What an absurd statement. Most living rooms where?
Most living rooms are in houses that don't have cable modems or DSL so it's safe to say you are way off. The idea that your living room stereo is also a convenient location for your internet access and your AP is riculuous even for those with broadband. Homes not built recently don't have telephone wiring near the TV at all and many don't have cable there either. You might want to become more familiar with real estate.
This would not be the AP product I would buy for use with my wired network. I don't want a small device with no external antenna that plugs directly into the wall at outlet height. It is not the music interface to my stereo since it requires streaming (from iTunes no less). I wouldn't waant it as a print server either. Fact is, there's nothing about this device that's really desirable or best of breed. Perfect for mac users.
I don't think most people want to use a computer in order to play music through their stereo. Other devices don't require a PC to stream audio in order to work.
Apple may have an audience for this device but I think "sell like crazy" is a big stretch.
You don't have to look to hard to find FS rantings. Just look at the FSF's pompous, obtuse description of the difference between FS and OS or RMS's silly rant on why Linux must be called GNU/Linux. I don't recall anywhere in the GPL where it says that RMS reserves the right to approve of the name of your product. RMS is called a kook because he is one.
Perhaps the thousands of rants targeted at RMS are simply reasonable observations or your perception of imbalance reflects your own biases on the issues. One thing's for certain, your characterization of FS contributors as "serious" as opposed to OS "hobbiests" is absurd. I wouldn't characterize BSD contributors as any less serious than GNU people. I would say, though, that they feel their OS license should not be burdened with a political agenda. Quite the contrary, I think many that most support the concept of the GPL are ones who don't contribute at all but like the idea of a license that burdens future software with RMS's personal idealisms.
Same has been said for PCI, AGP and SATA. In time, PCIe will be appreciated. Good thing Intel sets the standard again. Anyone remember PCI versus VL bus?
I have no idea what "true digital mode" is either. HDV is certainly compressed as uncompressed HD is huge. I don't think anyone will be doing uncompressed video of any type on a single 1.8" hard drive.
Of course, cooking your own meals doesn't necessarily address your health concerns.
The most important investment in your own health is "your own health". Cooking your own meals isn't necessarily required to accomplish that but a good understanding of diet is. Eating well is possible while eating out just as eating poorly is possible while eating in.
Yes, exactly! It's possible, though, to gang multiple smaller devices plus you save costs on the tape transport. Still I think it's crazy until the price gets much closer.
Each pixel has 12 bits of data and lossless compression is used. Most cameras use monochromatic sensors and color filters. In this case the raw files do not contain full color pixels.
12GB is roughly the same capacity as a 60 minute DV tape. Digital video lends itself quite well to tape storage, though, and the cost of using flash for that just can't be justified using the current numbers. Seems to me that 1.8" hard drives would be a better choice and would be more cost comparable to a tape plus the tape mechanism.
Plenty of people do. If it isn't immediately obvious what higher resolution is for then no amount of explaining it is going to help.
Cameras don't produce "1gig pictures" either, nor would such a camera be the target market for this device. Anything that produced data at that rate would be using very different storage than CF.
The purpose of such a large card is to enable shooting of an incredible number of images between card changes, probably in environments where card charges are difficult or "expensive". Uploading afterward will take the same amount of time for a given amount of data whether it comes from 1 card or 6 cards.
I hope it's clear now that everything you've said is irrelevant.
Those photographers don't need the huge capacity though. They take moderate resolution images and generally shoot JPG. The current 2GB flash cards hold a lot of those images already.
It'll be a long time before there's a 100x increase in file sizes in digital cameras. Kodak's 14MP cameras produce RAW images that are closer to 10MB each.
Clearly this product is meant for photographers who don't pay for their own equipment.
IBM developed PowerPC, not Moto and not Apple. Moto was brought on because Apple and others required a second source for the processors. Moto never developed a satisfactory development capability for PPC as witnessed by the G3/G4 being direct decendents of the original IBM 603/604 designs. Eventually Apple had to switch to IBM because Moto couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up.
802.11 was not designed by Apple at all. They were early integrators, that's all. There were plenty of pre-802.11 providers in the market and the standards evolved from them.
Firewire was a failed development within Apple that originally developed as an interprocessor communications bus. Apple abonadoned it and Sony picked it up for their new digital video interface. Frankly, Sony did far more for IEEE-1394 than Apple did. Apple owns the firewire name, though. If it weren't for Sony there would be no firewire at all. If it weren't for Apple, we'd have firewire but it might look different. So who was more important?
Dell was the original developer of the SIMM/DIMM. I believe you'll find those in Apple machines.
Frankly, I don't see Apple as an innovator of hardware any more than Dell is. They do their own software but that's another matter. They have nice industrial design and a great hype machine, but as a hardware company there just another box vendor (except with pretty boxes).
Dell is THE true first tier company. They must be considered first and foremost regardless of your personal preferences. None of their competitors would agree with you although they may be pleased to hear such naive opinions exist.
Your observation that HP or IBM would never ship a RAID problem like you claim Dell has is also ridiculous. For quite a while, IBM owned Mylex, the industries worst quality manufacturer and supplier of the most aggregious RAID bugs that ever existed. IBM and HP have both integrated Mylex's crap, as has Dell. Dell is no different than any of the major vendors is this respect.
Dell appeals to large account customers because it has figured out how to make them happier that HP/IBM. Part of that may be price but not too much. Prices differences aren't that great, as you pointed out, and Dell is hardly considered the lowest cost supplier.
Crediting Apple as a co-developer of PowerPC (and Moto, too) is exceedingly generous. PowerPC was done entirely by IBM and provided to Moto as a second source so that Apple could use it. Apple contributed squat and Moto never did develop sufficient competence to be competitive. In the end, Apple had to return to IBM to be bailed out. IBM integrated the SIMD instruction set Moto did for Cisco, not Apple, into a Power4 processor and produced the 970. Now there isn't even a pretense that Apple isn't dependent on IBM processor tech. From a hardware perspective, Apple is just as much a shipper of other's technology as Dell is.
This is exactly right, and when you look closely you'll find that Dell works more with Intel than other major partners. It's an incorrect judgement to say that innovation is dead or that Dell doesn't do any. It's just done differently that poeple may expect.
Intel desires to lead the industry in innovation and Dell likes it that way. There's quite a bit of Intel and AMD tech in Apple's boxes, you know.
...and Dell would dispatch them as quickly as they have in the past. A market wil little or no innovation plays right into Dell's hands and they would not be motivated to innovate themselves at all!
Dell is very much aware of others trying to "out-Dell" them and they work hard to keep the knife sharp. Compaq tried to copy their business model but it was too little, too late.
Dell innovates plenty BTW, just not in areas geeks see or understand. They developed full custom manufacturing when no one else was doing it. They cut the total days of inventory to an absolute minimum and pushed their debt/collection balance hugely in their favor. There are big reasons why Dell is so profitable is an industry where competitors struggle and the characterization here that they are nothing but copiers is inaccurate. Dell doesn't concern itself with its image among/. readers. It's focused on entirely different issues related to customers much different from us. Dell internally is arguably unaware of any image as a copier at all and they could care less. At the end of the day, Apple and HP would love to have Dell's productivity and profitability. Don't kid yourselves.
Another thing, Dell doesn't concern itself in any way with Apple. They are essentially unknown and irrelevent to Dell.
Dell is in the printer business solely because its HP's bread and butter. Dell desires to drive the profitability out of the most lucrative businesses of its rivals. That's what they did to Compaq with servers and look where they are now.
There's certainly plenty of evidence that diet and exercise, when chosen poorly, can contribute to shortening your life though. Curious that you see an imaginary pill as the way to go when a good diet and exercise is so clearly beneficial (and is here now).
Slashdot Mirror
What an absurd statement. Most living rooms where?
Most living rooms are in houses that don't have cable modems or DSL so it's safe to say you are way off. The idea that your living room stereo is also a convenient location for your internet access and your AP is riculuous even for those with broadband. Homes not built recently don't have telephone wiring near the TV at all and many don't have cable there either. You might want to become more familiar with real estate.
This would not be the AP product I would buy for use with my wired network. I don't want a small device with no external antenna that plugs directly into the wall at outlet height. It is not the music interface to my stereo since it requires streaming (from iTunes no less). I wouldn't waant it as a print server either. Fact is, there's nothing about this device that's really desirable or best of breed. Perfect for mac users.
I don't think most people want to use a computer in order to play music through their stereo. Other devices don't require a PC to stream audio in order to work.
Apple may have an audience for this device but I think "sell like crazy" is a big stretch.
I think he enumerated precisely what the big deal is with his specific complaints. Besides, iTunes sucks.
You don't have to look to hard to find FS rantings. Just look at the FSF's pompous, obtuse description of the difference between FS and OS or RMS's silly rant on why Linux must be called GNU/Linux. I don't recall anywhere in the GPL where it says that RMS reserves the right to approve of the name of your product. RMS is called a kook because he is one.
Perhaps the thousands of rants targeted at RMS are simply reasonable observations or your perception of imbalance reflects your own biases on the issues. One thing's for certain, your characterization of FS contributors as "serious" as opposed to OS "hobbiests" is absurd. I wouldn't characterize BSD contributors as any less serious than GNU people. I would say, though, that they feel their OS license should not be burdened with a political agenda. Quite the contrary, I think many that most support the concept of the GPL are ones who don't contribute at all but like the idea of a license that burdens future software with RMS's personal idealisms.
Same has been said for PCI, AGP and SATA. In time, PCIe will be appreciated. Good thing Intel sets the standard again. Anyone remember PCI versus VL bus?
I have no idea what "true digital mode" is either. HDV is certainly compressed as uncompressed HD is huge. I don't think anyone will be doing uncompressed video of any type on a single 1.8" hard drive.
HDV is HiDef and records at DV data rates. Same with DVHS. 40GB would be over 3 hours.
The only way to make ramen noodles healthy is to remove the noodles. Talk about eating crap...
Not one healthy suggestion in the bunch. I wouldn't touch one of these things.
And to think this is offered in the context of healthy alternatives to TV dinners!
Of course, cooking your own meals doesn't necessarily address your health concerns.
The most important investment in your own health is "your own health". Cooking your own meals isn't necessarily required to accomplish that but a good understanding of diet is. Eating well is possible while eating out just as eating poorly is possible while eating in.
$15 on a fast food meal???
Scratch the potatoes and desert, too.
Yes, exactly! It's possible, though, to gang multiple smaller devices plus you save costs on the tape transport. Still I think it's crazy until the price gets much closer.
Each pixel has 12 bits of data and lossless compression is used. Most cameras use monochromatic sensors and color filters. In this case the raw files do not contain full color pixels.
12GB is roughly the same capacity as a 60 minute DV tape. Digital video lends itself quite well to tape storage, though, and the cost of using flash for that just can't be justified using the current numbers. Seems to me that 1.8" hard drives would be a better choice and would be more cost comparable to a tape plus the tape mechanism.
Plenty of people do. If it isn't immediately obvious what higher resolution is for then no amount of explaining it is going to help.
Cameras don't produce "1gig pictures" either, nor would such a camera be the target market for this device. Anything that produced data at that rate would be using very different storage than CF.
The purpose of such a large card is to enable shooting of an incredible number of images between card changes, probably in environments where card charges are difficult or "expensive". Uploading afterward will take the same amount of time for a given amount of data whether it comes from 1 card or 6 cards.
I hope it's clear now that everything you've said is irrelevant.
Those photographers don't need the huge capacity though. They take moderate resolution images and generally shoot JPG. The current 2GB flash cards hold a lot of those images already.
It'll be a long time before there's a 100x increase in file sizes in digital cameras. Kodak's 14MP cameras produce RAW images that are closer to 10MB each.
Clearly this product is meant for photographers who don't pay for their own equipment.
and power consumption.
...except without the crappy battery.
IBM developed PowerPC, not Moto and not Apple. Moto was brought on because Apple and others required a second source for the processors. Moto never developed a satisfactory development capability for PPC as witnessed by the G3/G4 being direct decendents of the original IBM 603/604 designs. Eventually Apple had to switch to IBM because Moto couldn't (or wouldn't) keep up.
802.11 was not designed by Apple at all. They were early integrators, that's all. There were plenty of pre-802.11 providers in the market and the standards evolved from them.
Firewire was a failed development within Apple that originally developed as an interprocessor communications bus. Apple abonadoned it and Sony picked it up for their new digital video interface. Frankly, Sony did far more for IEEE-1394 than Apple did. Apple owns the firewire name, though. If it weren't for Sony there would be no firewire at all. If it weren't for Apple, we'd have firewire but it might look different. So who was more important?
Dell was the original developer of the SIMM/DIMM. I believe you'll find those in Apple machines.
Frankly, I don't see Apple as an innovator of hardware any more than Dell is. They do their own software but that's another matter. They have nice industrial design and a great hype machine, but as a hardware company there just another box vendor (except with pretty boxes).
Dell is THE true first tier company. They must be considered first and foremost regardless of your personal preferences. None of their competitors would agree with you although they may be pleased to hear such naive opinions exist.
Your observation that HP or IBM would never ship a RAID problem like you claim Dell has is also ridiculous. For quite a while, IBM owned Mylex, the industries worst quality manufacturer and supplier of the most aggregious RAID bugs that ever existed. IBM and HP have both integrated Mylex's crap, as has Dell. Dell is no different than any of the major vendors is this respect.
Dell appeals to large account customers because it has figured out how to make them happier that HP/IBM. Part of that may be price but not too much. Prices differences aren't that great, as you pointed out, and Dell is hardly considered the lowest cost supplier.
Crediting Apple as a co-developer of PowerPC (and Moto, too) is exceedingly generous. PowerPC was done entirely by IBM and provided to Moto as a second source so that Apple could use it. Apple contributed squat and Moto never did develop sufficient competence to be competitive. In the end, Apple had to return to IBM to be bailed out. IBM integrated the SIMD instruction set Moto did for Cisco, not Apple, into a Power4 processor and produced the 970. Now there isn't even a pretense that Apple isn't dependent on IBM processor tech. From a hardware perspective, Apple is just as much a shipper of other's technology as Dell is.
This is exactly right, and when you look closely you'll find that Dell works more with Intel than other major partners. It's an incorrect judgement to say that innovation is dead or that Dell doesn't do any. It's just done differently that poeple may expect.
Intel desires to lead the industry in innovation and Dell likes it that way. There's quite a bit of Intel and AMD tech in Apple's boxes, you know.
...and Dell would dispatch them as quickly as they have in the past. A market wil little or no innovation plays right into Dell's hands and they would not be motivated to innovate themselves at all!
/. readers. It's focused on entirely different issues related to customers much different from us. Dell internally is arguably unaware of any image as a copier at all and they could care less. At the end of the day, Apple and HP would love to have Dell's productivity and profitability. Don't kid yourselves.
Dell is very much aware of others trying to "out-Dell" them and they work hard to keep the knife sharp. Compaq tried to copy their business model but it was too little, too late.
Dell innovates plenty BTW, just not in areas geeks see or understand. They developed full custom manufacturing when no one else was doing it. They cut the total days of inventory to an absolute minimum and pushed their debt/collection balance hugely in their favor. There are big reasons why Dell is so profitable is an industry where competitors struggle and the characterization here that they are nothing but copiers is inaccurate. Dell doesn't concern itself with its image among
Another thing, Dell doesn't concern itself in any way with Apple. They are essentially unknown and irrelevent to Dell.
Dell is in the printer business solely because its HP's bread and butter. Dell desires to drive the profitability out of the most lucrative businesses of its rivals. That's what they did to Compaq with servers and look where they are now.
There's certainly plenty of evidence that diet and exercise, when chosen poorly, can contribute to shortening your life though. Curious that you see an imaginary pill as the way to go when a good diet and exercise is so clearly beneficial (and is here now).