borderlands looked okay to me, but that was more about that I have a 4890 with a samsung T240. The part that throws people off is the comic/art style more than anything. However, there were serious graphics problems that were created from having such a shitty port. Honestly, I can't even put on the highest graphic modes at 1920x1200 due to horrible optimization. End verdict: great game for about 5 hours, not even worth new game +.
stability has 0 to do with the reasons to push for console. Yes, it's easier to program for a single device, but it's not why they want to DRM the hell out of every console. Also, single device = limited feature set, unless they start allowing modular consoles. Of course, you know where that goes, back to sony and nintendo and MS suing people for modding consoles calling it piracy when lots of people want to play US games that are international or vice versa.
Cross platform appeal is huge, and can make some factors easier. Imagine COD:MW2 having people play both console and PC together. Yes, there will be some inequalities as far as which plays FPS games easier, but there are things saved on the back-end when you can virtualize a single data set for ranking instead of having PS3 and PC having their own separate. Also makes launch day a hell of a lot more profitable, since you can release them all at once.
Using stability as the excuse is basically like using safety as an excuse for X law to be implemented.
companies don't want games on console and PC. The reason is there is a lot less control on PC. So they want to shove console requirements onto a PC and you end up with horrible ports like Borderlands and MW2. Thus, nobody wants the PC version and they go "oh, nobody bought the PC version" even though the reason is they fucked their own community, so that they don't have to keep making games for PC.
It's a really shortsighted strategy, but it's basically an attempt at creating a walled garden all over again. Apparently the companies don't realize or have enough forsight re: what's going to happen in the next 1-2 generations of gaming consoles when they're easily powerful enough to be used as home computers (hint: it doesn't mean more consoles are going to sell).
I disagree. Google's clearly making money as it is, so what makes you think they wouldn't make even more from the info they can glean from a free netbook? It'd cost them minimal amounts to host applications which are already hosted.
It also ties in wonderfully to android, given that you could have a laptop that could potentially use cellular for data.
The bigger issue is the OS is very lackluster at the moment and there are issues trying to get more serious applications/work done via a cheap netbook of some variety, especially on google's OS. However, would it work for the purposes shown on the preview? Absolutely. Word processing, email, spreadsheets, etc? Easily.
considering that I can't even find the quote for the second article linked, I'll remain skeptical of the whole thing. The article on that "low power" version doesn't say anything about low power, in fact it talks about wattage woes and concerns due to the requirements to make a "neural" processor equivalent.
Also of note is that they're doing the same idea as intel, just at a horrendously lower capability. Basically a lack of information and whole lot of hype.
What's good enough for you, doesn't really reflect on the rest of what's going on. I'd like to know, to make an informed decision, instead of assuming that just because I don't understand it that it's probably okay or not. To me, not understanding but believing one way or the other is like those HFCS "how harmful can it be? it's just corn!" commercials that made me wish had never gotten on TV.
what kind of a comment is that? Global warning has been debated so hotly it would be wonderful to see data that doesn't have a hand driven one way or the other by government. Those of us who aren't global warming specialists don't know what to believe other than to be concerned. implying that this person has a part of it is like saying that someone is interested in politics. Like it or not, these types of things involve every person on the planet, so, you know , everyone's interested.
I'm confused, why would we nominate Theo instead? I knew almost nothing about the guy (as I'm more for linux and just never bother with bsd) but his wikipedia entry is pretty brutal.
no, it's not. Even on 3g or wireless with a 22mb downstream connection at home, the phones are not fast enough to process the data./note, this is on a g1 with cyanogen even.
say what? that has nothing to do with the delays that are incurred in the background from things processing. It's not whether it's 1 second, or 5 years. There are delays that are added by adding a server-step between everything.
You might not see the 1-2 seconds yourself, but add another thousand users, and you sure will. This is why Chrome OS has, well, almost no functionality, only basics. More advanced stuff would show latency sensitive issues.
easy example: maya programming and testing on chrome. Good luck with that, in not having the program on your pc.
maybe you should do a little research, because I did. http://www.stratus.com/news/2005/20050314a.htm Do you notice something? They installed windows due to defining it as an "open platform". They were deceived. This is the result.
Stratus was chosen as best able to provide an open platform with 99.999 percent uptime reliability – which is mandatory for running an application as important as NADIN 1 – together with the required caliber of maintenance, logistical support, and long service life.
It doesn't matter that storage and data are going *faster* in any fininte or infinite form. I wish you understood this. Faster is not latency. Bandwidth is not latency. Network capacity by itself is not latency.
You also answered my exact question just as I asked it: all of these functions are not instant, but they are all installed locally. This means the delay can be improved by multiple types of bandwidth depending on application: processing bandwidth, latency bandwidth, and networking speed. Think of it that way. Imagine when they are network hosted? Those times will multiply and also can get worse based on the load requirements of the users.
5-10 seconds of load time is 5 *thousand* milliseconds. You know computers and how big that is. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to get that down to consistently under 70 milliseconds? That 5 thousand range is like a hundredfold improvement over years past, but we're still nowheres near 70. To go from 5 thousand to 4900 is an enormous milestone on it's own. In terms of complexity I would compare going from 5000 to 4900 ms latency equivalent to going from 250 MPG to 500 MPG in an engine, including all current technology. Sure, it will eventually be done, but not easily and not now.
Your answer is also the reason why this won't work for an entire OS. Email is a relatively small requirement on a computer to merely access. Lots of other activities are by far not so small on the requirements such as latency. Google would have to be able to hit 70MS on EVERYTHING for people to be accepting of it. Easy example: multiple user simultaneous video editing on a thin client/cloud computer? do you think that's really going to work for anything more detailed than youtube? Hint: it won't.
the latency has such a physical distance requirement that unless google has sufficiently built connections everywhere in the world and/or enough tier 1 peering agreements in place they won't be sufficient. If they do, then it will. Otherwise, there's really no way around it. Meanwhile, it will also exponentially (and continually) increase the bandwidth and latency requirements as time goes on and things become more demanding.
How quickly does gmail open for you, barring load times? How quickly are emails sent? Have you ever seen the word "loading"? what do you think that means? (hint: it's not referring to just processing). The answer is that loadtimes are not instant. How fast does someone else editing a google doc with you see updates? Not instant. There is an acceptable latency, but lots of things get around it which are also things that don't need good latency.
It's also not about quantity of bandwidth. Latency is not bandwidth capacity. You can have 1TB/s but if your latency is >300ms, there are things it will not work for.
Also, please quit the "Typical use" phrase that comes about all the time. There is no definition of typical use that you can specifically define for anyone other than yourself, as everyone has different definitions of that phrase. "typical use" is entirely subjective. You can try your best to generalize it but there's a limit to how realistic and accurate it will be.
I think you're missing the kind of apps that will also have an issue. There are apps that are latency sensitive, and there are ones that are not. As an example, someone will notice packetloss/latency trying to load the slashdot homepage, but they don't notice the latency between when they hit submit on a comment and/or preview. The difference is whether what you are doing requires attention or not. In the case of "all apps to be online only", that will inadvertently catch a ton of applications.
people think It's a lot easier to upgrade a datacenter
. The reality is that if lots of people use anything cloud, it will not be able to be realtime or respond quickly. Latency and transmission requirements are astronomical for this method. Of course the selling point is less hardware for the end user.
Seen what happens to google wave when you hit about 100 people? Imagine the same for 100 thousand people.
Of course on the flip side, if people do the computations for you (aka owning a computer), you don't need as much server space, and people can actually maintain copies of their stuff, and not be limited by network capacity and network access. Latency is much easier to work on like that.
In order for google to get around that latency issue they will need to be able to have around 50ms everywhere on the planet, which simply isn't feasible because sometimes computing on an app might take more than 50ms to do.
apparently people didn't understand the difference between the question mark at the end of my sentence and a statement, since people decided to mark it a troll. Do people not know what a question mark means? I was hoping someone would reply with actual informative info.
so this deployment presumably has been done, or is to be done? It looks like they're not doing a whole lot of improvement as I see:
The FAA is implementing the Stratus servers, which use Intel Xeon 2.8 MHz large cache MP processors and support the Microsoft Windows operating system, at control centers in Atlanta and Salt Lake City.
I don't suppose today's glitch is a lesson in migrating to linux servers?
Microsoft isn't used to dealing with open source because they still aren't. They're still trying to get rid of it for a reason beyond me, especially considering that embracing it would guarantee far more sales. It's like the RIAA's sue it into oblivion thing, even though they'd make more sales with the new stuff if they even bothered considering it.
This is the biggest crux of MS I can never understand: they have amazing resources, tons of seriously talented developers, and they could get the whole software environment behind them (even open source) if they just played nicely. Can you imagine the capability a staff of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of developers have?
I guess the reason it takes 20-30 years to accept it is that old management needs to be replaced, and new management understands these ideas better. Pretty sad really, I imagine (although I admit I have no fact to back it), but that MS is quite burdened by management.
Inversely, are we supposed to believe you because of your registered account or UID? a quick google search of "gimp solaris motif" says no . Try not harping on people just because they're anonymous, douchebag. Disclaimer: I am not the anon.
From the link:
Currently, the biggest restriction to running the GIMP is the Motif requirement. We will release a statically linked binary for several systems soon (including Linux).
Yes, they're trying to hide the Microsoft link - basically this is like mono all over again, just renamed and changed. Something patent encumbered and not at all open source friendly in spirit or in name.
I'm not going to dig all day, there are others, you don't think the press on this was accidental do you?
You should note, only the top 3 results are the same, the rest is not. This is to be expected, but it's no accident that MS's are more positive towards MS.
I'll dig it later, but really this conversation is going well beyond off track.
Slashdot Mirror
I imagine a whole lot of people are going to be pissed when they learn that the data was intercepted back in 2001.
borderlands looked okay to me, but that was more about that I have a 4890 with a samsung T240. The part that throws people off is the comic/art style more than anything. However, there were serious graphics problems that were created from having such a shitty port. Honestly, I can't even put on the highest graphic modes at 1920x1200 due to horrible optimization. End verdict: great game for about 5 hours, not even worth new game +.
stability has 0 to do with the reasons to push for console. Yes, it's easier to program for a single device, but it's not why they want to DRM the hell out of every console. Also, single device = limited feature set, unless they start allowing modular consoles. Of course, you know where that goes, back to sony and nintendo and MS suing people for modding consoles calling it piracy when lots of people want to play US games that are international or vice versa.
Cross platform appeal is huge, and can make some factors easier. Imagine COD:MW2 having people play both console and PC together. Yes, there will be some inequalities as far as which plays FPS games easier, but there are things saved on the back-end when you can virtualize a single data set for ranking instead of having PS3 and PC having their own separate. Also makes launch day a hell of a lot more profitable, since you can release them all at once.
Using stability as the excuse is basically like using safety as an excuse for X law to be implemented.
companies don't want games on console and PC. The reason is there is a lot less control on PC. So they want to shove console requirements onto a PC and you end up with horrible ports like Borderlands and MW2. Thus, nobody wants the PC version and they go "oh, nobody bought the PC version" even though the reason is they fucked their own community, so that they don't have to keep making games for PC.
It's a really shortsighted strategy, but it's basically an attempt at creating a walled garden all over again. Apparently the companies don't realize or have enough forsight re: what's going to happen in the next 1-2 generations of gaming consoles when they're easily powerful enough to be used as home computers (hint: it doesn't mean more consoles are going to sell).
There's a phrase for it, paper launch or paper tiger. If this actually gets released is one thing. I'd like to see benchmarks, not theoreticals.
I disagree. Google's clearly making money as it is, so what makes you think they wouldn't make even more from the info they can glean from a free netbook? It'd cost them minimal amounts to host applications which are already hosted.
It also ties in wonderfully to android, given that you could have a laptop that could potentially use cellular for data.
The bigger issue is the OS is very lackluster at the moment and there are issues trying to get more serious applications/work done via a cheap netbook of some variety, especially on google's OS. However, would it work for the purposes shown on the preview? Absolutely. Word processing, email, spreadsheets, etc? Easily.
considering that I can't even find the quote for the second article linked, I'll remain skeptical of the whole thing. The article on that "low power" version doesn't say anything about low power, in fact it talks about wattage woes and concerns due to the requirements to make a "neural" processor equivalent.
Also of note is that they're doing the same idea as intel, just at a horrendously lower capability. Basically a lack of information and whole lot of hype.
they call that a "Feature".
What's good enough for you, doesn't really reflect on the rest of what's going on. I'd like to know, to make an informed decision, instead of assuming that just because I don't understand it that it's probably okay or not. To me, not understanding but believing one way or the other is like those HFCS "how harmful can it be? it's just corn!" commercials that made me wish had never gotten on TV.
ah, my bad.
vote pirate party, at least hopefully they'll establish in the states.
what kind of a comment is that? Global warning has been debated so hotly it would be wonderful to see data that doesn't have a hand driven one way or the other by government. Those of us who aren't global warming specialists don't know what to believe other than to be concerned. implying that this person has a part of it is like saying that someone is interested in politics. Like it or not, these types of things involve every person on the planet, so, you know , everyone's interested.
I'm confused, why would we nominate Theo instead? I knew almost nothing about the guy (as I'm more for linux and just never bother with bsd) but his wikipedia entry is pretty brutal.
no, it's not. Even on 3g or wireless with a 22mb downstream connection at home, the phones are not fast enough to process the data. /note, this is on a g1 with cyanogen even.
say what? that has nothing to do with the delays that are incurred in the background from things processing. It's not whether it's 1 second, or 5 years. There are delays that are added by adding a server-step between everything.
You might not see the 1-2 seconds yourself, but add another thousand users, and you sure will. This is why Chrome OS has, well, almost no functionality, only basics. More advanced stuff would show latency sensitive issues.
easy example: maya programming and testing on chrome. Good luck with that, in not having the program on your pc.
maybe you should do a little research, because I did.
http://www.stratus.com/news/2005/20050314a.htm Do you notice something? They installed windows due to defining it as an "open platform". They were deceived. This is the result.
It doesn't matter that storage and data are going *faster* in any fininte or infinite form. I wish you understood this. Faster is not latency. Bandwidth is not latency. Network capacity by itself is not latency.
You also answered my exact question just as I asked it: all of these functions are not instant, but they are all installed locally. This means the delay can be improved by multiple types of bandwidth depending on application: processing bandwidth, latency bandwidth, and networking speed. Think of it that way. Imagine when they are network hosted? Those times will multiply and also can get worse based on the load requirements of the users.
5-10 seconds of load time is 5 *thousand* milliseconds. You know computers and how big that is. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to get that down to consistently under 70 milliseconds? That 5 thousand range is like a hundredfold improvement over years past, but we're still nowheres near 70. To go from 5 thousand to 4900 is an enormous milestone on it's own. In terms of complexity I would compare going from 5000 to 4900 ms latency equivalent to going from 250 MPG to 500 MPG in an engine, including all current technology. Sure, it will eventually be done, but not easily and not now.
Your answer is also the reason why this won't work for an entire OS. Email is a relatively small requirement on a computer to merely access. Lots of other activities are by far not so small on the requirements such as latency. Google would have to be able to hit 70MS on EVERYTHING for people to be accepting of it. Easy example: multiple user simultaneous video editing on a thin client/cloud computer? do you think that's really going to work for anything more detailed than youtube? Hint: it won't.
the latency has such a physical distance requirement that unless google has sufficiently built connections everywhere in the world and/or enough tier 1 peering agreements in place they won't be sufficient. If they do, then it will. Otherwise, there's really no way around it. Meanwhile, it will also exponentially (and continually) increase the bandwidth and latency requirements as time goes on and things become more demanding.
How quickly does gmail open for you, barring load times? How quickly are emails sent? Have you ever seen the word "loading"? what do you think that means? (hint: it's not referring to just processing).
The answer is that loadtimes are not instant. How fast does someone else editing a google doc with you see updates? Not instant. There is an acceptable latency, but lots of things get around it which are also things that don't need good latency.
It's also not about quantity of bandwidth. Latency is not bandwidth capacity. You can have 1TB/s but if your latency is >300ms, there are things it will not work for.
Also, please quit the "Typical use" phrase that comes about all the time. There is no definition of typical use that you can specifically define for anyone other than yourself, as everyone has different definitions of that phrase. "typical use" is entirely subjective. You can try your best to generalize it but there's a limit to how realistic and accurate it will be.
I think you're missing the kind of apps that will also have an issue. There are apps that are latency sensitive, and there are ones that are not. As an example, someone will notice packetloss/latency trying to load the slashdot homepage, but they don't notice the latency between when they hit submit on a comment and/or preview. The difference is whether what you are doing requires attention or not. In the case of "all apps to be online only", that will inadvertently catch a ton of applications.
Please, allow me to fix this for you.
. The reality is that if lots of people use anything cloud, it will not be able to be realtime or respond quickly. Latency and transmission requirements are astronomical for this method. Of course the selling point is less hardware for the end user.
Seen what happens to google wave when you hit about 100 people? Imagine the same for 100 thousand people.
Of course on the flip side, if people do the computations for you (aka owning a computer), you don't need as much server space, and people can actually maintain copies of their stuff, and not be limited by network capacity and network access. Latency is much easier to work on like that.
In order for google to get around that latency issue they will need to be able to have around 50ms everywhere on the planet, which simply isn't feasible because sometimes computing on an app might take more than 50ms to do.
apparently people didn't understand the difference between the question mark at the end of my sentence and a statement, since people decided to mark it a troll. Do people not know what a question mark means? I was hoping someone would reply with actual informative info.
so this deployment presumably has been done, or is to be done? It looks like they're not doing a whole lot of improvement as I see:
I don't suppose today's glitch is a lesson in migrating to linux servers?
Microsoft isn't used to dealing with open source because they still aren't. They're still trying to get rid of it for a reason beyond me, especially considering that embracing it would guarantee far more sales. It's like the RIAA's sue it into oblivion thing, even though they'd make more sales with the new stuff if they even bothered considering it.
This is the biggest crux of MS I can never understand: they have amazing resources, tons of seriously talented developers, and they could get the whole software environment behind them (even open source) if they just played nicely. Can you imagine the capability a staff of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of developers have?
I guess the reason it takes 20-30 years to accept it is that old management needs to be replaced, and new management understands these ideas better. Pretty sad really, I imagine (although I admit I have no fact to back it), but that MS is quite burdened by management.
Inversely, are we supposed to believe you because of your registered account or UID? a quick google search of "gimp solaris motif" says no . Try not harping on people just because they're anonymous, douchebag. Disclaimer: I am not the anon.
From the link:
Yes, they're trying to hide the Microsoft link - basically this is like mono all over again, just renamed and changed. Something patent encumbered and not at all open source friendly in spirit or in name.
I'm not going to dig all day, there are others, you don't think the press on this was accidental do you?
You should note, only the top 3 results are the same, the rest is not. This is to be expected, but it's no accident that MS's are more positive towards MS.
I'll dig it later, but really this conversation is going well beyond off track.