Indeed, why is it always USA as the target for criticism? Can't everybody sneer at Finland instead? Over here we are very jealous and would like some extra attention.
And please consider a holiday in Finland instead of Sweden.
The funniest part is, everybody (browsing at less than 1600x1200) now has to scroll sideways all the time because all unbroken text just goes on and on to the right...
But the conversation was enjoyable to watch. Calm, rational explanations against semi-desperate trolling. The troll's attempts at an "elevated" style towards the end were the real kicker -- I fell of my chair laughing. Can we have some more? (If the troll player did that on purpose, it's some of the best forum acting I've ever seen. If not, um, nevermind. Which was it?)
Well, maybe we all better go now. Never been so far right before. Downright scary;-)
Hey, there can still be some quality spectator fun in IBM's counter-suit against SCO. (Remember, the four patents that cover just about every product SCO has -- the elegance of it!) I just hope that IBM stays sufficiently pissed off to go all the way with it, and/or regards it good and necessary PR towards the Linux community...
Good point, but once you take it off USB and put it closer to the motherboard, you can use much faster buses, and many parallel memory (channels and) banks to speed things up. Imagine a SATA connection to a "drive" with a RAID controller that stripes the data to 8 or more flash chips; could be pretty good already.
For me, the only flaw in the iPod is the lack of recording. Personally I would have use for hi-fi recording via an external microphone (to capture jam sessions of our band and such stuff -- I'd buy the iPod if it had this; now I get by with a MiniDisc unit which is a far cry from the versatility and PC integration). I guess many users would have use for lo-fi recording via an integrated mike, to use the iPod for a dictaphone. This (these) shouldn't cost much to add...
For some reason which I find difficult to fathom, "Suroman" brought to me a crystal clear mental image of a sumo wrestler. I wonder if there's actually been one by that name... (No, not in the book.)
Laymen (and moderators...), please note that the Wikipedia explanation is much more useful than the TechTarget version: the latter oversimplifies (the geiger trigger into just a poison vial), losing the essential microscopic-macroscopic connection.
But then Microsoft has to pay for and put another console on the shelf, because now there's an empty slot;)
(I believe they still less at a slight loss; I'd have to check this though. I don't think the arbitration with Nvidia helped much because retail prices have dropped much more. At least at the local Koneveljet...)
Agree about perceived market share, but it doesn't increase revenues.
Then again, Splinter Cell is very PCish game, relying heavily on pixel shaders and large textures. Arguably it's not the kind of game that PS2 was designed for, which I guess would be something with lots of small untextured polygons, funky particles, light effects and just weird unorthodox hacks;-)
Undeniably Xbox has immense geometry and light power; PS2 is showing its age. But possibly Splinter Cell is one of the least favourable comparos for PS2. (But I don't know what would offer a "neutral" comparison. And I don't own any of these consoles. Real men play with a mouse.)
You mean the "selling commodity hardware" business. They are very much going into the "commodity hardware subcontractor" business (next Nvidia chips, etc.). They'll remain in the "selling high-end hardware" business -- watch out for the Power5 Regattas. Maybe some laptops too.
Correct that they want to expand their Support and Services businesses. (Well, in Services they're global already, but they'll want to eat competitors or form new partnerships, and expand into total corporate solutions -- I won't be surprised when we see IBM Accounting, IBM Marketing, IBM Advertising, IBM Organising Entire Industries Into Worldwide Megacorporations, IBM Running An Efficient Government, and other business related services...) [Okay, I *was* joking with the last ones...]
IBM wants to be just a contract fabber in the low margin beige box PC market. What kind of third party vendors are you thinking of? Mac clones? PowerPC Linux machines? How could IBM "enable" those kind of vendors to even surface, let alone succeed (well enough to warrant any effort from IBM) in a market with Windows, x86 Linux and Apple machines already -- what's the magic recipe?:)
I do agree with your idea of Microsoft's reason for going PPC. The small increase in developer learning curve is probably more than worth the decrease in hacking (and piracy).
First off, I'm inclined to agree with you about the announcement.
However, IBM is manufacturing (soon at least) graphics chips for Nvidia, and has designed and manufactured their own in the past (the GT1000 and RC1000 chips in the Diamond-era Fire GL cards, before ATI took over the Fire GL team and brand), so graphics chips is at least familiar ground if not the forte to IBM... And ATI likely won't be manufacturing the XGPU2, they'll be just designing it for MS, who then decides on the fabber...
Regardless, I do think this announcement is CPU related. And I think IBM's Cell/Grid biz with Sony and Toshiba doesn't really clash here -- the projects and the concepts involved are just too different.
It's an interesting scene! Just when the prev gen had everybody so neatly camped;-)
Developers care. They don't necessarily care about backward compatibility, but they care about an architecture that's already intimately familiar to them.
Then again, it won't be too difficult to get going in the PPC world. Lots of stuff and learning help already available.
Overall, for them, it's ultimately not about how good the architecture is, it's how good *they* are in it! (Or how soon they'll get good enough.)
Learning curve is what delayed PS2 titles. Luckily there was ample time before Xbox and GC.
As an aside, maybe you dismissed the "common x86 arch" benefit too easily. Xbox games aren't PC compatible, but they are the easiest to port to PC, and that saves time and money for a dev house (wanting the PC slice of the pie too). And both are crucial resources, of course.
Just an idea that popped into mind: maybe MS is *willing* to trade development ease for piracy difficulty.
Maybe now that MS is an established player in the console scene they'll have easier time getting developers (they already have secured exclusive houses) even if the learning involves more than the previous small x86-PC to x86-Xbox step. And PPC is a well established architecture (mature, documented, lots of libraries, etc.) after all -- compare to PS2 at launch.
(And maybe even more of the game code is offloaded into the DX9/DX10 pipeline; geometry-related physics like deformation and collision detection may move completely to vertex shaders from CPU code. But this is probably a minor factor here.)
So, assuming that the move to PPC doesn't make the learning curve too steep, and assuming that MS currently loses billions or at least millions to games piracy, maybe it's worth their while to make the platform more alien to all the x86 hackers out there. (I hope I didn't alienate the hordes of PPC hackers now...) I mean, maybe the x86 compatibility has turned from a benefit into a burden for MS?
[Pardon my burst of unorganised thoughts written in a hurry; hope this is at least legible if not terribly thought-provoking. Off to lunch...]
Slashdot Mirror
It's simple. Pirates say "aaarrrgghh!!!". At least that's what the Monty Python documentary on piracy reported...
Indeed, why is it always USA as the target for criticism? Can't everybody sneer at Finland instead? Over here we are very jealous and would like some extra attention.
And please consider a holiday in Finland instead of Sweden.
In Britain the weather channel might just as well send static all day.
"Oh, rain today. No, fog, after all. Blimey."
I fell of my chair laughing at the mental image of that. Thanks, you made my day :)
The funniest part is, everybody (browsing at less than 1600x1200) now has to scroll sideways all the time because all unbroken text just goes on and on to the right...
;-)
But the conversation was enjoyable to watch. Calm, rational explanations against semi-desperate trolling. The troll's attempts at an "elevated" style towards the end were the real kicker -- I fell of my chair laughing. Can we have some more? (If the troll player did that on purpose, it's some of the best forum acting I've ever seen. If not, um, nevermind. Which was it?)
Well, maybe we all better go now. Never been so far right before. Downright scary
Word! (Mod parent up!)
... technilogical ... re-estiblashing ...
Looks like something could be done about linguistical superiority too.
Thanks for telling me! I didn't know about this option. Definitely worth considering.
;-)
Damn that it has to be a Belkin, though. Maybe I'll find alternatives. (Seen today's later headlines?
I have a bad feeling ...
Hey, there can still be some quality spectator fun in IBM's counter-suit against SCO. (Remember, the four patents that cover just about every product SCO has -- the elegance of it!) I just hope that IBM stays sufficiently pissed off to go all the way with it, and/or regards it good and necessary PR towards the Linux community...
Good point, but once you take it off USB and put it closer to the motherboard, you can use much faster buses, and many parallel memory (channels and) banks to speed things up. Imagine a SATA connection to a "drive" with a RAID controller that stripes the data to 8 or more flash chips; could be pretty good already.
I agree with your comment on the article.
For me, the only flaw in the iPod is the lack of recording. Personally I would have use for hi-fi recording via an external microphone (to capture jam sessions of our band and such stuff -- I'd buy the iPod if it had this; now I get by with a MiniDisc unit which is a far cry from the versatility and PC integration). I guess many users would have use for lo-fi recording via an integrated mike, to use the iPod for a dictaphone. This (these) shouldn't cost much to add...
For some reason which I find difficult to fathom, "Suroman" brought to me a crystal clear mental image of a sumo wrestler. I wonder if there's actually been one by that name... (No, not in the book.)
The I comes from Iesus, IIRC. (No, it's not in "IIRC".)
Yes, to quote El Reg, the "console-cum-phone".
X-ray googles
Whoa, those kind of Googles truly find everything!
I guess the cat is out of the bag,
No, not bag. Box.
Hrmmpf. Nobody seems to read the articles any more...
Laymen (and moderators...), please note that the Wikipedia explanation is much more useful than the TechTarget version: the latter oversimplifies (the geiger trigger into just a poison vial), losing the essential microscopic-macroscopic connection.
But then Microsoft has to pay for and put another console on the shelf, because now there's an empty slot ;)
(I believe they still less at a slight loss; I'd have to check this though. I don't think the arbitration with Nvidia helped much because retail prices have dropped much more. At least at the local Koneveljet...)
Agree about perceived market share, but it doesn't increase revenues.
Then again, Splinter Cell is very PCish game, relying heavily on pixel shaders and large textures. Arguably it's not the kind of game that PS2 was designed for, which I guess would be something with lots of small untextured polygons, funky particles, light effects and just weird unorthodox hacks ;-)
Undeniably Xbox has immense geometry and light power; PS2 is showing its age. But possibly Splinter Cell is one of the least favourable comparos for PS2. (But I don't know what would offer a "neutral" comparison. And I don't own any of these consoles. Real men play with a mouse.)
You mean the "selling commodity hardware" business. They are very much going into the "commodity hardware subcontractor" business (next Nvidia chips, etc.). They'll remain in the "selling high-end hardware" business -- watch out for the Power5 Regattas. Maybe some laptops too.
Correct that they want to expand their Support and Services businesses. (Well, in Services they're global already, but they'll want to eat competitors or form new partnerships, and expand into total corporate solutions -- I won't be surprised when we see IBM Accounting, IBM Marketing, IBM Advertising, IBM Organising Entire Industries Into Worldwide Megacorporations, IBM Running An Efficient Government, and other business related services...) [Okay, I *was* joking with the last ones...]
They still are. IBM may end up designing or at least fabbing CPUs for all three (PS3, XB2, GC2), no problem.
Amazed?
:)
IBM wants to be just a contract fabber in the low margin beige box PC market. What kind of third party vendors are you thinking of? Mac clones? PowerPC Linux machines? How could IBM "enable" those kind of vendors to even surface, let alone succeed (well enough to warrant any effort from IBM) in a market with Windows, x86 Linux and Apple machines already -- what's the magic recipe?
I do agree with your idea of Microsoft's reason for going PPC. The small increase in developer learning curve is probably more than worth the decrease in hacking (and piracy).
First off, I'm inclined to agree with you about the announcement.
;-)
However, IBM is manufacturing (soon at least) graphics chips for Nvidia, and has designed and manufactured their own in the past (the GT1000 and RC1000 chips in the Diamond-era Fire GL cards, before ATI took over the Fire GL team and brand), so graphics chips is at least familiar ground if not the forte to IBM... And ATI likely won't be manufacturing the XGPU2, they'll be just designing it for MS, who then decides on the fabber...
Regardless, I do think this announcement is CPU related. And I think IBM's Cell/Grid biz with Sony and Toshiba doesn't really clash here -- the projects and the concepts involved are just too different.
It's an interesting scene! Just when the prev gen had everybody so neatly camped
Developers care. They don't necessarily care about backward compatibility, but they care about an architecture that's already intimately familiar to them.
Then again, it won't be too difficult to get going in the PPC world. Lots of stuff and learning help already available.
Overall, for them, it's ultimately not about how good the architecture is, it's how good *they* are in it! (Or how soon they'll get good enough.)
Learning curve is what delayed PS2 titles. Luckily there was ample time before Xbox and GC.
As an aside, maybe you dismissed the "common x86 arch" benefit too easily. Xbox games aren't PC compatible, but they are the easiest to port to PC, and that saves time and money for a dev house (wanting the PC slice of the pie too). And both are crucial resources, of course.
Just an idea that popped into mind: maybe MS is *willing* to trade development ease for piracy difficulty.
Maybe now that MS is an established player in the console scene they'll have easier time getting developers (they already have secured exclusive houses) even if the learning involves more than the previous small x86-PC to x86-Xbox step. And PPC is a well established architecture (mature, documented, lots of libraries, etc.) after all -- compare to PS2 at launch.
(And maybe even more of the game code is offloaded into the DX9/DX10 pipeline; geometry-related physics like deformation and collision detection may move completely to vertex shaders from CPU code. But this is probably a minor factor here.)
So, assuming that the move to PPC doesn't make the learning curve too steep, and assuming that MS currently loses billions or at least millions to games piracy, maybe it's worth their while to make the platform more alien to all the x86 hackers out there. (I hope I didn't alienate the hordes of PPC hackers now...) I mean, maybe the x86 compatibility has turned from a benefit into a burden for MS?
[Pardon my burst of unorganised thoughts written in a hurry; hope this is at least legible if not terribly thought-provoking. Off to lunch...]