seems like multiscan rate display would be the ideal solution. 50Hz,60Hz and 72Hz would handle the common frame rates without judder.
Oh well maybe in another 5-10 years the next standard will be free of interlace and with well defined frame rates and compatible displays/players.
In the interim I will probably just get a PS3...
This may be the final nail in the HD-dvd coffin.
= 41
2006 is going to be the year of 1080p, the early adopters (read geeks with money) are going to prefer to run a true 1080p source into at true 1080p display. I know I won't by a new display until I know it supports 1080p.
It also looks like BD movies will be 1080p native. Not sure what the 720p/1080i implies about the movies for HD-DVD:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060104/law066.html?.v
In addition to 1920x1080p HD master quality, consumers will benefit from Blu-ray Disc's immense improvements over current DVD technology including enhanced menu navigation, increased added-value and new interactive capabilities.
And you can get a Sony PS3 for $500 that will have BD with 1080P. All vapor right now. The Pioneer deinterlacing was for DVD's not BD.
I don't know where you get the film source reference. Deinterlacing current DVD's still causes a bit of a mess in a lot of systems unless they have excellent deinterlacers, if it was merely a frame combine there wouldn't be an issue.
1080p is not just flicker reduction. It will remove all the jumpiness and motion artifacts that plague 1080i. Since most 1080 displays are native progressive all the 1080i signals are deinterlaced and produce artifacts in the process. These are almost inevitable as you can't simply combine 1080i frames as they are not from the same time and object will have moved between the two fields of the full frame. In short this is a mess.
1080P signal with 1080p monitor is the way to go. Another win for Blu Ray, though I hope both flop with their DRM (Draconion Restriction Managment).
"..to me it just doesn't matter that much, but I am in no way representative of the public at large..."
You are probably more representative than you know. This is not a VHS vs BETA type BATTLE.
This is DVD-A vs SACD vs CD type battle. Tell me who one that one DVD-A or SACD? CD of course.
Same formula, improve quality, add more DRM (Deny Rights Management) and they will beat a path to your door.
It does matter because most 1080i deinterlacing sucks. Interlacing should never have been in the standard. It is a hideous compromise that falls apart when fast motion happens. You can't simply merge the frames and show at half the rate because each half of the frame happens at a different time.
De-Interlacing is difficult enough that most 720p sets just throw out one field and upsize the remaining one...
If this is what they are doing, it presents a significant advantage for BD-rom as I saw 1080P as their standard and since only the lunatic fringe of early adopters is likely to buy they are going to want 1080p.
"I use proxomitron, I maintain an opera modded set at www.streamload.com/jp10558/public."
As a long time Opera user, proxomitron was in my arsenal for better user agent spoofing, but eventually I found this solution too cumbersome. I don't plan to revisit. We need simpler solutions to expand the userbase. Proxo is much more work than extensions.
"Double click the URL - shift or ctrl shift click the go to url. "
I am talking about non link text URLs, when you just highlight a bit of text that is a link, a term you want to search in a search engine, dictionary. This is all simple and works as I want it to in FF. But I just tried holding shift with the context does seem to get it in a new tab, but again a little more cumbersome.
I'll have a look again when 9 comes out.
I wish I didn't miss this Q&A. I used Opera for years, but after getting into Firefox at 1.0 I find it near impossible to go back. I keep installing both at new releases, but Opera invariable falls to the wayside in my usage.
The only cure I see is real encouragement of a plug-in/extension architecture. And a more consistent (with FF) rendering model.
I must have:
Flash block. I tried one of the suggested opera user scripts in the past and it failed. No flash block no Opera. It is that simple. By flashblock I mean the same functionality of the plug-in. Plays flash only when clicked. Domain white listing an optional nicety.
A bunch of little text utils that let me, launch text URLs in other tabs, launch a search in another tab, or a definition in another tab.
There are others, but these are just a sample of simple things they could do to get me back.
But there is one other problem. Rendering issues:
I surf relentlessly and I got fed up with Operas different rendering, images often hide the text I am trying to read. It became too frustrating to deal with. Can't they try to emulate the Firefox rendering? Screw IE, but FF is now enough of a standard that it could be emulated. I think the alternate browsers should try to be consistent on rendering.
Also Opera doesn't work with my bank, which is also a pain.
The above is the kind of thing that makes users give up. I used Opera for years, but firefox just works with less frustration.
What I want in a browser.
I want a browser that lets me have a quiet no animation/no noise browse experience, but allows me to click to play the functionality I want when I deem I want it, not crammed down my throat when I don't.
I want simply convenience items to launch a search/web page/dictionary of highlighted text in another tab. Opera tends to overwrite the tab I am in.
I want the rendering to be clean enough that text is not obscured by images. I realize these are probably poor pages, that have some violation of some standard. The point is that is always going to happen. Opera needs to have the same handling of bad pages as firefox, because we are always going to have bad pages and most will be tested with firefox, but not Opera.
And of course I want compatibility. Firefox offers it good enough for me, IE only stuff gets ignored by me and it is becoming fewer sites these days. A more perfected Firefox emulation would be nice.
Bottom line, firefox is giving me what I want, even if I have to use plug-ins to do it. As a long time Opera user I see the slicker engine underpinning the browser and the built in power and elegance of many features, AND I WANT TO USE IT AGAIN, but I am missing simple critical things for my browsing experience.
Please Opera devs, pay attention to these things. If you lose longtime users such as myself, what are you chances of growing market share to an apreciable amount?
I agree. I meant that rather generically. Most of the time, my collection is played from my computer hard disk. My friends have a variety of players and some have HD players in their cars.
But I think the phenomena is very significant. My own modest collection always seemed wanting when played from individual disk, but once digitized and played on Random it seems abundant. I have lost the desire to even look for more music and the same phenomena seems to have engulfed others I know as well.
I am waiting to see how the RIAA will try to stop us from enjoying our music collections in this manner.
I have noticed a phenomena not mentioned. Once I ripped my collection, then weeded the collection of the songs I really didn't like, then I had a condensed collection of all my favorite music. Put it on random play and it is like my own private radio station.
On random I have enough music that I never get sick of my own collection.
The implication for me: I don't listen to music radio anymore, ever! Think about it, I don't actually hear new music anymore. I have all the music I need. This is what they really need to fear. I notice my friends doing the same as well.
I do think other factors are crap music, while others discount boycott, I have been on a 3+ year boycott of RIAA now and it will never end. I don't need any more music, so their near monopoly is now dead to me. If I encounter a new band in a small venue that I like, I could by their album straight from them, but the RIAA will never get another penny of my money.
RIAA has more to fear from the IPOD than from downloads. Big random play collections replace the need for new music once it reaches a critical mass.
Santana has the Suncomm protection referred to in this current slashdot article. While it is not a rootkit, it still more DRM crap with yet another security hole.
Corporations are sometimes their own worse enemy. It has gotten to the point that I feel safer downloading my music from complete strangers on the internet than buying it in a store.
The other farce in this fiasco is that these methods of protection are so easy to defeat that "anyone" who actually uploads music would not be slowed down for even a second.
So we have an extreme example of a rights denial system that penalizes in the extreme the clueless who never were going to upload anyway, and does nothing, not one iota, to stop uploaders.
Earth to idiots at corp HQ. Sony will feel the pain for years to come on this one. If I were an artist, I would be looking for a "no DRM" clause in my contracts when dealing with these morons.
Of course they could stop offering content without a paid login account. Or they could get de-indexed from google.
But no they don't want either of those. They realize google drives traffic (revenues) to their sites. All this is really about is asking for a handout. Google provides a free service that makes website owners money, but hey google makes money in the process, so whine and cry and maybe get a piece of that action as well.
Let us know when you are serious and want to opt out, until then quit the whining.
Meanwhile the rest of the world gets back to fighting to drive up their google rankings.
In my experience there are big dividends for colocation. In our last move our corporate brightlights decided to let people choose seating based on rank/seniority. So all the old timers/managers get the windows and everyone else is more or less randomly distributed. Talk about useless. Now you listen to conversations from people you don't actually work with.
Previously I shared a space with 3 other guys I worked with. There was constant communication asking about changes others had made. The rationale for x, When y would be checked in. No email, phone calls when no one was there. A much higher level of efficiency and everyone in the group had a handle on what everyone was doing. You need quiet, put on the headphones. But really this was the best work environment I had. Good teamates with a developing camaraderie. I would choose over a personal hardwall office.
Now I sit next to a bunch of people who don't share work with me. I have to track down teamates for discussion. Even worse now, is people in other countries. Telecommuting, yeah right. Sometimes you need to get to someones desk and talk F2F to get the results you need. Between countries they have a much easier time letting your requests slide. Management pays zero concern to colocation. This environment sucks. I would now prefer a private office.
I was long one of those geeks building my own computers, snorting derisively at the Mac price/power ratio...
But somewhere along the way my attitude changed and I am looking for something fresh. I am getting tired of sorting out MB conflicts, windows conflicts etc...
I have also come to the point where the power curve is really flattening. My many years old Athlon is still adequate in power for all my needs. Any PC I buy will likely last me many years now.
Everything is lining up now and buy a well packaged quiet little box that just works has very much appeal. Moving away from windows at the same time also is very sweet.
Heck even without PVR functionality I am there. I download most of my TV anyway. Just make sure it has digital Audio output this time. H264 1080p decoding would be nice, but I dont' expect that is likely. Other than that meeting my needs is a no brainer. Hacking a dual boot support for legacy Win2k should be doable as well I imagine. It will make the transition so much easier.
Really looking forward to this...
I really am confused about this standing in line to pay top dollar for bleeding edge buggy product. More money than brains?
Same goes for nutbars who camp out see the first showing of a movie. Hello, you can see it 12 times a day for the next 2 weeks.
I guess these are also your basic "first post" morons as well.
I might at some point once they have sorted out the bugs, dropped the price and have a good selection of games consider one of these machines, but it is nuts to buy into they hype of being one of the "first" million customers...