Generally both Win7 and even more so Win8 since it has lower RAM and other requirements, and also a good bit higher performance than Win7, runs as well or better than XP on the same hardware. What HW does your parents have?
Then, having finally produced a solid desktop system, they found they were being clobbered by the tablet industry, and came out with a desktop interface borrowed from a phone. Sigh
If you use Windows 8 in a desktop mode, can you enumerate all the differences between it and Win7? I used Win8 for a while just having my most common apps "pinned" on the task bar, but eventually also installed a new Start button. I am unable to see any difference between my current setup and my previous Windows 7 setup. I do notice the performance improvements though. The Start Screen is to me just another application, and a rather interesting one at that, since it gives me all the "other" information I consume day-to-day at a single glance. Weather, Stock portfolio performance, number of unread emails, latest tweets, unread articles on/. etc, all in one single glance.
I do not know of a single area where Win8 is worse than Win7, and it is better in quite a few. I am open to input that would alter this perception.
XP (with its Fisher Price GUI) was less popular on launch than Win8 among the usual crowd. The same whiners that are unwilling to move to Win8 now and get a 20% or so performance increase, are going to cling to their Win8 machines when Win10 launches and claim that Win8 is the be-all-end-all of GUIs.
There is no difference from a GUI perspective using Win8 and Win7. Adding a start button takes about 20 seconds, something I did after a while using only "pinned" apps - which kept me away from the Start Screen too. I rarely, if ever see the Start Screen, but I glance at it once in a while because it is a large "information wall" with all relevant info in one single place.
Staying away from Win8 because of a (incorrectly) perceived GUI difference between it and Win7 - and thereby losing the 20% performance increase, means your geek card should be revoked and it puts you in the religious nutcase category.
Neither is Win8. I use it daily and there is no mobile UI anywhere to be seen. For a while I kept my apps pinned on my task bar, after a few weeks I added a start button. Nobody sitting by me knows I am using Win8. Considering it has an about 20% better performance than Win7, not upgrading from 7 to 8 because of some perceived UI issue puts you in the "religious nutcase" category.
BTW, Win XP with its "Fisher Price GUI" was LESS popular than Win8 at launch.
Really? That's what you read from the MS press release? If so I'g go and demand a refund from your primary school since they clearly failed to teach you basic reading skills.
Funny how the haters will hate no matter what. These are geekbench results of the same PC before and after an upgrade (no clean install) to Windows 8:
Windows 7: 5665
Windows 8: 7103
I'd say a 20% difference overall makes quite a difference in terms og general computing, yes.
Now a lot of "geeks" (who should have their geek card revoked) think that the start screen is such a terrible thing that they will forego this type of performance improvement. Those "geeks" are fundamentally retarded since there is no difference in the day-to-day use of Windows 7 and Windows 8. I can't remember the last time I had to go to the Start Screen. I never use Metro apps. There is no difference from Win7. Except the performance improvements.
Funny enough, the same retards who complain loudly now about what is a non-issue, do not recall they years of whining that followed the Windows XP release and its "Fisher Price" GUI.
In what universe is digital format equivalent to Kodachrome?
It isn't, well, that is to say, Kodachrome isn't equivalent to digital. Most sensors today beat 35 mm film in both resolution and dynamic range. Get with the times friend.
Small scale solar actually has more deaths from installers falling off roofs than you'd think
Not to forget all the Chinese dying of various diseases when they work on, live on or live by the land that is being strip-mined for rare-earth minerals to create these solar panels and the supporting technology. Quite frankly, solar is among the worst polluters in some ways, and electrical cars are far worse polluter than gas guzzlers.
Been in Camcorder bodies for the consumer for quite a while. The M43 format should make it eminently possible in cameras too, since the mirror and pentaprism is gone.
Depends what you mean by consumer. Panasonic, Sony and others have been selling Con(pro)sumer camcorders with 3CCDs (later CMOS) for many years. Compared to one chip camcorders they are very good. I bought my first three-chipper HDV camcorder almost a decade ago. The Con(pro)sumer end has been between $500 and $1000 for a while. Not the cheapest, but far from out of reach for the enthusiast.
Why, you ask. Well, simply because only a completely free algorithm can become really standard, because they are in the public space. Everybody is allowed to create software/hardware to show them/play them for no charge
Here is a funny fact for you. H.264 is an open industry standard. VP8 is a closed one-company "standard". What benefits us the most?
No, I don't. I know it. How do I know it? Because I am not retarded.
Have you tried to install software on a Surface RT from someplace other than the MS app store?
You do realize there is a huge difference between Win8 and Win 8 RT right? Let me throw you a tiny hint. Legacy software. RT has none. That was a clue to un-retard your brain.
they're going to do everything they can to get as close as possible to Apple's 30% cut of all software installed
They may wish to do so, they'll probably even sell desktop shrink-wrap software in the MS Store. They are never abandoning the desktop market though. Ever. How do I know this? I am still not retarded. Unlike the retarded journalist who actually (professes to) believe the desktop might be gone in Windows Blue. Quite frankly, anyone who even wonders out loud about whether Microsoft might abandon the desktop in that way are too fucking stupid to be allowed the usage of a computer.
They may not get completely there on x86
They are not even try to go there. Microsoft might be a lot of things. Evil, innovative, despicable, monopolistic, whatever. They are not suicidal. Microsoft has been backwards compatible to a degree nobody else has in their market. Others are not even close. Microsoft knows very well that their main customer base is the Enterprise, and they are not so fucking stupid that they would kill their main cash cow. There are a lot of utterly retarded people out there, the aforementioned journalist for one, who are fucking stupid though think Microsoft is though. These people need a brain transplant. The guts of a 1990 Timex calculator watch would be a decent upgrade.
Possibly, on the other hand, if they changed their minds, VP8 makes no sense at all, then it is just a meaningless posturing trying to peddle an inferior product on an unsuspecting public. That'd be insane.
You don't seem to understand the point here, do you
Yes, I do, you don't.
In the software world it is perfectly common to come with ideas independently from each other
Yes it is. So what. It doesn't apply here. Google simply copied H.264. Really, that's what they did. They haven't even tried to hide it. The stuff in H-264 is to some extent genuine innovation. Google just don't want to pay people for that work. They want to steal it instead.
It is in the interest of all of us, if the way we store and transmit our documents, videos, audio, whathaveyou in completely free formats, no string attached
Why? Because Jesus told you so? If you were correct, where would the TV industry be today? "Sorry, my movies are only watchable on TVs from Sony purchased between 1993 and 2001." Industry standards are there for a reason, so that we can actually share stuff. H.264 is an industry standard, it is not owned by any corporation, it is available for all to use, however, if you make a lot of money off using that standard, then and only then the people who actually did the work of creating said standard, would like a tiny part of your revenue. You know, $0.001 out of every paying customer above 100 000 customers. Per year!
If Google wants to come up with their own standard, that is fine. As long as they don't steal someone else's work and say "This is our new standard", and particularly when they add "and we're not going to support any of the actual standards that are out there", which is what they said when they announced they were dropping H.264 support. H.264 is the broadcast standard. Google wants to lock you into THEIR stuff, stuff they have STOLEN from others. That is thieving at its worst. Remember, Nokia is not asserting this patent over anyone using H.264, ONLY over Google, and for very, very, very good reason. Google is trying hard to fragment the broadcast market. That is idiocy!
All programmers, all scientist use other people's work without pay for it
Yes, indeed. Some stuff is "well known", other stuff is obvious. What I never do however, is sit down with the innovation of another and basically copy it bit for bit and then peddle that software either to make money or for purely malicious purpose. Google is doing that. With one aim in mind only, so that they will cut the money they have to pay to others for YouTube. Google isn't doing this for me or you. Google is doing it so that they can yank H.264 out of the browser (announced) and stop paying royalties for what they do with YouTube. This move on part of Google has ZERO impact on you or me. If you never produce content, you don't care. If you produce content then you have to use software that has already paid for H.264 capabilities, so there are no savings in this for you. As a content producer in it for the money, you will either do H.264 (or MPEG-2) or you will go under. Paying $0.001 per paying subscriber above 100 000 is not going to be an issue for you.
Google has already announced (but not effectuated) that they will not support H.264 in Chrome in the future, only Ogg and VP8, so, no, they will probably not continue to support H.264 on YouTube. "The One Google Way or Fuck Off" is coming quite soon.
Nokia is not a patent troll in this case, and the only one who want to have the works of others for free is Google. They blatantly violated patents they knew were in place so that the, and only Google in fact, would not have to pay. This has no impact on other entities than Google. Thieves.
anything else requires a special license from MPEG LA and it doesn't come cheap.
You are right, if you sell videos over 12 minutes in length, you have to pay either 2% of the video in licensing fees, or $0.02, whichever is less. That is back-breaking bankruptcy-inducing fees right there. As mentioned above in the thread - if your business model can not support that, you should re-think it. Remember, this is only if you are selling videos some how, and getting paid directly for each one by the person buying it.
If you run a subscription service with more than 100 000 paying subscribers, you are going to be out 1/10th of a cent per subscriber per year or less. Again, go straight to bankruptcy, right?
there should be some process for giving patent holders a limited amount of time to come forward with their grievances so that we don't get so far into the process before we decide we have to drop the whole project because of an existing patent
I can see it now. Some mediocre Google engineers are looking through the H.264 spec and trying to copy it as best they can. They struggle with this for a few months and then they go "we didn't know there were patents, you should have brought your grievances to us earlier, we have now wasted a lot of time trying to copy your stuff (and not doing a good job at it on the way) - how could we know you had patents attached?".... "It's there, in that document on your desk. That document that describes the algorithm you are trying to copy". "Yeah, but we didn't read that part!!"
VP8 is a BAD copy of H.264. It has no upside for the consumer whatsoever. It doesn't make anyone more or less rich. Well, except Google that is. VP8 is created to save Google, and only Google money. It is doing so by literally stealing the works of others. Yeah. Do no evil my azz. Leeching of the works of others definitely comes in under the "do some bad shit" label.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally both Win7 and even more so Win8 since it has lower RAM and other requirements, and also a good bit higher performance than Win7, runs as well or better than XP on the same hardware. What HW does your parents have?
Then, having finally produced a solid desktop system, they found they were being clobbered by the tablet industry, and came out with a desktop interface borrowed from a phone. Sigh
If you use Windows 8 in a desktop mode, can you enumerate all the differences between it and Win7? I used Win8 for a while just having my most common apps "pinned" on the task bar, but eventually also installed a new Start button. I am unable to see any difference between my current setup and my previous Windows 7 setup. I do notice the performance improvements though. The Start Screen is to me just another application, and a rather interesting one at that, since it gives me all the "other" information I consume day-to-day at a single glance. Weather, Stock portfolio performance, number of unread emails, latest tweets, unread articles on /. etc, all in one single glance.
I do not know of a single area where Win8 is worse than Win7, and it is better in quite a few. I am open to input that would alter this perception.
XP (with its Fisher Price GUI) was less popular on launch than Win8 among the usual crowd. The same whiners that are unwilling to move to Win8 now and get a 20% or so performance increase, are going to cling to their Win8 machines when Win10 launches and claim that Win8 is the be-all-end-all of GUIs.
There is no difference from a GUI perspective using Win8 and Win7. Adding a start button takes about 20 seconds, something I did after a while using only "pinned" apps - which kept me away from the Start Screen too. I rarely, if ever see the Start Screen, but I glance at it once in a while because it is a large "information wall" with all relevant info in one single place.
Staying away from Win8 because of a (incorrectly) perceived GUI difference between it and Win7 - and thereby losing the 20% performance increase, means your geek card should be revoked and it puts you in the religious nutcase category.
Neither is Win8. I use it daily and there is no mobile UI anywhere to be seen. For a while I kept my apps pinned on my task bar, after a few weeks I added a start button. Nobody sitting by me knows I am using Win8. Considering it has an about 20% better performance than Win7, not upgrading from 7 to 8 because of some perceived UI issue puts you in the "religious nutcase" category.
BTW, Win XP with its "Fisher Price GUI" was LESS popular than Win8 at launch.
Really? That's what you read from the MS press release? If so I'g go and demand a refund from your primary school since they clearly failed to teach you basic reading skills.
Funny how the haters will hate no matter what. These are geekbench results of the same PC before and after an upgrade (no clean install) to Windows 8:
Windows 7: 5665
Windows 8: 7103
I'd say a 20% difference overall makes quite a difference in terms og general computing, yes.
Now a lot of "geeks" (who should have their geek card revoked) think that the start screen is such a terrible thing that they will forego this type of performance improvement. Those "geeks" are fundamentally retarded since there is no difference in the day-to-day use of Windows 7 and Windows 8. I can't remember the last time I had to go to the Start Screen. I never use Metro apps. There is no difference from Win7. Except the performance improvements.
Funny enough, the same retards who complain loudly now about what is a non-issue, do not recall they years of whining that followed the Windows XP release and its "Fisher Price" GUI.
So they never taught you how to read. How did you manage writing then?
You're right, raw is tons better in every way.
In what universe is digital format equivalent to Kodachrome?
It isn't, well, that is to say, Kodachrome isn't equivalent to digital. Most sensors today beat 35 mm film in both resolution and dynamic range. Get with the times friend.
The VG10 doesn't shoot raw. That is a huge thing.
Absolutely NONE of the JVC,Sony, or Canon pro cameras have shoulder mounts
Nonsense. If you are not on a tripod these days you are either on a shoulder mount or you are on some sort of stabilizer rig. Glidecam etc.
I won't have blood on my hands, even if it is all over my sidewalk.
Ah, once you go solar you've got blood on your hands, but then again, it's Chinese blood, so it doesn't count, right?
Small scale solar actually has more deaths from installers falling off roofs than you'd think
Not to forget all the Chinese dying of various diseases when they work on, live on or live by the land that is being strip-mined for rare-earth minerals to create these solar panels and the supporting technology. Quite frankly, solar is among the worst polluters in some ways, and electrical cars are far worse polluter than gas guzzlers.
Been in Camcorder bodies for the consumer for quite a while. The M43 format should make it eminently possible in cameras too, since the mirror and pentaprism is gone.
Consumer goods are another story
Depends what you mean by consumer. Panasonic, Sony and others have been selling Con(pro)sumer camcorders with 3CCDs (later CMOS) for many years. Compared to one chip camcorders they are very good. I bought my first three-chipper HDV camcorder almost a decade ago. The Con(pro)sumer end has been between $500 and $1000 for a while. Not the cheapest, but far from out of reach for the enthusiast.
Why, you ask. Well, simply because only a completely free algorithm can become really standard, because they are in the public space. Everybody is allowed to create software/hardware to show them/play them for no charge
Here is a funny fact for you. H.264 is an open industry standard. VP8 is a closed one-company "standard". What benefits us the most?
Really?? You believe this?
No, I don't. I know it. How do I know it? Because I am not retarded.
Have you tried to install software on a Surface RT from someplace other than the MS app store?
You do realize there is a huge difference between Win8 and Win 8 RT right? Let me throw you a tiny hint. Legacy software. RT has none. That was a clue to un-retard your brain.
they're going to do everything they can to get as close as possible to Apple's 30% cut of all software installed
They may wish to do so, they'll probably even sell desktop shrink-wrap software in the MS Store. They are never abandoning the desktop market though. Ever. How do I know this? I am still not retarded. Unlike the retarded journalist who actually (professes to) believe the desktop might be gone in Windows Blue. Quite frankly, anyone who even wonders out loud about whether Microsoft might abandon the desktop in that way are too fucking stupid to be allowed the usage of a computer.
They may not get completely there on x86
They are not even try to go there. Microsoft might be a lot of things. Evil, innovative, despicable, monopolistic, whatever. They are not suicidal. Microsoft has been backwards compatible to a degree nobody else has in their market. Others are not even close. Microsoft knows very well that their main customer base is the Enterprise, and they are not so fucking stupid that they would kill their main cash cow. There are a lot of utterly retarded people out there, the aforementioned journalist for one, who are fucking stupid though think Microsoft is though. These people need a brain transplant. The guts of a 1990 Timex calculator watch would be a decent upgrade.
No, it won't. Don't be paranoid retarded.
Possibly, on the other hand, if they changed their minds, VP8 makes no sense at all, then it is just a meaningless posturing trying to peddle an inferior product on an unsuspecting public. That'd be insane.
You don't seem to understand the point here, do you
Yes, I do, you don't.
In the software world it is perfectly common to come with ideas independently from each other
Yes it is. So what. It doesn't apply here. Google simply copied H.264. Really, that's what they did. They haven't even tried to hide it. The stuff in H-264 is to some extent genuine innovation. Google just don't want to pay people for that work. They want to steal it instead.
It is in the interest of all of us, if the way we store and transmit our documents, videos, audio, whathaveyou in completely free formats, no string attached
Why? Because Jesus told you so? If you were correct, where would the TV industry be today? "Sorry, my movies are only watchable on TVs from Sony purchased between 1993 and 2001." Industry standards are there for a reason, so that we can actually share stuff. H.264 is an industry standard, it is not owned by any corporation, it is available for all to use, however, if you make a lot of money off using that standard, then and only then the people who actually did the work of creating said standard, would like a tiny part of your revenue. You know, $0.001 out of every paying customer above 100 000 customers. Per year!
If Google wants to come up with their own standard, that is fine. As long as they don't steal someone else's work and say "This is our new standard", and particularly when they add "and we're not going to support any of the actual standards that are out there", which is what they said when they announced they were dropping H.264 support. H.264 is the broadcast standard. Google wants to lock you into THEIR stuff, stuff they have STOLEN from others. That is thieving at its worst. Remember, Nokia is not asserting this patent over anyone using H.264, ONLY over Google, and for very, very, very good reason. Google is trying hard to fragment the broadcast market. That is idiocy!
All programmers, all scientist use other people's work without pay for it
Yes, indeed. Some stuff is "well known", other stuff is obvious. What I never do however, is sit down with the innovation of another and basically copy it bit for bit and then peddle that software either to make money or for purely malicious purpose. Google is doing that. With one aim in mind only, so that they will cut the money they have to pay to others for YouTube. Google isn't doing this for me or you. Google is doing it so that they can yank H.264 out of the browser (announced) and stop paying royalties for what they do with YouTube. This move on part of Google has ZERO impact on you or me. If you never produce content, you don't care. If you produce content then you have to use software that has already paid for H.264 capabilities, so there are no savings in this for you. As a content producer in it for the money, you will either do H.264 (or MPEG-2) or you will go under. Paying $0.001 per paying subscriber above 100 000 is not going to be an issue for you.
Google has already announced (but not effectuated) that they will not support H.264 in Chrome in the future, only Ogg and VP8, so, no, they will probably not continue to support H.264 on YouTube. "The One Google Way or Fuck Off" is coming quite soon.
Nokia is not a patent troll in this case, and the only one who want to have the works of others for free is Google. They blatantly violated patents they knew were in place so that the, and only Google in fact, would not have to pay. This has no impact on other entities than Google. Thieves.
anything else requires a special license from MPEG LA and it doesn't come cheap.
You are right, if you sell videos over 12 minutes in length, you have to pay either 2% of the video in licensing fees, or $0.02, whichever is less. That is back-breaking bankruptcy-inducing fees right there. As mentioned above in the thread - if your business model can not support that, you should re-think it. Remember, this is only if you are selling videos some how, and getting paid directly for each one by the person buying it.
If you run a subscription service with more than 100 000 paying subscribers, you are going to be out 1/10th of a cent per subscriber per year or less. Again, go straight to bankruptcy, right?
Wow, so when Nokia is trying to prevent Google from just copying hard work done by Nokia, Nokia is bad? So theft is OK?
there should be some process for giving patent holders a limited amount of time to come forward with their grievances so that we don't get so far into the process before we decide we have to drop the whole project because of an existing patent
I can see it now. Some mediocre Google engineers are looking through the H.264 spec and trying to copy it as best they can. They struggle with this for a few months and then they go "we didn't know there were patents, you should have brought your grievances to us earlier, we have now wasted a lot of time trying to copy your stuff (and not doing a good job at it on the way) - how could we know you had patents attached?".... "It's there, in that document on your desk. That document that describes the algorithm you are trying to copy". "Yeah, but we didn't read that part!!"
VP8 is a BAD copy of H.264. It has no upside for the consumer whatsoever. It doesn't make anyone more or less rich. Well, except Google that is. VP8 is created to save Google, and only Google money. It is doing so by literally stealing the works of others. Yeah. Do no evil my azz. Leeching of the works of others definitely comes in under the "do some bad shit" label.