I'm confused. Why on God's Green Earth would a driver with no 3D acceleration help? You can run Vista and get a 2D desktop just fine with or without Vista drivers.
Where have you been? 90% of the posters on Slashdot are assholes, and they're also rabidly anti-MS assholes. They like to say dramatic things like "convicted monopolist" and "illegal behavior, both of which have no meaning in this context. It all comes down to pathological nerdism and a need to stand apart from the mainstream. The mainstream likes MS because they don't care about computers. These Slashdot nerds _care_ about computers, to say the least. They also don't want to be mainstream. So they have a pathological hatred of all things MS.
I more or less picture Slashdot like a group of those people who want to make sure you know "I don't watch TV".. "Who's Britney Spears, I don't watch TV!". Or the ones who listen to ridiculously obscure music just to make sure people know they do. "I listen to the Screaming Rape Trees and Radical Turdbane - I find normal music sucky!". Same methodology.
This is the most ridiculous load of crap I've seen yet in this thread, and that's saying a lot because it's basically full of crybaby Slashdot nerds crying like little fucking babies.
You have the sand to claim that he's doing this because he wants to leave _more_ money to his offspring? I think you're applying logic that applies to "normal" rich people to someone who is well beyond "normal" rich. He has no need to do such inane things to pass money on to his children. He can pass enough on to them to provide for them and the next 10 generations to live in top.01% percentile luxury.
Worst. Summary. Ever.
She's talking about technical computing. Regardless, software will evolve to take advantage of new hardware architectures - this has been proven by history. I'm not in the least worried. If this doesn't happen, then by definition the hardware architecture will be forced to change.
Right. We should listen to a pathetic "hater" on Slashdot, not a man who has been one of the richest men on the planet for a long, long time and whose company has dominated the software market for over 2 decades.
Unfortunately (for your point) this has been proven wrong. The FSB works fine up to 2P machines. Intel will soon be quad FSB machines which should work very well for machines up to and including 4P/16Core. The proof is in the pudding, benchmarks show that the FSB limitation is only meaningful in a very few instances, and in most cases the superior uArch of Core2 more than makes up for it.
As for K8L, looks interesting - we'll have to see. If you think it's going to have a broad 40% improvement over Core2, though, I've got a bridge in Hanoi to sell you.
A few points. The "freedom" crowd you identify is actually the "freedom for the things I like, but nothing else". A real freedom crowd would find ths decision ridiculous. Apple sells a clearly identified product within the scope of a well defined contract. If buyer chooses to purchase, he knows what he's getting. It is consentual. This is nothing more than socialism at its worst.
Second, Microsoft does not have a desktop monopoly as obviously there are multiple OS's I can choose to run on my desktop. Microsoft has no pricing power in the OS market because I can download and use a free OS.
Third, Microsoft has never been "convicted" of having a desktop monopoly. This is simply a lie. Really, Snopes.com should add this old gem to their list.
Fourth, you clearly don't know anything about enterprise software development. MS technology is anything but boring. I'll give you a pass on this, though, because you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Yeah, that'll happen. Apple would pull out of the market entirely before allowing that. Apple is not an OS company, they don't sell an OS and as such there is no Apple OS product. Apple is a system company, buy the system or just fuck off, but don't whine about the way they choose to sell their product.
Fucking socialists always think they have some right to appropriate a company's product as soon as it becomes popular and mould it to fit whatever their particular agenda is.
This is a lie, at least here in the US. There is no such requirement. In countries where this is a requirement, you won't be getting cheap cell phones.
Apple has a right to sell a product that is legal, and you have a choice to buy it or not buy it. Anything else is just filthy stinking socialism. Personally, I'd just shut the fucking thing down if a bunch of pathetic socialist scum are going to whine about it.
The justification for not licensing FairPlay is simple: Apple wants to make money. They don't make money on Itunes. They make it on the hardware. Ergo, if people can play the music on any old thing they may not buy the Ipod, and ergo Apple doesn't make money. You can call it greed if you want, but most people call it "business". And when it's between consenting adults and both parties uphold their contractual agreements, it's both legal and moral.
So the short of it is this is just another socialist EU(-ish) government who doesn't like that their businesses aren't getting a piece of the pie. No argument you make can possibly change this fact because your position is indefensible. Your point is like arguing that the $10 cell phone someone buys that's locked to a particular provider should be unlocked so you can use whatever provider you want. You got that cell phone because it's subsidized. Itunes is subsidized by the Ipod hardware. Apple should just make that explicit and tell anyone who bitches about it to toss off.
What ever happened to the concept of caveat emptor? Is there no responsibility on the part of the consumer to determine whether the product they're spending their own money on will fit their needs? Apparently, we are moving towards such a nanny state mentality that certain types of agreements between consenting adults involving a product that is illegal are now becoming illegal because the state deems that one of the parties may be retarded/lazy.
As for not owning it, duh. You are already restricted from sharing it freely. This is another restriction that the purchaser agreed to.
Corporate boogeyman-ism aside, this is music, not power, pollution, oil, water, etc... If you don't agree with the product or the restrictions they place on it, don't buy it. I don't. I haven't bought Itunes since the Harmony project tools stopped working on the files.
In short, you can't be "abused" (enough) when you buy a Justin Fruitlake song off Itunes. If you don't like the stipulations, go buy the CD or buy the song from one of the dozens of other available sources. You're not buying the song, you're renting it to listen to. That's what you don't seem to understand. If you want normal ownership (barring freely sharing it) rights, buy the CD or buy the song from somewhere else.
And this fact wasn't made clear before the person decided to purchase music from Itunes? Well there you go, they should go after Apple for that - breach of contract. Just kidding, we both know it _was_ made clear. It's also possible to buy music from other sources and use it on their Ipod.
Re:Not so much that you need an iPod to listen
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 1
Yet another example of poorly executed thinking. Market position is dictated by people's _choices_ in what they buy, especially in markets involving intellectual property. The supposition is that because people decide they like Itunes, suddenly it becomes partially owned by the government and they can dictate how it behaves.
This isn't oil, water, or power. It's not a government granted monopoly. This is a frivolous product for which there are countless alternative outlets. You, and many of the other Slashdroids, have the flawed idea that a monopoly can be granted by market share. It can't, at least not with logical consistency. A "real" monopoly is one based on a limited resource, a government granted monopoly, or _possibly_ a resource which is only available from 1 or 2 suppliers.
None of these apply. There are countless sources of music. Itunes is but one provider. The fact that consumers _choose_ to make it dominant does not make it a monopoly, it makes it a market leader.
Your assertion that they are "screwing over stupod people" is laughable. Which part of the contract that Apple offers when you use their service do you NOT understand? Which part of the fact that you can put other music on the Ipod that you don't buy from Itunes don't you understand? Is it really so difficult? There's nothing stupid about buying from Itunes, you just have to decide that you an live with the results. Most people can, ergo its success. Your elitist idiocy is proved wrong by cold, hard facts.
Second, I love the false analogy with polluters. I mean, illegally dumping toxic waste, which basically amounts to non-consentual assault, is _just_ the same as allowing someone to buy the latest Tittney Spears song. They're almost identical!
Finally, what anti-competitive practices? Am I confused and are there not literally dozens of outlets from which I can by music? Did something change last night where suddenly I can only buy music from Itunes? I should go check the news, maybe there was some late breaking announcement: "Attention, new information has been leaked indicating that only Apple's Itunes service will be able to provide music from this date forward - news at 10!".
SlashDot - a study in cognitive dissonance. "Government bad. Government intrusion in our lives bad. Government attack on sales of operating systems of music between consenting adults, GOOD!".
This is false. One could argue that Nintendo should allow their games to be ported to other platforms. It really is the same thing, namely some nanny government outlawing a _business model_. Suppose Apple decided that they want to pursue a business model where they sell the Ipod at cost or even at a loss, but make the money on selling songs on Itunes. This "socialist utopia" doesn't think they should be able to do that.
A better analogy is cell phones. They are often locked to a provider's network because the provider doesn't make money on the cell phone, they make money on the service. This is just more European bullshit targetting an American company, and you dweebs are buying into it because of your hypocritical laissez-faire attitude on everything _but_ MS or DRM.
I'm actually a MS user and I don't have a rabid irrational hatred of them like many around here. However, I'm not moving to Vista anytime soon. First, there's no compelling reason for me until DX10 games start hitting. Second, Vista is new and has many known issues, including performance issues. Third, all kinds of crap is going to break.
I think we're going to see Vista be the most slowly adopted OS Microsoft has ever released.
You call that a flame? I fell asleep like 3 times trying to get through that gibba jabba. Don't worry, you didn't irritate me. Seriously, I've been more inflamed and irritated by loose stoole, and I don't really get irritated by loose stoole.
Oooh! N-Tier! "lack of I/O bottlenecks". "less demanding". Good propaganda attempts, but you and I both know you're not saying anything of substance.
What specific "I/O bottlenecks" are you referring to? What on Earth does a "serious N-Tier architecture", which is a business application architecture, have to do with a CPU architecture? You're basically waving your hands around hoping nobody will notice your fanboyism, but in the end you're saying a whole lot of nothing.
What kinds of apps are you running where these "I/O bottlenecks" from Core2 Xeons are affecting you, I'm really very curious. What size systems are these, by the way, in terms of #sockets?
Your premise is flawed. First, Intel has and will have dual FSB solutions coming down the pipe. Second, they will have a much better interconnect, in CSI, in the 2008 timeframe. Third - your assumption that "IO bandwidth" is the main factor in performance has been proved false. The Intel chips are winning the majority of benchmarks, and that includes dual-CPU, 8-core systems. It turns out that the "sky is falling!" mentality about the Intel FSB has been proved to be partly nonsense, and partly premature.
Opteron does have an advantage to some degree in 4S and above systems, but even that is minimal and can certainly be worked around. So your final sentence is simply wrong. Intel chips are the best performing design in many different situations, including some of the high end machines Sun sells. Also, don't forget they're not stopping AMD sales - where the Opteron still makes sense they will still use it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. Why on God's Green Earth would a driver with no 3D acceleration help? You can run Vista and get a 2D desktop just fine with or without Vista drivers.
Haha, you're a cliche even among cliche-ridden Slashdot. Congratulations on being a total blowhard.
I more or less picture Slashdot like a group of those people who want to make sure you know "I don't watch TV".. "Who's Britney Spears, I don't watch TV!". Or the ones who listen to ridiculously obscure music just to make sure people know they do. "I listen to the Screaming Rape Trees and Radical Turdbane - I find normal music sucky!". Same methodology.
You have the sand to claim that he's doing this because he wants to leave _more_ money to his offspring? I think you're applying logic that applies to "normal" rich people to someone who is well beyond "normal" rich. He has no need to do such inane things to pass money on to his children. He can pass enough on to them to provide for them and the next 10 generations to live in top .01% percentile luxury.
In short, your point is nonsensical.
They made all their money by making deals between consenting adults. Everything else you're blathering about is the utmost nonsense.
Of course.. you can't because you are quite simply lying.
You win "Ironic statement of the day" award.
Worst. Summary. Ever. She's talking about technical computing. Regardless, software will evolve to take advantage of new hardware architectures - this has been proven by history. I'm not in the least worried. If this doesn't happen, then by definition the hardware architecture will be forced to change.
As for K8L, looks interesting - we'll have to see. If you think it's going to have a broad 40% improvement over Core2, though, I've got a bridge in Hanoi to sell you.
Second, Microsoft does not have a desktop monopoly as obviously there are multiple OS's I can choose to run on my desktop. Microsoft has no pricing power in the OS market because I can download and use a free OS.
Third, Microsoft has never been "convicted" of having a desktop monopoly. This is simply a lie. Really, Snopes.com should add this old gem to their list.
Fourth, you clearly don't know anything about enterprise software development. MS technology is anything but boring. I'll give you a pass on this, though, because you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Right, as opposed to the situation with Itunes where Itunes is the only music service where you can buy music. Oh. Wait, that's completely not true.
Fucking socialists always think they have some right to appropriate a company's product as soon as it becomes popular and mould it to fit whatever their particular agenda is.
Apple has a right to sell a product that is legal, and you have a choice to buy it or not buy it. Anything else is just filthy stinking socialism. Personally, I'd just shut the fucking thing down if a bunch of pathetic socialist scum are going to whine about it.
Yeah, I concur. This is a made up number.
The justification for not licensing FairPlay is simple: Apple wants to make money. They don't make money on Itunes. They make it on the hardware. Ergo, if people can play the music on any old thing they may not buy the Ipod, and ergo Apple doesn't make money. You can call it greed if you want, but most people call it "business". And when it's between consenting adults and both parties uphold their contractual agreements, it's both legal and moral.
So the short of it is this is just another socialist EU(-ish) government who doesn't like that their businesses aren't getting a piece of the pie. No argument you make can possibly change this fact because your position is indefensible. Your point is like arguing that the $10 cell phone someone buys that's locked to a particular provider should be unlocked so you can use whatever provider you want. You got that cell phone because it's subsidized. Itunes is subsidized by the Ipod hardware. Apple should just make that explicit and tell anyone who bitches about it to toss off.
As for not owning it, duh. You are already restricted from sharing it freely. This is another restriction that the purchaser agreed to.
Corporate boogeyman-ism aside, this is music, not power, pollution, oil, water, etc... If you don't agree with the product or the restrictions they place on it, don't buy it. I don't. I haven't bought Itunes since the Harmony project tools stopped working on the files.
In short, you can't be "abused" (enough) when you buy a Justin Fruitlake song off Itunes. If you don't like the stipulations, go buy the CD or buy the song from one of the dozens of other available sources. You're not buying the song, you're renting it to listen to. That's what you don't seem to understand. If you want normal ownership (barring freely sharing it) rights, buy the CD or buy the song from somewhere else.
And this fact wasn't made clear before the person decided to purchase music from Itunes? Well there you go, they should go after Apple for that - breach of contract. Just kidding, we both know it _was_ made clear. It's also possible to buy music from other sources and use it on their Ipod.
This isn't oil, water, or power. It's not a government granted monopoly. This is a frivolous product for which there are countless alternative outlets. You, and many of the other Slashdroids, have the flawed idea that a monopoly can be granted by market share. It can't, at least not with logical consistency. A "real" monopoly is one based on a limited resource, a government granted monopoly, or _possibly_ a resource which is only available from 1 or 2 suppliers.
None of these apply. There are countless sources of music. Itunes is but one provider. The fact that consumers _choose_ to make it dominant does not make it a monopoly, it makes it a market leader.
Second, I love the false analogy with polluters. I mean, illegally dumping toxic waste, which basically amounts to non-consentual assault, is _just_ the same as allowing someone to buy the latest Tittney Spears song. They're almost identical!
Finally, what anti-competitive practices? Am I confused and are there not literally dozens of outlets from which I can by music? Did something change last night where suddenly I can only buy music from Itunes? I should go check the news, maybe there was some late breaking announcement: "Attention, new information has been leaked indicating that only Apple's Itunes service will be able to provide music from this date forward - news at 10!".
SlashDot - a study in cognitive dissonance. "Government bad. Government intrusion in our lives bad. Government attack on sales of operating systems of music between consenting adults, GOOD!".
A better analogy is cell phones. They are often locked to a provider's network because the provider doesn't make money on the cell phone, they make money on the service. This is just more European bullshit targetting an American company, and you dweebs are buying into it because of your hypocritical laissez-faire attitude on everything _but_ MS or DRM.
I think we're going to see Vista be the most slowly adopted OS Microsoft has ever released.
You call that a flame? I fell asleep like 3 times trying to get through that gibba jabba. Don't worry, you didn't irritate me. Seriously, I've been more inflamed and irritated by loose stoole, and I don't really get irritated by loose stoole.
What specific "I/O bottlenecks" are you referring to? What on Earth does a "serious N-Tier architecture", which is a business application architecture, have to do with a CPU architecture? You're basically waving your hands around hoping nobody will notice your fanboyism, but in the end you're saying a whole lot of nothing.
What kinds of apps are you running where these "I/O bottlenecks" from Core2 Xeons are affecting you, I'm really very curious. What size systems are these, by the way, in terms of #sockets?
Opteron does have an advantage to some degree in 4S and above systems, but even that is minimal and can certainly be worked around. So your final sentence is simply wrong. Intel chips are the best performing design in many different situations, including some of the high end machines Sun sells. Also, don't forget they're not stopping AMD sales - where the Opteron still makes sense they will still use it.