Yes, Marsh was right: current HD DVD/BluRay discs will not play over digital connections without the required HDCP. However, this applies to all computers (Windows, OS X, Linux) that want to play these discs legally, not just Vista PCs. Marsh was simply describing what was required to play these discs on Vista PCs, but the article incorrectly assumed these HDCP requirements only applied to Vista. These HDCP requirements are set by HD DVD and BluRay, not Microsoft. These requirements apply to current Windows XP PCs and will apply to future OS X and Linux computers that play HD DVD/BluRay discs.
Also, people are understandably confusing two different DRM components: HDCP and ICT. ICT (Image Constraint Token) is the DRM that downgrades the video if played over analog connections. ICT hasn't been implemented yet and most studios have agreed not to implement it until around 2010 at the earliest.
Yes, the software is free on the PC, but won't actually play video without you having already acquired an MPEG-2 codec for the machine,
If the PC was bought with a DVD drive preinstalled, or the PC's DVD drive was bought at retail, then the MPEG-2 codec was bundled for free. The only people I can think of who need to "aquire" a codec are people that build their own PCs with OEM DVD drives.
can't burn to DVD without you acquiring DVD burning software from a third party,
The same thing I wrote above apples to DVD burners. PCs with DVD burners and retail burners are bundled with burning software for free.
and won't convert to some of the formats this supports without an additional fee (~$30) to cover the costs of the codec licensing for those formats.
Only if you don't know where to download the free alternatives. Even if you don't, isn't this better than paying $100?
Since the Mac OS X software as packaged has a vastly different things feature set than the Windows version, as packaged, it's not an apples-to-apples pricing comparison
Of course it's not, but Windows users don't need that extra stuff that you say they need, and neither do Mac users. Unless TiVo un-bundles TiVoToGo for Mac in the future, they can go frick themselves.
Also, one of the requirements of AMD LIVE! is Windows Media Center Edition, so it's obvious AMD created this spec in cooperation/partnership with Microsoft.
I'm pretty sure the GP was joking, though, about MS suing AMD for using the word "Live."
The only way this is going to go away is when people lose interest . . . which isn't going to happen any time soon now that there's constant media coverage because she was foolish enough to file suit.
One of my local television news shows referred to this as the "Streisand Effect." For those that don't get it: a few years ago, Barbra Streisand sued the makers of a http://californiacoastline.org/ for $50 million because their aerial photographic survey of the California coastline had images that included her coastal property. The media coverage of her outrageous lawsuit resulted in her property being one of the most looked at/downloaded images on the Internet. Heck, I wouldn't have looked if I hadn't learned about it on Slashdot.
Be sure it's a very good safe that itself is difficult to steal. The "stars" of the most famous celebrity sex video of all time invested in a not-very-good safe that got stolen from their home (if you believe HER story). From a Larry King Live interview with Pam Anderson:
KING: All stemming from the sex tape with Tommy Lee. How'd that tape get out?
ANDERSON: It was stolen from our house. An entire gun safe was stolen from our house.
KING: You did it for your own pleasure?
ANDERSON: The tape?
KING: Yes.
ANDERSON: Well, we did a combination of tapes. We had a lot of videotapes and running around the house. It was never a honeymoon tape. It was just video of when we were first married and running around the world and a little bit of nudity here and there and they spliced it all together and made it look like had we'd created some kind of pornography.
The simple answer is no. I bought my Mac specifically for Final Cut because Premiere was such a miserable editor. I cut a feature on Premiere and easily lost 1/3 of my time to crashes. I haven't used the latest versions but the one I used, 5.5, was lightyears behind Final Cut Pro. If you asked me to cut another film on Premiere I'd rather work fast food than do it.... Why go back to a Yugo when you already own a Ferrari... Personally I'm thrilled with Final Cut and would never use Premiere for any reason. It made my life a living hell so if they are loosing customers it's their own fault for putting out such a lousy editor.
I'm no video editing guru, but I know the version of Premiere you used (5.5) was replaced by version 6.0 in 2001 and rewritten in 2003 (Premiere Pro 1.0). Is it really fair to judge the upcoming version of Premiere Pro based on your experiences with a version from 2001 before the rewrite? Isn't that like someone judging OS X Leapord based on their experiences with OS 9?
Apple's laptop market share doubled in the first half of last year from 6% in January 2006 to 12% in June 2006. I don't know what their market share is up to since 6/06 but predicting 20% for 2007 doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I think some of this sharp rise in market share was attributable to pent-up demand for faster Apple notebooks with modern CPUs, which was finally met when Apple announced their Core Duo based MacBooks in January 2006 (Pro) and May 2006.
Do you remember how long Apple stuck with the G3/G4 architecture in their iBooks/PowerBooks? For years I'm sure many users wanted newer Apple notebooks, but were unsatisfied with yet another G4-based notebook. During that time, the Pentium M architecture had been available since March 2003, so there was no corresponding pent-up demand from non-Apple notebook buyers.
Maybe I'm overestimating this pent-up demand. Maybe they're mostly new Apple customers, not old Apple customers. However, I won't be surprised if Apple's notebook marketshare stabilizes or even goes down slightly as most of the longtime iBook/PowerBook owners finally upgrade to modern CPUs.
Why would you need that? I'm expecting a small DVI-VGAesque connector which is white which is DVI-HDMI, for maybe $5. It'll probably sell extremely well to non-mac users too.
I also wondered why HDMI (instead of DVI w/HDCP) when I read about the first Blu-Ray/HD-DVD notebooks. In case you didn't know, Sony's Blu-Ray notebooks and Toshiba's HD-DVD notebooks have HDMI ports instead of DVI ports. HDMI has already become the standard high-quality video output port (replacing DVI) on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD notebooks.
I suspect it's because they think many users will want to connect their Blu-Ray notebook to high-definition home theater systems, and one cable (HDMI) is much more convenient than two cables (DVI and digital audio). Since HD televisions far outnumber set top Blu-Ray players, a Blu-Ray notebook would probably get a lot of use as a portable Blu-Ray movie player for all those digital televisions that lack a Blu-Ray player.
Also, HDMI-to-DVI converters should be cheap for those that want to connect to their Cinema Displays. In fact, Sony includes HDMI-to-DVI converters with their Blu-Ray notebooks.
The 30GB iPod takes up 31% less volume than the Zune and 42% less volume than the 30GB Creative Zen Vision:M.
The 30GB iPod has 15% less mass than both the Zune and the 30GB Creative Zen Vision:M.
The Zune's screen is 20% larger than the 30GB iPod with video capabilities.
The 30GB iPod plus iPod Radio Remote ($50) has only 2% less mass than the Zune.
And for all those Apple fans claiming most people don't need and FM tuner: most people don't need all that shit that gets bundled with the MacBooks either.
I'm still perplexed that there's not been faster and more widespread adoption of DVRs. As a technologist, I tend to be friends with the kinds of people who have DVRs, but I still have a hard time impressing on "regular people" how damn wonderful they are.
I'm just speculating, but I think "regular people" might be turned off by the monthly fees/subscriptions required by the most popular DVR solutions. They might be thinking: "I never had to pay $20 per month (with a 1-year commitment) to use a VCR." (Yes, there are cheaper options for longer commitments. This is just an example. But "regular people" have to be convinced of its value first.)
I also think most "regular people" underestimate how much television is a part of their life. Many people like to think that television is "not important" enough to pay extra money for what they think is a slightly advanced VCR. In reality, people watch way more television than they think they do. They would probably save lots of time and enjoy their time watching television a heck of a lot more if they used a DVR.
I continually explain that having a good DVR is like having refridgeration -- once you've had it, you don't see how anyone made it this far without it. To that end, my wife and I find it diffucult to watch tv away from home.
It's not cool to admit tv is this important in our lives (I'm kidding). We should all be getting out and reading more, right?
Convincing people to pay an additional subscription to put an extra box near their television, with no new content, is a difficult task. I think free trials might do it. 30-day money-back guarantees (like the one offered by TiVo) still seem like a hassle to the unconvinced. Better competition and lower prices are also needed. The leader, TiVo, is darned expensive unless you commit to a long-term subscription. Windows XP Media Center does not require subscriptions, but not many people hook up PCs to their televisions. Cable/satellite companies can probably push free DVR trials on their customers (integrated into the set top box), but their DVRs are not nearly as usable as TiVo and ReplayTV (last time I checked).
the degradation discussed is a requirement for non-encrypted content streams. My understanding is that if you connect your new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player via their analog outputs, or to a non-encrypted digital channel, the output is downgraded to a lower resolution
Parent replied:
Thats incorrect. Degradation is recommended by the HD standards only if the content provider has opted-in for content protection but the hardware used doesn't provide a complete protection path to the display.
So non-opted content will display with full fidelity regardless of whether a non-secured or secured mechanism is used to display the content.
That's incorrect if you're using digital connections (e.g. DVI, HDMI) and commercial BluRay/HD DVD discs (almost all of which use AACS). If you try to play almost any commercial disc using a digital connection and you don't have HDCP protecting every step of the playback process, then it probably won't play at all. However, it probably will play back in full resolution over analog connections (e.g. VGA, component) because most commercial discs have not implemented ICT yet. When ICT is implemented, then the image (over analog connection) will be degredated to a lower resolution. Did that make sense?
To clarify, the rules are different for digital and analog connections. The rules are also different for AACS and ICT.
AACS (Advanced Access Content System) is the encryption system that's currently used by almost all commercial BluRay/HD DVD discs and requires HDCP everywhere (video ouput/input, driver, playback software) to playback (at any resolution) over digital outputs (e.g. DVI, HDMI). The disc probably won't playback at all over a digital connection that isn't fully protected by HDCP. Here's a link with a good explanation: The Authoritative BD FAQ: VIII. Device Connections
ICT (Image Constraint Token) is the DRM system that currently is not used by commercial discs but, when it is implemented, will degrade the resolution if analog connections are used.
You're much more likely to run into DRM problems on a computer/LCD than on a set top box/digital television. All BluRay/HD DVD set top boxes (except XBox 360) have all the DRM requirements built-in and all digital televisions have (at minimum) high-def analog inputs. On the other hand, most high-end computer/LCD setups today are connected with a DVI connection that doesn't have HDCP in either the video card or LCD. These computers (with incomplete HDCP implementations) won't play the movie at all using a digital connection (it will just display an error message). These same computers can playback HD content over a VGA connection (if ICT hasn't been implemented), but that would require changing the LCD connection from good digital to inferior analog. Who would want to do that just for watching HD movies?
Subject: Summary makes a flawed assumption, MS another
millions of Internet users who will soon be running IE7
I don't think this is a flawed assumption (that millions will soon be using IE7). It seems like an obvious assumption, to me.
This depends on millions of new Intel machines being purchased after January 30. Febrary and March are the slowest period of the year for any non-essential item, as people are recovering from their holiday spending binges. Retail box sales of Vista will be all but limited to hard core gamers who want DirectX 10 a year before any games actually take advantage of it.
Are you assuming that Microsoft's Express Upgrade program, which has been in effect since October 26, will not have a significant effect on Vista installations after January 30? The vast majority of new Windows PCs sold today come with a coupon for free, very cheap, or reduced-price upgrades to Vista. Sure, some coupon owners won't bother to upgrade, but I assume a huge portion of those holiday buyers will upgrade to Vista soon and use the preinstalled IE7.
Ok, so IE7 is available on XP if you have SP2 installed. Still not staggering market share if you ask me.
Even if you don't count Vista users, I assume that Service Pack 2 is installed on a significant majority of Windows XP PCs (anybody have links to stats?). SP2 was released in August 2004, added to the "high-priority" section of Windows Update soon after, and included on all OEM/retail copies of XP soon after. Haven't "millions" of new PCs been sold (with XP2 preinstalled) in the last two years?
Internet Explorer 7 was released in late October 2006 and added to the "high-priority" section of Windows Update in November. W3Schools's Browser Statistics show IE7 with 2.5% in September (when it was still in beta), 3.1% in October, and 7.1% in November (IE6: 49.9%, Firefox: 29.9%).
Despite IE6's flaws, it still has 49.9%. Despite IE7's current flaws (which you commented on), I'd bet my right thumb that millions will be using IE7 by March.
The huge difference part was focus-follows-mouse. The bit about single-click activation was a separate sentence and described as something "I like", rather than something that's a huge difference.
That (focus-follows-mouse) is what I thought Microsoft meant by "point to select" and "To select an item without opening it, rest your pointer on it," which were in my original comment. So I went ahead and temporarily changed my Windows 2000 settings to see what happened: bzzzt. Only icon focus follows the mouse, not window focus. So yes, a crucial part (for power users) of focus-follows-mouse is not implemented in Windows 2000 without a registry hack. Here's the registry hack BTW: Making Windows Usable - Window manager: virtual desktop, focus-follows-mouse
If you start looking at behavior, it gets even more different. Focus-follows-mouse is a huge difference, and one that nearly all experienced Unix/Linux users prefer. I like single-click activation.
I'm not disagreeing with you comment's point, but I think this feature that makes a "huge difference" to you is available in Window 2000/XP. I'm on a Windows 2000 PC right now, and "Control Panel -> Folder Options" has an option called "Click item as follows." The default setting (the one we're familiar with) is called "Double-click to open an item (single-click to select)." This setting can be changed to "Single-click to open an item (point to select)." The contextual help for this setting says: "Specifies that you want to open items in folders and on the desktop by single-clicking them, just as you would click a link on a Web page. To select an item without opening it, rest your pointer on it."
This is one of those areas where I feel that AMD was about 2 (3?) years ahead of Intel.
3+ years for the high-end workstation/low-end server market (Xeon/Opteron). But that's not what I was referring to.
I don't want to sound like an Intel fanboi/apologist, but "the area" I was talking about was the budget notebook market and I think Intel has been ahead of AMD in this "area" since the Celeron M started using the first Pentium M core (Banias). Even today (for the vast majority of users in this market), I think 64-bit extensions are far less important than the performance per watt users get from Banias/Dothan/Yonah and the Centrino chipsets. In this market, I don't think users are going to use a 64-bit OS until at least their next computer purchase.
However, in "the area" that I think you were referring to in your comment (high end workstation, low-mid server), I agree that AMD was way ahead of Intel (Itanium is a different area, though). The Opteron was released in April 2003 and the Xeon finally got the Woodcrest core in June 2006. For this area, I think the NetBurst architecture was always behind the Opteron architecture.
Also, Intel's current entry-level notebook CPU, the Yonah-based Celeron M, is still 32-bit and won't be upgraded to the 64-bit Merom core until Q1 2007. This is the CPU you'll likely find in many sub-$600 notebooks and has more than enough performance for most users, IMO. I thought Apple should have used it in a sub-$500 Mac mini (it can use the mini's chipset).
So for this significant portion of the notebook market, I think the transition to 64-bit will probably stretch out past Q2 2007. It might go quicker than most, however, because Merom uses the same chipset as Yonah.
All of which is a good argument for why Apple shouldn't've knuckled in to Microsoft and Adobe and should've stuck w/ their Rhapsody plan and never have wasted time on the foetid mess which is Carbon.
I'm no expert on Rhapsody vs. Carbon, but doesn't Apple still depend on Carbon for some of their most important apps? Without Carbon, would Apple have "wasted time" converting their own apps to Cocoa? If Apple had spent time and resources on converting their apps to Cocoa, would OS X be as usable as it is today?
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering. I just thought if Carbon is such a "foetid mess," then Apple would have converted more of their own Carbon apps to Cocoa by now.
Are you saying Foobar or Winamp has better organizational, search, playlist, and access features than iTunes?
In Foobar2000, these features are called "Media Library" and "Autoplaylist."
iTunes, in comparison, allows me to make a list of rules:
Songs I've never played
Genre not country
Genre not children
Artist is not Celine
Less than 10 hours
And voila, I have a 10 hour long playlist of songs I've never played, that isn't country, not children's music, and not by artists with the name Celine.
In Foobar2000:
%play_counter% EQUAL 0
NOT %genre% IS country
NOT %genre% IS children
NOT %artist% IS Celine
I don't know if there's a query string to generate a playlist less than 10 hours long. However, I can easily achieve the same thing by randomly sorting the playlist, selecting multiple items (click, hold, drag) until the total length field shows less than 10 hours, then cropping the playlist down to the selected items.
I use a Mac-Mini as a media center along with an Elgato tuner and it works brilliantly but only because Elgato tacked a home made extension onto Front Row for their TV tuner which is a good thing since the remote Elgato ships with their tuners is (in my experience at least) complete crap. How hard can it be for Apple to create an API for TV tuner manufacturers like Elgato to use to integrate their products into Front Row? Still, it's cool to be able to control a DVD player, music jukebox, photo slideshow viewer, movie player and a TV tuner complete with recorder using a 6 button Front Row remote.
I agree that the Apple Remote is an elegant implementation for Front Row's music, photos, videos, and DVD functions. However, I cannot see how those six buttons can be adequate for controlling dvr and tv tuner functions.
Even basic cable gives us too many channels to fit on a few "program guide" pages. To navigate those pages, wouldn't it be nicer to have PgUp/PgDn buttons like all modern tv remotes have? Heck, wouldn't it be nicer to have telephone-style number/text buttons to directly enter channel numbers and enter text for program searches? How about a simple "record" button to record what you're currently watching?
I haven't used the Apple remote to control dvr and tv tuner functions, so maybe Apple has done something very clever to make it simple. However, I'm pretty sure more buttons would make it simpler to contrl tv/dvr functions.
Many people out there, given the choice between either win98 or winME would gladly choose 98. There are a variety of reasons, but they pretty much boil down to winME being an unstable POS.
There are also a variety of reasons to choose WinME, among them being features Win98 didn't have like System Restore, Windows Image Aquisition, and Windows Movie Maker (which were later added to WinXP). Why can't people accept the fact that some people benefited from these new features and didn't have considerably worse stability compared to Win98 (especially when the OS was tested and preinstalled by HP or Dell). Of course, for others (especially those upgrading older/untested computers) their loss of stability outweighed any useful new features.
Microsoft's big mistake was releasing WinME as a retail/upgrade product. It should have been an OEM-only product.
anandtech's review of the Core 2 Duos indicated that power consumption was really about the same across the board. The AMD EE chips were the least-power hungry, with just about every other chip all in a small span. Methinks someone's test procedures aren't quite accurate
An Anandtech article shows that the Intel 975X chipset consumes about 3-5 watts more than the more current P965 chipset for certain apps, but unfortunately they don't have "load" comparisons. The P965 chipset lacks SLI support, so that's probably why reviewers are using 975X.
So a comparison of platforms that "most people buy" should probably use the Intel P965 chipset and the nForce 570 Ultra chipset. It's too bad review sites tend to use the SLI uber-chipsets.
Another smart (but a little slimy) marketing move Intel has made is in the power dissipation numbers. AMD quotes their CPU's maximum dissipation, and Intel quotes a power figure for some arbitrary (under 100%) CPU load. Intel looks good here....until you actually measure a system's power draw at the outlet, and find that again, there's not that much difference.
Your observation about price/performance at Intel's low-end Core 2 Duo price (E6300 vs X2 4200+) is interesting and seems accurate. Good catch.
However, there appears to be a very significant difference in power usage (at the outlet) that favors Intel's platform at all price/performance levels. The Tech Report's recent review of Intel's quad-core CPU showed the Core 2 Duo systems drawing way less power than comparable Athlon x2 systems. For example, the E6300 system drew 153 watts at load while the x2 4200+ drew 191 watts. The E6700 system, which clobbers AMD high-end CPUs in price/performance, only drew 156 watts at load while high-end Athlon 64 x2 CPUs drew 200 watts and the FX-62 drew 230 watts.
Also, what's up with the AMD x2 3800+ EE system (35W TDP) drawing the same power at load (153W) as the Intel E6300 (65W TDP)? I doubt the AMD motherboard (NVIDIA 590 chipset) is drawing about 30W more than the Intel motherboard (975X chipset).
* Intel will become, pretty much overnight, what all of these routers have to interoperate with,
* Everyone else tweaks their chipsets to work with Intel,
* Intel's interpretation of the draft standard becomes the standard.
As I said in another comment (before reading your "Score:5" comment), "the standard" (draft 2.0, due March 2007) will be set before Intel's chipset (due April 2007) is released. Draft 2.0 will be tested and certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance, so Intel will most likely be tweaking their chipset to work with Draft 2.0. In fact, I bet all of the other wireless equipment makers will release their draft 2.0 gear before Intel.
First of all, this (802.11n in next Centrino) is very old news (Feb 2006).
More importantly, Intel will in all likelyhood be using draft 2.0 of the 802.11n spec, which is much closer to the final spec than today's crappy "pre-N" stuff (draft 1.0). Draft 2.0 equipment will even be tested and certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance for interoperability.
Draft 2.0 is due to be ratified in March 2007. Next-gen Centrino (Santa Rosa) is due in April 2007. In the unlikely event that draft 2.0 is not ratified, the Wi-Fi Alliance will put together de-facto standards, which will still be much better than today's current draft 1.0. Any respectable article would mention this very important information.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, people are understandably confusing two different DRM components: HDCP and ICT. ICT (Image Constraint Token) is the DRM that downgrades the video if played over analog connections. ICT hasn't been implemented yet and most studios have agreed not to implement it until around 2010 at the earliest.
If the PC was bought with a DVD drive preinstalled, or the PC's DVD drive was bought at retail, then the MPEG-2 codec was bundled for free. The only people I can think of who need to "aquire" a codec are people that build their own PCs with OEM DVD drives.
The same thing I wrote above apples to DVD burners. PCs with DVD burners and retail burners are bundled with burning software for free.
Only if you don't know where to download the free alternatives. Even if you don't, isn't this better than paying $100?
Of course it's not, but Windows users don't need that extra stuff that you say they need, and neither do Mac users. Unless TiVo un-bundles TiVoToGo for Mac in the future, they can go frick themselves.
I'm pretty sure the GP was joking, though, about MS suing AMD for using the word "Live."
KING: All stemming from the sex tape with Tommy Lee. How'd that tape get out?
ANDERSON: It was stolen from our house. An entire gun safe was stolen from our house.
KING: You did it for your own pleasure?
ANDERSON: The tape?
KING: Yes.
ANDERSON: Well, we did a combination of tapes. We had a lot of videotapes and running around the house. It was never a honeymoon tape. It was just video of when we were first married and running around the world and a little bit of nudity here and there and they spliced it all together and made it look like had we'd created some kind of pornography.
Do you remember how long Apple stuck with the G3/G4 architecture in their iBooks/PowerBooks? For years I'm sure many users wanted newer Apple notebooks, but were unsatisfied with yet another G4-based notebook. During that time, the Pentium M architecture had been available since March 2003, so there was no corresponding pent-up demand from non-Apple notebook buyers.
Maybe I'm overestimating this pent-up demand. Maybe they're mostly new Apple customers, not old Apple customers. However, I won't be surprised if Apple's notebook marketshare stabilizes or even goes down slightly as most of the longtime iBook/PowerBook owners finally upgrade to modern CPUs.
I suspect it's because they think many users will want to connect their Blu-Ray notebook to high-definition home theater systems, and one cable (HDMI) is much more convenient than two cables (DVI and digital audio). Since HD televisions far outnumber set top Blu-Ray players, a Blu-Ray notebook would probably get a lot of use as a portable Blu-Ray movie player for all those digital televisions that lack a Blu-Ray player.
Also, HDMI-to-DVI converters should be cheap for those that want to connect to their Cinema Displays. In fact, Sony includes HDMI-to-DVI converters with their Blu-Ray notebooks.
The 30GB iPod plus iPod Radio Remote ($50) has only 2% less mass than the Zune.
And for all those Apple fans claiming most people don't need and FM tuner: most people don't need all that shit that gets bundled with the MacBooks either.
I also think most "regular people" underestimate how much television is a part of their life. Many people like to think that television is "not important" enough to pay extra money for what they think is a slightly advanced VCR. In reality, people watch way more television than they think they do. They would probably save lots of time and enjoy their time watching television a heck of a lot more if they used a DVR.
It's not cool to admit tv is this important in our lives (I'm kidding). We should all be getting out and reading more, right?Convincing people to pay an additional subscription to put an extra box near their television, with no new content, is a difficult task. I think free trials might do it. 30-day money-back guarantees (like the one offered by TiVo) still seem like a hassle to the unconvinced. Better competition and lower prices are also needed. The leader, TiVo, is darned expensive unless you commit to a long-term subscription. Windows XP Media Center does not require subscriptions, but not many people hook up PCs to their televisions. Cable/satellite companies can probably push free DVR trials on their customers (integrated into the set top box), but their DVRs are not nearly as usable as TiVo and ReplayTV (last time I checked).
Parent replied:
That's incorrect if you're using digital connections (e.g. DVI, HDMI) and commercial BluRay/HD DVD discs (almost all of which use AACS). If you try to play almost any commercial disc using a digital connection and you don't have HDCP protecting every step of the playback process, then it probably won't play at all. However, it probably will play back in full resolution over analog connections (e.g. VGA, component) because most commercial discs have not implemented ICT yet. When ICT is implemented, then the image (over analog connection) will be degredated to a lower resolution. Did that make sense?
To clarify, the rules are different for digital and analog connections. The rules are also different for AACS and ICT.
AACS (Advanced Access Content System) is the encryption system that's currently used by almost all commercial BluRay/HD DVD discs and requires HDCP everywhere (video ouput/input, driver, playback software) to playback (at any resolution) over digital outputs (e.g. DVI, HDMI). The disc probably won't playback at all over a digital connection that isn't fully protected by HDCP. Here's a link with a good explanation: The Authoritative BD FAQ: VIII. Device Connections
ICT (Image Constraint Token) is the DRM system that currently is not used by commercial discs but, when it is implemented, will degrade the resolution if analog connections are used.
You're much more likely to run into DRM problems on a computer/LCD than on a set top box/digital television. All BluRay/HD DVD set top boxes (except XBox 360) have all the DRM requirements built-in and all digital televisions have (at minimum) high-def analog inputs. On the other hand, most high-end computer/LCD setups today are connected with a DVI connection that doesn't have HDCP in either the video card or LCD. These computers (with incomplete HDCP implementations) won't play the movie at all using a digital connection (it will just display an error message). These same computers can playback HD content over a VGA connection (if ICT hasn't been implemented), but that would require changing the LCD connection from good digital to inferior analog. Who would want to do that just for watching HD movies?
More AACS/ICT/HDCP explanations:
HD Video Playback: H.264 Blu-ray on the PC
Review: Sony BWU-100A Blu-ray Recordable Drive
Internet Explorer 7 was released in late October 2006 and added to the "high-priority" section of Windows Update in November. W3Schools's Browser Statistics show IE7 with 2.5% in September (when it was still in beta), 3.1% in October, and 7.1% in November (IE6: 49.9%, Firefox: 29.9%).
Despite IE6's flaws, it still has 49.9%. Despite IE7's current flaws (which you commented on), I'd bet my right thumb that millions will be using IE7 by March.
I don't want to sound like an Intel fanboi/apologist, but "the area" I was talking about was the budget notebook market and I think Intel has been ahead of AMD in this "area" since the Celeron M started using the first Pentium M core (Banias). Even today (for the vast majority of users in this market), I think 64-bit extensions are far less important than the performance per watt users get from Banias/Dothan/Yonah and the Centrino chipsets. In this market, I don't think users are going to use a 64-bit OS until at least their next computer purchase.
However, in "the area" that I think you were referring to in your comment (high end workstation, low-mid server), I agree that AMD was way ahead of Intel (Itanium is a different area, though). The Opteron was released in April 2003 and the Xeon finally got the Woodcrest core in June 2006. For this area, I think the NetBurst architecture was always behind the Opteron architecture.
So for this significant portion of the notebook market, I think the transition to 64-bit will probably stretch out past Q2 2007. It might go quicker than most, however, because Merom uses the same chipset as Yonah.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering. I just thought if Carbon is such a "foetid mess," then Apple would have converted more of their own Carbon apps to Cocoa by now.
Here are some Apple Carbon apps:
%play_counter% EQUAL 0
NOT %genre% IS country
NOT %genre% IS children
NOT %artist% IS Celine
I don't know if there's a query string to generate a playlist less than 10 hours long. However, I can easily achieve the same thing by randomly sorting the playlist, selecting multiple items (click, hold, drag) until the total length field shows less than 10 hours, then cropping the playlist down to the selected items.
Even basic cable gives us too many channels to fit on a few "program guide" pages. To navigate those pages, wouldn't it be nicer to have PgUp/PgDn buttons like all modern tv remotes have? Heck, wouldn't it be nicer to have telephone-style number/text buttons to directly enter channel numbers and enter text for program searches? How about a simple "record" button to record what you're currently watching?
I haven't used the Apple remote to control dvr and tv tuner functions, so maybe Apple has done something very clever to make it simple. However, I'm pretty sure more buttons would make it simpler to contrl tv/dvr functions.
Microsoft's big mistake was releasing WinME as a retail/upgrade product. It should have been an OEM-only product.
A Tech Report article on AM2 chipsets shows that the nForce 590 chipset consumes about 20 watts more than the ATI RD580 (CrossFire XPress 3200) chipset at load. However, the power-hungry nForce 590 chipset has more integrated features: 2 gigabit ethernet chips (RD580 has none), 6 SATA ports (RD580 has 4), and more RAID options. That's probably why most high-end CPU reviews I've seen have used the nForce 590 chipset.
An Anandtech article shows that the Intel 975X chipset consumes about 3-5 watts more than the more current P965 chipset for certain apps, but unfortunately they don't have "load" comparisons. The P965 chipset lacks SLI support, so that's probably why reviewers are using 975X.
So a comparison of platforms that "most people buy" should probably use the Intel P965 chipset and the nForce 570 Ultra chipset. It's too bad review sites tend to use the SLI uber-chipsets.
However, there appears to be a very significant difference in power usage (at the outlet) that favors Intel's platform at all price/performance levels. The Tech Report's recent review of Intel's quad-core CPU showed the Core 2 Duo systems drawing way less power than comparable Athlon x2 systems. For example, the E6300 system drew 153 watts at load while the x2 4200+ drew 191 watts. The E6700 system, which clobbers AMD high-end CPUs in price/performance, only drew 156 watts at load while high-end Athlon 64 x2 CPUs drew 200 watts and the FX-62 drew 230 watts.
Also, what's up with the AMD x2 3800+ EE system (35W TDP) drawing the same power at load (153W) as the Intel E6300 (65W TDP)? I doubt the AMD motherboard (NVIDIA 590 chipset) is drawing about 30W more than the Intel motherboard (975X chipset).
More importantly, Intel will in all likelyhood be using draft 2.0 of the 802.11n spec, which is much closer to the final spec than today's crappy "pre-N" stuff (draft 1.0). Draft 2.0 equipment will even be tested and certified by the Wi-Fi Alliance for interoperability.
Draft 2.0 is due to be ratified in March 2007. Next-gen Centrino (Santa Rosa) is due in April 2007. In the unlikely event that draft 2.0 is not ratified, the Wi-Fi Alliance will put together de-facto standards, which will still be much better than today's current draft 1.0. Any respectable article would mention this very important information.