There is still a performance penalty attached to it even if it requires a mere clock-cycle. And when we are talking about the lower levels of a computer any slow-down is regarded as a bad thing. To sum up one of my CPU-design classes, if you add a feature, it better be worth the penalty. And I don't think most of us would accept this penalty.
To be honest though, I'm not quite sure of the specifics used to implement such a thing. And when I first heard the idea proposed by Hollywood, I thought it was a joke, and that someone deserved to be fired for it.
I do think that the higher level it is, the less cost it will require (cycle/memory-wise), but the easier it will be to hack.
Out of curiousity, can you tell me how the DRMs are expected not to be hacked in the long term?
I think that any computer that can have it's parts replaced will last much longer. Because with an all-in-one solution (where everything is integrated into the motherboard) all it takes is one failure to make the entire machine useless.
Laptops fall into this "easily a paperweight" category. Therefore, the stats are a little skewed and biased towards laptops.
I hope that the world stays with it's current desktop model for x86s though. Because I don't want to buy hardware that I can't upgrade a component at a time.
This leads to me having an x86 as a desktop and a mac as a laptop. Since I couldn't upgrade a mac laptop any more than an x86 laptop (and I'm not a gamer), I decided to buy one. And truth be told, if it ever got to the state where I couldn't manually and easily upgrade a piece of my desktop at a time, I would probably switch to being a full time mac user.
Which leads to the next point, how would a DRM'd computer work? Furthermore, how would it work without hurting performance?
Therefore, broken and slow.
From my perspective (Computer Science major) I see macs being used mainly by two groups of people, the average person who wants a hassle-free machine to access the internet, and the computer savvy person who wants something to work with (IDEs, internet, etc.)
Of course, the later is also the type of person inclined to do as much with a computer as possible.
To be honest, I know very few people that would be considered "artisitcally inclined", so I can't really make any statement about this segment of the population without losing complete credibility. Then again, I never claimed to have credibility in the first place.
One thing though, when you say that "most PCs sit around in offices", do you mean both home and work offices or just the later? The reason I ask this is that from my observations, people who work in an office with a computer typically have a computer at home. Meaning that there would be roughly %100-%50 minus some percentage of people that wouldn't use a computer at home. The %50 comes from the people that would be living with a SO and have no need for 2 computers (and the range makes up for those that would have 2 anyway).
This is all assuming that most people buy PCs. But it really doesn't matter that much, because most people will use the "office"-like applications despite the OS they use.
Onto the topic at hand, my leading theory of why mac users spend more on software is 2-fold.
1. From my limited understanding, Macs don't appear to have the same "pirate culture" that windows has. Futhermore, with a seemingly isolated user-base, there is probably less occurances of a friend saying "Oh you need that software, I've got a burnt copy at home." That is prevalent in the windows world.
2. This is potientially an unfair generalization but, I would say mac purchasers are willing to spend more (up front at the very least) on their computer. While CS students are guilty of this in general, the other side of the coin probably has more money (unfair, I know), I mean, it's hard to convince the average person to go out and spend extra money (initially) on a computer when they don't have much to spend (I'm writing about a pre-Mini world here, which as far as an install base goes, we currently live in, so to speak). Therefore, if the average mac user has more money, they will be less inclined to go out of their way to pirate software.
So in general, I would say that the whole "pirating culture" is less prevalent.
I think the whole "macs lasting longer" argument is going to become less of an issue soon enough. Why? Because I've noticed a trend in the windows world over the last 10 years where as time progresses the requirements for windows become less of an issue. In other words, hardware speed and capacity are increasing faster than software requirements. Meaning that at some point in the future, the average user, who only wants the basics, will easily be able to hold onto their computers much longer. Although the other side of the coin may be that the average mac user may be able to hold onto their hardware longer because Mac OSes don't seem to be as resource demanding. At least, that's my experience with Panther on my Clamshell iBook SE with 366Mhz, 128MB RAM, etc.
All and all, longevity isn't the concern of the average user at the moment. Security is. And the security issue will have to be resolved before that can be an issue. (my first instinct was to say that compatibility is, but in reality, people just want their machines to perform a specific functions, and typically OSX and windows are about equal from the average person's point of view in this respect, at least in my experience).
Yeah, that's all well and good but I've heard that they plan on holding the alphabet hostage for some time to come. I suspect that their first move will be to sue Sesame Street for being sponsered by the letters E, G and F without showing the trademark symbol.
First and foremost, don't let outsiders penetrate my system. MS failed this. Firefox failed this. What does it take to get this right?
For 100% security, the best technique is to unplug your ethernet. It's sad, but it's a price to pay when you are talking about very complex programs. I think the average user accepts this, but has a certain threshold where they don't tolerate any more faults. As a side note, this is where you recommend a new product to them.
(at least this is when I try to convince people to try new programs)
"In the software industry, the common example of thinking at the wrong level is a team of rock star programmers who can make anything, but don't really know what to make: so they tend to build whatever things come to mind, never stopping to find someone who might not be adept at writing code, but can see where the value of their programming skills would be best applied."
Doesn't the software industry also contain plenty of "rock star programmers" are told what to do by the powers that be (ie: management) who would fit the inept statement and believe to understand the value of various applications? At least this is the feeling one gets when reading about "the man" holding OSS down, PHBs, etc. on this site at least.
Let's hope that this "feature" isn't ingrained into the x86 architecture to the point where one day backwards compatibility has to be achieved.
Look at CSS, it was put in with "good" intentions. But is now nothing more than a speed bump to even the average user. And do DVD manufacturers still include it, knowing full well how effective it is? (seriously I don't know the state of this)
Assuming so, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that within x amount of time, this "feature "will be hacked, useless, and impair the speed of your computer.
At this point, I'm honestly praying that I don't have to tell people that haven't even been born yet why this "feature" must be supported even though it is useless. Hell, by that time they'll probably be laughing that anyone believed in DRMs at all.
I've never really thought of installing an OS as a *major* barrier to it's use. Mainly because installation only occurs once. Therefore, it does not have to be done by it's end user.
I think it's the day-to-day issues that are important. In which case all OSes have some issue or another (some are small others are not). The sad thing is that to the average user, minor problems can cause big problems.
I'm thinking about sending the judge and jury an encrypted message. Maybe for bran muffins, to help relieve all the shit that those idiots are releasing.
As an undergrad, I'm more bitter about going into the "industry" that believes too much in "insert fad" and not enough in developing the best products they can.
But hey, I'm an academic sitting in an ivory tower. What would I know about building computer products?
When I came into university, I thought that I would be learning more along the lines of "software package x", and as it turns out, I couldn't be happier I was wrong. Because the sad truth is that I should be able to learn ANY software package, if not be able to build it.
You're right about the lack of experience with software package x though, it is hard to get documented experience in anything. That's what programs like co-op are for. Then the CS degree will back you up from there.
I think about it in different terms, sure I'm a programmer, but that doesn't negate the general loathing towards my computer. If anything, my profession fuels it
I suppose it's an effect of learning how the machine works, when I was a kid, it was a magical machine that demanded my attention. But as I got older, and a computer science degree, I learned how the magic works. (and in some cases, doesn't work at all)
Don't get me wrong, I still like computers, but it's not the same.
Aside from ignoring that future markets will always want to play *new* games. There really is another way that development will go.
Once photorealism is achived, eventually we will be capable of having it work well even with increasing cost of code (think about the debate of assembly vs. C/C++ some decades ago). I think that "middle-ware" to make it easier to create video games will become more and more available, allowing more people to have creative input into gaming. Imagine if one day creating a video game were as simple as designing a movie. I don't know if that can happen, but I do think that will be attempted, with a high percentage of success.
Of course, a good example of this potiential is the modding markets of today. Who provide new content to "old" engines (half-life 1 + counter-strike). Of course another example would be with television, I could have watched "I Love Lucy" and "Gilligan's Island" reruns instead of the more modern shows (which work on the same format and prinicipals) like "Friends". (eventually, one gets tired of watching Gilligan screw up the plan)
Slashdot Mirror
There is still a performance penalty attached to it even if it requires a mere clock-cycle. And when we are talking about the lower levels of a computer any slow-down is regarded as a bad thing. To sum up one of my CPU-design classes, if you add a feature, it better be worth the penalty. And I don't think most of us would accept this penalty.
To be honest though, I'm not quite sure of the specifics used to implement such a thing. And when I first heard the idea proposed by Hollywood, I thought it was a joke, and that someone deserved to be fired for it.
I do think that the higher level it is, the less cost it will require (cycle/memory-wise), but the easier it will be to hack.
Out of curiousity, can you tell me how the DRMs are expected not to be hacked in the long term?
Agreed, not to mention that the desktop advantage of partial upgrading doesn't exist with macs, therefore a major drawback of laptops is eliminated.
I think that any computer that can have it's parts replaced will last much longer. Because with an all-in-one solution (where everything is integrated into the motherboard) all it takes is one failure to make the entire machine useless.
Laptops fall into this "easily a paperweight" category. Therefore, the stats are a little skewed and biased towards laptops.
I hope that the world stays with it's current desktop model for x86s though. Because I don't want to buy hardware that I can't upgrade a component at a time.
This leads to me having an x86 as a desktop and a mac as a laptop. Since I couldn't upgrade a mac laptop any more than an x86 laptop (and I'm not a gamer), I decided to buy one. And truth be told, if it ever got to the state where I couldn't manually and easily upgrade a piece of my desktop at a time, I would probably switch to being a full time mac user.
Which leads to the next point, how would a DRM'd computer work? Furthermore, how would it work without hurting performance? Therefore, broken and slow.
Of course, the later is also the type of person inclined to do as much with a computer as possible.
To be honest, I know very few people that would be considered "artisitcally inclined", so I can't really make any statement about this segment of the population without losing complete credibility. Then again, I never claimed to have credibility in the first place.
One thing though, when you say that "most PCs sit around in offices", do you mean both home and work offices or just the later? The reason I ask this is that from my observations, people who work in an office with a computer typically have a computer at home. Meaning that there would be roughly %100-%50 minus some percentage of people that wouldn't use a computer at home. The %50 comes from the people that would be living with a SO and have no need for 2 computers (and the range makes up for those that would have 2 anyway).
This is all assuming that most people buy PCs. But it really doesn't matter that much, because most people will use the "office"-like applications despite the OS they use.
Onto the topic at hand, my leading theory of why mac users spend more on software is 2-fold.
1. From my limited understanding, Macs don't appear to have the same "pirate culture" that windows has. Futhermore, with a seemingly isolated user-base, there is probably less occurances of a friend saying "Oh you need that software, I've got a burnt copy at home." That is prevalent in the windows world.
2. This is potientially an unfair generalization but, I would say mac purchasers are willing to spend more (up front at the very least) on their computer. While CS students are guilty of this in general, the other side of the coin probably has more money (unfair, I know), I mean, it's hard to convince the average person to go out and spend extra money (initially) on a computer when they don't have much to spend (I'm writing about a pre-Mini world here, which as far as an install base goes, we currently live in, so to speak). Therefore, if the average mac user has more money, they will be less inclined to go out of their way to pirate software.
So in general, I would say that the whole "pirating culture" is less prevalent.
I think the whole "macs lasting longer" argument is going to become less of an issue soon enough. Why? Because I've noticed a trend in the windows world over the last 10 years where as time progresses the requirements for windows become less of an issue. In other words, hardware speed and capacity are increasing faster than software requirements. Meaning that at some point in the future, the average user, who only wants the basics, will easily be able to hold onto their computers much longer. Although the other side of the coin may be that the average mac user may be able to hold onto their hardware longer because Mac OSes don't seem to be as resource demanding. At least, that's my experience with Panther on my Clamshell iBook SE with 366Mhz, 128MB RAM, etc.
All and all, longevity isn't the concern of the average user at the moment. Security is. And the security issue will have to be resolved before that can be an issue. (my first instinct was to say that compatibility is, but in reality, people just want their machines to perform a specific functions, and typically OSX and windows are about equal from the average person's point of view in this respect, at least in my experience).
Yeah, that's all well and good but I've heard that they plan on holding the alphabet hostage for some time to come. I suspect that their first move will be to sue Sesame Street for being sponsered by the letters E, G and F without showing the trademark symbol.
For 100% security, the best technique is to unplug your ethernet. It's sad, but it's a price to pay when you are talking about very complex programs. I think the average user accepts this, but has a certain threshold where they don't tolerate any more faults. As a side note, this is where you recommend a new product to them.
(at least this is when I try to convince people to try new programs)
Doesn't the software industry also contain plenty of "rock star programmers" are told what to do by the powers that be (ie: management) who would fit the inept statement and believe to understand the value of various applications? At least this is the feeling one gets when reading about "the man" holding OSS down, PHBs, etc. on this site at least.
Look at CSS, it was put in with "good" intentions. But is now nothing more than a speed bump to even the average user. And do DVD manufacturers still include it, knowing full well how effective it is? (seriously I don't know the state of this)
Assuming so, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that within x amount of time, this "feature "will be hacked, useless, and impair the speed of your computer.
At this point, I'm honestly praying that I don't have to tell people that haven't even been born yet why this "feature" must be supported even though it is useless. Hell, by that time they'll probably be laughing that anyone believed in DRMs at all.
AMD++ || Intel--
Then again, I think I'd want both evaluated, so (AMD++ | Intel--)
I think it's the day-to-day issues that are important. In which case all OSes have some issue or another (some are small others are not). The sad thing is that to the average user, minor problems can cause big problems.
I'm thinking about sending the judge and jury an encrypted message. Maybe for bran muffins, to help relieve all the shit that those idiots are releasing.
Math Teacher
Wouldn't this mean, according to logic, the balance would go to equal opportunity for either gender, or a hermaphrodite?
As an undergrad, I'm more bitter about going into the "industry" that believes too much in "insert fad" and not enough in developing the best products they can.
But hey, I'm an academic sitting in an ivory tower. What would I know about building computer products?
When I came into university, I thought that I would be learning more along the lines of "software package x", and as it turns out, I couldn't be happier I was wrong. Because the sad truth is that I should be able to learn ANY software package, if not be able to build it.
You're right about the lack of experience with software package x though, it is hard to get documented experience in anything. That's what programs like co-op are for. Then the CS degree will back you up from there.
I suppose it's an effect of learning how the machine works, when I was a kid, it was a magical machine that demanded my attention. But as I got older, and a computer science degree, I learned how the magic works. (and in some cases, doesn't work at all)
Don't get me wrong, I still like computers, but it's not the same.
Your explaination made me see a Venn diagram in my head. Which I think is a good thing... I think...
Aside from ignoring that future markets will always want to play *new* games. There really is another way that development will go. Once photorealism is achived, eventually we will be capable of having it work well even with increasing cost of code (think about the debate of assembly vs. C/C++ some decades ago). I think that "middle-ware" to make it easier to create video games will become more and more available, allowing more people to have creative input into gaming. Imagine if one day creating a video game were as simple as designing a movie. I don't know if that can happen, but I do think that will be attempted, with a high percentage of success. Of course, a good example of this potiential is the modding markets of today. Who provide new content to "old" engines (half-life 1 + counter-strike). Of course another example would be with television, I could have watched "I Love Lucy" and "Gilligan's Island" reruns instead of the more modern shows (which work on the same format and prinicipals) like "Friends". (eventually, one gets tired of watching Gilligan screw up the plan)