I don't have a lot of hands on experience with XP, but Win2K was clunky with 256 MB (on an Athlon 1600+). Once the RAM was upped to 512 MB it seemed to be happier, becoming much more responsive. That's what I'm basing my statements on.
The "minimum requirement" is a Public Relation numbers game, anyway. Too high and potential customers may be alienated, too low and the poor performance could fall into the 'legal action' category. I have little doubt that XP could be booted with 64 or 80 MB of RAM; whether or not the system would be useful is a different story.
I get the exact opposite results for Excel and OpenOffice Calc: Excel takes forever to load, doesn't share memory, etc, and Calc is a lot faster/leaner.
Then again, I'm running Excel in Crossover Office; all those Windows libraries aren't "preloaded" for me. Maybe that's why XP and Vista have such large system requirements?
I'm an LED flashlight geek, so I'm realistic when it comes to lighting a house with LEDs. I'd be surprised if in 20 years we weren't replacing CFLs with LED bulbs, but at the moment it's not a worthwhile investment.
Right now, I'm happy with my CFLs: for the wattage needed to light my living room and foyer with incandescents (140 watts), I can light my whole apartment on a dark October day. It's definitely a mood-lifter to not have to worry about my electric bill, or have the place look like a funeral home.
OTOH, incandescents may not be so quick to fade away: the efficiency of tungsten filaments can be significantly increased by using crystals instead of wires.
A decade ago, Microsoft had a lot of "bling" power with Windows 95, and could do no wrong in the eyes of most people. Also, the computers of that era were "adequate" or "underpowered" for what they were doing. Network connections for the overwhelming majority were limited to dial-up.
Fast forward a decade. You have people using 1 GHz processors (and faster) just to check email and play solitaire. Memory is more abundant, browsers are more robust, and significantly more users have some level of broadband connection.
We shouldn't forget what Microsoft is capable of (ethically or financially), but it's unfair to worry that all new ventures will fail because of the MS presence.
But the Dell system requires maintenance, which would be provided with the Geode.
Maintaining a system is easy enough for the Slashdot crowd. OTOH, I just charged a family $80 to remove spyware and install basic free tools on their system. And they had "technical" friends, none of whom could remove the spyware.
If this is marketed correctly, and the recurring costs aren't too high, this could be a big win for older and casual users.
"If you're charging your iPod you aren't having a fucking emergency."
It could be useful for keeping a child quiet and calm*... or at least prevent them from wanting to explore as much. Hell, it could be useful for keeping an adult calm if there's nothing else to do.
* A splitter can let two kids listen, if there's two sets of headphones.
"In a while, everyone on the block will have cracked players, and soon enough everyone in the city."
By the same logic, everyone in the city should be using Firefox or Mozilla, since they're more secure and feature-packed than IE. Using that logic, Linux and Mac should be eviscerating Microsoft's desktop percentages. And we're talking free and legal software, that'll help secure their systems!
The people I've talked to are neither lazy nor stupid; they don't understand everything about technology. They want something that "just works". Any hoops they have to jump through -- beneficial or not -- take time away from their busy lives. Time is more valuable to some folks than money: they're not going to browse websites for the "easily modded" players, download cracks or firmware patches, or do anything more than ask for help. (And they're certainly not going to be able to teach others what you did for them!)
How many nights and weekends are you willing to give up to unlock the media players for the city's Jane and Joe Average? Even if you modded a half-dozen players a week*, it wouldn't make a dent in the problem. I guess that falls under the handwaving "soon enough everyone in the city" being technically astute.
* Don't forget you need to redo the mod the next time a firmware or software update breaks the fix.
I agree that everything can be cracked, eventually.
But it doesn't matter if every Slashdot reader has access to the cracked players or systems. The general public as a whole rarely embraces such technologies. It's either too complex, too difficult, or there's the fear factor of doing something wrong.
"Next generation" DVD players will have the ability to be remotely disabled if their code has been cracked. The **AA is trying to use fear and peer pressure to keep the sheep in line. Sure, the Slashdot crowd can get around such measures -- but Joe Sixpack and Jane Average can't.
Step 2: Whine to Congress that piracy (or terrorists, the internet, solar flares, etc) is destroying their industry (nevermind all those profits!) Put taxes on all devices capable of possibly recording or storing RIAA songs.
'As it gets harder for consumers to consume, they switch to something easier.'
That assumes there's an option to switch. Right now most MP3 players will accept files from "unverified sources" (ie, done yourself or pirated). If that changes (due to RIAA pressure or legislation), other options for music will be slim and none.
I haven't listened to the radio in my home in about five years. My car radio only gets used while I'm waiting for my (aged) MP3 player to boot, or for trips too short to even bother.
Does it have any problems handling MP3s from a "generic" CD-R (ie, not burned with the Sony software). Running a Linux-only box, I'm really not able to run the ATRAC conversion software.
You're absolutely correct, they all do. But AFAIK there's no licensing fee for Windows (desktop) software. It would be a cash cow if Microsoft could receive a percentage for all software developed for Windows Vista. It would be transparent to the majority of Windows users, and could lock F/OSS out of Vista.
I'm wondering if this is a (dubious) way of avoiding anti-trust issues. Each version will have its own product number, UPC code, etc. It won't be Windows Vista having 94% of the OS market; the percentages will be split between the variations.
Another idea: MS could be trying to make more money from developer tools. Will the executables for Home Premium run on the "El Cheapo" versions? Keep in mind that all games for the XBox are licensed, and MS gets a cut right off the top.
There are "countless" Linux distros from different companies and organizations. Microsoft will be selling various flavors of Vista with little obvious differentiation.
If it were just three versions ("limited" for bargain PCs, home, and professional) this would be a non-issue. Like it has been in the past.
That's well and good for everyone who compiles their own kernel.
I'd wager that the majority of Linux desktop users get binary kernels from their distros. They're not savvy enough to tell the difference, and they've been burned once (MS Windows).
If it's included as default in a distro, many desktop users won't know how to turn it on/off via/etc/sysctl.conf.
And IMHO, it sets up the "slippery slope" argument.:(
Speaking for myself, I know that there have been times that I deliberately haven't worked on something. With 10 minutes until a meeting starts, and there's little sense starting a new task when it'll take more than 10 minutes to pick up where I left off.
More than once I've had to pull a late night -- due to deadlines or being on call -- without any additional compensation (formal or not). You can be assured I didn't make an effort to work the next 8 hours at 100% efficiency. I didn't try to slow down, but I didn't give 110% -- I did that yesterday.
Businesses need to look at the big picture, instead of adding up the minutia. Locking down the Internet connection or bathroom stall to monitor employee time to the second doesn't make a more productive workplace, it just gives ineffective management another target to miss.
I'd have to disagree. There is always a need for specialized computers that are produced in small quantities. Not only did VisiCalc put computers on a lot of desks, but frugal and conservative business-folk were taking the plunge.
Code breaking is important. But it doesn't sell computers to businesses or Joe Sixpack. Visicalc put personal computers in the hands of normal users -- without the need for a security clearance.
The problem with binary-only drivers is that older products can't be supported by the community, if/when the maker decides to stop supporting them. A real-world example is that Nvidia has stopped supporting older cards (do a search for "TNT"). I can understand not wanting to provide Linux drivers for the aged TNT series cards (despite owning one), but the original GeForce and the GeForce 2 aren't supported any longer either. I'd like to think there's some kind of technical limitation, but the realist in me thinks it's a marketing or cost-cutting measure.
Another problem is that binary drivers may be limited in terms of kernel support. Support for the 2.6 kernels would a must, but what about 2.4? How will the driver situation change when the 2.7/2.8 kernels are released?
Binary drivers are a "quick fix" for a problem, but not a long-term solution.
"They also want to make it a criminal offence for suspects [emphasis mine] to refuse to cooperate in giving the police full access to computer files by refusing to disclose their encryption keys."
I don't see what that problem is, as long as due process is respected. Murder suspects can't turn away search warrants of their property, and if the proper warrants are filled out electronic files should be treated as physical property.
Secret warrants or police officers "going fishing" is another story.
Free software is supposed to be "Free as in speech". If people can't criticize without submitting uber-l33t code or registering for bugtrackers, how is that freedom of speech?
Try thinking outside the box: a user has reviewed the developer-designed mockups, and rejected it. There's your bug report.
Don't like criticism? Keep your code and your projects to yourself, and keep all of us in the unwashed masses out. Everyone will be happier that way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Needed" and "optimal" are two different things.
I don't have a lot of hands on experience with XP, but Win2K was clunky with 256 MB (on an Athlon 1600+). Once the RAM was upped to 512 MB it seemed to be happier, becoming much more responsive. That's what I'm basing my statements on.
The "minimum requirement" is a Public Relation numbers game, anyway. Too high and potential customers may be alienated, too low and the poor performance could fall into the 'legal action' category. I have little doubt that XP could be booted with 64 or 80 MB of RAM; whether or not the system would be useful is a different story.
I get the exact opposite results for Excel and OpenOffice Calc: Excel takes forever to load, doesn't share memory, etc, and Calc is a lot faster/leaner.
Then again, I'm running Excel in Crossover Office; all those Windows libraries aren't "preloaded" for me. Maybe that's why XP and Vista have such large system requirements?
I'm an LED flashlight geek, so I'm realistic when it comes to lighting a house with LEDs. I'd be surprised if in 20 years we weren't replacing CFLs with LED bulbs, but at the moment it's not a worthwhile investment.
Right now, I'm happy with my CFLs: for the wattage needed to light my living room and foyer with incandescents (140 watts), I can light my whole apartment on a dark October day. It's definitely a mood-lifter to not have to worry about my electric bill, or have the place look like a funeral home.
OTOH, incandescents may not be so quick to fade away: the efficiency of tungsten filaments can be significantly increased by using crystals instead of wires.
CFLs can be really sensitive to dirty or corroded fixtures. I've heard that bad fixtures and dimmers are the fastest ways to kill them.
Are the bulbs on a timer of some kind?
A decade ago, Microsoft had a lot of "bling" power with Windows 95, and could do no wrong in the eyes of most people. Also, the computers of that era were "adequate" or "underpowered" for what they were doing. Network connections for the overwhelming majority were limited to dial-up.
Fast forward a decade. You have people using 1 GHz processors (and faster) just to check email and play solitaire. Memory is more abundant, browsers are more robust, and significantly more users have some level of broadband connection.
We shouldn't forget what Microsoft is capable of (ethically or financially), but it's unfair to worry that all new ventures will fail because of the MS presence.
I worked for a company that played country/western during the day. I'd have loved to have had just plain Muzak instead.
But the Dell system requires maintenance, which would be provided with the Geode.
Maintaining a system is easy enough for the Slashdot crowd. OTOH, I just charged a family $80 to remove spyware and install basic free tools on their system. And they had "technical" friends, none of whom could remove the spyware.
If this is marketed correctly, and the recurring costs aren't too high, this could be a big win for older and casual users.
"If you're charging your iPod you aren't having a fucking emergency."
It could be useful for keeping a child quiet and calm*... or at least prevent them from wanting to explore as much. Hell, it could be useful for keeping an adult calm if there's nothing else to do.
* A splitter can let two kids listen, if there's two sets of headphones.
"In a while, everyone on the block will have cracked players, and soon enough everyone in the city."
By the same logic, everyone in the city should be using Firefox or Mozilla, since they're more secure and feature-packed than IE. Using that logic, Linux and Mac should be eviscerating Microsoft's desktop percentages. And we're talking free and legal software, that'll help secure their systems!
The people I've talked to are neither lazy nor stupid; they don't understand everything about technology. They want something that "just works". Any hoops they have to jump through -- beneficial or not -- take time away from their busy lives. Time is more valuable to some folks than money: they're not going to browse websites for the "easily modded" players, download cracks or firmware patches, or do anything more than ask for help. (And they're certainly not going to be able to teach others what you did for them!)
How many nights and weekends are you willing to give up to unlock the media players for the city's Jane and Joe Average? Even if you modded a half-dozen players a week*, it wouldn't make a dent in the problem. I guess that falls under the handwaving "soon enough everyone in the city" being technically astute.
* Don't forget you need to redo the mod the next time a firmware or software update breaks the fix.
I agree that everything can be cracked, eventually.
But it doesn't matter if every Slashdot reader has access to the cracked players or systems. The general public as a whole rarely embraces such technologies. It's either too complex, too difficult, or there's the fear factor of doing something wrong.
"Next generation" DVD players will have the ability to be remotely disabled if their code has been cracked. The **AA is trying to use fear and peer pressure to keep the sheep in line. Sure, the Slashdot crowd can get around such measures -- but Joe Sixpack and Jane Average can't.
Step 2: Whine to Congress that piracy (or terrorists, the internet, solar flares, etc) is destroying their industry (nevermind all those profits!) Put taxes on all devices capable of possibly recording or storing RIAA songs.
'As it gets harder for consumers to consume, they switch to something easier.'
That assumes there's an option to switch. Right now most MP3 players will accept files from "unverified sources" (ie, done yourself or pirated). If that changes (due to RIAA pressure or legislation), other options for music will be slim and none.
I haven't listened to the radio in my home in about five years. My car radio only gets used while I'm waiting for my (aged) MP3 player to boot, or for trips too short to even bother.
Does it have any problems handling MP3s from a "generic" CD-R (ie, not burned with the Sony software). Running a Linux-only box, I'm really not able to run the ATRAC conversion software.
Thanks again!
Which model Sony player do you have? I'm in the market, and haven't found any helpful reviews online.
Thanks!
You're absolutely correct, they all do. But AFAIK there's no licensing fee for Windows (desktop) software. It would be a cash cow if Microsoft could receive a percentage for all software developed for Windows Vista. It would be transparent to the majority of Windows users, and could lock F/OSS out of Vista.
:)
But that's my personal conspiracy theory.
I'm wondering if this is a (dubious) way of avoiding anti-trust issues. Each version will have its own product number, UPC code, etc. It won't be Windows Vista having 94% of the OS market; the percentages will be split between the variations.
Another idea: MS could be trying to make more money from developer tools. Will the executables for Home Premium run on the "El Cheapo" versions? Keep in mind that all games for the XBox are licensed, and MS gets a cut right off the top.
(I know, there's no mod for -1 Conspiracy Theory)
There are "countless" Linux distros from different companies and organizations. Microsoft will be selling various flavors of Vista with little obvious differentiation.
If it were just three versions ("limited" for bargain PCs, home, and professional) this would be a non-issue. Like it has been in the past.
That's well and good for everyone who compiles their own kernel.
/etc/sysctl.conf.
:(
I'd wager that the majority of Linux desktop users get binary kernels from their distros. They're not savvy enough to tell the difference, and they've been burned once (MS Windows).
If it's included as default in a distro, many desktop users won't know how to turn it on/off via
And IMHO, it sets up the "slippery slope" argument.
Speaking for myself, I know that there have been times that I deliberately haven't worked on something. With 10 minutes until a meeting starts, and there's little sense starting a new task when it'll take more than 10 minutes to pick up where I left off.
More than once I've had to pull a late night -- due to deadlines or being on call -- without any additional compensation (formal or not). You can be assured I didn't make an effort to work the next 8 hours at 100% efficiency. I didn't try to slow down, but I didn't give 110% -- I did that yesterday.
Businesses need to look at the big picture, instead of adding up the minutia. Locking down the Internet connection or bathroom stall to monitor employee time to the second doesn't make a more productive workplace, it just gives ineffective management another target to miss.
I'd have to disagree. There is always a need for specialized computers that are produced in small quantities. Not only did VisiCalc put computers on a lot of desks, but frugal and conservative business-folk were taking the plunge.
Code breaking is important. But it doesn't sell computers to businesses or Joe Sixpack. Visicalc put personal computers in the hands of normal users -- without the need for a security clearance.
The problem with binary-only drivers is that older products can't be supported by the community, if/when the maker decides to stop supporting them. A real-world example is that Nvidia has stopped supporting older cards (do a search for "TNT"). I can understand not wanting to provide Linux drivers for the aged TNT series cards (despite owning one), but the original GeForce and the GeForce 2 aren't supported any longer either. I'd like to think there's some kind of technical limitation, but the realist in me thinks it's a marketing or cost-cutting measure.
Another problem is that binary drivers may be limited in terms of kernel support. Support for the 2.6 kernels would a must, but what about 2.4? How will the driver situation change when the 2.7/2.8 kernels are released?
Binary drivers are a "quick fix" for a problem, but not a long-term solution.
Can we change the blurb to read: "Now there's one less reason for your friends to not switch to Gentoo!"
The choice of Intel was about DRM and "trusted computing". AMD's low volumes didn't help their case either.
"They also want to make it a criminal offence for suspects [emphasis mine] to refuse to cooperate in giving the police full access to computer files by refusing to disclose their encryption keys."
I don't see what that problem is, as long as due process is respected. Murder suspects can't turn away search warrants of their property, and if the proper warrants are filled out electronic files should be treated as physical property.
Secret warrants or police officers "going fishing" is another story.
Free software is supposed to be "Free as in speech". If people can't criticize without submitting uber-l33t code or registering for bugtrackers, how is that freedom of speech?
Try thinking outside the box: a user has reviewed the developer-designed mockups, and rejected it. There's your bug report.
Don't like criticism? Keep your code and your projects to yourself, and keep all of us in the unwashed masses out. Everyone will be happier that way.