Obselence is a matter of perception, not a matter of logic.
Of course it is, I agree. And it's the perception of the industry as a whole that must be changed for something as changing as a new architecture to be accepted. I mean, think about this: A new architecture? We're not talking about a new OS, a new piece of hardware, or something like that...we're talking about redefining the way programmers and engineers THINK. That is a VERY tall order to fill and to market to those who have grown up with x86 and have their minds literally soaked in it.
It's like losing your religion and getting a new one. Note to Self: Call R.E.M.
From the hang-on-and-we'll-get-you-out-of-there dept.:
I believe it is generally understood that the x86 architecture is not the most superb set of instructions and such that we could get. RISC obviously has much value, the newer embedded systems and such will become more and more the wave of things to come. However, it's going to take some time. Here's what must happen before a new standard (whatever that is) is accepted:
Companies must stop supporting old architectures, regardless of the reaction of consumers.
Old hardware must die off, either broken or unable to run with any usefulness. My hobby is collecting vintage machines and making them run and do useful tasks. If I couldn't get them to run, I wouldn't use them. Period.
Major business and educational software must be written primarily for those new architectures. You want Linux to be god? So do I. However, until most packages write their software for Linux, it won't happen. If things were written for the Amiga, I'd have an Amiga. Since things are mostly written for Win32, I have a Winblows box. (not that I enjoy the pain, you realize)
Hype has to be mutated into standard. Sure, we all love to play with 1GHz Athlons, but are they standard yet? Hardly. Similar with other architectures. When a 64-bit processor becomes standard and not "the newest thing on the block since swiss cheese", it'll happen.
Computer industry professionals (techies) and computer savvy people (geeks) must promote these new and alternate technologies. Break the mold. Go 64-bit. Recommend that your neighbor do it, too. Send a memo to your boss, tell them to convert. Until we push for this to happen, it won't.
In conclusion, this change will happen. When is a matter of many factors, including the ones above.
What is REALLY Behind it All
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
You know, I don't honestly think that anyone has grasped the true nature of the beast, here. Yeah, sure, I think it has a lot to do with privacy, piracy, and people like the RIAA just being general dorks. However, I think that there is a very clear economic struggle here, fueling this movement.
Why do you have MP3s? Any of you who has some, <i>why</i> do you have them? Do you have full albums? Unlikely. The more likely scenario is that you have what you consider to be the "best" songs from each of the artists you listen to and unless you have a favorite artist, you don't have all of the songs from any one album. (soundtracks respectfully excluded) Here we have a medium that allows us to pick the songs we want, <i>individually</i>, without spending $15 for a whole album when we only want one or two of the tracks. HELL! This is a great deal! I think it's awesome, I can listen to hours and hours of music without listening to anything but good music (defined in my own terms, of course.) <br><br> I think the RIAA and others are missing this point. The development of the digital music format has promoted people choosing what they want, not what they have to buy. Customization! Flexibility! Linux! Need I say more? <br><br> To <i>really</i> market to these people, the artists and record companies need to embrace this ideal and offer custom CDs or more singles. Would I buy a single CD of a good song instead of just getting the MP3? Heck, yeah. Better quality, etc., and I can still rip it if I want. I just don't right now because I have to pay $15 for songs I don't want. Long live the freedom of <b>CHOICE</b>.
Slashdot Mirror
Obselence is a matter of perception, not a matter of logic.
Of course it is, I agree. And it's the perception of the industry as a whole that must be changed for something as changing as a new architecture to be accepted. I mean, think about this: A new architecture? We're not talking about a new OS, a new piece of hardware, or something like that...we're talking about redefining the way programmers and engineers THINK. That is a VERY tall order to fill and to market to those who have grown up with x86 and have their minds literally soaked in it.
It's like losing your religion and getting a new one. Note to Self: Call R.E.M.
I believe it is generally understood that the x86 architecture is not the most superb set of instructions and such that we could get. RISC obviously has much value, the newer embedded systems and such will become more and more the wave of things to come. However, it's going to take some time. Here's what must happen before a new standard (whatever that is) is accepted:
- Companies must stop supporting old architectures, regardless of the reaction of consumers.
- Old hardware must die off, either broken or unable to run with any usefulness. My hobby is collecting vintage machines and making them run and do useful tasks. If I couldn't get them to run, I wouldn't use them. Period.
- Major business and educational software must be written primarily for those new architectures. You want Linux to be god? So do I. However, until most packages write their software for Linux, it won't happen. If things were written for the Amiga, I'd have an Amiga. Since things are mostly written for Win32, I have a Winblows box. (not that I enjoy the pain, you realize)
- Hype has to be mutated into standard. Sure, we all love to play with 1GHz Athlons, but are they standard yet? Hardly. Similar with other architectures. When a 64-bit processor becomes standard and not "the newest thing on the block since swiss cheese", it'll happen.
- Computer industry professionals (techies) and computer savvy people (geeks) must promote these new and alternate technologies. Break the mold. Go 64-bit. Recommend that your neighbor do it, too. Send a memo to your boss, tell them to convert. Until we push for this to happen, it won't.
In conclusion, this change will happen. When is a matter of many factors, including the ones above.You know, I don't honestly think that anyone has grasped the true nature of the beast, here. Yeah, sure, I think it has a lot to do with privacy, piracy, and people like the RIAA just being general dorks. However, I think that there is a very clear economic struggle here, fueling this movement.
Why do you have MP3s? Any of you who has some, <i>why</i> do you have them? Do you have full albums? Unlikely. The more likely scenario is that you have what you consider to be the "best" songs from each of the artists you listen to and unless you have a favorite artist, you don't have all of the songs from any one album. (soundtracks respectfully excluded) Here we have a medium that allows us to pick the songs we want, <i>individually</i>, without spending $15 for a whole album when we only want one or two of the tracks. HELL! This is a great deal! I think it's awesome, I can listen to hours and hours of music without listening to anything but good music (defined in my own terms, of course.) <br><br>
I think the RIAA and others are missing this point. The development of the digital music format has promoted people choosing what they want, not what they have to buy. Customization! Flexibility! Linux! Need I say more? <br><br>
To <i>really</i> market to these people, the artists and record companies need to embrace this ideal and offer custom CDs or more singles. Would I buy a single CD of a good song instead of just getting the MP3? Heck, yeah. Better quality, etc., and I can still rip it if I want. I just don't right now because I have to pay $15 for songs I don't want. Long live the freedom of <b>CHOICE</b>.