Just to clarify, that's not the Video CARD Market Share - that's just overall video, and not even in computers - that figure includes mobile devices as well.
On the contrary, all you have to do is implement the next generation of leverage by using a synergistic polychronistic time system to wield the golden hammer in order to...
INTEL Type: Public (NASDAQ: INTC) Founded: 1968 Location: Santa Clara, California, USA (incorporated in Delaware) Key people Paul Otellini, CEO Craig Barrett, Chairman Industry Semiconductors Products Microprocessors Flash memory Revenue $38.83 billion USD (2005) Operating income $12.1 billion USD (2005) Net income $8.7 billion USD (2005)
NVIDIA Type: Public (NASDAQ: NVDA) Founded: 1993 Location: Santa Clara, California, USA Key people Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO Industry Semiconductors- Specialized Products Graphics processing units Motherboard chipsets Revenue $2.375 Billion USD (2005) Net income $302.5 Million USD (2005) Employees 2,737 (2005) Website www.nvidia.com
Check out those rows, especially Revenue and Net income. Intel is a MUCH larger company.
Compare to
AMD Type: Public (NYSE: AMD) Founded: 1969 Location: Sunnyvale, California, USA Industry Semiconductors Products Microprocessors Revenue $5.848 billion USD (2005) Net income $165.483 million USD (2005) Employees 18,100 (Nov 2005) Website www.amd.com
ATI Type: Public (NASDAQ: ATYT) Founded: 1985 Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada Key people David E. Orton, CEO Industry Semiconductors Products Graphics cards Graphics processing units Motherboard chipsets Video capture cards Revenue $2.222 Billion USD (2005) Net income $41.676 Million USD (2005) Employees 3,469 (2005)
Ati, suprisingly enough, has MORE employees than nVidia, an essentially equivalent revenue, and a higher next income.
If AMD can buy ATI, Intel should be able to buy nVidia with little problem.
Many, MANY home users out in the field use on-board video for everything. Now, I'm not saying this'll have them all converting to an Open Source OS, but this is yet another advance that would make sending the average noob user over to Linux without any sort of performance hit.
Taking a 180 degree turn and looking right back at your interpretation of the story, I find it very likely that Intel will be teaming up with nVidia sometime soon. Now that AMD owns ATI, Intel should be wide open to purchase nVidia if they want, and (although I'm not saying they'll need it), pairing Intel's massive resources with nVidia's enthusiast motherboard chipsets and universal video options, things could improve rapidly for the both of them. However, if Intel is going to enter the market as a third video force, that seems unlikely, although we could see Intel graphics cards interfacing well only with intel boards and intel CPUS, and the customer could likely lose if such a situation becomes possible.
Anyway, I think I've speculated enough. The bottom line is that open-sourcing these drivers is a very interesting and likely harmless move for intel to make, and it should make the jobs of many OS coders easier in the open source OS circles.
That's because a product has to be VERY well established for someone to talk about it being killed. Sure, AltaVista may have been fairly well established, but nowhere near as well established as iTunes is now in terms of market share and whatnot (also, searching the internet was just a New Thing back then). Marketing something as a killer really is sort of a doomed system, because labelling something a killer admits that the opposition product is already very well established and in domination of the market. So yes, the Super-Parent is half-right when he says that killers don't often succeed: when they're labeled as killers, they're going up against absurd odds, whereas products that aren't developed to be killers are often killers because they break into the market that isn't as well established. That's what I think, anyway.
As for coming up with "Killer" products, VHS was sort of a BetaMax killer, to present a famous example.
Actually, the moderately wealthy aren't that because they spendd thousands on a graphics card. The RICHEST can afford to blow a few grand once a year, and it won't really set them back that much.
I get spam in my Gmail, but most of it is in non-romanized alphabets (Hebrew and Chinese/Japanese). I'm guessing that their filter also basically fails when presented with that sort of text.
"If they want to use a broken browser, have a popup window say 'your browser is broken, use firefox', and that's it, end of story."
Uh, they do. Except they're EVEN MORE unobtrusive about it.
I was curious, so I decided to check it all out in IE myself. The page opened fine, just with a SMALL header at the top:
"Please consider upgrading your Web browser Internet Explorer doesn't properly support CSS standards (IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%). If you visit our site with Firefox or Safari, it works perfectly. NewsCloud recommends you upgrade to Mozilla's open source Firefox browser for a better experience with our Web site."
Regardless, many films are doing this... it's really a moot point as to whether or not this particular film does it.
The bottom line is that a myspace link is familiar to lots of people, easy to access, easy to create, and plays into the social networking scheme that myspace yields. If someone can add "Ricky Bobby" to their myspace friends account, or whatever (I don't use myspace, so I don't know exactly how it works), but for a very small amount of effort, and likely no funding (they can rehash their own promotional materials) they can reach a number of people, and then (and this is where MySpace has another significant advantage) reach the people those people have friended on myspace, because the friends will see the user's like for the movie. Thus, for almost nothing, the marketers can reach people that wouldn't normally access the site.
Yea, but from personal experience, they always will, or they'll do something else equally stupid;-)
It's true that there's a definite limit on the sort of access control that's a good idea, but I do see this being a help.
Besides, this WILL give a more concrete point at which we can say "Don't do this again," because it'll specifically ask the user if they want to allow administrator priviledges to be used by program X at a definite point (and I bet it'll be logged) as opposed to just "Some program that I thought was a word processor/game/wallpaper/etc messed up my computer"
The above article details a new "User Account Control" system. From TFA: "The basic premise behind UAC is that the previous way of running everything as an Administrator was wrong, and by doing so it not only allowed applications to make system-wide changes when they shouldn't, but it also meant that compromised applications could be used as a vector to attack the system. As a result, even an administrator isn't really an administrator under Vista."
First of all, if you look at the actual meat of the quoted content above, it mentions that only ISPs are immune under the DMCA. That's one reason that limewire isn't a common carrier.
Secondly, limewire doesn't have the funding or the lobbying power to allow them to have such a protected status, unlike major ISPs.
"Internet networks are in many respects already treated like common carriers. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network."
And, of course, don't forget the Spies from Orwell's 1984. The Party in the book encouraged children to spy on their parents, even while they were sleeping.
Of course, China isn't trying to destroy the relationship between parents and their children, but they're certaintly being systematically used for espionage.
"Why don't we see this more often in all games? Because I think most games today are disposable. They're built for one console or platform with the intent of only running on the current version of Windows or Mac and with no interest in coming out with new releases that support new hardware or software. They do this because games are construed as novelty software that expire as the user tires of them. Games like WoW or other MMOs might bring about a shift in the way game designers spend their efforts. Maybe games will start to take a longer time to develop but last a hell of a lot longer than they traditionally have?"
Ah, but these games NEED to be disposable to ensure that the companies continue to profit. To address the question posed in the title:
Current system (roughly, of course):
Step 1: Company develops game Step 2: Company sells game Step 3: Company profits Step 4: Game becomes obsolete due to graphics, etc, company stops profiting, go to step 1
If game graphics never aged, we'd be in a system where the game developers would have to continue to make better and better GAMES, instead of just producing games that render the old games obsolete. Thus, for a game to sell, the cycle would be altered to more like:
Step 1: Company develops game. If the game is better than the old game, people will buy it. Otherwise, they wont.* Step 2: Company profits to a varying degree depending on how good their game is compared to the previous attempts. Step 4: Game DOESN'T become obsolete due to graphics, etc, company stops profiting ANYWAY, because everyone would already own a copy, go to step 1
*(Note that this is much like the current system, except games are almost always "better" than their predecessors because of improved graphical/physical/aural qualities)
Of course, the publishers would never accept such a system, so they MUST continue to update the CURRENT and NEXT generation ONLY with newer and better graphics. Even if they did develop such a system, the only way to make it commercially viable would be to have multiple competeing graphics upgrade-esque systems, with the consumer paying a high price for every upgrade in the underlying graphics base.
Also, when you asked "Maybe games will start to take a longer time to develop but last a hell of a lot longer than they traditionally have," you must realize that the companies would never do this because it's MUCH less profitable (or at least, much more of a gamble). If a company can just crank out another NCAA '0X game, or another "Generic FPS Number Q" game at low cost, even if they don't sell as many games, they still make quite a bundle. The only reason MMO's take longer to develop (and have more dedicated on-going development, patches, expansions, tech-support, etc, is because the consumer has to CONTINUALLY pay the company, so the business plan changes slightly... development time isn't as much of a big deal, because they need to both get the consumer to buy the game, but to also pay them 15$ a month for a year, and buy their expansions.
Perhaps, but the gravitational attraction of the spacecraft would be accounted for... even if, at first, it might be subtle, the eventual results of the gravitational force of the spacecraft would definitely be noticeable.
Any unexplained change, basically, is cause for more research.
In light of recent events, I think it's difficult to call Warren Buffet greedy or pathetic. As a self-made man, he lives remarkably frugally, and is exceptionally philanthropic.
For more information, check the Wikipedia article on him.
Why would you WANT documents pushing each other out of the way? That just means that, if I have something exactly where I want it, and I happen to want to move something in a direct path blocked by the other document, that means I either have to move AROUND the second document, or push it out of the way, and then go back and move it again. This is simply one of many such problems with a "phsycial" interface.
And then of course, you have to deal with the extra processing costs inherent in such a desktop. It may look pretty, but behind it you have to have the CPU doing plenty of physics calculations, the GPU doing rendering, anti-alwhich could slow down a slow system with a cluttered desktop.
My biggest gripe with this, however, is the fact that the icons all look the same. I don't want to have to memorize the placement of documents on my desktop (even though I often do so through simple habit, anyway), and these icons barely indictate file type, much less name, which I find to be a huge handicap. Without file names on the desktop, things get confusing rather quickly.
A final gripe I have is that, if we must use a pen-type device, does that mean we're switching from a pen to a mouse whenever we want to use an application that's incompatable/inconvenient when using this software?
The technology is interesting, but I doubt its practical use.
Slashdot Mirror
"ATI posting net income of $41M and nVidia $302.5M, yet you state ATI has higher net income?"
Good catch - I read the 41.____ M as 4.1_____ billion from the line above.
Just to clarify, that's not the Video CARD Market Share - that's just overall video, and not even in computers - that figure includes mobile devices as well.
To break it down more:
Overall Desktop Graphic Display Devices (Video Cards & On-board):
Intel 34.8%
ATI 26.3%
Nvidia 23.9%
Discrete Desktop Graphic Display Devices (Video Cards):
Nvidia 51.5%
ATI 47.9%
>_>
/tinfoilhat on
That's what they WANT you to think
_
On the contrary, all you have to do is implement the next generation of leverage by using a synergistic polychronistic time system to wield the golden hammer in order to...
Oh, I give up!
INTEL
Type: Public (NASDAQ: INTC)
Founded: 1968
Location: Santa Clara, California, USA (incorporated in Delaware)
Key people Paul Otellini, CEO
Craig Barrett, Chairman
Industry Semiconductors
Products Microprocessors
Flash memory
Revenue $38.83 billion USD (2005)
Operating income $12.1 billion USD (2005)
Net income $8.7 billion USD (2005)
NVIDIA
Type: Public (NASDAQ: NVDA)
Founded: 1993
Location: Santa Clara, California, USA
Key people Jen-Hsun Huang, CEO
Industry Semiconductors- Specialized
Products Graphics processing units
Motherboard chipsets
Revenue $2.375 Billion USD (2005)
Net income $302.5 Million USD (2005)
Employees 2,737 (2005)
Website www.nvidia.com
Check out those rows, especially Revenue and Net income. Intel is a MUCH larger company.
Compare to
AMD
Type: Public (NYSE: AMD)
Founded: 1969
Location: Sunnyvale, California, USA
Industry Semiconductors
Products Microprocessors
Revenue $5.848 billion USD (2005)
Net income $165.483 million USD (2005)
Employees 18,100 (Nov 2005)
Website www.amd.com
ATI
Type: Public (NASDAQ: ATYT)
Founded: 1985
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Key people David E. Orton, CEO
Industry Semiconductors
Products Graphics cards
Graphics processing units
Motherboard chipsets
Video capture cards
Revenue $2.222 Billion USD (2005)
Net income $41.676 Million USD (2005)
Employees 3,469 (2005)
Ati, suprisingly enough, has MORE employees than nVidia, an essentially equivalent revenue, and a higher next income.
If AMD can buy ATI, Intel should be able to buy nVidia with little problem.
Many, MANY home users out in the field use on-board video for everything. Now, I'm not saying this'll have them all converting to an Open Source OS, but this is yet another advance that would make sending the average noob user over to Linux without any sort of performance hit.
Taking a 180 degree turn and looking right back at your interpretation of the story, I find it very likely that Intel will be teaming up with nVidia sometime soon. Now that AMD owns ATI, Intel should be wide open to purchase nVidia if they want, and (although I'm not saying they'll need it), pairing Intel's massive resources with nVidia's enthusiast motherboard chipsets and universal video options, things could improve rapidly for the both of them. However, if Intel is going to enter the market as a third video force, that seems unlikely, although we could see Intel graphics cards interfacing well only with intel boards and intel CPUS, and the customer could likely lose if such a situation becomes possible.
Anyway, I think I've speculated enough. The bottom line is that open-sourcing these drivers is a very interesting and likely harmless move for intel to make, and it should make the jobs of many OS coders easier in the open source OS circles.
That's because a product has to be VERY well established for someone to talk about it being killed. Sure, AltaVista may have been fairly well established, but nowhere near as well established as iTunes is now in terms of market share and whatnot (also, searching the internet was just a New Thing back then). Marketing something as a killer really is sort of a doomed system, because labelling something a killer admits that the opposition product is already very well established and in domination of the market. So yes, the Super-Parent is half-right when he says that killers don't often succeed: when they're labeled as killers, they're going up against absurd odds, whereas products that aren't developed to be killers are often killers because they break into the market that isn't as well established. That's what I think, anyway.
As for coming up with "Killer" products, VHS was sort of a BetaMax killer, to present a famous example.
Actually, the moderately wealthy aren't that because they spendd thousands on a graphics card. The RICHEST can afford to blow a few grand once a year, and it won't really set them back that much.
I get spam in my Gmail, but most of it is in non-romanized alphabets (Hebrew and Chinese/Japanese). I'm guessing that their filter also basically fails when presented with that sort of text.
Critical hit!
Of course it sucked! It was a low pressure weather system, after all.
Idk about ATI, but all the real geeks use Intel now. Conroe has completely wasted AMD.
"If they want to use a broken browser, have a popup window say 'your browser is broken, use firefox', and that's it, end of story."
Uh, they do. Except they're EVEN MORE unobtrusive about it.
I was curious, so I decided to check it all out in IE myself. The page opened fine, just with a SMALL header at the top:
"Please consider upgrading your Web browser
Internet Explorer doesn't properly support CSS standards (IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%). If you visit our site with Firefox or Safari, it works perfectly. NewsCloud recommends you upgrade to Mozilla's open source Firefox browser for a better experience with our Web site."
What's wrong with that?
Regardless, many films are doing this... it's really a moot point as to whether or not this particular film does it.
The bottom line is that a myspace link is familiar to lots of people, easy to access, easy to create, and plays into the social networking scheme that myspace yields. If someone can add "Ricky Bobby" to their myspace friends account, or whatever (I don't use myspace, so I don't know exactly how it works), but for a very small amount of effort, and likely no funding (they can rehash their own promotional materials) they can reach a number of people, and then (and this is where MySpace has another significant advantage) reach the people those people have friended on myspace, because the friends will see the user's like for the movie. Thus, for almost nothing, the marketers can reach people that wouldn't normally access the site.
Yea, but from personal experience, they always will, or they'll do something else equally stupid ;-)
It's true that there's a definite limit on the sort of access control that's a good idea, but I do see this being a help.
Besides, this WILL give a more concrete point at which we can say "Don't do this again," because it'll specifically ask the user if they want to allow administrator priviledges to be used by program X at a definite point (and I bet it'll be logged) as opposed to just "Some program that I thought was a word processor/game/wallpaper/etc messed up my computer"
Yes, it WILL change if microsoft stops assuming that everyone can act as a full administrator, which they're going to do based on the latest beta.
7 80&p=7
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2
The above article details a new "User Account Control" system. From TFA: "The basic premise behind UAC is that the previous way of running everything as an Administrator was wrong, and by doing so it not only allowed applications to make system-wide changes when they shouldn't, but it also meant that compromised applications could be used as a vector to attack the system. As a result, even an administrator isn't really an administrator under Vista."
First of all, if you look at the actual meat of the quoted content above, it mentions that only ISPs are immune under the DMCA. That's one reason that limewire isn't a common carrier.
Secondly, limewire doesn't have the funding or the lobbying power to allow them to have such a protected status, unlike major ISPs.
"Internet networks are in many respects already treated like common carriers. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Carrier
Remember, this is slashdot. They may well mean free as in UNRESTRICTED, not free as in beer.
And, of course, don't forget the Spies from Orwell's 1984. The Party in the book encouraged children to spy on their parents, even while they were sleeping.
Of course, China isn't trying to destroy the relationship between parents and their children, but they're certaintly being systematically used for espionage.
Quote:
"Why don't we see this more often in all games? Because I think most games today are disposable. They're built for one console or platform with the intent of only running on the current version of Windows or Mac and with no interest in coming out with new releases that support new hardware or software. They do this because games are construed as novelty software that expire as the user tires of them. Games like WoW or other MMOs might bring about a shift in the way game designers spend their efforts. Maybe games will start to take a longer time to develop but last a hell of a lot longer than they traditionally have?"
Ah, but these games NEED to be disposable to ensure that the companies continue to profit. To address the question posed in the title:
Current system (roughly, of course):
Step 1: Company develops game
Step 2: Company sells game
Step 3: Company profits
Step 4: Game becomes obsolete due to graphics, etc, company stops profiting, go to step 1
If game graphics never aged, we'd be in a system where the game developers would have to continue to make better and better GAMES, instead of just producing games that render the old games obsolete. Thus, for a game to sell, the cycle would be altered to more like:
Step 1: Company develops game. If the game is better than the old game, people will buy it. Otherwise, they wont.*
Step 2: Company profits to a varying degree depending on how good their game is compared to the previous attempts.
Step 4: Game DOESN'T become obsolete due to graphics, etc, company stops profiting ANYWAY, because everyone would already own a copy, go to step 1
*(Note that this is much like the current system, except games are almost always "better" than their predecessors because of improved graphical/physical/aural qualities)
Of course, the publishers would never accept such a system, so they MUST continue to update the CURRENT and NEXT generation ONLY with newer and better graphics. Even if they did develop such a system, the only way to make it commercially viable would be to have multiple competeing graphics upgrade-esque systems, with the consumer paying a high price for every upgrade in the underlying graphics base.
Also, when you asked "Maybe games will start to take a longer time to develop but last a hell of a lot longer than they traditionally have," you must realize that the companies would never do this because it's MUCH less profitable (or at least, much more of a gamble). If a company can just crank out another NCAA '0X game, or another "Generic FPS Number Q" game at low cost, even if they don't sell as many games, they still make quite a bundle. The only reason MMO's take longer to develop (and have more dedicated on-going development, patches, expansions, tech-support, etc, is because the consumer has to CONTINUALLY pay the company, so the business plan changes slightly... development time isn't as much of a big deal, because they need to both get the consumer to buy the game, but to also pay them 15$ a month for a year, and buy their expansions.
~Ruff_ilb
Perhaps, but the gravitational attraction of the spacecraft would be accounted for... even if, at first, it might be subtle, the eventual results of the gravitational force of the spacecraft would definitely be noticeable.
Any unexplained change, basically, is cause for more research.
In light of recent events, I think it's difficult to call Warren Buffet greedy or pathetic. As a self-made man, he lives remarkably frugally, and is exceptionally philanthropic. For more information, check the Wikipedia article on him.
Uh, a utopia would have both, with no compromises on either.
Why would you WANT documents pushing each other out of the way? That just means that, if I have something exactly where I want it, and I happen to want to move something in a direct path blocked by the other document, that means I either have to move AROUND the second document, or push it out of the way, and then go back and move it again. This is simply one of many such problems with a "phsycial" interface.
And then of course, you have to deal with the extra processing costs inherent in such a desktop. It may look pretty, but behind it you have to have the CPU doing plenty of physics calculations, the GPU doing rendering, anti-alwhich could slow down a slow system with a cluttered desktop.
My biggest gripe with this, however, is the fact that the icons all look the same. I don't want to have to memorize the placement of documents on my desktop (even though I often do so through simple habit, anyway), and these icons barely indictate file type, much less name, which I find to be a huge handicap. Without file names on the desktop, things get confusing rather quickly.
A final gripe I have is that, if we must use a pen-type device, does that mean we're switching from a pen to a mouse whenever we want to use an application that's incompatable/inconvenient when using this software?
The technology is interesting, but I doubt its practical use.