Watch out: you're about to start an argument with some biker who thinks that "loud pipes" are necessary on motorcycles to "save lives". Been there, done that.
Do loud pipes saves lives? I can see the rationale for it... although I couldn't guess whether its actually true.
And would this be the same sort of biker that isn't wearing a helmet, and is wearing a t-shirt instead of a jacket? Seriously, in general, the louder the bike, the more likely the rider is more concerned about how he looks when people turn their head to see where the racket is coming from than he is about being 'safe'.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against bikes, and would probably have one myself if I had a place to park it and could use it more than 3 months a year.
If it were than Vista's killer app is also -stability- because with UAC, removing you as administrator by default, and forcing signed device drivers by default (in x64) they have significantly hardened the OS against malware, viruses, and rootkits, which will improve the PC's overall reliability and stability. XP might not actually -crash- but a malware infested PC is not exactly a joy to use either.
You remember 98 crashing daily? I don't. My 98 PC didn't actually crash all that often, and it still doesn't (yeah I have a couple around for testing, and supporting old software), because the OS itself wasn't that bad, and I avoided using those applications and devices that were crap and crashed the OS, and it wasn't that hard to do either. Yes 98 would die if you left it on for weeks on end, but it was a desktop os, and a daily or weekly reboot was not exactly that onerous a problem.
Now I'm not defending 98. But I am saying it wasn't all that hard to get 98 running reasonably reliably for most people most of the time. And certainly enough, that a $200 'upgrade' to Vista, plus possibly a RAM upgrade, and hard drive upgrade to support XP was hardly a killer app. Especially since XP wasn't great with a lot of Win98 software, especially games, even with its significant efforts to do backwards compatibility. A lot of us dual-booted back to 98 for games.
Bottom line, yes, XP was definately a lot more stable than 98. But 98 wasn't really so bad that people would line up to by XP for 'stability', ergo... stability was not a killer app.
My question to you would be, why the hell would you want GPU multi-tasking?
You know. The same sort of idiot as you asked, back in 1987, "Why would I want CPU multiasking for the shell and an app at the same time. I want my games to run faster, not slower."
Then in 1997 he asked "Why would I want DirectX?" its an api on top of a device driver through the windows bloated kernel for chrissake! Games should talk directly to to the hardware not through 3 layers of crap. I want my games to perform faster, not slower."
Apparently in 2007 that group is asking "Why would I want GPU multitasking..."
The answer? Because taking a couple percentage points in performance hit, to allow your entire desktop to run accelerated is a significant step forward for the desktop. Why should my quad-core desktop be able to multitask like a demon out of hell but run like a retarded dog if more than 1 of those applications needs video acceleration. And given the current trends, both OSX and Linux are doing it...; hell OS X's Final Cut Pro ads show it running half a dozen video windows at once overlapped, and you hit expose and they shrink and float around and all continue playing without missing a bit. Try that in XP. Next check out Beryl or Compiz or whatever its called this week... Try that in XP...
Also, just because XP doesn't support GPU multi-tasking doesn't mean DX10 cannot be used on XP.
DirectX10, in order to support GPU multitasking and the blu-ray/hddvd DRM stuff requires all new drivers, and an all new driver model, and an updated kernal that can deal with the new driver model and new drivers. It can't just be lumped backwards onto XP, without giving XP the new driver model, and the kernel update...but then its not really XP anymore.
They can add the new 'direct3d shadermodel 4 stuff' to directx9, and it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing for the next directx9 update for xp. But while it may have the new 'pretty shader features' of directx10, its not directx10.
If coded properly, you would just need to disable that feature depending on the OS.
Yup. "If coded properly". Of course. Why didn't I think of that...so all we have to do is take the entire new driver model from Vista, backport it to XP, without breaking anything including all the existing XP drivers (which don't acutally work with Vista's new driver model... so now XP is going to have Vista's driver model and XP's running together in harmony. Piece of cake... "if coded properly".
You are right, its a step 'backwards for games', the same way Windows was a step backwards from DOS for games. But in the long run, its a step forward. And remember, Windows is the LAST of the major PC OSes to make this move... both OSX and Linux have got 3D accelerated desktops, and have had them for a while.
The main one that I can think of is the Compatibility Wizard / Compatibility tab in a program's properties.
That is -not- a killer app by even the loosest interpretation. Backwards compatibility is inherently not a reason to upgrade. It eases an upgrade sure, but since we're talking about users who were already happily using the older version of windows the ability to keep doing what they were doing in the new version is not a compelling must-have reason to upgrade.
That and XP had a cheaper Home version (2000 only came in Professional, Server, Advanced Server, Cluster Server, and Datacenter editions iirc).
Again, not a killer app. Business users went from 2000 to Pro because they needed domain support. Home users were predominantly running 98, so the XP Home edition is hardly a killer app. And home users going from 2000 Professional to XP Home actually took a hit. They lost the security model they were used to, they lost the ability to join a domain, share arbitrary folders easily, etc, etc.
Sure it was a more attractive price point and made the jump to XP Home less daunting for users of Windows 98, but again, decidely not a killer app.
Oh, and just for the record, there was a "Windows 2000 Home edition" in the works, but it was killed off and never released. Apparently it was similiar to XP Home in that it only supported one CPU instead of 2 and other similiar limitations. I guess they deemed it wasn't ready for the home market - and we got Millenium Edition instead. I think I would have preferred Windows 2000 Home edition.
and encryption keys are IMO almost certain to be found as such by the current Supreme Court, since it isn't the key which is incriminating, but the evidence protected by the key.
Unless of course the key itself -is- incriminating. I mean, what if the pass phrase is 'my illegal image collection #6'? Not only is that incriminating, but it suggests that their might be five more collections.
I consider his business model entirely unreasonable; driving around residential areas playing annoying jingles at 120dB, who the fuck else could get away with that?
I take some solace in the fact that the driver has to listen to it 8 hours a day, every day.
But yeah I agree with you, its obnoxious. And noise pollution like this should be regulated. All of it, not just advertising, but also idiots with honda's with 'improved' exhaust systems and/or 15" subs blaring, and modified motorcycle exhaust too... my windows shouldn't have to rattle just because someone is insecure about their penis.
Other than DX10.x in Vista for purposefully DX10.x limited specific games releases
Nice shot of misinformation there. DX10 & Vista support GPU multitasking, which is how you get hardware acceleration in multiple windows and the desktop all at the same time... something XP can't do. DX10 isn't just some marketing carrot to lure people to vista. DX10/Vista is a substantial upgrade to the underlying graphics system, with a whole new driver model that makes it possible... it fundamentally changes and how grahpics work in Windows at the kernel level.
It may not be something 'gamers' care about, but its important. And its pathetic when people look at just the relatively minor game-related features directx10 has added and then conclude directx10 is irrelevant.
As to your base question, what is the Killer app in Vista? I'd say their isn't one, and that it isn't a compelling upgrade unless its time to buy a whole new computer anyway. But having said that, what was the killer app for XP from 2000? I don't remember one.
What about from 98 to XP for the 'home users'? Sure XP was more stable, but it required gobs more RAM (98 ran very well on 64MB... XP was a dog on less than 256, was slower on the same hardware, and wsn't compatible with a lot of games. It came with DRM in the form of enforced limitations on connections to shared printers and folders, and featured an activation process that had the potential to lock you out of your computer if you upgraded it.
XP was as much of a non-event as Vista is. It was on some level better accepted than Vista precisely because it was so much less of an upgrade than XP was from 2000. There is a reason that 2000 is "Windows 5.0", while XP is "Windows 5.1". XP wasn't much of an upgrade!
For an OEM to add a firewire port costs about $1.50 more than a USB port. Not exactly a huge difference.
I said "a penny saved is a penny earned" for a reason.
Plus the average PC comes with what? 6, 8, 10 ports? Times every motherboard you sell... sure to you its a buck fifty on a $500 PC... but to the OEM its a whole LOT of $1 parts. And if they can shave even a few off it makes a big difference to the bottom line.
Firewire 400 cards are like $10. which is pretty much what a USB2 card costs although you don't need a USB2 card since every PC has one built-in now, so you can call it $0.
When I said a penny saved is a penny earned I was serious.
Firewire maybe less than a dollar more expensive per port than USB, but it adds up. And the bean counters designing hardware care about the pennies.
Not too mention we couldn't cut over to pure firewire even if wanted to. Firewire versions of low bandwidth devices like keyboards, mice, etc simply don't exist...
USB is slow and cheap. Firewire is fast and cost more.
So they both existed. One was good for mice and keyboards, one was good for digital video and external hard drives.
Then USB2 came out which is almost as fast as firewire, and the lines got blurry.
Firewire was still considerably better as a technology. It does a lot of its own processing while usb2 offloads a lot of processing to the host system... so firewire drives don't tie up the CPU the way a USB2 one does. Firewire supports more simultaneous devices, and seems to have fewer issues with power as well. It also doesn't have stupid rectangular connectors that users will try upside down 50% of the time.
Then Firewire 3200 was announced and santify was restored.
USB2 is slow and cheap. "Firewire-3200" is fast and costs more.
Do we 'need' usb? no. We could get by on just firewire. But usb is cheaper and a penny saved is a penny earned.
Why on earth would I have to do that? If you are a monopoly, you are subject to restraint. The form of those restraints can take many forms, there is no list of rules; so why I should I have to show them to you?
For example, there is no rule that says if you are a monopoly your company will be divided up into separate pieces, but they've done that.
Similiarly there is no rule that says if you are monopoly that the government will decide how much you can charge for your product, and when you can raise prices and by how much, but they've done that too.
Right, you need to make an -informed- risk assessment. Are you?
On the other hand, if a problem occurs at the plant best case is that the plant is shut down for much longer. Worse case is obvious and... unpleasant.
I've heard at least one person here report that at least some of the 'safety problems' amount to missing signage, and stuff like that.
People need these isotopes to save their lives, should we really keep the facility shutdown because the first aid kit doesn't have its full stock of bandages, a few water pipes aren't labelled as hot or cold, an inspection of the fire extinguisher in the cafeteria is overdue? I think not.
What if one of the generators is slightly overdue for maintenance, but the maintenance schedule is known to be extremely aggressive. (e.g. like doing on an "oil change" every 1500mi, even though the engine and the oil are spec'd for 3000mi. its a nucear reactor and all, and you want to be safe.) Is it really worth shutting the facility down if we're at 1600mi, given that people certainly lose their lives if you shut it down while its extremely unlikely to fail if you continue running it? And if it does FAIL, you've got a backup, and a contingency if that fails?
Point is, we need more information about the actual safety concerns and real risks before we applaud or condemn this move.
And you can use both at the same time? I just want to be clear on that point. Because a cellphone that can switch from GSM to CDMA etc would be useful... and it doesn't need to do both at once... but I'd sort of expect to do wifi and use my mouse at the same time...
Yes, we have Best Buy. We also have future shop which is owned by Best Buy. And in the city I live the two "companies" are accross the street from each other making a mockery of competition.
We also have sears and costco, but I wouldn't buy anything there unless they had what I wanted but they rarely do. We have 'the source by circuit city' which seems to own all the old "radio shacks" in the malls, and its pretty lousy. We have costco, but I'm not a "member", but I've been through them and don't find it terribly compelling.
As for the tire store? Canadian Tire, not really. You might buy a $60 DVD player there I guess, or a clock radio... but not an HDTV or a computer.
I buy computer electronics online, or from 'hole in the wall' computer shops (who often mostly deal online).
But home electronics like TV's, speakers, stereos... its "beyond horrible" here too.
BestBuy/FutureShop has driven everyone else out of business, and dealing with bestbuy/futureshop is a nightmare. Product knowledge is what's written on the sticker in front of the product, and they even get that wrong half the time. The best product is the one with the highest margin, or even more likely the one with the best rewards program from the manufacturer. Luckily it looks the best on display too. (That its the one with the blueray player while the rest of the TVs are all connected by RCA splitters to a VCR and someone's gone and turned the contrast down is all beside the point.) And you definitely need a $400 monster power conditioner to ensure that your television picture looks its best...
Sure you can still walk into a Bang&Olufsen but that isn't 'consumer electronics' either. That's 'you have too much money and want a cd player that opens like a flower'... oh and we have "the Sony Store" which is great if you want to pay too much, and see Sony TV's next to other Sony TV's and only want know what size Sony TV to buy while speaking to reps who don't know squat about non-Sony product but still "know" that sony's X is better than anyone elses X. Comparison shopping at its finest! But that's beyond useless as I refuse to buy sony branded products anyway. I suppose the one good thing is that lines are short in there even during the holiday rush. And its fun to ask them if they have Wii's or 360's in stock.
but if it doesn't make you a better player it's crap
Except that the controller doesn't exist separately from the game, and games are designed around controllers.
Consider how you move, jump, and climb, in an FPS with wasd? Its all *automated*! You run to a ladder and push forward and your avatar slings his gun and climb upwards. The designer removed all sorts of things from having to individually move your feet and arms and coordinate those actions, to having to sling your gun.
The holodeck sim has let the designer put all that stuff back in, and made the experience more immersive. So now if you pit a holodeck player against a keyboard and mouse player, but forced the keyboard and mouse player to individually move hands, feet, fingers, torso, etc, they'd be almost unable to move.
So, the keyboard and mouse is only a "better" controller if the game **compensates for the controller** and automates moving, running, climbing, etc.
But its a pretty arbitrary place to set the automation. And its set there because it creates 'reasonably easy control while allowing for reasonably challenging play', and that's a game design choice. Some games make you push a key to climb, some make you put your gun away, some games have auto-run, some games simulate fatique and have it affect your reticule size etc...
The keyboard/mouse could have even more automation, and do auto-aiming, auto-headshot, and auto-jump, auto-run (oh wait... autorun is already an option on most titles, and auto-aim is pretty common too...) that would make the game even easier to win than it already is; would that make it a 'better control scheme'? Does it make you a "better player"?
Alternatively if the keyboard mouse scheme did LESS compensation then the holodeck guy would suddenly start winning. If the keyboard mouse scheme does NO compensation, and you had to use the keyboard/mouse to articulate all your limbs then the only way you'd beat the holdeck player is if he laughed himself to death watching you try to aim your gun at him.
The point is that the 'controller' isn't just the hardware, its the software that interprets the controls, and the software part is pretty arbitrary. If a console player has dual analog sticks but the game auto-aims while the keyboard/mouse player has to cope with a reticule that floats around trailing the cursor instead of being the cursor... would keyboard/mouse still be superior?
Actually no it doesn't as MS ship them free replacement discs.
Irrelevant. If I take the disc back to the store to exchange it, and the store exchanges it with regular stock, it may count as a sale.
unless the store is stupid enough to eat the cost (which I know the one I work at isn't),
Why would they eat the cost? Of course they'll still send in a claim for replacement discs to microsoft.
Then none of the damaged disc returns are included in the numbers
Depends entirely how 'the numbers' are computed.
If the store just forwards the number of discs that went out over the counter then it will. How many stores go to the trouble of subtracting returns/exchanges from that number? Some do. Some don't.
(not to mention even scratch replacements are only a very tiny fraction of discs anyway)
Right. Like I said, normally its just statistical noise. But if there is a systemic problem like rrods or scratched halo discs, and that number of exchanges climbs from 1:10000 to 1:100 suddenly a game that sold 5 million, might only have sold 4.95 million.
The "experience" might be better, but the controls might be worse. You might have more fun playing with the wii controls, but do they actually let you win as often as you would playing with mouse and keyboard? The only way to know is to let PC and wii players duke it out online and see who wins the most.
That would be an extremely silly definition of 'better' and 'worse'.
The -experience- is what's important.
If you could play with a keyboard and mouse against someone who was ACTUALLY inside a 'star trek holodeck', would you seriously judge that keyboard and mouse was the better controller?
Simply because after a couple hours, you were still going strong raking in the kills and jumping around like a lunatic, while your opponents are exhausted and can barely hold their guns steady?
Actually Everquest has upgraded their graphics engine a few times now. They've revamped all the Player models at least once. And they've even gone back and revamped several old zones to USE the new features of the new engine(s).
And it goes without saying that the new zones use the new features.
Blurry green texture vs tufts of grass, flat ground with vertex joins clearly defined vs smooth rolling terrain. Trees with branches on two planes vs much more complicated geometry for trees. Much more shading/shadow in the 2nd version... etc, etc...
You'll also note that the resolution of the two pictures is quite different. Everquest orginally only ran in 800x600...
Controlling with the analog sticks in indeed something of an annoyance, but its not a game ender if done right.
It is for me. Its never been done right. I'd rather play them on the PC.
Autoaim can be just as bad at time. A happy medium between the two often works well though.
I hate auto aim... i want to shoot the barrel just behind the target its locked on. I want to shoot the caster behind the charging warrior... whatever... autoaim drives me nuts.
I -did- enjoy Eternal Darkness on the 'cube tho, and thought the targeting was even fairly innovative and well done... but ED wasn't an FPS.
Of course, you could also pull a Sony and just let the developers code for keyboard/mouse support, like they allowed with the ps2 and ps3. It seems alot of developers aren't making use of that functionality for some reason, beyond UT3's use of it. Why? No idea.
Because as good as the keyboard mouse is for FPS games, most of us don't really want to use one on the couch. Nor do we want to set up a table at the right height. (Using a typical coffee table is back breaking at worst and uncomfortable at best, and that's assuming you even have one... I don't.)
It would also suck for multiplayer (Splitscreen) two keyboards and mice would use a lot of space. Four? Forget about it.
And finally, at least when it wasn't an option, using the controller was bearable, but to use a controller when keyboard/mouse is available... that would be... un-bearable. But actually using a kb/mouse poses its own problems. (see above)
Actually, if you return a scratched disc to the store where you bought it and exchange it for a replacement, it often counts as a sale of a new copy on the books and in the stats. (Most retail exchanges of defective merchandise are processed as a return and new sale.
In theory the people that track and publish sales -can- also track returns / exchanges, but don't reliably. its twice as much work, and its usually just statistical noise anyways.
Unless there is a systemic problem... like rrods, or halo3 scratched discs its not worth the effort tracking returns/exchanges. And in those cases sales figure get inflated.
Speaking of rrods, it would be interesting to know how many of THOSE replacements got counted as new sales as well. If you got your replacement from MS it wouldn't be... but if you just took it back to best-buy or whatever it probably *was*.
It sounds weak to me too. I agree that there is definitely a perception of time slowing down during a car accident which you just don't get on a roller coaster.
But I don't think anyone really beleives that time slows down. At best we 'think faster'. But that doesn't mean we can -see- faster. The biological parameters of our eyes surely don't change.
And even if we do think faster, I'm not even sure we can act faster. I've been in a few car accidents, and -everything- seems to be moving in slow motion. INCLUDING ME.
You seem to have time to visualize your trajectory, and *mentally* make note of all kinds of things. Like you can think whether your kids are in the car, whether the seatbelts are fastened, whether you are wearing clean underwear, think about which hospital is nearest, wonder if police or firetruck will arrive first, ponder mortality, recall what the last thing you said to your wife was, and have time to regret that it wasn't "I love you." instead of "Yeah, I'll pick up the damned milk"...
But you can't actually fasten your seatbelt if its not fastened, look in the backseat to see if the kids are awake or sleeping, take your glasses off, put your coffee down in the cup holder, etc... you can't actually -do- much. At most you have time to go limp or glance down at the speedometer to see how fast your going.
And maybe even the thinking faster is an illusion, maybe we always think that fast, but it seems like time has slowed because we are for some reason related to the stress/adrenalin/etc committing all those thoughts to long term memory.
if I spend a lot of time and money into creating something that can so easily be copied, there should be some protection against that.
There is, its called: GETTING PAID IN ADVANCE, or at the very least paid on delivery. I write code, that's how I get paid. That's how I paid my wedding photographer, and how I paid the band that played too, for that matter. Its how I paid the architect who designed my home, and for one of the paintings on the wall.
Its simple and it works well. In a world where things are easy to copy and copies are impossible to stop or even track, the solution is not to prevent copies. You don't really CARE how many copies are made. If you want a million dollars for your book, write your book, release a couple chapters to get people interested, and then start the fund raising. When you've made enough money, release the book.
And I'm not saying dump copyright entirely. I'm just for dropping all enforcement on non-commercial copies made by the public for their own non-profit use. So if someone wants to make release a movie based on your book, or someone wants to get Patrick Stewart to read it on the radio, or someone just wants to sell printed copies, they still have to obtain the rights from you.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch out: you're about to start an argument with some biker who thinks that "loud pipes" are necessary on motorcycles to "save lives". Been there, done that.
Do loud pipes saves lives? I can see the rationale for it... although I couldn't guess whether its actually true.
And would this be the same sort of biker that isn't wearing a helmet, and is wearing a t-shirt instead of a jacket? Seriously, in general, the louder the bike, the more likely the rider is more concerned about how he looks when people turn their head to see where the racket is coming from than he is about being 'safe'.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against bikes, and would probably have one myself if I had a place to park it and could use it more than 3 months a year.
-stability- however is not a killer app.
If it were than Vista's killer app is also -stability- because with UAC, removing you as administrator by default, and forcing signed device drivers by default (in x64) they have significantly hardened the OS against malware, viruses, and rootkits, which will improve the PC's overall reliability and stability. XP might not actually -crash- but a malware infested PC is not exactly a joy to use either.
You remember 98 crashing daily? I don't. My 98 PC didn't actually crash all that often, and it still doesn't (yeah I have a couple around for testing, and supporting old software), because the OS itself wasn't that bad, and I avoided using those applications and devices that were crap and crashed the OS, and it wasn't that hard to do either. Yes 98 would die if you left it on for weeks on end, but it was a desktop os, and a daily or weekly reboot was not exactly that onerous a problem.
Now I'm not defending 98. But I am saying it wasn't all that hard to get 98 running reasonably reliably for most people most of the time. And certainly enough, that a $200 'upgrade' to Vista, plus possibly a RAM upgrade, and hard drive upgrade to support XP was hardly a killer app. Especially since XP wasn't great with a lot of Win98 software, especially games, even with its significant efforts to do backwards compatibility. A lot of us dual-booted back to 98 for games.
Bottom line, yes, XP was definately a lot more stable than 98. But 98 wasn't really so bad that people would line up to by XP for 'stability', ergo... stability was not a killer app.
My question to you would be, why the hell would you want GPU multi-tasking?
... Try that in XP...
You know. The same sort of idiot as you asked, back in 1987, "Why would I want CPU multiasking for the shell and an app at the same time. I want my games to run faster, not slower."
Then in 1997 he asked "Why would I want DirectX?" its an api on top of a device driver through the windows bloated kernel for chrissake! Games should talk directly to to the hardware not through 3 layers of crap. I want my games to perform faster, not slower."
Apparently in 2007 that group is asking "Why would I want GPU multitasking..."
The answer? Because taking a couple percentage points in performance hit, to allow your entire desktop to run accelerated is a significant step forward for the desktop. Why should my quad-core desktop be able to multitask like a demon out of hell but run like a retarded dog if more than 1 of those applications needs video acceleration. And given the current trends, both OSX and Linux are doing it...; hell OS X's Final Cut Pro ads show it running half a dozen video windows at once overlapped, and you hit expose and they shrink and float around and all continue playing without missing a bit. Try that in XP. Next check out Beryl or Compiz or whatever its called this week
Also, just because XP doesn't support GPU multi-tasking doesn't mean DX10 cannot be used on XP.
DirectX10, in order to support GPU multitasking and the blu-ray/hddvd DRM stuff requires all new drivers, and an all new driver model, and an updated kernal that can deal with the new driver model and new drivers. It can't just be lumped backwards onto XP, without giving XP the new driver model, and the kernel update...but then its not really XP anymore.
They can add the new 'direct3d shadermodel 4 stuff' to directx9, and it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing for the next directx9 update for xp. But while it may have the new 'pretty shader features' of directx10, its not directx10.
If coded properly, you would just need to disable that feature depending on the OS.
Yup. "If coded properly". Of course. Why didn't I think of that...so all we have to do is take the entire new driver model from Vista, backport it to XP, without breaking anything including all the existing XP drivers (which don't acutally work with Vista's new driver model... so now XP is going to have Vista's driver model and XP's running together in harmony. Piece of cake... "if coded properly".
You are right, its a step 'backwards for games', the same way Windows was a step backwards from DOS for games. But in the long run, its a step forward. And remember, Windows is the LAST of the major PC OSes to make this move... both OSX and Linux have got 3D accelerated desktops, and have had them for a while.
The main one that I can think of is the Compatibility Wizard / Compatibility tab in a program's properties.
That is -not- a killer app by even the loosest interpretation. Backwards compatibility is inherently not a reason to upgrade. It eases an upgrade sure, but since we're talking about users who were already happily using the older version of windows the ability to keep doing what they were doing in the new version is not a compelling must-have reason to upgrade.
That and XP had a cheaper Home version (2000 only came in Professional, Server, Advanced Server, Cluster Server, and Datacenter editions iirc).
Again, not a killer app. Business users went from 2000 to Pro because they needed domain support. Home users were predominantly running 98, so the XP Home edition is hardly a killer app. And home users going from 2000 Professional to XP Home actually took a hit. They lost the security model they were used to, they lost the ability to join a domain, share arbitrary folders easily, etc, etc.
Sure it was a more attractive price point and made the jump to XP Home less daunting for users of Windows 98, but again, decidely not a killer app.
Oh, and just for the record, there was a "Windows 2000 Home edition" in the works, but it was killed off and never released. Apparently it was similiar to XP Home in that it only supported one CPU instead of 2 and other similiar limitations. I guess they deemed it wasn't ready for the home market - and we got Millenium Edition instead. I think I would have preferred Windows 2000 Home edition.
and encryption keys are IMO almost certain to be found as such by the current Supreme Court, since it isn't the key which is incriminating, but the evidence protected by the key.
Unless of course the key itself -is- incriminating. I mean, what if the pass phrase is 'my illegal image collection #6'? Not only is that incriminating, but it suggests that their might be five more collections.
I consider his business model entirely unreasonable; driving around residential areas playing annoying jingles at 120dB, who the fuck else could get away with that?
I take some solace in the fact that the driver has to listen to it 8 hours a day, every day.
But yeah I agree with you, its obnoxious. And noise pollution like this should be regulated. All of it, not just advertising, but also idiots with honda's with 'improved' exhaust systems and/or 15" subs blaring, and modified motorcycle exhaust too... my windows shouldn't have to rattle just because someone is insecure about their penis.
Other than DX10.x in Vista for purposefully DX10.x limited specific games releases
Nice shot of misinformation there. DX10 & Vista support GPU multitasking, which is how you get hardware acceleration in multiple windows and the desktop all at the same time... something XP can't do. DX10 isn't just some marketing carrot to lure people to vista. DX10/Vista is a substantial upgrade to the underlying graphics system, with a whole new driver model that makes it possible... it fundamentally changes and how grahpics work in Windows at the kernel level.
It may not be something 'gamers' care about, but its important. And its pathetic when people look at just the relatively minor game-related features directx10 has added and then conclude directx10 is irrelevant.
As to your base question, what is the Killer app in Vista? I'd say their isn't one, and that it isn't a compelling upgrade unless its time to buy a whole new computer anyway. But having said that, what was the killer app for XP from 2000? I don't remember one.
What about from 98 to XP for the 'home users'? Sure XP was more stable, but it required gobs more RAM (98 ran very well on 64MB... XP was a dog on less than 256, was slower on the same hardware, and wsn't compatible with a lot of games. It came with DRM in the form of enforced limitations on connections to shared printers and folders, and featured an activation process that had the potential to lock you out of your computer if you upgraded it.
XP was as much of a non-event as Vista is. It was on some level better accepted than Vista precisely because it was so much less of an upgrade than XP was from 2000. There is a reason that 2000 is "Windows 5.0", while XP is "Windows 5.1". XP wasn't much of an upgrade!
For an OEM to add a firewire port costs about $1.50 more than a USB port. Not exactly a huge difference.
I said "a penny saved is a penny earned" for a reason.
Plus the average PC comes with what? 6, 8, 10 ports? Times every motherboard you sell... sure to you its a buck fifty on a $500 PC... but to the OEM its a whole LOT of $1 parts. And if they can shave even a few off it makes a big difference to the bottom line.
Firewire 400 cards are like $10. which is pretty much what a USB2 card costs although you don't need a USB2 card since every PC has one built-in now, so you can call it $0.
When I said a penny saved is a penny earned I was serious.
Firewire maybe less than a dollar more expensive per port than USB, but it adds up. And the bean counters designing hardware care about the pennies.
Not too mention we couldn't cut over to pure firewire even if wanted to. Firewire versions of low bandwidth devices like keyboards, mice, etc simply don't exist...
USB is slow and cheap.
Firewire is fast and cost more.
So they both existed. One was good for mice and keyboards, one was good for digital video and external hard drives.
Then USB2 came out which is almost as fast as firewire, and the lines got blurry.
Firewire was still considerably better as a technology. It does a lot of its own processing while usb2 offloads a lot of processing to the host system... so firewire drives don't tie up the CPU the way a USB2 one does. Firewire supports more simultaneous devices, and seems to have fewer issues with power as well. It also doesn't have stupid rectangular connectors that users will try upside down 50% of the time.
Then Firewire 3200 was announced and santify was restored.
USB2 is slow and cheap.
"Firewire-3200" is fast and costs more.
Do we 'need' usb? no. We could get by on just firewire. But usb is cheaper and a penny saved is a penny earned.
Britannica is not publicly created.
Why on earth would I have to do that? If you are a monopoly, you are subject to restraint. The form of those restraints can take many forms, there is no list of rules; so why I should I have to show them to you?
For example, there is no rule that says if you are a monopoly your company will be divided up into separate pieces, but they've done that.
Similiarly there is no rule that says if you are monopoly that the government will decide how much you can charge for your product, and when you can raise prices and by how much, but they've done that too.
-sigh-
The rules are DIFFERENT when dealing with a monopoly.
Stuff that is perfectly legal, reasonable, and even encouraged in a competitive environment are disallowed in a monopoly.
Right, you need to make an -informed- risk assessment. Are you?
On the other hand, if a problem occurs at the plant best case is that the plant is shut down for much longer. Worse case is obvious and... unpleasant.
I've heard at least one person here report that at least some of the 'safety problems' amount to missing signage, and stuff like that.
People need these isotopes to save their lives, should we really keep the facility shutdown because the first aid kit doesn't have its full stock of bandages, a few water pipes aren't labelled as hot or cold, an inspection of the fire extinguisher in the cafeteria is overdue? I think not.
What if one of the generators is slightly overdue for maintenance, but the maintenance schedule is known to be extremely aggressive. (e.g. like doing on an "oil change" every 1500mi, even though the engine and the oil are spec'd for 3000mi. its a nucear reactor and all, and you want to be safe.) Is it really worth shutting the facility down if we're at 1600mi, given that people certainly lose their lives if you shut it down while its extremely unlikely to fail if you continue running it? And if it does FAIL, you've got a backup, and a contingency if that fails?
Point is, we need more information about the actual safety concerns and real risks before we applaud or condemn this move.
And you can use both at the same time? I just want to be clear on that point. Because a cellphone that can switch from GSM to CDMA etc would be useful... and it doesn't need to do both at once... but I'd sort of expect to do wifi and use my mouse at the same time...
Yes, we have Best Buy. We also have future shop which is owned by Best Buy. And in the city I live the two "companies" are accross the street from each other making a mockery of competition.
We also have sears and costco, but I wouldn't buy anything there unless they had what I wanted but they rarely do. We have 'the source by circuit city' which seems to own all the old "radio shacks" in the malls, and its pretty lousy. We have costco, but I'm not a "member", but I've been through them and don't find it terribly compelling.
As for the tire store? Canadian Tire, not really. You might buy a $60 DVD player there I guess, or a clock radio... but not an HDTV or a computer.
I buy computer electronics online, or from 'hole in the wall' computer shops (who often mostly deal online).
But home electronics like TV's, speakers, stereos... its "beyond horrible" here too.
BestBuy/FutureShop has driven everyone else out of business, and dealing with bestbuy/futureshop is a nightmare. Product knowledge is what's written on the sticker in front of the product, and they even get that wrong half the time. The best product is the one with the highest margin, or even more likely the one with the best rewards program from the manufacturer. Luckily it looks the best on display too. (That its the one with the blueray player while the rest of the TVs are all connected by RCA splitters to a VCR and someone's gone and turned the contrast down is all beside the point.) And you definitely need a $400 monster power conditioner to ensure that your television picture looks its best...
Sure you can still walk into a Bang&Olufsen but that isn't 'consumer electronics' either. That's 'you have too much money and want a cd player that opens like a flower'... oh and we have "the Sony Store" which is great if you want to pay too much, and see Sony TV's next to other Sony TV's and only want know what size Sony TV to buy while speaking to reps who don't know squat about non-Sony product but still "know" that sony's X is better than anyone elses X. Comparison shopping at its finest! But that's beyond useless as I refuse to buy sony branded products anyway. I suppose the one good thing is that lines are short in there even during the holiday rush. And its fun to ask them if they have Wii's or 360's in stock.
but if it doesn't make you a better player it's crap
Except that the controller doesn't exist separately from the game, and games are designed around controllers.
Consider how you move, jump, and climb, in an FPS with wasd? Its all *automated*! You run to a ladder and push forward and your avatar slings his gun and climb upwards. The designer removed all sorts of things from having to individually move your feet and arms and coordinate those actions, to having to sling your gun.
The holodeck sim has let the designer put all that stuff back in, and made the experience more immersive. So now if you pit a holodeck player against a keyboard and mouse player, but forced the keyboard and mouse player to individually move hands, feet, fingers, torso, etc, they'd be almost unable to move.
So, the keyboard and mouse is only a "better" controller if the game **compensates for the controller** and automates moving, running, climbing, etc.
But its a pretty arbitrary place to set the automation. And its set there because it creates 'reasonably easy control while allowing for reasonably challenging play', and that's a game design choice. Some games make you push a key to climb, some make you put your gun away, some games have auto-run, some games simulate fatique and have it affect your reticule size etc...
The keyboard/mouse could have even more automation, and do auto-aiming, auto-headshot, and auto-jump, auto-run (oh wait... autorun is already an option on most titles, and auto-aim is pretty common too...) that would make the game even easier to win than it already is; would that make it a 'better control scheme'? Does it make you a "better player"?
Alternatively if the keyboard mouse scheme did LESS compensation then the holodeck guy would suddenly start winning. If the keyboard mouse scheme does NO compensation, and you had to use the keyboard/mouse to articulate all your limbs then the only way you'd beat the holdeck player is if he laughed himself to death watching you try to aim your gun at him.
The point is that the 'controller' isn't just the hardware, its the software that interprets the controls, and the software part is pretty arbitrary. If a console player has dual analog sticks but the game auto-aims while the keyboard/mouse player has to cope with a reticule that floats around trailing the cursor instead of being the cursor... would keyboard/mouse still be superior?
Too bad neither ship to canada, and amazon.ca is almost a joke, especially with the dollar where its at right now.
Actually no it doesn't as MS ship them free replacement discs.
Irrelevant. If I take the disc back to the store to exchange it, and the store exchanges it with regular stock, it may count as a sale.
unless the store is stupid enough to eat the cost (which I know the one I work at isn't),
Why would they eat the cost? Of course they'll still send in a claim for replacement discs to microsoft.
Then none of the damaged disc returns are included in the numbers
Depends entirely how 'the numbers' are computed.
If the store just forwards the number of discs that went out over the counter then it will. How many stores go to the trouble of subtracting returns/exchanges from that number? Some do. Some don't.
(not to mention even scratch replacements are only a very tiny fraction of discs anyway)
Right. Like I said, normally its just statistical noise. But if there is a systemic problem like rrods or scratched halo discs, and that number of exchanges climbs from 1:10000 to 1:100 suddenly a game that sold 5 million, might only have sold 4.95 million.
The "experience" might be better, but the controls might be worse. You might have more fun playing with the wii controls, but do they actually let you win as often as you would playing with mouse and keyboard? The only way to know is to let PC and wii players duke it out online and see who wins the most.
That would be an extremely silly definition of 'better' and 'worse'.
The -experience- is what's important.
If you could play with a keyboard and mouse against someone who was ACTUALLY inside a 'star trek holodeck', would you seriously judge that keyboard and mouse was the better controller?
Simply because after a couple hours, you were still going strong raking in the kills and jumping around like a lunatic, while your opponents are exhausted and can barely hold their guns steady?
Actually Everquest has upgraded their graphics engine a few times now. They've revamped all the Player models at least once. And they've even gone back and revamped several old zones to USE the new features of the new engine(s).
And it goes without saying that the new zones use the new features.
Here's a shot from 2001..
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/everquest/eq/screens/eq_35.jpg
And one today...
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/other/pc/eq/screens/eq57.jpg
Blurry green texture vs tufts of grass, flat ground with vertex joins clearly defined vs smooth rolling terrain. Trees with branches on two planes vs much more complicated geometry for trees. Much more shading/shadow in the 2nd version... etc, etc...
You'll also note that the resolution of the two pictures is quite different. Everquest orginally only ran in 800x600...
Controlling with the analog sticks in indeed something of an annoyance, but its not a game ender if done right.
... un-bearable. But actually using a kb/mouse poses its own problems. (see above)
It is for me. Its never been done right. I'd rather play them on the PC.
Autoaim can be just as bad at time. A happy medium between the two often works well though.
I hate auto aim... i want to shoot the barrel just behind the target its locked on. I want to shoot the caster behind the charging warrior... whatever... autoaim drives me nuts.
I -did- enjoy Eternal Darkness on the 'cube tho, and thought the targeting was even fairly innovative and well done... but ED wasn't an FPS.
Of course, you could also pull a Sony and just let the developers code for keyboard/mouse support, like they allowed with the ps2 and ps3. It seems alot of developers aren't making use of that functionality for some reason, beyond UT3's use of it. Why? No idea.
Because as good as the keyboard mouse is for FPS games, most of us don't really want to use one on the couch. Nor do we want to set up a table at the right height. (Using a typical coffee table is back breaking at worst and uncomfortable at best, and that's assuming you even have one... I don't.)
It would also suck for multiplayer (Splitscreen) two keyboards and mice would use a lot of space. Four? Forget about it.
And finally, at least when it wasn't an option, using the controller was bearable, but to use a controller when keyboard/mouse is available... that would be
Actually, if you return a scratched disc to the store where you bought it and exchange it for a replacement, it often counts as a sale of a new copy on the books and in the stats. (Most retail exchanges of defective merchandise are processed as a return and new sale.
In theory the people that track and publish sales -can- also track returns / exchanges, but don't reliably. its twice as much work, and its usually just statistical noise anyways.
Unless there is a systemic problem... like rrods, or halo3 scratched discs its not worth the effort tracking returns/exchanges. And in those cases sales figure get inflated.
Speaking of rrods, it would be interesting to know how many of THOSE replacements got counted as new sales as well. If you got your replacement from MS it wouldn't be... but if you just took it back to best-buy or whatever it probably *was*.
It sounds weak to me too. I agree that there is definitely a perception of time slowing down during a car accident which you just don't get on a roller coaster.
But I don't think anyone really beleives that time slows down. At best we 'think faster'. But that doesn't mean we can -see- faster. The biological parameters of our eyes surely don't change.
And even if we do think faster, I'm not even sure we can act faster. I've been in a few car accidents, and -everything- seems to be moving in slow motion. INCLUDING ME.
You seem to have time to visualize your trajectory, and *mentally* make note of all kinds of things. Like you can think whether your kids are in the car, whether the seatbelts are fastened, whether you are wearing clean underwear, think about which hospital is nearest, wonder if police or firetruck will arrive first, ponder mortality, recall what the last thing you said to your wife was, and have time to regret that it wasn't "I love you." instead of "Yeah, I'll pick up the damned milk"...
But you can't actually fasten your seatbelt if its not fastened, look in the backseat to see if the kids are awake or sleeping, take your glasses off, put your coffee down in the cup holder, etc... you can't actually -do- much. At most you have time to go limp or glance down at the speedometer to see how fast your going.
And maybe even the thinking faster is an illusion, maybe we always think that fast, but it seems like time has slowed because we are for some reason related to the stress/adrenalin/etc committing all those thoughts to long term memory.
More research is required.
if I spend a lot of time and money into creating something that can so easily be copied, there should be some protection against that.
There is, its called: GETTING PAID IN ADVANCE, or at the very least paid on delivery. I write code, that's how I get paid. That's how I paid my wedding photographer, and how I paid the band that played too, for that matter. Its how I paid the architect who designed my home, and for one of the paintings on the wall.
Its simple and it works well. In a world where things are easy to copy and copies are impossible to stop or even track, the solution is not to prevent copies. You don't really CARE how many copies are made. If you want a million dollars for your book, write your book, release a couple chapters to get people interested, and then start the fund raising. When you've made enough money, release the book.
And I'm not saying dump copyright entirely. I'm just for dropping all enforcement on non-commercial copies made by the public for their own non-profit use. So if someone wants to make release a movie based on your book, or someone wants to get Patrick Stewart to read it on the radio, or someone just wants to sell printed copies, they still have to obtain the rights from you.