I have already seen 50 GB BD-ROM blanks at Frys (albeit for $39) so I know the dual layer BluRay discs are already possible. I've also heard that many HDDVD movies are shipping on 30 GB (dual layer) discs.
When all movies are encoded in high-quality and high-efficiency H.264 format, will the extra capacity above 25/30 GB really matter? I can see Blu Ray (with its theoretical higher capacity) eventually being the better format for PC storage, but I think home video will probably decide who wins this format war.
We won't be able to see a true Apples to Apple comparison until we can compare two discs that used the exact same codec at the exact same bitrate, or even the exact same H.264 / VC-1 data.
Well, I think this is an Apples to Apples comparison of what is available now. Of course, 99% of people who are interested in these formats should not be buying these 1st generation players and movies.
... but, will the average consumer know to search on Paul Thurott's website?
I think the "average consumer" will only have two versions to choose from: (1) Vista Home Basic (like XP Home) and (2) Vista Home Premium (like XP Media Center Edition).
"Average" home office users will choose Vista Business, or it will be preinstalled on "business" PCs. Vista Enterprise is only available by volume licensing, so average users won't see it. Vista Ultimate isn't for "average" users and I don't expect to see it preinstalled on computers for "average" PC buyers.
I might be wrong, but I think (for the average consumer) choosing Vista versions will be simpler than choosing XP versions. Home Basic for the low-cost computers. Home Premium for the extra Media Center functions. Vista Business for the home office.
It seems unlikely that the Macbook and Mini will keep Cores while the Pros get Core 2s, since Intel is going to be phasing out the Core in favour of the Core 2 relatively quickly.
Do you have a reference? I heard that the Yonahs were here to stay as the 'low end' or 'consumer' option.
If you think DigiTimes is a reliable reference, here's an article about Yonah's rumored quick phase-out:
Intel's latest plan will reduce production of its Yonah processors in the fourth quarter, and by the end of the 2006, Yonah processors will only account for 30% of Intel's notebook processor shipments, down from the current 50%, the sources revealed. By the end of the first half of 2007, Yonah processors will total less than 10%, the sources added.
Intel's initial shipment goal for Merom after its launch is 15% of its notebook processor shipments, and the proportion will increase to 30% in the fourth quarter, the sources said.
Intel also plans to launch Core-based Celeron M processors with 945GM and 945PM chipsets in the fourth quarter of 2006, the sources noted. That means, Intel will be offering 64-bit dual-core architecture for notebooks across all market segments from the high end to the low end, the sources noted.
I have no idea whether or not Apple will adapt Merom-based mobile CPUs for the mini and Macbook, but they will have the option. They might delay adoption of Merom on their "non-Pro" products so that they can clearly justify the price premium of their "Pro" products. Maybe they'll use Merom-based Celerons (64-bit single-core) and drop the price of the mini and Macbook to pre-Yonah levels.
I agree with you and the person you agree with (I didn't make that clear in my other comment), but tell this to Apple.
All over that page, Apple refers to non-Macintosh personal computers as "PCs." Apple's current television commercials start with "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC."
I hate the current popular definition of "PC" (Windows PC), but I think we should just accept this definition when we know what the speaker means.
Actually, I meant "personal computer" (including Macs) when I said "PCs," but I admit my comment made this unclear. I emphasized the word "PC" because that was the word used in the original question and the first "Informative" answer gave a Mac-only answer based on rumors, not announcements from any personal computer company.
Also, I now realize that Mac-only answer was probably a joke. I should lighten up.
The question asked when the first PCs will come out with Core 2 desktop processors. You gave an answer based on an unconfirmed and very uncertain Mac rumor (linking to Apple's conference/lovefest), then got modded up.
Intel Core 2 Extreme processor based systems and boxed product are expected to be available on the day of launch, 27 July. Intel Core 2 Duo processor based systems and boxed product [through places such as Newegg] are expected to be available from 7 August. Each OEM has their own product introduction / transition cycles based upon their target market segment and current product offerings. We expect some to offer product in August with more introductions extending through September. Check with the OEMs of your choice to get their specific message on system availability.
From what Intel is telling us, you shouldn't be able to so much as purchase Core 2 processors until after the first week in August, although you'll be able to get complete systems before then. At the same time, we're hearing that distributors already have some Core 2 parts in stock and will begin shipping very soon. While we tend to believe Intel's assessment of availability, we're hoping it's conservative.
Subject: VMware Workstation v5.5.1 vs. Virtual PC 2004?
On Windows XP host machines, which virtual client software is better? Are there any reviews that compare both products in terms of performance, compatbility, features, etc.? Can VPC do OpenGL unlike VMware to play old 3D games?
Today's Ars Techinica article mentioned that their "head-to-head showdown" (from August 2004) found Virtual PC 2004 "to be somewhat inferior to VMware (Workstation) at the time it was originally released." Note that Virtual PC 2004 had just been released and VMware Workstation was at version 4.5.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The P4 designs SUCKED, and PPC was better. The Core designs from Intel are worlds better and wipe the mat with PPC.
I'm sure many Mac fanatics would still be saying PPC is superior to Core if Apple hadn't switched to Intel. For years Mac users have been in denial about Pentium M, and even Celeron M, being superior to G4 processors in notebook PCs. Now most of them accept the fact that Intel makes better notebook CPUs. Only a few stubborn PPC freaks still believe Freescale would have provided a better notebook solution than Intel.
After all, MacOS represents maybe 5% of the market. Now software makers will have an excuse not to write versions of their software that run natively under MacOS, since they can just tell people to run under Parallels or Boot Camp.
If they do that, then they are telling potential buyers they may need to spend $90/$140 for OEM versions of Windows XP Home/Pro ($200/$300 for retail full versions), $80+ for another 1GB of brand-name memory, and $80 for a Parallels license. This would alienate a lot of potential customers, so I think in most cases the software makers will decide they'll make more money by making a Mac version with fewer system requirements.
But the low-end sticker "Vista Capable" requires a DX9 card with 32 MB of VRAM, according to wikipedia. And that's the ultimate low-end.
Will Vista run on computers with less, just lose some features, so M$ might not want manufs putting the "capable" sticker on lesser hardware so that Vista won't look crummy? I mean, XP is technically capable of running in 640x480 16-color mode...
"Vista Capable" is not the "ultimate low-end" system requirements, as the GP seemed to say. "Vista Capable" is a "PC logo" program that PC manufacturers can use on new PCs sold today that will be able to run Vista with its new user interface (without Aero) at a minimum. "Vista Premium Ready" is a logo they can use for new PCs that will be able to run Aero and all its eye-candy.
Vista will run on less than the "Vista Capable" requirements, but probably without even the "basic" version (non-Aero) of the new user interface, which requires a DirectX 9 card. Without a DirectX 9 card, I think it will run with the Classic interface, which looks similar to Windows 20000. Vista's minimum supported system requirements are:
Processor: 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
What a depressingly entertaining comment. In the recent past, choosing a television (CRT) and video player (VCR or DVD) used to be so simple. At worst, I only needed to know about one new technology at a time (and only for a short time before they became standard): 2-head VCR vs 4-head, RF connector vs composite vs S-video, regular DVD player vs progressive scan.
Now I need to choose between competing (not just new) standards, one of which might become obsolete (HD DVD vs Blu Ray), or delay my purchase until the next must-have technology arrives (next-gen DRM'd digital inputs/outputs, 1080p HD DVD, SED televisions). The high cost of these new toys make these decisions even more difficult.
cable wars (HDMI, component)
Digital vs analog cables has pretty much been settled, but choosing a digital connection is needlessly complicated when buying a new TV, video player, gaming console, computer monitor, or video card. DVI (single or dual-link), HDMI (wait for version 1.3?), UDI, integrated HDCP (fuck ATI for their "HDCP ready" video cards).
DRM wars (broadcast flag and more)
Don't forget CableCARD and the not-yet-here but must-have CableCARD version 2.0. Also, home-built "media center" PCs won't be "allowed" to integrate a CableCARD reader.
HD wars (DLP, LCD, Plasma, i vs p, etc.)
With all of the drawbacks and trade-offs of each HD television technology, choosing or recommending a new digital TV type is hell. Burned-in images, rainbow effect, screen-door effect, viewing angles, fading brightness, lamp replacement costs, size/cost ratio, 720p/1080i/1080p...
provider wars (comcast, DISH, DirectTV)
Also, should broadband/phone/television providor "bundles" influence your choice?
DVR wars (comcast (ick), DISH (ick), DirectTV (ick), TIVO (yea!))
Screw 'em. I'm building my own PVR/media center PC. It sucks that I won't be allowed to integrate a CableCARD reader.
You're right. Even if this new lens "solves" the HD DVD/Blu Ray problem (licensing issues might prevent this), there's a lot of other crap to deal with when buying a new television or anything that connects to it.
in my humble (and the rest of the world's) experience, Microsoft has not made anything that works faster than the previous edition. I dare you to name a product that Microsoft has revised, and turns out faster - I am not talking about more secure (which I accept that Windows 2000 is), but one that runs faster.
In my humble (but maybe not the rest of the world's) experience, Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 seemed to work faster than Windows 2000 w/o any SPs. SP2, SP3, and SP4 also seemed to improve performance. I admit I didn't run benchmarks, so maybe I'm just deluding myself ("It's snappier!"). I won't be surprised if Windows XP with SP3 runs faster than XP w/SP2.
Why? Because Microsoft has chosen the option to add in more options, rather than streamline.
I know you probably weren't counting Service Packs, but MS does add some new features with each OS SP (but not as much as an OS X point release). However, both MS and Apple add significant performance increases for the new features that were introduced at the OS's introduction (before SP's and point releases). Quartz/Aqua was slow as molasses when OS X 10.0 was released, but has gotten faster with each point release. Sure there were other optimizations, but Quartz/Aqua was by far the most significant. Aero will also undoubtedly be "slow" when Vista is released, but I expect performance improvements (at least for Aero) with Vista SP1, SP2, and SP3.
From my observations, MS adds some minor new features (like security, DirectX, software compatibility) with each Service Pack, but also improves performance for those big new features that were introduced before the SPs. Since Aero is such a big change from the XP interface, I expect it to get faster as MS has more time to optimize it. I probably won't consider buying Vista until SP1 is released (Windows 2000 will work just fine on my next PC).
quote: "As the GMA 950 lacks support for things like T&L and vertex shaders"
Have you bothered to research your little assertion at all ? The 950 supports Shader Model 2.0 and most of DX9 in hardware. It also supports Shader Model 3.0 and T&L in software through some special uber-code.
Of course, delegating some stuff to the CPU isn't the best solution. Nonetheless, you're still completely wrong.
Since the GP's comment was about GMA 950 and gaming, I think it's reasonable to assume the GP meant hardware support for T&L and vertex shaders, which it definitely lacks. The GP's comment was in response to a comment that claimed the iMac (with GMA 950) had "gaming" functionality for college students. If you've ever used GMA 950 for "gaming," you'd know that its software support for T&L and vertex shaders is almost useless.
In fact, mosquitoes are pretty good proof that there is no god. Why would a being of infinite good unleash such a horrible plague upon man?
Church-goers have a different view of mosquitos. Ned Flanders said it best:
Homer Simpson: Come on, Flanders, there's gotta be something you hate. What about mosquito bites? Ned Flanders: Mmm mmm! Sure are fun to scratch! Mmm! Satisfying!
1) Interstates are numbered odd numbers North/South and even numbers East/West. Main routes have 2 digits, and connectors and bypasses have 3 digits, where the last two digits are the ID of the MSR that it connects to.
I'm sorry about nitpicking, but main routes of the Interstate Highway system have 1 or 2 digits. All Californians know this because Interstate 5 ("Highway 5") is the fastest way to drive between Northern California and Southern California. An additional interesting (to me) fact: the odd numbers assignied to north-south Interstates grow larger from west to east (note Interstate 95 on the East Coast). The even numbers assigned to east-west Interstates grow larger from south to north (e.g. Interstate 10 from Santa Monica to Jacksonville, Interstate 90 from Seattle to Boston).
Also, any explanation of the numbering system of Interstate Highways would be incomplete without also explaining the U.S. Highways (or Routes). After all, the famous Route 66 is a U.S. Highway, not an Interstate Highway. U.S. Highways (or Routes) have black and white signs with 1 to 3 digits. Like Interstates, U.S. Highways (or Routes) have odd numbers for north-south, even numbers for east-west. However, the numbering scheme is inverted: the odd numbers for north-south U.S. Highways grow larger from east to west (e.g. Highway 1 on the East Coast, Highway 101 on the West Coast). The even numbers for east-west U.S. Highways grow larger from north to south.
For a better and more complete (but brief) explanation than mine, see my source: The High(way) Sign.
Snopes also has a simpler explanation for why Hawaii has three road designated as "interstate highways":
"In answer to that perennial trivia question, the state of Hawaii has three roads designated as interstate highways (all of them on the island of Oahu) because roads established under the purview of the Federal Aid Highway Act and receiving funding from the federal government are considered interstate highways, even if they fall completely within the borders of a single state. Hawaii's interstate highways are somewhat different than other interstates in that they are identified with numbers preceded by the letter H rather than the standard I, however."
That link also provides a nice explanation of the numbering system for the Interstate Highways (red, white, and mostly blue signs), U.S. Highways (black and white signs), and State & County Routes. After reading that, you'll never look at a highway map the same way again.
Funny, I have found that the Macbook Pro 17" is cheaper than a comparably equipped Dell XPS M1710 17".
It looks like you made an honest effort (unlike many other Slashdot comments) to configure a "comparably equipped" Dell to a Macbook Pro 17", but there are several significant unchangeable differences that make it an improper comparison:
Dell's XPS M1710 LCD is 1920x1200, the Macbook Pro's 17" LCD is 1680x1050
Dell's NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900 GS far outclasses the Macbook Pro's ATI Mobility Radeon X1600:
Both default warranties should be upgraded, but the defaults are significantly different:
Dell: 1 year XPS warranty covers hardware, at-home service, and "rapid response" telephone support
Apple: 1 year warranty covers hardware and in-store service. Free telephone support is 90 days.
The "comparable PC" is at a price disadvantage if you try to configure it to make it "comparable" to a default Apple configuration. Try configuring an Apple to make it "comparable" to a default Dell. "Add-ons" are always more expensive than "default" components.
i'm too paranoid to use stuff like this for backups.. sure 25 gigs is nice but whats the use if i just burn everything in 35 copies on the disc incase one part becomes unreadable?
as media starts to hold more, i just start creating more copies of the same backup on the disc. bluray/hdvd scares me because if it gets scratched you lose so much more than if a cd gets scratched
For those that don't know, PAR2 files are parity files that can efficiently reconstruct missing or damaged blocks in your archive. If you have more PAR2 recovery blocks than damaged blocks, then you can completely reconstruct all of the damaged files in your archive. The best newbie explanation I've seen is the "PAR & PAR2 files" section from Slyck's Guide To The Newsgroups.
If I'm backing up to a data DVD-R (capacity 4,706,074,624 bytes), I'll leave around 4GB of space for the actual data and fill the rest (to the brim) with the PAR2 files that I created for that data. I name the PAR2 files starting with the letter 'z' so that they get burned on the outer edge of the DVD. When creating the PAR2 files, I choose a block size that is a multiple of 2048 bytes because that is the block size of a DVD sector.
Because its Apple, there's shock and dismay. Perhaps because people have a higher expectation of Apple, or a lower expectation of PC hardware?
Expectations are probably just one reason for the "shock and dismay." But I think expectations are raised because of Slashdot's frequent, perhaps excessive, coverage of this specific product. If all those other MacBook Pro stories are worthy of making the front Main page, then potential defects like this should also make the front page.
Maybe Apple products should not get so much attention outside of the apple.slashdot.org section. Since these stories get so many comments, maybe they should.
They're more interested in software and interoperability. You don't want to roll out software and training programs to find out they've been dropped/updated/replaced. You don't want to buy hardware or software add ons for Apples if Apple is going to make them obsolete.
The "support lifecycle" of OS X is the first thing that came to mind when I read the words "IT Roadmap Complaints." Does Apple even have an official support lifecycle policy for OS X?
By glancing at Apple's security updates and system requirements for their current applications, Apple seems to support the current and previous version of OS X but don't guarantee a length of time for support. Support for OS X 10.2 (Jaguar, released August 2002) seemed to end when 10.4 (Tiger) was released in April 2005. Support for 10.3 (Panther, October 2003) will probably end when 10.5 (Leapord) is released. For some Apple apps, like Final Cut Pro 5, only the current version of OS X (10.4) is supported. Other Apple apps (like Quicktime Pro) only support 10.3-10.4.
Someone who buys OS X today (10.4, Tiger) has to assume that security updates will stop when version 10.6 is released (3-4 years from now). After OS X 10.5 is released, the next version of Final Cut Pro might not work with today's OS X. After 10.6, the next Quicktime Pro won't work. At least Photoshop and MS Office work with the last three versions of OS X (10.2-10.4).
Other companies that sell to enterprise customers have official support lifecycle policies. Novell and Microsoft guarantee five years of "general/mainstream" support from the date of the product's general availability. Novell adds two years of "extended support," MS adds five years of "extended support" for "business/pro" products.
more of a "we will release a desktop using the Intel Core 2 Duo 3.4 GHz within a month of it shipping in December, at the $1000 price point, that is expandable."
I bet that's a product IT people (and many others) have wanted since the introduction of the iMac and the "blue and white" PowerMac G3. A simple desktop without a freakin' integrated monitor and maybe 2-3 expansion slots. A simple desktop that's NOT a $2000+ workstation. Not an underpowered, non-expandable mini with notebook parts. Not an overpriced cube. Without monitor, priced about the same or less than an iMac.
I bet such a desktop would have outsold the iMac by a very large margin. Instead, Mac desktop buyers have been mostly limited to (1) a non-expandable, all-in-one desktop with limited upgrade options and (2) a big expensive workstation that's overkill for most buyers. Recently Mac buyers have been given the option to buy a mini that's as unpowerful and non-expandable as a low-end notebook.
One example that would outsell the iMac: Small (not mini) desktop or microtower with G965 chipset, Core 2 Duo or Conroe-based Celeron, 2-3 PCIe/PCI slots, next-gen Intel integrated graphics with DVI/HDMI, PCIe x16 graphics slot, standard 5.25" optical drive bay. Over the next five years, a desktop like that can be upgraded to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, LED-backlit LCD with HDCP, AirPort nTense (802.11n), or 2TB hard drive WITHOUT having a bunch of peripherals and power supplies scattered around the computer.
Your basic Shuttle PC weighs about 4kg before you add the disk and CPU, takes standard PCI cards, has an optional handle for the top... plus you'd need an LCD monitor of whatever size is convenient and a little keyboard. That'll weigh a lot less than these misnamed monster laptops, use standard parts so there's a viable upgrade path
I agree that Shuttle SFFs are more upgradable, but they weigh much more and are not nearly as portable.
A light dual-core Shuttle SFF like the G5 2000 Series weighs 3.2kg net and 4.8kg gross (other models weigh more). I'll assume "gross" weight includes disk, CPU, etc. Shuttle's light 17" semi-portable LCD (has a handle) weighs 4.3kg net and 6.4kg gross (the better model weighs more). I'll assume the gross weight includes the LCD's power brick. Not including keyboard/mouse and speakers, that's 11.2kg (24.7 lbs) for a light Shuttle SFF with 17" LCD that (together) are only semi-portable (you need a good carrying bag).
A Dell XPS M2010 weighs a total of 20.8 lbs (9.4 kg), but that includes its 20.1" LCD, full-size detachable keyboard, 8 speakers w/subwoofer, and AC adapter. Sure, it has less upgrade options than a Shuttle SFF. But (unlike most laptops) the Dell monster does have two hard drive bays with RAID support, a much larger (20.1") built-in widescreen LCD, and is much more portable than the Shuttle bundle. For my money, I'd take a Shuttle but I'd rarely transport it. However, it's not comparable to Dell's monster portable.
these misnamed monster laptops
"Laptop" is just a traditional name we have used for foldable portable computers. I like to call the Dell XPS M2010 a "briefcase computer," but more people understand what you mean if you call it a big fuckin' laptop.
Customer support from India can be quite good if the company puts in the proper resources (e.g. wages, training). For example, Dell's "premium" support (from India) for their high-end XPS line was given a rating of 9/10 in a HardOCP review. However, last time I heard, Dell's India-based support for their low-end products was poor quality.
I suspect Apple did not expect the cost of "good" Indian customer support (by Apple's standards) to be so high. Outsourcing companies advertise their "cheap" costs (like Dell $299 PCs), but the good Indian support (like Dell XPS) costs considerably more.
Then there are newer, more efficient, algorithms like AAC - for movie and tv soundtracks it is reasonable to expect to get roughly equivalent 5.1 audio fidelity out of say a 300kbps AAC track as one does from a 448kbps AC3 track.
You obviously know a heck of a lot more about audio codecs than me, but I question AAC's appropriateness as the surround-sound codec for movie downloads. I assume most people that want a surround-sound audio track want to play it through their surround-sound audio receivers using digital audio out. Can AAC this?
Maybe Dolby Digital Plus (E-AC3) is the more appropriate codec. This codec is being used for HD DVD movies and is optional for Blu Ray movies. E-AC3 equipment is required to be able to convert to AC3, but I don't know if this is required or possible with home computer software.
Slashdot Mirror
"Average" home office users will choose Vista Business, or it will be preinstalled on "business" PCs. Vista Enterprise is only available by volume licensing, so average users won't see it. Vista Ultimate isn't for "average" users and I don't expect to see it preinstalled on computers for "average" PC buyers.
I might be wrong, but I think (for the average consumer) choosing Vista versions will be simpler than choosing XP versions. Home Basic for the low-cost computers. Home Premium for the extra Media Center functions. Vista Business for the home office.
- Merom to top 50% of Intel notebook processors in 1Q 2007
From that article:- Intel's latest plan will reduce production of its Yonah processors in the fourth quarter, and by the end of the 2006, Yonah processors will only account for 30% of Intel's notebook processor shipments, down from the current 50%, the sources revealed. By the end of the first half of 2007, Yonah processors will total less than 10%, the sources added.
- Intel's initial shipment goal for Merom after its launch is 15% of its notebook processor shipments, and the proportion will increase to 30% in the fourth quarter, the sources said.
- Intel also plans to launch Core-based Celeron M processors with 945GM and 945PM chipsets in the fourth quarter of 2006, the sources noted. That means, Intel will be offering 64-bit dual-core architecture for notebooks across all market segments from the high end to the low end, the sources noted.
I have no idea whether or not Apple will adapt Merom-based mobile CPUs for the mini and Macbook, but they will have the option. They might delay adoption of Merom on their "non-Pro" products so that they can clearly justify the price premium of their "Pro" products. Maybe they'll use Merom-based Celerons (64-bit single-core) and drop the price of the mini and Macbook to pre-Yonah levels.All over that page, Apple refers to non-Macintosh personal computers as "PCs." Apple's current television commercials start with "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC."
I hate the current popular definition of "PC" (Windows PC), but I think we should just accept this definition when we know what the speaker means.
Also, I now realize that Mac-only answer was probably a joke. I should lighten up.
Unbelievable.
Here's the answer the GP was probably looking for (from Anandtech's conclusion):
I'm sure many Mac fanatics would still be saying PPC is superior to Core if Apple hadn't switched to Intel. For years Mac users have been in denial about Pentium M, and even Celeron M, being superior to G4 processors in notebook PCs. Now most of them accept the fact that Intel makes better notebook CPUs. Only a few stubborn PPC freaks still believe Freescale would have provided a better notebook solution than Intel.
Well, that's what I'm hoping for.
Vista will run on less than the "Vista Capable" requirements, but probably without even the "basic" version (non-Aero) of the new user interface, which requires a DirectX 9 card. Without a DirectX 9 card, I think it will run with the Classic interface, which looks similar to Windows 20000. Vista's minimum supported system requirements are:
Now I need to choose between competing (not just new) standards, one of which might become obsolete (HD DVD vs Blu Ray), or delay my purchase until the next must-have technology arrives (next-gen DRM'd digital inputs/outputs, 1080p HD DVD, SED televisions). The high cost of these new toys make these decisions even more difficult.
Digital vs analog cables has pretty much been settled, but choosing a digital connection is needlessly complicated when buying a new TV, video player, gaming console, computer monitor, or video card. DVI (single or dual-link), HDMI (wait for version 1.3?), UDI, integrated HDCP (fuck ATI for their "HDCP ready" video cards).
Don't forget CableCARD and the not-yet-here but must-have CableCARD version 2.0. Also, home-built "media center" PCs won't be "allowed" to integrate a CableCARD reader. With all of the drawbacks and trade-offs of each HD television technology, choosing or recommending a new digital TV type is hell. Burned-in images, rainbow effect, screen-door effect, viewing angles, fading brightness, lamp replacement costs, size/cost ratio, 720p/1080i/1080p...Also, should broadband/phone/television providor "bundles" influence your choice?
Screw 'em. I'm building my own PVR/media center PC. It sucks that I won't be allowed to integrate a CableCARD reader.You're right. Even if this new lens "solves" the HD DVD/Blu Ray problem (licensing issues might prevent this), there's a lot of other crap to deal with when buying a new television or anything that connects to it.
In my humble (but maybe not the rest of the world's) experience, Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 seemed to work faster than Windows 2000 w/o any SPs. SP2, SP3, and SP4 also seemed to improve performance. I admit I didn't run benchmarks, so maybe I'm just deluding myself ("It's snappier!"). I won't be surprised if Windows XP with SP3 runs faster than XP w/SP2.
I know you probably weren't counting Service Packs, but MS does add some new features with each OS SP (but not as much as an OS X point release). However, both MS and Apple add significant performance increases for the new features that were introduced at the OS's introduction (before SP's and point releases). Quartz/Aqua was slow as molasses when OS X 10.0 was released, but has gotten faster with each point release. Sure there were other optimizations, but Quartz/Aqua was by far the most significant. Aero will also undoubtedly be "slow" when Vista is released, but I expect performance improvements (at least for Aero) with Vista SP1, SP2, and SP3.
From my observations, MS adds some minor new features (like security, DirectX, software compatibility) with each Service Pack, but also improves performance for those big new features that were introduced before the SPs. Since Aero is such a big change from the XP interface, I expect it to get faster as MS has more time to optimize it. I probably won't consider buying Vista until SP1 is released (Windows 2000 will work just fine on my next PC).
College student... Guinness?? More like Natural Light. For the price of an iMac you can buy about 600 12-packs of "Natty Lite."
Church-goers have a different view of mosquitos. Ned Flanders said it best:
Homer Simpson: Come on, Flanders, there's gotta be something you hate. What about mosquito bites?
Ned Flanders: Mmm mmm! Sure are fun to scratch! Mmm! Satisfying!
I'm sorry about nitpicking, but main routes of the Interstate Highway system have 1 or 2 digits. All Californians know this because Interstate 5 ("Highway 5") is the fastest way to drive between Northern California and Southern California. An additional interesting (to me) fact: the odd numbers assignied to north-south Interstates grow larger from west to east (note Interstate 95 on the East Coast). The even numbers assigned to east-west Interstates grow larger from south to north (e.g. Interstate 10 from Santa Monica to Jacksonville, Interstate 90 from Seattle to Boston).
Also, any explanation of the numbering system of Interstate Highways would be incomplete without also explaining the U.S. Highways (or Routes). After all, the famous Route 66 is a U.S. Highway, not an Interstate Highway. U.S. Highways (or Routes) have black and white signs with 1 to 3 digits. Like Interstates, U.S. Highways (or Routes) have odd numbers for north-south, even numbers for east-west. However, the numbering scheme is inverted: the odd numbers for north-south U.S. Highways grow larger from east to west (e.g. Highway 1 on the East Coast, Highway 101 on the West Coast). The even numbers for east-west U.S. Highways grow larger from north to south.
For a better and more complete (but brief) explanation than mine, see my source: The High(way) Sign.
"In answer to that perennial trivia question, the state of Hawaii has three roads designated as interstate highways (all of them on the island of Oahu) because roads established under the purview of the Federal Aid Highway Act and receiving funding from the federal government are considered interstate highways, even if they fall completely within the borders of a single state. Hawaii's interstate highways are somewhat different than other interstates in that they are identified with numbers preceded by the letter H rather than the standard I, however."
That link also provides a nice explanation of the numbering system for the Interstate Highways (red, white, and mostly blue signs), U.S. Highways (black and white signs), and State & County Routes. After reading that, you'll never look at a highway map the same way again.
It looks like you made an honest effort (unlike many other Slashdot comments) to configure a "comparably equipped" Dell to a Macbook Pro 17", but there are several significant unchangeable differences that make it an improper comparison:
- Dell's XPS M1710 LCD is 1920x1200, the Macbook Pro's 17" LCD is 1680x1050
- Dell's NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900 GS far outclasses the Macbook Pro's ATI Mobility Radeon X1600:
- GeForce Go 7900 GS: 20 pixel pipelines, 7 vertex pipelines, 32 GB/s memory bandwidth (256-bit)
- Mobility Radeon X1600: 12 pixel pipelines, 5 vertex pipelines, 15 GB/s memory bandwidth (128-bit)
- Both default warranties should be upgraded, but the defaults are significantly different:
- Dell: 1 year XPS warranty covers hardware, at-home service, and "rapid response" telephone support
- Apple: 1 year warranty covers hardware and in-store service. Free telephone support is 90 days.
The "comparable PC" is at a price disadvantage if you try to configure it to make it "comparable" to a default Apple configuration. Try configuring an Apple to make it "comparable" to a default Dell. "Add-ons" are always more expensive than "default" components.For those that don't know, PAR2 files are parity files that can efficiently reconstruct missing or damaged blocks in your archive. If you have more PAR2 recovery blocks than damaged blocks, then you can completely reconstruct all of the damaged files in your archive. The best newbie explanation I've seen is the "PAR & PAR2 files" section from Slyck's Guide To The Newsgroups.
If I'm backing up to a data DVD-R (capacity 4,706,074,624 bytes), I'll leave around 4GB of space for the actual data and fill the rest (to the brim) with the PAR2 files that I created for that data. I name the PAR2 files starting with the letter 'z' so that they get burned on the outer edge of the DVD. When creating the PAR2 files, I choose a block size that is a multiple of 2048 bytes because that is the block size of a DVD sector.
Some easy-to-use tools to create PAR2 files:
Some DVD data recovery software (to get every readable block off a damaged disc):
Thanks, WuphonsReach.
Maybe Apple products should not get so much attention outside of the apple.slashdot.org section. Since these stories get so many comments, maybe they should.
The "support lifecycle" of OS X is the first thing that came to mind when I read the words "IT Roadmap Complaints." Does Apple even have an official support lifecycle policy for OS X?
By glancing at Apple's security updates and system requirements for their current applications, Apple seems to support the current and previous version of OS X but don't guarantee a length of time for support. Support for OS X 10.2 (Jaguar, released August 2002) seemed to end when 10.4 (Tiger) was released in April 2005. Support for 10.3 (Panther, October 2003) will probably end when 10.5 (Leapord) is released. For some Apple apps, like Final Cut Pro 5, only the current version of OS X (10.4) is supported. Other Apple apps (like Quicktime Pro) only support 10.3-10.4.
Someone who buys OS X today (10.4, Tiger) has to assume that security updates will stop when version 10.6 is released (3-4 years from now). After OS X 10.5 is released, the next version of Final Cut Pro might not work with today's OS X. After 10.6, the next Quicktime Pro won't work. At least Photoshop and MS Office work with the last three versions of OS X (10.2-10.4).
Other companies that sell to enterprise customers have official support lifecycle policies. Novell and Microsoft guarantee five years of "general/mainstream" support from the date of the product's general availability. Novell adds two years of "extended support," MS adds five years of "extended support" for "business/pro" products.
I bet such a desktop would have outsold the iMac by a very large margin. Instead, Mac desktop buyers have been mostly limited to (1) a non-expandable, all-in-one desktop with limited upgrade options and (2) a big expensive workstation that's overkill for most buyers. Recently Mac buyers have been given the option to buy a mini that's as unpowerful and non-expandable as a low-end notebook.
One example that would outsell the iMac: Small (not mini) desktop or microtower with G965 chipset, Core 2 Duo or Conroe-based Celeron, 2-3 PCIe/PCI slots, next-gen Intel integrated graphics with DVI/HDMI, PCIe x16 graphics slot, standard 5.25" optical drive bay. Over the next five years, a desktop like that can be upgraded to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, LED-backlit LCD with HDCP, AirPort nTense (802.11n), or 2TB hard drive WITHOUT having a bunch of peripherals and power supplies scattered around the computer.
I agree that Shuttle SFFs are more upgradable, but they weigh much more and are not nearly as portable.
A light dual-core Shuttle SFF like the G5 2000 Series weighs 3.2kg net and 4.8kg gross (other models weigh more). I'll assume "gross" weight includes disk, CPU, etc. Shuttle's light 17" semi-portable LCD (has a handle) weighs 4.3kg net and 6.4kg gross (the better model weighs more). I'll assume the gross weight includes the LCD's power brick. Not including keyboard/mouse and speakers, that's 11.2kg (24.7 lbs) for a light Shuttle SFF with 17" LCD that (together) are only semi-portable (you need a good carrying bag).
A Dell XPS M2010 weighs a total of 20.8 lbs (9.4 kg), but that includes its 20.1" LCD, full-size detachable keyboard, 8 speakers w/subwoofer, and AC adapter. Sure, it has less upgrade options than a Shuttle SFF. But (unlike most laptops) the Dell monster does have two hard drive bays with RAID support, a much larger (20.1") built-in widescreen LCD, and is much more portable than the Shuttle bundle. For my money, I'd take a Shuttle but I'd rarely transport it. However, it's not comparable to Dell's monster portable.
"Laptop" is just a traditional name we have used for foldable portable computers. I like to call the Dell XPS M2010 a "briefcase computer," but more people understand what you mean if you call it a big fuckin' laptop.
I suspect Apple did not expect the cost of "good" Indian customer support (by Apple's standards) to be so high. Outsourcing companies advertise their "cheap" costs (like Dell $299 PCs), but the good Indian support (like Dell XPS) costs considerably more.
You obviously know a heck of a lot more about audio codecs than me, but I question AAC's appropriateness as the surround-sound codec for movie downloads. I assume most people that want a surround-sound audio track want to play it through their surround-sound audio receivers using digital audio out. Can AAC this?
Maybe Dolby Digital Plus (E-AC3) is the more appropriate codec. This codec is being used for HD DVD movies and is optional for Blu Ray movies. E-AC3 equipment is required to be able to convert to AC3, but I don't know if this is required or possible with home computer software.