How much memory does it take to display the blue screen of death?
Well, the blue screen of death is in text mode 80x25, I think. That means two bytes for each character (ASCII code + color). That totals up to 80x25x2 bytes = 4000 bytes.
It's only a joke:)
I knew I should've read your post to the end before replying.
I'm not saying Nintendo aren't selling the Wii at the right price for the UK, but don't prices in the UK include sales taxe(s)?
Most people in the USA won't be paying 250$USD for their Wii. They'll be paying 250$USD + 8-9% in taxes, depending on which state they live in.
As another example, here in Quebec I'll be paying (279$CAD + 6.0% GST) + 7.5% PST (Yes, that's a tax on top of another. Not just added, multiplied). That means my "279$CAD Wii" ends up costing me 317.92$CAD. That's 38.92$CAD in taxes.
So my question is: how much does the Wii cost in the UK, before taxes are added?
Except that with the iTV, it doesn't sound like you have a F-16 jet fighter plane in your living room.
Not to mention that iTV only requires a free download (iTunes 7). Using an Xbox 360 would also require a PC with Windows Media Center Edition if I'm not mistaken.
So, iTV is not an amazing innovation (I've been waiting for that box for 3 years myself), but the whole integration will be what makes it worthwhile. And to be honest, 299$USD for that box is quite expensive. I'd like to buy a model without HDMI, without optical audio outputs and without wireless (ethernet, components and RCA stereo is enough for my setup).
Actually, I've never seen the browser stats for Slashdot. Given all those new Mac users (50% of people who buy a Mac are new to the platform, from what I've read), I'd like to see where Safari stands in all this (vs Firefox, Opera and MSIE).
The poster isn't interested in being some corporation's permanent revenue stream. The poster, correctly, reads in Apple's move a bid to get him or her to replace a perfectly fine product with one that has an additional bell or whistle that could in all likelihood be retrofitted, in software, to the 4G iPod. What part of that eludes your grasp?
Damn you Nintendo! Why do I have to buy a Wii? Why couldn't they make Wii games compatible with my SNES? And why won't Nintendo DS games work on my Gameboy Advance?
The poster is dumb to assume that his 4th gen iPod has the same internal components as the 5th gen iPod, period. Don't assume that a simple firmware upgrade will magically upgrade the DSP and CPU of an older iPod.
Hey Apple! Where's my firmware upgrade to add a color screen to my 3rd gen iPod?!?!/sarcasm
Probably the best solution then would be to add a downconvert option to library software, for those who like to keep their digital music in lossless format but want good battery life on their mp3 players.
Apple already has that feature in iTunes, although it's for storage reason instead of battery life. Unfortunately that feature is only enabled for the iPod shuffle...
if I can't take bottled water through security, they sure as hell aren't going to allow this.
That's the problem, actually. Your bottled water contains hydrogen combined with oxygen! That's a really dangerous combination and could explode under the right conditions.
a new type of fuel cell capable of packing 10 times more energy. [...] a [...] solution of borohydride in water [...] contains one-third more hydrogen than the same volume of liquid hydrogen.
So, it contains 33% more hydrogen but it ends up being 1000% more energy?
Even as a nerd, I'm still more interested in the set-top box that I'll be able to afford than an upgrade I'll never be able to afford for a computer that I'll never have because I can't afford it either. And no, I don't want a freakin' PC next to my TV nor do I want to have to manage yet another computer for that task (MythTV, etc).
Yes, it's interesting news. But it's not "new iPods, iTunes 7, online movies and coming soon set-top box" burying news.
This "hybrid disc magic" might be considered high-tech and cutting-edge in the HD DVD world, but the exact same "features" was shown and demonstrated live back at last years IFA 2005 in Berlin in the Blu-ray Disc area...
Except that this only requires a minor tweak to HD-DVD manufacturing, which itself is a minor tweak to DVD manufacturing (or so people keep saying).
Blu-Ray, on the other hand, needs new manufacturing machines, etc.
In any case, if DVD+HD-DVD takes off, it'll make DVD the winner in the short-medium term and HD-DVD the winner in the long term.
Can HD-DVD also contain H.264 content, or is it stuck with MPEG-2 and VC-1?
I love the way no one is even considering the possibility of 4:3 ratio film downloads [...] but it still amazes me how quickly people will refuse to put up with something like pan and scan, the format everyone watched films in at home until only a few years ago in most people's cases.
Almost all movies are shot in widescreen. In order to display them in 4:3, you have to remove content. Look at the ending of The Fifth Element for a clear-cut indication that you really don't want to remove content. (Hint: you don't see two moons on the 4:3 version - you lose the whole punchline of the movie - i.e. the whole story happened once before).
Studios that are trying to sell me a 4:3 version of their movies ("The Forbin Project" comes to mind) is the same as if a music studio would try to sell mono versions of their songs.
"Blu-Ray doesn't look much better than DVDs" That is really hard to believe, because HD can look MUCH better than DVD, if you pause it.
I didn't say Blu-Ray wasn't better, I was talking about "tech people" doing demos in stores and such. If they can hardly set up the things properly, imagine the regular users.
Remember, we still have people connecting their DVD players via composite (RCA) instead of S-Video or component... The advantages will Blu-Ray will be lost on most people.
I'm sure the disaster of Amazon's service compared to the inevitable success of Apple's will put the ball in Jobs' court, and the other studios will come around.
Hurray for Amazon!
Now, if only Apple offered the TV shows/movies in Canada too, that'd actually be useful to me.
After a couple of more Moore's law doublings of capacity, we'll have enough space on our players to have our entire music collections in lossless format. When that happens, there will be no point in using lossy formats. It's still some years down the road, but the shift from mp3 to lossless has already started happening. If one rips a cd today, there is really no point in encoding it in a lossy format, audiophile or not.
Aside from Moore's law not being about storage capacities, it still makes no sense to pay for more storage and less battery life for the sake of a slightly better audio quality, especially for portable audio players.
You may be right that someday it'll be true, but we're still far from there. I'd choose Apple Lossless only if I could get a flash (or other) iPod with 120GB for about 200$CAD. Until then, lossless is just wasted space. Just use a higher bitrate for those tunes that requires it.
As for most music being in FLAC on P2P networks, I have to strongly disagree. Either you're filtering keywords or searching for very obscure music. Most of the music on P2P is in MP3, by a huge margin.
There's much, much more to an audio format than just the accuracy of its output [...]
Except we're talking about lossless CODECs here: - The computational difference between the two is, in 2006, probably nothing as far as the processor is concerned. - Compression ratio: lossless CODECs usually averages around 50% depending on the music you're encoding. - Licensing/openness: unless you're a Linux user with strong ethics about that kind of thing, it's not important. Joe Street wouldn't even know what you're talking about. - Error tolerance: zero in both cases since we're talking about lossless audio (unless you meant lost encoded data, in which case I have no idea which one's better) - Additional features: I know that Apple Lossless has metadata and streaming (that's how Airport Express works). As for 24-bit and 48KHz support, I don't have such a file to do any testing with iTunes. But I do know that AAC allows 48KHz and that my iPod does play 48KHz files.
The whole debate of FLAC vs Apple Lossless is a bit pointless. It would be valid for debating between MP3 vs WMA vs AAC vs Vorbis, but in the case of lossless audio, there's no difference in the end result (audio). If there's any difference, then one of the CODEC screwed up.
They think they're the #1 in electronics and gaming, but they're no more important than Toshiba, Hitachi, etc.
Given their obsession with proprietary Sony software (ATRAC comes to mind) and hardware (miniDisc, memory stick - when we already have too many flash standards already, UMD, etc), the general public is less likely to choose Sony in the first place.
Then add PR fiascos like the rootkit, the PS3 delays, the PS3 price tag and the latest "Blu-Ray doesn't look much better than DVDs" comments I've read, Sony better do something before it's too late.
However, seeing their new "Four PSP movies locked in a single 1/2GB memory stick that you have to unlock and then still only play them on the PSP" idea, I have no hope left for them.
You must live in the states. I'm still waiting for something other than music videos trailers and Pixar shorts to be downloadable from iTunes' Canadian store.
Nope, Canadian too. What I'm hoping for is that "Showtime" will be a software+hardware setup which would allow me to send my ripped DVDs (in H.264/AAC) from my Mac mini to my TV. Just like iTunes + iPod doesn't require an online music store.
Mind you, I'd like to be able to get some episodes of This Hour has 22 Minutes or Royal Canadian Air Farce.
IMO there's no point in supporting ogg. FLAC on the other hand would be a great addition, but I guess Apple lossless is good enough.
Wait a minute. Both FLAC and Apple Lossless are lossless CODECs. The end result (the decoded output) is exactly the same. Why is Apple Lossless "good enough" compared to FLAC? They give you exactly the same result... I guess you only wanted to do some free Apple bashing here.
It's not like HDDs are getting any smaller (on iPods or computers) so the amount of people using lossy codecs will only decrease.
No it won't. There's two reasons for that. Music capacity and battery life.
That's like asking someone if they want to pay 100$ for a 1GB player that can hold 11 CDs and play for 10 hours or pay 350$ for a 10GB player that can hold 11 CDs and play for one hour. That's your lossy vs lossless comparison right there. Only audiophiles will pay more for less.
Remember: it took WMA@64kbps before people began to ask "why does my music sound like crap?"
Slashdot Mirror
I knew I should've read your post to the end before replying.
I'm not saying Nintendo aren't selling the Wii at the right price for the UK, but don't prices in the UK include sales taxe(s)?
Most people in the USA won't be paying 250$USD for their Wii. They'll be paying 250$USD + 8-9% in taxes, depending on which state they live in.
As another example, here in Quebec I'll be paying (279$CAD + 6.0% GST) + 7.5% PST (Yes, that's a tax on top of another. Not just added, multiplied). That means my "279$CAD Wii" ends up costing me 317.92$CAD. That's 38.92$CAD in taxes.
So my question is: how much does the Wii cost in the UK, before taxes are added?
Ever since pirates were found to be way cooler than ninjas.Dude, Ninjas are the ones who have the real ultimate power!
Except that with the iTV, it doesn't sound like you have a F-16 jet fighter plane in your living room.
Not to mention that iTV only requires a free download (iTunes 7). Using an Xbox 360 would also require a PC with Windows Media Center Edition if I'm not mistaken.
So, iTV is not an amazing innovation (I've been waiting for that box for 3 years myself), but the whole integration will be what makes it worthwhile. And to be honest, 299$USD for that box is quite expensive. I'd like to buy a model without HDMI, without optical audio outputs and without wireless (ethernet, components and RCA stereo is enough for my setup).
How about an "iTV" and "iTV Pro", Apple?
Sony PS3.
Actually, I've never seen the browser stats for Slashdot. Given all those new Mac users (50% of people who buy a Mac are new to the platform, from what I've read), I'd like to see where Safari stands in all this (vs Firefox, Opera and MSIE).
The poster is dumb to assume that his 4th gen iPod has the same internal components as the 5th gen iPod, period. Don't assume that a simple firmware upgrade will magically upgrade the DSP and CPU of an older iPod.
Hey Apple! Where's my firmware upgrade to add a color screen to my 3rd gen iPod?!?!
So, it contains 33% more hydrogen but it ends up being 1000% more energy?
I don't get it.
Yes, it's interesting news. But it's not "new iPods, iTunes 7, online movies and coming soon set-top box" burying news.
And by the way, iTunes 7 kicks ass.
Think different.
Blu-Ray, on the other hand, needs new manufacturing machines, etc.
In any case, if DVD+HD-DVD takes off, it'll make DVD the winner in the short-medium term and HD-DVD the winner in the long term.
Can HD-DVD also contain H.264 content, or is it stuck with MPEG-2 and VC-1?
Studios that are trying to sell me a 4:3 version of their movies ("The Forbin Project" comes to mind) is the same as if a music studio would try to sell mono versions of their songs.
I didn't say Blu-Ray wasn't better, I was talking about "tech people" doing demos in stores and such. If they can hardly set up the things properly, imagine the regular users.
Remember, we still have people connecting their DVD players via composite (RCA) instead of S-Video or component... The advantages will Blu-Ray will be lost on most people.
Now, if only Apple offered the TV shows/movies in Canada too, that'd actually be useful to me.
You may be right that someday it'll be true, but we're still far from there. I'd choose Apple Lossless only if I could get a flash (or other) iPod with 120GB for about 200$CAD. Until then, lossless is just wasted space. Just use a higher bitrate for those tunes that requires it.
As for most music being in FLAC on P2P networks, I have to strongly disagree. Either you're filtering keywords or searching for very obscure music. Most of the music on P2P is in MP3, by a huge margin.
- The computational difference between the two is, in 2006, probably nothing as far as the processor is concerned.
- Compression ratio: lossless CODECs usually averages around 50% depending on the music you're encoding.
- Licensing/openness: unless you're a Linux user with strong ethics about that kind of thing, it's not important. Joe Street wouldn't even know what you're talking about.
- Error tolerance: zero in both cases since we're talking about lossless audio (unless you meant lost encoded data, in which case I have no idea which one's better)
- Additional features: I know that Apple Lossless has metadata and streaming (that's how Airport Express works). As for 24-bit and 48KHz support, I don't have such a file to do any testing with iTunes. But I do know that AAC allows 48KHz and that my iPod does play 48KHz files.
The whole debate of FLAC vs Apple Lossless is a bit pointless. It would be valid for debating between MP3 vs WMA vs AAC vs Vorbis, but in the case of lossless audio, there's no difference in the end result (audio). If there's any difference, then one of the CODEC screwed up.
They think they're the #1 in electronics and gaming, but they're no more important than Toshiba, Hitachi, etc.
Given their obsession with proprietary Sony software (ATRAC comes to mind) and hardware (miniDisc, memory stick - when we already have too many flash standards already, UMD, etc), the general public is less likely to choose Sony in the first place.
Then add PR fiascos like the rootkit, the PS3 delays, the PS3 price tag and the latest "Blu-Ray doesn't look much better than DVDs" comments I've read, Sony better do something before it's too late.
However, seeing their new "Four PSP movies locked in a single 1/2GB memory stick that you have to unlock and then still only play them on the PSP" idea, I have no hope left for them.
Mind you, I'd like to be able to get some episodes of This Hour has 22 Minutes or Royal Canadian Air Farce.
No it won't. There's two reasons for that. Music capacity and battery life.
That's like asking someone if they want to pay 100$ for a 1GB player that can hold 11 CDs and play for 10 hours or pay 350$ for a 10GB player that can hold 11 CDs and play for one hour. That's your lossy vs lossless comparison right there. Only audiophiles will pay more for less.
Remember: it took WMA@64kbps before people began to ask "why does my music sound like crap?"
It's been done years ago.