Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Save your breath. Apparently, everyone reading slashdot is incapable of reading that this is a list of the top DVDs, not the top movies. And instead of discussing the merits of what makes an excellent DVD release, they're talking about what makes a movie good or bad. Clearly, they are incapable of RTFA.
The same people who just don't get it, probably have never observed the fine quality of these DVD releases. If you downloaded your movies from Suprnova, you can't observe the quality of the releases.
Even the biggest fan of The Evil Dead probably wouldn't try to convince you that it is the No. 4 movie of all time. But damn, the packaging is top notch. The art director of that release should be proud. As should the all the others who worked on this fine list.
And no, I am not the AD for any of these releases. I'd be very proud of my work if I was though.
Re:Did you have to be under 15 to vote?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 1
Uh, you're so missing the point. The list is not the Top 50 movies. It is the Top 50 DVDs. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movies. Gigli could have made the list if it had a nice DVD. I have seen many of the DVDs and own several. Of those that I can personally vouch for, they all have excpetionally creative packacking, menus, and programming. The quality of the materials and the compression is far superior to many commercial DVDs.
If you RTFA, you will see that the mission of the list is rank the "best examples of what DVD can do for Hollywood." As the FA says, "The advent of DVD has ushered in a bold era where even the most questionable of movie can result in one of the best home video releases of all time."
So not only is your comment hackneyed and completely unsightful (moderators... very poor job), it demonstrates your inability to read English. Like the title says Top 50 DVDs, not movies.
Now that we have the bandwidth, there is no reason we can't have 60 discrete frames per second.
I think many would argue that we don't have that kind of bandwidth. Further, why do we need 60 discrete frames? Our minds percieve motion at 24 fps. If the bandwidth allowed, should we have 120 frames per second, just because we can?
Digital TV sucks. It will be the end of television, as we know it. Mark my words.
I hope that you are not right, but you probably are. Sigh.
Yes, but until recently, it was considered only a distribution format, not an acquisition format. Usually, the compression in the range of 5:1 or even higher. Because of the compression of the raw footage, post-production effects and color correction will not be as good.
If you acquire in an distribution format, you leave yourself little room for manipulation of the images.
Just like when the digital cameras for filming movies came out, the movie makers wouldn't use them until they supported 24fps instead of only 30fps.
Sorry, I forgot to refute this one in my previous post. Your statement is simply not true. To begin with, when digital cameras came out on the market, the options available to filmmakers were limited. There are a number of things a photographer would consider in choosing his gear for a shoot. Perhaps the right lenses weren't available for the camera. Also, there is the cost. If you have a bunch of money invested in film equipment (literally hundreds of thousands of dollars), why should you go out and spend a bunch of money on equipment that simply allows you to do what you already can. For big budget productions, why not take advantage of film?
For smaller productions, why would you jump into uncharted territory. Independent producers and production houses bid on projects. If something goes wrong during the production, and it the fault of the production company, then they eat those costs. If you want something to get off without a hitch, use what you know works.
So why didn't the big studios switch to Canon XL1s to shoot their $20 million actors. Because Canon XL1s don't make $20 million actors look like their worth $20 million.
And even now that HD cameras have become more practical for production use, they still don't replace film. 78mm and IMAX film are still used to capture the highest resolution images. Also, the color space of video is no where near that of film. In fact, there is no black in video. Black in film is the absense of light. But in NTSC, black is 7.5 IRE, which is a measurable quantity of light.
Further, film processing effects, such as those used in Seven, can only be faked digitally.
Also, until more progressive scan cameras reached the market, no one was interested in shooting interlaced. It had nothing to do frame rate, but everything to do with picture quality.
When there are artists and business folks involved, nothing is as simple as religion.
The origin of these standards is not religious, it is technical. 29.97 frames/s equals 59.94 fields/s. Or, approxiamately 60 hertz - the same frequency that our electrical standard functions at! A lot of our color TV system (NTSC) has to do with compatability with legacy black and white television systems.
There are very good reasons for the engineering behind these things. As a video professional, I'd be more than happy to give up the technical complexities of interlacing, but physics, money, and compatability have a lot more to do with it than the way I want things to work.
And I certainly don't pray to any standards bodies.
Basically, 1080i = 540 lines / refresh.
720p has 720 lines per refresh.
but it seems you are implying that 720p is a higher resolution than 1080i. You are correct that more lines are refreshed during each scanning pass in a progressive scan format. However, the refress rate is half as often.
In progressive formats, all of the screens pixels (each frame) are refreshed every ~1/30 second. In interlaced formats, each frame is made up of 2 fields and fields are refreshed alternately every ~1/60 of a second. In the end 1080i has refreshed 1080 lines of resolution in 1/30th of a second, while 720p has refreshed 720 lines of resolution in 1/30th of a second. In the case of 1080i, the gun is spraying electrons much faster than 720p.
The alternation of even and odd lines is virtually invisible to the eye when dealing with slower moving images. Our eye's persistence of vision continues to see the odd lines of the TV image while the even lines are being displayed. The reason films run at 24 fps is because that is that is the point at which the human mind percieves continuous motion from individual stills. (You may have noticed that sometimes when you see silent films that they appear to be sped up. This is because they were often filmed at 18 fps and played back at 24 fps. Film is expensive, especially back then! (Film contains silver.) Shooting a film at 30 fps, instead of 24, would add 25% more cost to film stock and processing. Why raise the budget with very little visual impact?
Also, folks often confuse the way things are acquired and the way they are distributed. Just because something is distributed in 1080i does not mean that it has to be aquired in an interlaced format. For example, the Panasonic AG-DVX100A is a prosumer 24p camera. But it uses the standard MiniDV format to record the image. The image is recorded at NTSC 29.97 interlaced. All of which is explained here by Adam Wilt. By using 3:2 pulldown (RTFA), the 24p images can be encoded and displayed on standard 29.97i NTSC equipment. The same technique is used to produce DVDs.
The difficulty of interlacing is that when motion occurs quickly, the odd and even lines don't seem to match up correctly and can create moire (that weird visual pattern you see when somebody wears a tightly striped shirt on TV) or other visual distractions. However, this effect only applies to images that are acquired interlaced. If the images are acquired progressively and displayed interlaced, you will never notice the problem. 1080i, if care is taken in the acquisition phase, should always looks better than 720p.
Urban sprawl is a tremendous problem. I don't know how significant the spread of our population is on the cost of broadband, but I would think it would have to be more than negligible.
Clearly, poor use of our land has led to increased cost for energy distribution and I would suggest a road/highway system that continues to grow and eat our country's monetary resources. It also supports our huge consumption of oil to power our cars and keeps mass transportation inconvenient and cost prohibitive.
If twice as much infrastructure is required to reach people who are increasingly more and more spread out, this would have to add some cost. And let us not forget the cost of doing business in the US. Certainly the telecom workers in the US are making more than South Koreans.
Although I wasn't clear, I certainly don't blame just Republicans. Trial lawyers have come out whole heartedly for Kerry/Edwards. And as we should all know by now, Edwards gained his notoriety by suing companies. (discussing the merits of which would simply be off-topic).
It does seem to me, though, that the Justice department's policy toward M$ shifted from the Clinton to the Bush administration. The Bush administration settled with M$ on bozo terms. I'm not saying the Clinton administration wouldn't have done the same thing. But the rhetoric was stronger when the Democrats ruled PA avenue and John Ashcroft was too busy stealing civil liberties from the consumers that Micro$oft rapes.
And since these companies don't pay taxes or get tax breaks from Republicans, these suits are a sort of different way for the people in Washinton to get paid. Except this time, the trial lawyers get paid too!
So, the lawyer$ sue Micro$oft so that they can take a huge cut of the money they are going to hand over to the politician$. With class-action lawsuits, they have private lawyers (read expensive lawyers) representing individual claimants, most of whom don't care if they ever get the $20 rebate good toward more Microsoft products (because that's probably all they'll get.) This is a calculated public payoff to those in power (lawyers and politicians) by Microsoft to maintain they're monopoly.
Government: Freeze Microsoft!
Microsoft: What do you want? We're busy screwing the marketplace and raping consumers!
Government: This is a shakedown! Give us what we want and we'll let you go about your business.
Microsoft: Here take it! Now get it out here!
So, why doesn't Microsoft just roll over that easy? Cause they're just trying to talk down the car dealer. It's the same reason parents shouldn't get their kids everything they want, because then they'll just become spoiled and want more and more. They guys just fight over how much to they agree to be extorted for, throw in some free software for schools and libraries (cause that's a good campaign story) allowing the violator of the law to further entrench himself on his gang-land turf.
Ah, yes... Copeland, Gerswin, Yellow Box, Blue Box, A/UX, ProDOS, Blue, Pink, and Red. MkLinux, MacOS, OS X, System 7, and even GS/OS! Is it just me, or has little old Apple developed more Operating Systems than Microsoft?
This test sucks and the reasons why keep pouring into my head. I was blown away by this statement:
Though we have certainly examined these four video codecs extensively, this article can by no means be considered the be-all, end-all on their relative merits.
This article is certainly not the be-all, end-all of any subject and they did nothing close to extensive testing. I've spent a lot of time, some of it my own and a lot of it my various employer's, analyzing codecs, playback, media platforms - compressing and recompressing. I wish that I could have arrived at such a simple conclusion after such a simple test!
I wouldn't consider this thorough testing and the methods used exhibit serious limitations:
1) The efficacy of testing compression of compressed footage is limited, unless the compression used is that of your source material (say DV compression for MiniDV cameras).
2) How was the video captured? You're taking MPEG-2 DVDs and playing them on a DVD player? So that image is dependent on the D/A converter in the DVD player, that sends the signal over s-video, or component, both analog and subject to noise. Then they capture the signal uncompressed? WHY? To recompress it at 8 megabits, which is still probably HIGHER than the datarate of the MPEG-2 on the DVD? And what did they capture it with? Why all the recompressing?
3) The quality of the playback was not tested on diverse systems. Maybe grandma only has a PIII 800 (i hope that's a real processor). At any rate, let's say grandma doesn't buy RAM and read slashdot in her free time. What is her playback quality like? ALL video is subject to the performance on the machine that is rendering it. Many codecs scale playback for slower systems. The image quality or frame rate is reduced to reduce the amount of work a slower system needs to do to render the video. How does this affect these results?
4) The ability of the user to install or use the media platform required to view the video is not analyzed. What about compatibility with different OSs, playback apps, etc.?
5) The settings/feature sets for the compressors were not comporable! WMP compression is very powerful. It can do Bidirectional Predictive 2-Pass VBR. You have to buy Sorenson Pro codec to experience this feature and the resultant quality. I'm willing to bet that the Sorenson Pro codec might even be better. You might say that Micorosoft wins... cause their crap is free. But then the consumer loses. Microsoft is the only company in the universe that I know of that gives this tech away for free. Everyone else charges for it. This is just another example of Microsoft using its monopoly power to leveredge unfair tactics against competitors. I'm telling you, someday you'll be driving your children around in a Microsoft Caravan.
And I could go on and on. I don't think this article is good for anyone. It's downright misleading and tacky.
They didn't even get the resolution right. If you're compressing something to playback on a computer, you need to compress it with the proper square pixel resolution. 720x480 resolution uses rectangular pixels, that have a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9. But it needs to be squeezed to 640x480, with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.0, to appear correctly (with the same proportions) as it would on a TV. 720x480 is not the 4:3 aspect ration, it makes everything look fatter. So compress at 640x480 or 320x240...
Unless you're trying to pirate movies like this guy obviously is. In that case, I don't really care what you do.
I was just about to say that this whole subject is off topic and it is insulting to Slashdot readers to be treated like they don't have other sources of news... but then you reminded me where I was.
That article had more flamebait than a Dvorak article.
Now that is funny.
The article refers to conventional wisdom that Macs don't have the security holes that Windows machines have. What the article doesn't point out is that pre-OSX operating systems from Apple exhibited very few vulnerabilities. So in the historical context, conventional wisdom holds up. But things have changed. OSX's architecture is completely different from that of old days. The new architecture, by the nature of its features, leaves more room for vulnerabilities. Its powerful feature set opens it up to the same types of vulnerabilities shown in other powerful OSs like Windows and Linux.
...remember back when computer security meant scanning floppy disks?
Slashdot Mirror
Save your breath. Apparently, everyone reading slashdot is incapable of reading that this is a list of the top DVDs, not the top movies. And instead of discussing the merits of what makes an excellent DVD release, they're talking about what makes a movie good or bad. Clearly, they are incapable of RTFA.
The same people who just don't get it, probably have never observed the fine quality of these DVD releases. If you downloaded your movies from Suprnova, you can't observe the quality of the releases.
Even the biggest fan of The Evil Dead probably wouldn't try to convince you that it is the No. 4 movie of all time. But damn, the packaging is top notch. The art director of that release should be proud. As should the all the others who worked on this fine list.
And no, I am not the AD for any of these releases. I'd be very proud of my work if I was though.
Uh, you're so missing the point. The list is not the Top 50 movies. It is the Top 50 DVDs. It has nothing to do with the quality of the movies. Gigli could have made the list if it had a nice DVD. I have seen many of the DVDs and own several. Of those that I can personally vouch for, they all have excpetionally creative packacking, menus, and programming. The quality of the materials and the compression is far superior to many commercial DVDs.
If you RTFA, you will see that the mission of the list is rank the "best examples of what DVD can do for Hollywood." As the FA says, "The advent of DVD has ushered in a bold era where even the most questionable of movie can result in one of the best home video releases of all time."
So not only is your comment hackneyed and completely unsightful (moderators... very poor job), it demonstrates your inability to read English. Like the title says Top 50 DVDs, not movies.
Now that we have the bandwidth, there is no reason we can't have 60 discrete frames per second.
I think many would argue that we don't have that kind of bandwidth. Further, why do we need 60 discrete frames? Our minds percieve motion at 24 fps. If the bandwidth allowed, should we have 120 frames per second, just because we can?
Digital TV sucks. It will be the end of television, as we know it. Mark my words.
I hope that you are not right, but you probably are. Sigh.
Yes, but until recently, it was considered only a distribution format, not an acquisition format. Usually, the compression in the range of 5:1 or even higher. Because of the compression of the raw footage, post-production effects and color correction will not be as good.
If you acquire in an distribution format, you leave yourself little room for manipulation of the images.
Just like when the digital cameras for filming movies came out, the movie makers wouldn't use them until they supported 24fps instead of only 30fps.
Sorry, I forgot to refute this one in my previous post. Your statement is simply not true. To begin with, when digital cameras came out on the market, the options available to filmmakers were limited. There are a number of things a photographer would consider in choosing his gear for a shoot. Perhaps the right lenses weren't available for the camera. Also, there is the cost. If you have a bunch of money invested in film equipment (literally hundreds of thousands of dollars), why should you go out and spend a bunch of money on equipment that simply allows you to do what you already can. For big budget productions, why not take advantage of film?
For smaller productions, why would you jump into uncharted territory. Independent producers and production houses bid on projects. If something goes wrong during the production, and it the fault of the production company, then they eat those costs. If you want something to get off without a hitch, use what you know works.
So why didn't the big studios switch to Canon XL1s to shoot their $20 million actors. Because Canon XL1s don't make $20 million actors look like their worth $20 million.
And even now that HD cameras have become more practical for production use, they still don't replace film. 78mm and IMAX film are still used to capture the highest resolution images. Also, the color space of video is no where near that of film. In fact, there is no black in video. Black in film is the absense of light. But in NTSC, black is 7.5 IRE, which is a measurable quantity of light.
Further, film processing effects, such as those used in Seven, can only be faked digitally.
Also, until more progressive scan cameras reached the market, no one was interested in shooting interlaced. It had nothing to do frame rate, but everything to do with picture quality.
When there are artists and business folks involved, nothing is as simple as religion.
The origin of these standards is not religious, it is technical. 29.97 frames/s equals 59.94 fields/s. Or, approxiamately 60 hertz - the same frequency that our electrical standard functions at! A lot of our color TV system (NTSC) has to do with compatability with legacy black and white television systems.
There are very good reasons for the engineering behind these things. As a video professional, I'd be more than happy to give up the technical complexities of interlacing, but physics, money, and compatability have a lot more to do with it than the way I want things to work.
And I certainly don't pray to any standards bodies.
No, the frame rate is the same. There are two incomplete fields (1/60 of a second) which make up one frame (1/30 of a second).
Forgive me for stepping on your words:
Basically, 1080i = 540 lines / refresh. 720p has 720 lines per refresh.
but it seems you are implying that 720p is a higher resolution than 1080i. You are correct that more lines are refreshed during each scanning pass in a progressive scan format. However, the refress rate is half as often.
In progressive formats, all of the screens pixels (each frame) are refreshed every ~1/30 second. In interlaced formats, each frame is made up of 2 fields and fields are refreshed alternately every ~1/60 of a second. In the end 1080i has refreshed 1080 lines of resolution in 1/30th of a second, while 720p has refreshed 720 lines of resolution in 1/30th of a second. In the case of 1080i, the gun is spraying electrons much faster than 720p.
The alternation of even and odd lines is virtually invisible to the eye when dealing with slower moving images. Our eye's persistence of vision continues to see the odd lines of the TV image while the even lines are being displayed. The reason films run at 24 fps is because that is that is the point at which the human mind percieves continuous motion from individual stills. (You may have noticed that sometimes when you see silent films that they appear to be sped up. This is because they were often filmed at 18 fps and played back at 24 fps. Film is expensive, especially back then! (Film contains silver.) Shooting a film at 30 fps, instead of 24, would add 25% more cost to film stock and processing. Why raise the budget with very little visual impact?
Also, folks often confuse the way things are acquired and the way they are distributed. Just because something is distributed in 1080i does not mean that it has to be aquired in an interlaced format. For example, the Panasonic AG-DVX100A is a prosumer 24p camera. But it uses the standard MiniDV format to record the image. The image is recorded at NTSC 29.97 interlaced. All of which is explained here by Adam Wilt. By using 3:2 pulldown (RTFA), the 24p images can be encoded and displayed on standard 29.97i NTSC equipment. The same technique is used to produce DVDs.
The difficulty of interlacing is that when motion occurs quickly, the odd and even lines don't seem to match up correctly and can create moire (that weird visual pattern you see when somebody wears a tightly striped shirt on TV) or other visual distractions. However, this effect only applies to images that are acquired interlaced. If the images are acquired progressively and displayed interlaced, you will never notice the problem. 1080i, if care is taken in the acquisition phase, should always looks better than 720p.
Urban sprawl is a tremendous problem. I don't know how significant the spread of our population is on the cost of broadband, but I would think it would have to be more than negligible.
Clearly, poor use of our land has led to increased cost for energy distribution and I would suggest a road/highway system that continues to grow and eat our country's monetary resources. It also supports our huge consumption of oil to power our cars and keeps mass transportation inconvenient and cost prohibitive.
If twice as much infrastructure is required to reach people who are increasingly more and more spread out, this would have to add some cost. And let us not forget the cost of doing business in the US. Certainly the telecom workers in the US are making more than South Koreans.
Although I wasn't clear, I certainly don't blame just Republicans. Trial lawyers have come out whole heartedly for Kerry/Edwards. And as we should all know by now, Edwards gained his notoriety by suing companies. (discussing the merits of which would simply be off-topic).
It does seem to me, though, that the Justice department's policy toward M$ shifted from the Clinton to the Bush administration. The Bush administration settled with M$ on bozo terms. I'm not saying the Clinton administration wouldn't have done the same thing. But the rhetoric was stronger when the Democrats ruled PA avenue and John Ashcroft was too busy stealing civil liberties from the consumers that Micro$oft rapes.
It seems to me that anything to deal with anti-trust and Microsoft is just a calculated facade designed to maintain the status quo.
Bob Cringely wrote an interesting article (covered in Slashdot)explaining the economics of these anti-trust suits and how Micro$oft actually benefits.
And since these companies don't pay taxes or get tax breaks from Republicans, these suits are a sort of different way for the people in Washinton to get paid. Except this time, the trial lawyers get paid too!
So, the lawyer$ sue Micro$oft so that they can take a huge cut of the money they are going to hand over to the politician$. With class-action lawsuits, they have private lawyers (read expensive lawyers) representing individual claimants, most of whom don't care if they ever get the $20 rebate good toward more Microsoft products (because that's probably all they'll get.) This is a calculated public payoff to those in power (lawyers and politicians) by Microsoft to maintain they're monopoly.
Government: Freeze Microsoft!
Microsoft: What do you want? We're busy screwing the marketplace and raping consumers!
Government: This is a shakedown! Give us what we want and we'll let you go about your business.
Microsoft: Here take it! Now get it out here!
So, why doesn't Microsoft just roll over that easy? Cause they're just trying to talk down the car dealer. It's the same reason parents shouldn't get their kids everything they want, because then they'll just become spoiled and want more and more. They guys just fight over how much to they agree to be extorted for, throw in some free software for schools and libraries (cause that's a good campaign story) allowing the violator of the law to further entrench himself on his gang-land turf.
Ah, yes... Copeland, Gerswin, Yellow Box, Blue Box, A/UX, ProDOS, Blue, Pink, and Red. MkLinux, MacOS, OS X, System 7, and even GS/OS! Is it just me, or has little old Apple developed more Operating Systems than Microsoft?
There's more about Apple's OS history including Copeland.
This test sucks and the reasons why keep pouring into my head. I was blown away by this statement:
Though we have certainly examined these four video codecs extensively, this article can by no means be considered the be-all, end-all on their relative merits.
This article is certainly not the be-all, end-all of any subject and they did nothing close to extensive testing. I've spent a lot of time, some of it my own and a lot of it my various employer's, analyzing codecs, playback, media platforms - compressing and recompressing. I wish that I could have arrived at such a simple conclusion after such a simple test!
I wouldn't consider this thorough testing and the methods used exhibit serious limitations:
1) The efficacy of testing compression of compressed footage is limited, unless the compression used is that of your source material (say DV compression for MiniDV cameras).
2) How was the video captured? You're taking MPEG-2 DVDs and playing them on a DVD player? So that image is dependent on the D/A converter in the DVD player, that sends the signal over s-video, or component, both analog and subject to noise. Then they capture the signal uncompressed? WHY? To recompress it at 8 megabits, which is still probably HIGHER than the datarate of the MPEG-2 on the DVD? And what did they capture it with? Why all the recompressing?
3) The quality of the playback was not tested on diverse systems. Maybe grandma only has a PIII 800 (i hope that's a real processor). At any rate, let's say grandma doesn't buy RAM and read slashdot in her free time. What is her playback quality like? ALL video is subject to the performance on the machine that is rendering it. Many codecs scale playback for slower systems. The image quality or frame rate is reduced to reduce the amount of work a slower system needs to do to render the video. How does this affect these results?
4) The ability of the user to install or use the media platform required to view the video is not analyzed. What about compatibility with different OSs, playback apps, etc.?
5) The settings/feature sets for the compressors were not comporable! WMP compression is very powerful. It can do Bidirectional Predictive 2-Pass VBR. You have to buy Sorenson Pro codec to experience this feature and the resultant quality. I'm willing to bet that the Sorenson Pro codec might even be better. You might say that Micorosoft wins... cause their crap is free. But then the consumer loses. Microsoft is the only company in the universe that I know of that gives this tech away for free. Everyone else charges for it. This is just another example of Microsoft using its monopoly power to leveredge unfair tactics against competitors. I'm telling you, someday you'll be driving your children around in a Microsoft Caravan.
And I could go on and on. I don't think this article is good for anyone. It's downright misleading and tacky.
They didn't even get the resolution right. If you're compressing something to playback on a computer, you need to compress it with the proper square pixel resolution. 720x480 resolution uses rectangular pixels, that have a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9. But it needs to be squeezed to 640x480, with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.0, to appear correctly (with the same proportions) as it would on a TV. 720x480 is not the 4:3 aspect ration, it makes everything look fatter. So compress at 640x480 or 320x240...
Unless you're trying to pirate movies like this guy obviously is. In that case, I don't really care what you do.
I was just about to say that this whole subject is off topic and it is insulting to Slashdot readers to be treated like they don't have other sources of news... but then you reminded me where I was.
That article had more flamebait than a Dvorak article.
...remember back when computer security meant scanning floppy disks?
Now that is funny.
The article refers to conventional wisdom that Macs don't have the security holes that Windows machines have. What the article doesn't point out is that pre-OSX operating systems from Apple exhibited very few vulnerabilities. So in the historical context, conventional wisdom holds up. But things have changed. OSX's architecture is completely different from that of old days. The new architecture, by the nature of its features, leaves more room for vulnerabilities. Its powerful feature set opens it up to the same types of vulnerabilities shown in other powerful OSs like Windows and Linux.