Most video files are problematic.... they uses wrappers (AVI, QT) so most people throw any CODEC they feel like using (DivX 3 for video, VBR MP3 for audio even though the AVI specs don't really allow it AFAIK) and we end up with a mess of incompatible files unless you install 500 different CODECs.
This used to be true, though I think it's becoming slightly less of a problem. Most content I get/make anymore uses MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX or XviD in an AVI container--no fault in that). Personally my problem is with the new codecs you speak of. I hate needing to open Quicktime to play a video because Quicktime sucks on Windows. Worse yet is anything that needs something like Nero ShowTime to play because the program's UI blows.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a standard container for video and audio like AVI. In fact, it's very nice because it makes it easy to develop applications to read and write the video. I'd rather have a dozen codecs than a dozen different file formats for video.
I think two of the best video codecs right now are MPEG-4 Part 2 and WMV9 (better of the two IMO) because both are pretty standard and easily available on all platforms. Until MPEG-4 Part 10 becomes more common and the better hardware needed to play it is more common, those two will continue to be choice. CBR MP3 is a good choice for audio because it's good quality, doesn't suffer skew problems, and is cake to decode.
I think the demand simply isn't there, I wouldn't blame the technology.
That's a big part of it I think, though I believe that the demand for what media PCs offer exists; however, instead of buying a PC that's dedicated to the TV, I think consumers are going more for the TiVo-like boxes which offer most functionality for fewer dollars and simpler setup. I can attest that there's less a chance that grandma will bork the TiVo than the Windows Media Center PC.
In addition, I'd bet that most people (except those geeks among us with a few extra computers laying around who know about extras like old video game ROMs, MythTV, weather forecasts, etc.) would just assume leave the PC out of the family/entertainment room. By placing it elsewhere it means that somebody can use the computer without monopolizing the TV and vice-versa. Until it becomes standard to have two new computers in the average home, I think you'll continue to see a separation of PC and TV.
Do they think that anything is going to change for Vista?
One reason users run with administrative privileges in XP is because the XP setup it requires you to create a new user, and that user is given admin rights. Thus, the 'bob' user account that Bob made for his everyday use is an administrator, whether he knows it or not. Users get accustomed to having free reign over their systems and being able to make changes and install software without authenticating that it becomes the norm. In addition, there is a lot of poorly written programs and installers which punish the user for not running as admin by either completely not working or chastising the user with message boxes.
Microsoft can only do so much, and Vista is making some changes that will help, but it pretty much comes down to a paradigm shift that Windows users and developers will either accept or reject on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully it's the first step in a move towards a better system, but old habits die hard.
Sadly, it isn't always contiguous since it has an initial size and a maximum size. [...] I had to page defrag over it (a SysInternals tool). After running it a bunch of times, it's still at 800 pieces even now.
You're right. "Ensure" is too strong a word I suppose. You can minimize fragmentation of the pagefile by setting custom values, using the same number for the initial and maximum size (1.5 x RAM). This will prevent it from growing and fragmenting that way. The other way it can fragment is by creating the file on an already fragmented volume. If you defragment the disk first, then re-create the pagefile it should be better.
I think the easiest method to defragment a pagefile is just to remove it (assuming you can), reboot, and then re-create it with custom sizes like I mention above. This will make the system re-allocate space for the file, and assuming the disk you're using is not too fragmented, it's easy to get a 100% contiguous file.
I prefer the Linux method since you can choose a swapfile or a swap partition. A partition guarantees no fragmentation (and optimal performance since there is no underlying fs), but you have the flexibility of a swap file if you need it.
I've known a guy who did that with Windows. He would make a partition just for the pagefile, and swore it made a difference, though aside from preventing fragmentation, I never saw how it could. Putting it on a different physical disk from the system drive can help some though.
Windows creates an immense swapfile anyway - why not just get the system to do it on either a designated part of the hard drive, or on a USB 2.0 flash drive?
Actually, has anyone tried that? I expect you could see a decent increase in performance that way.
Windows' swapfile usage is pretty similar to the way Linux does swap, except that Windows uses a file instead of a partition. By default it's 1.5 times the amount of RAM installed in the system and is made all at once to ensure a contiguous file. On systems with plenty of RAM it's still good to have because it means the OS can commit to having plenty of memory for applications which request a lot, most of which they might never use. Without a page file 10-20% of physical memory is wasted because the OS has committed to having it (think Photoshop, etc).
I don't know how well the pagefile would work on a USB drive since if you're using much swap you're already seeing serious degradation. Besides, flash drives still suck at write speeds, being many times worse than even an old IDE drive. That's the biggest problem with integrating the two technologies I would think--making sure that you don't introduce bottlenecks due to stuff like that.
Amazing that a Good Thing gets turned into a big-brother or privacy issue just because it's Microsoft.
This just in... It appears there is a nefarious "feature" in several versions of Windows which can allow a nefarious person to nefariously see all those files you thought you deleted. It's called the "Recycle Bin" and many people are sure that it's the NSA ('N' for Nefarious?) that's behind the addition of the feature.
I paraphrased a little there, but the REAL test of this stuff would be to park the shuttle in Walmart's parking lot for a few hours. See how it looks after that.
Still an interesting point it raises, and a good example to give to none believers if you ever have to give the "Nothing is perfectly secure" speach to a client.
At least people are starting to realize this.
As for myself, I used to use Symantec's antivirus software both at home and at work, but a year ago decided it just wasn't worth it. The program was the most obscene resource hogs I've ever had the displeasure to use, and in the 7+ years of using the program it never once protected me from getting a virus. The same can be said for a lot of other AV offerings, and yet you still see some idiots suggesting you run 2-4 different AV applications just to "be sure you're safe".
Once people realize that the single best and most effective method of protecting themselves is common sense, they will be a lot better off. If you don't download from untrusted sources, don't click banners, don't install just any (activeX|extensions), and keep your machine patched, you'll be fine (YMMV of course).
The problem is that while people can buy Symantec's latest breakthrough in keeping your processor occupied, they cannot buy common sense.
...you could just upload and watch movies for free on Google, You-Tube, etc.
If there's one thing the Internet has shown, it's that people do *not* want to pay for content. This is what Google knows and it's why they base nearly all their revenue on contextual ads instead of trying to sell access to Gmail or Maps.
This sounds like just another 'make easy money on teh interweb!' scheme that's going to disappear pretty quick.
Alarmist news sells. Whether it be about cars, credit cards, or global warming, news sources try to make it as sensational and alarming as possible because it gets the ratings/hits and ad/commercial views.
What sounds more interesting?
Online coverage of World Cup predicted to cause increase in bandwidth usage across the globe.
or
OMG! The "other" football is going to make teh Interweb MELT! Run for the hills! Details at 10.
if you don't like it then tell us some specifics on why you don't like it!
Very well. Here's what I've got so far.
- First up: Big pages load and render SLOW. Pages with a large number of comments like this one make IE crap it's pants
- Score and 'Read More' on the right away from other relevant information.
- The 'Sections' link is worthless and annoying.
- Spacing in IE is flunky. Various elements don't line up with others. Yes, it's probably IE's fault, but you can't ignore IE.
- Links in the navigational menus (left and top) have different colors for visited/not visited. Looks better if they are the same and it doesn't really matter if you've clicked them before.
- Comments are not indented enough.
- Arrows on left-hand menu get out of sync easily.
- Method of changing item color (gray/green) in left-hand menu is slow in IE.
- Element spacing on User page blows in IE.
- YRO is still ugly as sin.
- The menu that opens when you click 'Sections' is a nasty kludge. It's way too slow to open, closes by reloading the page (real stupid).
- The boxes containing "what is this" blurbs in Preferences are too big and conspicuous. They're supposed to be a subtle help, not obfuscate the main content.
- IT is still puts Janet Reno to shame.
- Comment headers (containing the subject) seem too big and waste space.
- It'd be nice if there was some indication the little arrows were clickable (like using the pointer cursor).
- The 'Sections' section closes after going into a section, regardless of its previous status. Annoying if you're browsing sections.
- An old bug still exists where the content of a page will sometimes start a full page lower than it should in IE. Stories and user pages are affected.
- Bad things usually happen if you click the Sections header after IE starts navigating to another page.
- Simple Design option + the Sections header box = nasty.
- Too much whitespace. Reduce it or perhaps go with a real light gray in areas.
- I miss OMG Ponies! Really.
Personally, I think we should get the option to use the old template.
George Lucas raped my childhood and CSS raped Slashdot *cry*
It's Slashdot: News for Nerds, not Slashdot: News for Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists (well, most of the time anyway).
On a related note, I've got video and pictures to *prove* that UFOs are responsible for 9/11, but all my stories get rejected! Slashdot is run by censoring fascists!
Now instead of heart attacks from clogged arteries, people can get heart attacks from a kidney forming inside of their heart!
At least people don't need to worry anymore that they'll wake up in a bathtub full of ice with a fresh scar on their side. Why steal a kidney when you can take a heart instead and get a 2-for-1 deal?
I think Google should only serve ads from legitimate businesses.
To clarify, this isn't Google's AdWords advertising that's under scrutiny. It's the 'suggest' feature of the new toolbar. Similar to what's found here.
Personally I don't care for the feature. If I'm going to search for something I can type it in myself. If I make a mistake, Google has taught me that spelling correctly isn't as important as it used to be:)
Again...I don't understand what vendor lock in is involved here. No one forces you to use the iTunes store with the iPod.
That's because this is about Apple, which is Good.
No one forces you to use MSN search with IE7. Got another search engine? Use it. You do have a choice here. Hardly a monopoly on what search engine you use, or even what browser you use for that matter.
The company I used to work at used MailMarshal for their spam/virus filtering. The interface was pretty good, but there was no Bayesian filters, nor client-side plugins (though I don't really thing they are that much of a bonus). It was pretty easy on resources; the Poweredge server we had never seemed to have much of a problem, and it was running IIS and MSSQL at the same time (it was a smaller business).
This was several years ago, and all those things, including a web interface and quarantines were supposed to be in the next version (and they've gone through some two or three versions since then).
Oh come on. Companies with $40B in cash reserves do not get 'kicked in the nuts' by some upstart commission. "Monopoly" is a word that's thrown around a lot, and often incorrectly.
It's time to finish their sleezeball business practises once and for all.
Do you know any examples, or are you just regurgitating Slashdot FUD?
Windows has become such a huge part of European infratructure that we can no longer rely on a shady corporation.
And if that's true, then Microsoft has nothing to worry about in the European market.
Personally, I think the EU just likes padding their budget with fines levied against a rich foreign company.
Increasing the buffer size still doesn't let you resize the window horizontally
True, but you can change the maximum window width as well. Change the buffer and window widths from 80 chars to something like 120 to get a wider window. You can resize it to make it smaller, though you get scrollbars along the bottom of the window.
Not quite as nice as a *term window, but then Windows doesn't revolve around a terminal quite like *nix does.
Slashdot Mirror
Most video files are problematic.... they uses wrappers (AVI, QT) so most people throw any CODEC they feel like using (DivX 3 for video, VBR MP3 for audio even though the AVI specs don't really allow it AFAIK) and we end up with a mess of incompatible files unless you install 500 different CODECs.
This used to be true, though I think it's becoming slightly less of a problem. Most content I get/make anymore uses MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX or XviD in an AVI container--no fault in that). Personally my problem is with the new codecs you speak of. I hate needing to open Quicktime to play a video because Quicktime sucks on Windows. Worse yet is anything that needs something like Nero ShowTime to play because the program's UI blows.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a standard container for video and audio like AVI. In fact, it's very nice because it makes it easy to develop applications to read and write the video. I'd rather have a dozen codecs than a dozen different file formats for video.
I think two of the best video codecs right now are MPEG-4 Part 2 and WMV9 (better of the two IMO) because both are pretty standard and easily available on all platforms. Until MPEG-4 Part 10 becomes more common and the better hardware needed to play it is more common, those two will continue to be choice. CBR MP3 is a good choice for audio because it's good quality, doesn't suffer skew problems, and is cake to decode.
I think the demand simply isn't there, I wouldn't blame the technology.
That's a big part of it I think, though I believe that the demand for what media PCs offer exists; however, instead of buying a PC that's dedicated to the TV, I think consumers are going more for the TiVo-like boxes which offer most functionality for fewer dollars and simpler setup. I can attest that there's less a chance that grandma will bork the TiVo than the Windows Media Center PC.
In addition, I'd bet that most people (except those geeks among us with a few extra computers laying around who know about extras like old video game ROMs, MythTV, weather forecasts, etc.) would just assume leave the PC out of the family/entertainment room. By placing it elsewhere it means that somebody can use the computer without monopolizing the TV and vice-versa. Until it becomes standard to have two new computers in the average home, I think you'll continue to see a separation of PC and TV.
Do they think that anything is going to change for Vista?
One reason users run with administrative privileges in XP is because the XP setup it requires you to create a new user, and that user is given admin rights. Thus, the 'bob' user account that Bob made for his everyday use is an administrator, whether he knows it or not. Users get accustomed to having free reign over their systems and being able to make changes and install software without authenticating that it becomes the norm. In addition, there is a lot of poorly written programs and installers which punish the user for not running as admin by either completely not working or chastising the user with message boxes.
Microsoft can only do so much, and Vista is making some changes that will help, but it pretty much comes down to a paradigm shift that Windows users and developers will either accept or reject on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully it's the first step in a move towards a better system, but old habits die hard.
Damon is ok with me.
Noooooooo!
SHATNER IS KIRK!.
That is all.
One word: Challenger.
On the bright side, it would seriously reduce the lobbying strength of the AARP.
Sadly, it isn't always contiguous since it has an initial size and a maximum size. [...] I had to page defrag over it (a SysInternals tool). After running it a bunch of times, it's still at 800 pieces even now.
You're right. "Ensure" is too strong a word I suppose. You can minimize fragmentation of the pagefile by setting custom values, using the same number for the initial and maximum size (1.5 x RAM). This will prevent it from growing and fragmenting that way. The other way it can fragment is by creating the file on an already fragmented volume. If you defragment the disk first, then re-create the pagefile it should be better.
I think the easiest method to defragment a pagefile is just to remove it (assuming you can), reboot, and then re-create it with custom sizes like I mention above. This will make the system re-allocate space for the file, and assuming the disk you're using is not too fragmented, it's easy to get a 100% contiguous file.
I prefer the Linux method since you can choose a swapfile or a swap partition. A partition guarantees no fragmentation (and optimal performance since there is no underlying fs), but you have the flexibility of a swap file if you need it.
I've known a guy who did that with Windows. He would make a partition just for the pagefile, and swore it made a difference, though aside from preventing fragmentation, I never saw how it could. Putting it on a different physical disk from the system drive can help some though.
Here's more pagefile tips.
Windows creates an immense swapfile anyway - why not just get the system to do it on either a designated part of the hard drive, or on a USB 2.0 flash drive?
Actually, has anyone tried that? I expect you could see a decent increase in performance that way.
Windows' swapfile usage is pretty similar to the way Linux does swap, except that Windows uses a file instead of a partition. By default it's 1.5 times the amount of RAM installed in the system and is made all at once to ensure a contiguous file. On systems with plenty of RAM it's still good to have because it means the OS can commit to having plenty of memory for applications which request a lot, most of which they might never use. Without a page file 10-20% of physical memory is wasted because the OS has committed to having it (think Photoshop, etc).
I don't know how well the pagefile would work on a USB drive since if you're using much swap you're already seeing serious degradation. Besides, flash drives still suck at write speeds, being many times worse than even an old IDE drive. That's the biggest problem with integrating the two technologies I would think--making sure that you don't introduce bottlenecks due to stuff like that.
Amazing that a Good Thing gets turned into a big-brother or privacy issue just because it's Microsoft.
This just in... It appears there is a nefarious "feature" in several versions of Windows which can allow a nefarious person to nefariously see all those files you thought you deleted. It's called the "Recycle Bin" and many people are sure that it's the NSA ('N' for Nefarious?) that's behind the addition of the feature.
...blah blah blah this new stuff works great...
I paraphrased a little there, but the REAL test of this stuff would be to park the shuttle in Walmart's parking lot for a few hours. See how it looks after that.
Still an interesting point it raises, and a good example to give to none believers if you ever have to give the "Nothing is perfectly secure" speach to a client.
At least people are starting to realize this.
As for myself, I used to use Symantec's antivirus software both at home and at work, but a year ago decided it just wasn't worth it. The program was the most obscene resource hogs I've ever had the displeasure to use, and in the 7+ years of using the program it never once protected me from getting a virus. The same can be said for a lot of other AV offerings, and yet you still see some idiots suggesting you run 2-4 different AV applications just to "be sure you're safe".
Once people realize that the single best and most effective method of protecting themselves is common sense, they will be a lot better off. If you don't download from untrusted sources, don't click banners, don't install just any (activeX|extensions), and keep your machine patched, you'll be fine (YMMV of course).
The problem is that while people can buy Symantec's latest breakthrough in keeping your processor occupied, they cannot buy common sense.
...you could just upload and watch movies for free on Google, You-Tube, etc.
If there's one thing the Internet has shown, it's that people do *not* want to pay for content. This is what Google knows and it's why they base nearly all their revenue on contextual ads instead of trying to sell access to Gmail or Maps.
This sounds like just another 'make easy money on teh interweb!' scheme that's going to disappear pretty quick.
OTOH, why would SCO even do this?
:)
A better question is what about this? It's going to need to be updated
with the price of hurricanes (which have been increasing in frequency and strength over the last 15 years).
And let me guess, global warming is to blame, right?
Contrary to what alarmists like Gore might have you believe, hurricanes have not been "increasing in frequency and strength over the last 15 years". In fact, the average number of annual US hurricane strikes has actually gone down over the last 250 years.
Changed the release date to that from "no date given" some time ago by yours truly :)
You've got to love that even the marketing group for the game has succumbed to the "its' done when it's done" mentality.
No. Who asks these questions anyways?
Alarmist news sells. Whether it be about cars, credit cards, or global warming, news sources try to make it as sensational and alarming as possible because it gets the ratings/hits and ad/commercial views.
What sounds more interesting?
Online coverage of World Cup predicted to cause increase in bandwidth usage across the globe.
or
OMG! The "other" football is going to make teh Interweb MELT! Run for the hills! Details at 10.
if you don't like it then tell us some specifics on why you don't like it!
Very well. Here's what I've got so far.
- First up: Big pages load and render SLOW. Pages with a large number of comments like this one make IE crap it's pants
- Score and 'Read More' on the right away from other relevant information.
- The 'Sections' link is worthless and annoying.
- Spacing in IE is flunky. Various elements don't line up with others. Yes, it's probably IE's fault, but you can't ignore IE.
- Links in the navigational menus (left and top) have different colors for visited/not visited. Looks better if they are the same and it doesn't really matter if you've clicked them before.
- Comments are not indented enough.
- Arrows on left-hand menu get out of sync easily.
- Method of changing item color (gray/green) in left-hand menu is slow in IE.
- Element spacing on User page blows in IE.
- YRO is still ugly as sin.
- The menu that opens when you click 'Sections' is a nasty kludge. It's way too slow to open, closes by reloading the page (real stupid).
- The boxes containing "what is this" blurbs in Preferences are too big and conspicuous. They're supposed to be a subtle help, not obfuscate the main content.
- IT is still puts Janet Reno to shame.
- Comment headers (containing the subject) seem too big and waste space.
- It'd be nice if there was some indication the little arrows were clickable (like using the pointer cursor).
- The 'Sections' section closes after going into a section, regardless of its previous status. Annoying if you're browsing sections.
- An old bug still exists where the content of a page will sometimes start a full page lower than it should in IE. Stories and user pages are affected.
- Bad things usually happen if you click the Sections header after IE starts navigating to another page.
- Simple Design option + the Sections header box = nasty.
- Too much whitespace. Reduce it or perhaps go with a real light gray in areas.
- I miss OMG Ponies! Really.
Personally, I think we should get the option to use the old template.
George Lucas raped my childhood and CSS raped Slashdot *cry*
There's last year's "Escape from Fire Island" [...]
;)
Hmm. While I'm sure that it's a great book, according your Amazon link, more people (43% vs 11%) ended up buying the Create Your Own Erotic Fantasy line of books instead.
Now to merge this idea with the comments further down about realistic computer games
what's really sad is [...]
It's Slashdot: News for Nerds, not Slashdot: News for Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists (well, most of the time anyway).
On a related note, I've got video and pictures to *prove* that UFOs are responsible for 9/11, but all my stories get rejected! Slashdot is run by censoring fascists!
Now instead of heart attacks from clogged arteries, people can get heart attacks from a kidney forming inside of their heart!
At least people don't need to worry anymore that they'll wake up in a bathtub full of ice with a fresh scar on their side. Why steal a kidney when you can take a heart instead and get a 2-for-1 deal?
At least posting this comment will zero out the effect (no means to undo the mod)
:)
Quite respectable of you too
I think Google should only serve ads from legitimate businesses.
:)
To clarify, this isn't Google's AdWords advertising that's under scrutiny. It's the 'suggest' feature of the new toolbar. Similar to what's found here.
Personally I don't care for the feature. If I'm going to search for something I can type it in myself. If I make a mistake, Google has taught me that spelling correctly isn't as important as it used to be
Again...I don't understand what vendor lock in is involved here. No one forces you to use the iTunes store with the iPod.
That's because this is about Apple, which is Good.
No one forces you to use MSN search with IE7. Got another search engine? Use it. You do have a choice here. Hardly a monopoly on what search engine you use, or even what browser you use for that matter.
See?
The company I used to work at used MailMarshal for their spam/virus filtering. The interface was pretty good, but there was no Bayesian filters, nor client-side plugins (though I don't really thing they are that much of a bonus). It was pretty easy on resources; the Poweredge server we had never seemed to have much of a problem, and it was running IIS and MSSQL at the same time (it was a smaller business).
This was several years ago, and all those things, including a web interface and quarantines were supposed to be in the next version (and they've gone through some two or three versions since then).
Might be worth checking out anyway.
Oh come on. Companies with $40B in cash reserves do not get 'kicked in the nuts' by some upstart commission. "Monopoly" is a word that's thrown around a lot, and often incorrectly.
It's time to finish their sleezeball business practises once and for all.
Do you know any examples, or are you just regurgitating Slashdot FUD?
Windows has become such a huge part of European infratructure that we can no longer rely on a shady corporation.
And if that's true, then Microsoft has nothing to worry about in the European market.
Personally, I think the EU just likes padding their budget with fines levied against a rich foreign company.
Increasing the buffer size still doesn't let you resize the window horizontally
True, but you can change the maximum window width as well. Change the buffer and window widths from 80 chars to something like 120 to get a wider window. You can resize it to make it smaller, though you get scrollbars along the bottom of the window.
Not quite as nice as a *term window, but then Windows doesn't revolve around a terminal quite like *nix does.