These were their working definitions:
- 4 games/8GB or 2GB/game
- 8hrs video/8GB or 1GB/hr video
- 133 hrs music/8GB or 60MB/hr or 128kbit
- 2560 photos/8GB or 3.2MB/photo
Thus here is the math:
- 750GB HDD - 300 GB left over
- 450 GB HDD = 15000 songs + 1500 photo + 50hrs video + 50 games + 25 DVDs
- 450 GB HDD = 60GB songs + 5GB photo + 50GB video + 100GB games + 25 DVDs
- 235 GB HDD = 25 DVDs
- 1 DVD = 9.4 GB
I guess they really mean it. Of course, the only way you're going to get a DVD onto your hard drive is through... um... antiquated software.
I work for a small company that manufactures test equipment. Our "software" runs an embedded platform. We fix bugs that the customer pays for us to fix, or ones that we want to fix. You see, we actually care about the quality of what we make, but we just can't fix everything on time.
Our interests (as the article is getting at) are aligned with our customers. We want to keep who we got, and get more. We want to sell the next version of our product, NOT TO FIX BUGS (ahem, Microsoft), but because its better than the last one.
We have hundreds of bugs in the software, some are design flaws, per se. They can't be fixed without months of effort that has almost zero profit return. Some are obvious. Some have work-arounds.
"Most bugs can be fixed in minutes" No. "Most bugs do not take years or even days to track down." Well... that depends. Reproducibility is the half the battle of fixing a bug. The problem is, MOST CUSTOMERS DON'T THINK FROM THE PROGRAMMER'S PERSPECTIVE. They simple say, "it's broken", or "it broke while I was doing this". And what version? What precondition's exist? What do you have that I don't? I will agree that most bugs have a decent chance of being confirmed within maybe 30minutes to an hour's worth of work. But not all. And the "fixing bugs is easy" mentality is naive. There's far more to it than this. Far more.
Think about it. Digital Radio. Easy to adopt. Sooo much more to offer (NOT! read the other comments). And then analog will be phased out. Analog TV broadcasts will also be phased out by 2009.
Now, if all broadcasts are digital, then what will be in all transmitters and recievers? DRM, of course. No thanks. Podcast? Freedom for the common user? I think not. Let HD die.
It's not that I hate innovation. It's that I know better than to repeat feed a monster.
Now why you would buy a digital SLR only to use it like a cheapie point-and-shoot is a question to ponder.
Image quality. Plain and simple. DSLR's have better sensors, better lenses. And hey, if you aren't doing manual focus (most DSLR's have a predominate auto-focus system, the mirror doesn't have the diffraction qualities for good manual focus), what does holding it to your eye gain you?
I'm personally fed up with the lack of quality even in my professional Sony V3, and want a canon 20d just for the sensor (yeah... give me the lenses and the sniper telephoto too:-). And a screen gives you the chance to take pictures while no one is anticipating you.
Still, its a feature that has too many bad side-effects. It makes the picture longer to take, you can't meter properly, or autofocus properly, and the e330 is a camera I'd never buy.
in order to enjoy the high-end features of next-generation GPUs, gamers will need to start using OpenGL
I completely agree. If DirectX 10 is Vista Only, and gamers don't switch from XP, then game developers will either use DirectX 9 or OpenGL. They can't afford to make games that don't sell.
I am a gamer, and many of my friends are gamers. We tend to be technology freaks, and not real big lovers of Microsoft. I for one do not like to be manipulated. I don't like the licensing model of XP, and I like Vista's even less. I don't like what C#,.NET, Window Media Photo, and Office are doing. It's not that they are bad, its that they are Power. And as the saying goes, Power corrupts.
So, Microsoft, I'll buy your games (I like Halo), I'll buy your OS, I'll even buy your software (Word), but I won't buy your control. No DirectX 10, No Vista, No IE. If you let me OWN it, I'll buy it. I refuse to lease my life to you.
True, I never intended to argue that the majority of new computers shipping with Vista would be pcs.
But, those laptops will have to be "Vista-Ready" anyhow, just like any new pcs. My argument is based instead on "installed-base" computers. You suggest that roughly half of them are laptops, and so testing on a laptop is valid. If this is true (as I have no evidence), I concede your point.
But have you considered the fact that you don't have to buy a "new" computer to have one Vista-compatible? Lots of people I know might just buy various components and upgrade their existing pcs. These are the same people who would actually go to the trouble of installing Vista on their machines anyway. My question is, would their "new" computers be considered in the statistics you quote?
Perhaps a more pertinent question is, will ANY currently non-Vista computers upgrade to Vista? Is there any point in installing Vista at all as a test of hardware?
Well, a year or so ago, laptop sales surpassed desktop sales. So if you had to test an OS on a machine, statistically you would go with a laptop in 2006.
If laptop sales just passed desktop sales... then what does that tell you about the installed base? I'll spell it out - there are more, much more pcs than laptops.
The hardware isn't terribly specialized anymore.
Video hardware is usually specialized; my Dell D600 (pretty new) runs a custom MObile Radeon 9000. By custom I mean that WinXP sp2 can install fine, but I can't install SuSE 9.0, 9.1, or 9.2 (without drivers), and Knoppix 4.0 does not boot on my laptop. The graphics are custom because the monitor has different resolutions (1400x1050).
It is a much better move to test the OS on pc than laptop.
Yes, you have to choose to view the video, but how in the world can you choose to not download it in the first place?
The reason that I used to disable images loading over dialup was NOT that I didn't want to see them... it was that I didn't want to download them and eat up my bandwidth.
There would be a solution, of course, if Google didn't actually send the video until you clicked "yes" or whatever. But then, how would whatever embedded player that is playing the content know that a video is ready to play? Or would there be some sort of flash interface to the video that tells Google to send the video, and reloads its space with an embedded viewer?
Who knows? But it is not ignorance that rants that our bandwith will be chewed up... why, oh why do you think that Google is not using its own video ads?
There is no way that audio files can be read in parallel in the same way that text can be scanned. No one would ever trudge through an audio forum... that's just nuts!
Neither is it reasonable to assume that we could convert it all to text to scan it either - this is cell phones with tiny screens; they simply can't scan through volumes of data.
Simply isn't true? Well, that's a stretch my friend. Yes, blue-screening is no longer a symptom of the Operating System, per se. But, in the case of bad hardware or bad software, or a combination of one of the two with poorly written anti-virus from McAfee... computers crash.
I am a student at a Wireless campus, with around 3000 Windows XP Professional Laptops. And yes, they do crash. And yes, they crash far more often than Macs. My laptop crashes far less than most, because I care for it properly (right software, etc.). My standard up-time is around 1-2 weeks.
Out of curiousity, in five years, which operating system do you think will require less support from the Parent Poster?
I use XP Professional. It still blue-screens (though not unless there's some bad hardware). The thing is... You got to have an operating system that can handle that, and Windows just doesn't cut it.
Go Mac.
In 5 years... Windows is STILL going to be blue-screening on you (though now it might red screen as well, lol), and by then your relatives won't need your support on their macs.
I've never owned one, but the choice is obvious. Go get em, tiger (or is it still Tiger?). Oh well.
Auto insurance is legalized robbery.
Heh. And what IS insurance? Insurance is the mass-distribution of resources so no one person suffers too greatly, at the cost of paying those who distribute it.
You costs don't go up because the insurance company is making more of your money, it goes up because YOU are taking more than you're giving
Slashdot Mirror
These were their working definitions:
- 4 games/8GB or 2GB/game
- 8hrs video/8GB or 1GB/hr video
- 133 hrs music/8GB or 60MB/hr or 128kbit
- 2560 photos/8GB or 3.2MB/photo
Thus here is the math: - 750GB HDD - 300 GB left over
- 450 GB HDD = 15000 songs + 1500 photo + 50hrs video + 50 games + 25 DVDs
- 450 GB HDD = 60GB songs + 5GB photo + 50GB video + 100GB games + 25 DVDs
- 235 GB HDD = 25 DVDs
- 1 DVD = 9.4 GB
I guess they really mean it. Of course, the only way you're going to get a DVD onto your hard drive is through... um... antiquated software.
I work for a small company that manufactures test equipment. Our "software" runs an embedded platform. We fix bugs that the customer pays for us to fix, or ones that we want to fix. You see, we actually care about the quality of what we make, but we just can't fix everything on time.
Our interests (as the article is getting at) are aligned with our customers. We want to keep who we got, and get more. We want to sell the next version of our product, NOT TO FIX BUGS (ahem, Microsoft), but because its better than the last one.
We have hundreds of bugs in the software, some are design flaws, per se. They can't be fixed without months of effort that has almost zero profit return. Some are obvious. Some have work-arounds.
"Most bugs can be fixed in minutes" No. "Most bugs do not take years or even days to track down." Well... that depends. Reproducibility is the half the battle of fixing a bug. The problem is, MOST CUSTOMERS DON'T THINK FROM THE PROGRAMMER'S PERSPECTIVE. They simple say, "it's broken", or "it broke while I was doing this". And what version? What precondition's exist? What do you have that I don't? I will agree that most bugs have a decent chance of being confirmed within maybe 30minutes to an hour's worth of work. But not all. And the "fixing bugs is easy" mentality is naive. There's far more to it than this. Far more.
Think about it. Digital Radio. Easy to adopt. Sooo much more to offer (NOT! read the other comments). And then analog will be phased out. Analog TV broadcasts will also be phased out by 2009.
Now, if all broadcasts are digital, then what will be in all transmitters and recievers? DRM, of course. No thanks. Podcast? Freedom for the common user? I think not. Let HD die.
It's not that I hate innovation. It's that I know better than to repeat feed a monster.
Now why you would buy a digital SLR only to use it like a cheapie point-and-shoot is a question to ponder.
:-). And a screen gives you the chance to take pictures while no one is anticipating you.
Image quality. Plain and simple. DSLR's have better sensors, better lenses. And hey, if you aren't doing manual focus (most DSLR's have a predominate auto-focus system, the mirror doesn't have the diffraction qualities for good manual focus), what does holding it to your eye gain you?
I'm personally fed up with the lack of quality even in my professional Sony V3, and want a canon 20d just for the sensor (yeah... give me the lenses and the sniper telephoto too
Still, its a feature that has too many bad side-effects. It makes the picture longer to take, you can't meter properly, or autofocus properly, and the e330 is a camera I'd never buy.
in order to enjoy the high-end features of next-generation GPUs, gamers will need to start using OpenGL
.NET, Window Media Photo, and Office are doing. It's not that they are bad, its that they are Power. And as the saying goes, Power corrupts.
I completely agree. If DirectX 10 is Vista Only, and gamers don't switch from XP, then game developers will either use DirectX 9 or OpenGL. They can't afford to make games that don't sell.
I am a gamer, and many of my friends are gamers. We tend to be technology freaks, and not real big lovers of Microsoft. I for one do not like to be manipulated. I don't like the licensing model of XP, and I like Vista's even less. I don't like what C#,
So, Microsoft, I'll buy your games (I like Halo), I'll buy your OS, I'll even buy your software (Word), but I won't buy your control. No DirectX 10, No Vista, No IE. If you let me OWN it, I'll buy it. I refuse to lease my life to you.
True, I never intended to argue that the majority of new computers shipping with Vista would be pcs.
But, those laptops will have to be "Vista-Ready" anyhow, just like any new pcs. My argument is based instead on "installed-base" computers. You suggest that roughly half of them are laptops, and so testing on a laptop is valid. If this is true (as I have no evidence), I concede your point.
But have you considered the fact that you don't have to buy a "new" computer to have one Vista-compatible? Lots of people I know might just buy various components and upgrade their existing pcs. These are the same people who would actually go to the trouble of installing Vista on their machines anyway. My question is, would their "new" computers be considered in the statistics you quote?
Perhaps a more pertinent question is, will ANY currently non-Vista computers upgrade to Vista? Is there any point in installing Vista at all as a test of hardware?
Well, a year or so ago, laptop sales surpassed desktop sales. So if you had to test an OS on a machine, statistically you would go with a laptop in 2006.
If laptop sales just passed desktop sales... then what does that tell you about the installed base? I'll spell it out - there are more, much more pcs than laptops.
The hardware isn't terribly specialized anymore.
Video hardware is usually specialized; my Dell D600 (pretty new) runs a custom MObile Radeon 9000. By custom I mean that WinXP sp2 can install fine, but I can't install SuSE 9.0, 9.1, or 9.2 (without drivers), and Knoppix 4.0 does not boot on my laptop. The graphics are custom because the monitor has different resolutions (1400x1050).
It is a much better move to test the OS on pc than laptop.
Humblest apologies, Master
Yes, you have to choose to view the video, but how in the world can you choose to not download it in the first place?
The reason that I used to disable images loading over dialup was NOT that I didn't want to see them... it was that I didn't want to download them and eat up my bandwidth.
There would be a solution, of course, if Google didn't actually send the video until you clicked "yes" or whatever. But then, how would whatever embedded player that is playing the content know that a video is ready to play? Or would there be some sort of flash interface to the video that tells Google to send the video, and reloads its space with an embedded viewer?
Who knows? But it is not ignorance that rants that our bandwith will be chewed up... why, oh why do you think that Google is not using its own video ads?
There is no way that audio files can be read in parallel in the same way that text can be scanned. No one would ever trudge through an audio forum... that's just nuts!
/. on a mobile phone?
Neither is it reasonable to assume that we could convert it all to text to scan it either - this is cell phones with tiny screens; they simply can't scan through volumes of data.
Would YOU read
IANA(ET):
And to just think.... my teachers WERE Extra-Terrestrials
Are you kidding me?
ALL top-end cameras use CMOS sensors. Here's the rule of thumb - Digital SLR's use CMOS. Point-and-shoot use CCD.
Simply isn't true? Well, that's a stretch my friend. Yes, blue-screening is no longer a symptom of the Operating System, per se. But, in the case of bad hardware or bad software, or a combination of one of the two with poorly written anti-virus from McAfee... computers crash. I am a student at a Wireless campus, with around 3000 Windows XP Professional Laptops. And yes, they do crash. And yes, they crash far more often than Macs. My laptop crashes far less than most, because I care for it properly (right software, etc.). My standard up-time is around 1-2 weeks. Out of curiousity, in five years, which operating system do you think will require less support from the Parent Poster?
I use XP Professional. It still blue-screens (though not unless there's some bad hardware). The thing is... You got to have an operating system that can handle that, and Windows just doesn't cut it.
Go Mac. In 5 years... Windows is STILL going to be blue-screening on you (though now it might red screen as well, lol), and by then your relatives won't need your support on their macs. I've never owned one, but the choice is obvious. Go get em, tiger (or is it still Tiger?). Oh well.
Basic Physics? OK, jump hard enough, and you will make it to the moon. More or less, thats all rocket science is.
Auto insurance is legalized robbery. Heh. And what IS insurance? Insurance is the mass-distribution of resources so no one person suffers too greatly, at the cost of paying those who distribute it. You costs don't go up because the insurance company is making more of your money, it goes up because YOU are taking more than you're giving