1) A 7600GS at newegg seems to run around ~$80 not ~$50.
2) Remember you have to find a 7600GS that was *identical* to the one you have. Same manufacturer, same timings, same amount of ram, same firmware, same hardware revision. Otherwise it ranges from 'doesn't work at all' to 'mostly works'.
3) I hereby concede your point. On the very low end hardware it actually does seem worth it... If you can actually pull it off, by having the foresight to purchase an SLI board, and lucky enough to have selected a mid/low end card that actually is still available when its time to 'upgrade'.
The peformance improvement when doing SLI of low/mid end cards actually is almost double. SLI on high end cards is generally not nearly as great of an improvement because at the high end GPU speed / pipeline count / etc isn't the primary performance bottleneck. And until today I mostly evaluated SLI on cards closer to the mid-upper end of the scale. This series of posts has opened my eyes to the substantial value of SLI on low end cards.
And nVidia's situation is almost entirely different from 3dfx's. 3dfx was an early leader in 3D card production who made a few stupid business decisions (e.g. alienating OEM manufacturers) and implemented SLI poorly (you needed two Voodoo2s and a 2D VGA card). nVidia is an enduring market leader whose SLI implementation is technically sound.
I also compared it to multi-cpu systems, which also have failed to get off the ground, until multi-core chips arrived. (insofar as a dual core is 'like' a dual cpu at least).
Alternate frame rendering over SLI would then significantly increase that box's gaming performance (nVidia claims up to 1.9x improvement, so its probably more like 1.4x - 1.5x for most cards). If this is enough to at least run future games, SLI already captures the market for people who would spend ~$40-$60 for another card just to keep playing new games, but wouldn't spend $100-$400 to play them perfectly.
The trouble with that is that future games need the technology in the future cards. Stuff like directx 10 throws a monkey wrench into someone with a 7000 series geforce who was planning to sli it.
Or the fact that an 8600 is practically the same price as a 7600. Granted a 7600 in SLI is faster than a single 8600... but I don't know if I could buy a 7600GT when an 8600GT is practically the same price (actually considerably cheaper since I would sell my 7600GT) I'd say over all upgrading to an 8600GT and selling the 7600GT represents a better value than going SLI on the 7600GT. And if they were smart and didn't buy an SLI motherboard they still have $30 bucks in their pocket from not buying that.
Or what about someone running a 6600GT who can't match it. My old 6600GT is not listed on any of the online stores I frequent.
Point is, planning SLI like that is essentially buying today in anticipation of what you will need tomorrow, and in PC hardware that has ALMOST ALWAYS been a losing proposition. Buy today what you need today. Its ALMOST ALWAYS cheaper to buy tomorrow what you need tomorrow.
For anyone sane SLI (with both the voodoo's, and the modern cards) was so some time down the line, you could double your GFX performance by buying a 2nd card the same as your current on, for a vastly reduced price, and double your performance without having to pay anything like the cost of a next-gen card.
That looks great on paper, but proved to be a pipe dream in reality. You'd have to be insane to get sucked into that sort of marketing.
People who bought a card, with the intention of upgrading 'down the line' usually found that it was actually cheaper to just buy a new card rather than install a 2nd old one, especially as finding a 2nd old one a couple years down the road proved difficult. Plus the new cards always supported featureX, and even if you had 6 of your older cards it wouldn't be able to do featureX.
People got sucked into the same trap with processors. It was almost invariably better value to upgrade to a new CPU, than it was to add a 2nd 3 year old CPU to a system. The performance gain wasn't as good, the availability of the old chips was miserable, and they lost out on the faster bus speeds, new slot types, usb2 ports, and all the other 'bonuses' their friends new motherboard/cpu upgrades got them.
And the cost? Well after their friends sold their old mobo/cpu they paid about the same.
It's going to be really, really tough to pull off something like multi-core in the GPU realm with the transistor counts being as high as they are, and the heat issue being as prominent as it is.
You realize they said the same kind of things when the 3dfx monster II came out. A couple years later a single geforce (gerforce "1") ruled supreme.
To paraphrase a classic line: "Technology finds a way."
I think, to an extent you are right, one of the reasons SLI died off completely the last time round, was the arrival of the agp slot if i recall right; but I don't think SLI has much hope of becoming mainstream until it fits on a single card. And who knows, maybe we'll see a dedicated AGP-express slot that renders pci-express, even dual-pci-express obsolete for graphics.
But then, you have to look at games like Crysis that just turn my machine into a whining bitch trying to get above 20fps in high detail modes on 1680x1050. Some people just don't like detail settings less than "Maximum".
We've had that issue since Falcon 4.0, if not even earlier. As for Crysis...I don't know what to say about that game. I think a lot of optimization is likely still possible and may or may not get done. Its not even out of beta.
I also know that no matter HOW MUCH POWER you put into a rig someone can trivially design a game that needs more. Just keep adding lights, shadows, transparencies, reflections, and viewing distance until the GPU's break under the weight, let that volume knob go to '11'.
And I think part of the current catchet of Crysis is that it can "require" that much power.
Go to a temp agency knowing only how to use macs or openoffice. They won't be able to place you.
True. But if you know how to write documents and create spreadsheets your already ahead of most applicants, and a couple days playing with Microsoft Office / Windows and you'll be ready to go.
The education system shouldn't be providing microsoft product training. It should be providing an education. Ideally, I'd want my kids high school "data processing" class to have:
Microsoft Office, Open Office, and iWork.
And require assignments be created in all 3. I want my kids be platform agnostic, and comfortable on all of them. Then when faced with Office 2007 "with ribbons" or faced with Star Office which they've never used at all, they'll cope just fine. Because they'll understand how "word processors" work, and they'll understand how "excel spreadsheets" work and what they do, and will be prepared to figure out how to achieve the effect they want in whatever program they are sitting in front of. And they'll be comfortable using the help and the internet to figure out how to achieve effect X in program Y.
You wouldn't have to license XP for this machine as it as far as I'm aware, it can't run XP as it uses a PPC chip. If the Microsoft licensing police question it just say 'Prove it'
No, that's how absurd the Microsoft educational licensing is. They *DO* have have to license XP for it.
The fact that it doesn't run it doesn't matter. The fact that it CAN'T run it doesn't matter.
I'm going to clean up a wikipedia entry for free so someone else can make money off it? And they're going to make money off it, by making people suffer advertising to see the cleaned up article?
No thanks, I'll just stick to regular wikipedia thanks, even with its warts its a hell of a lot less beastly than this idea.
However, this would be an excellent time for nVidia to start letting Intel use SLI on chipsets.
Meh, I'm unconvinced SLI is anything more than markting hot-rods to idiots. I think this is like the dual 3dfx Voodoo Monster II all over again. If the next generation cards can do in a single slot what todays cards need two or more in SLI for, then 99% of consumers will just wait for the next card, and only the twits who need/want the bragging rights of an SLI unit will go for it.
I doubt any games are ever going to require an SLI setup.
In any case think back to the 3dfx monster stuff and recall how that panned out. Instead of everyone needing an array of video cards to run the latest games the entire dual card thing was rendered obsolete because a single next gen card could beat a dual monster setup for half the price.
And look at whats happening in CPU's... virtually nobody has a quad socket motherboard; and even dual sockets are a rare niche product. Yet we've had support for it on the desktop since 2000. But instead the trend has been to multi-core cpu's. The cost benefit just isn't there for multiple socket cpus or multiple card video solutions. However, if they can do "SLI on a single board"... that will be your next generation solution.
The main difference between XP Pro and XP Home is that XP Home doesn't let you join a domain.
I'd disagree, and say that for your average user, the lack of IIS, the dumbed down security model, the 5 connection limit instead of 10, and the crippled remote desktop were more important features than the domain stuff.
That said, as I said originally, the average XP Home user pirated XP Pro, not so much because they were desired to 'upgrade' but because if you are going to pirate XP you might as well pirate 'the good one'., regardless of whether or not you needed its features.
Couple that with the fact that xp pro was easier to obtain for two reasons - one the VLK keys only applied to pro, and 2 it was the one that had the crackers attention -- same thing, why would they bother to crack and redistribute the "home" version when they could get the "good one":)
On Linux I can install all of KDE, in one command, pulling in dozens of packages, and have all that happen in a completely unattended manner
Unless you want to install something that hasn't been packaged for that sort of installation, or you want to install a version of it that hasn't been. Or you want to install something that's only available in an rpm... or only available as a tarball... or you have to compile it from source from CVS...
You call dependency issues an infrequent thing? Fair enough. Then again, I can't recall the last time I had to do it on windows either. If your computer is up to date via windows update (whether you run it automatically or manually) is pretty much a non-issue.
I ask a very simple thing: That software be installed. Once I ask that I want it to be just installed. I absolutely hate babysitting the thing.
6 of 1 half dozen of the other. Some people like changing the default install folder, deciding whether to import from another program, setting a different language, deciding whether or not to create a start menu/desktop/quicklaunch icon. Your's is just a preference, it is neither better nor worse than the Windows way of doing it.
I know I wouldn't software that required IE7 to install it for me. Nor a service pack. That would be like having Linux update the kernel all by itself when I try to install a media player.
My favourite are the ones that include some extra junk I don't want (google toolbar, itunes, etc).
What does Microsoft or Windows have to do with that? You think if Linux got a significant share of the desktop market, these companies wouldn't bundle their useless crud together on Linux too?
Who said anything about ease? I'm talking about convenience. I turn my computer on, start KDE, then start kdevelop. My work isn't interrupted by an antivirus slowing things down and popping up notifications about updates and some random box on the internet that decided to ping mine. If my hardware fails I can move the disk to new hardware with very minimal hassle.
Again, if the average joe used linux, norton would release a bloated annoying version of Norton to bother you every few minutes. You don't have to install it on linux, that's true, but then, that's true of Windows too, and you can get clamAV or AVG etc on Windows both of which don't get in your face.
When my Vista box boots I don't get a single popup or question. And my work is never interrupted by antivirus software or windows updates, or random idiots on the internet. But its not like linux is somehow immune from that claptrap... it would be trivial to write an application to do it, and if someone wrote it marketed it thousands of joe sixpacks would install it.
Kids' software needs are significantly different from that of adults, with the possible except of a good Office suite, which everybody needs. Where's the equivalent of your doodling software, trivia games, and all that stuff you would find in a primary school computer lab?
Actually the vast majority of that type of software runs pretty flawlessly under wine. Its not generally complex software. I'm sure you could find exceptions, but for every exception that didn't work, you could probably easily find software that did. Its not like there are a shortage of 'doodling' and 'trivia' games to try.
That said, my daughter's kindergarten class has a classic iMac with OS9 on it. And I have no issues with that. Its a suitable machine for what they are doing with it.
It would be absurd for them to have to license XP Professional for it, even if it is a discounted copy.
And their employees and shareholders already pay taxes so following your logic corporations shouldn't be taxed.
That's not following 'my logic' at all.
Corporate interests are fully represented by its share holders (and employees). Corporate incomes are only partially represented by the taxes paid by its share holders and employees since a coporation can have profit even after it pays out dividends and salaries.
1 guy incorporates, makes a million dollars in profit, withdraws a 100k as a salary and leaves the other 900k in the corporation, where he uses it to invest. Clearly the corporations interests are represented by the 1 person who owns it. But what about that 900k? Its effectively his money. He owns the corporation after all. Shouldn't it be taxed??
The analogy holds if you extend to a 2 person corporation, 3 people, or 100,000 people.
The corporation is fully owned by people. (at least ultimately). But its income, if it keeps some profit for itself, doesn't get reflected in the taxes paid by those people.
Please elaborate. How are the people who "make up" a corporation "not paying tax at all" if the corporation isn't paying tax?
If the corporation paid no tax, the people who owned them would keep as much in them as they possibly good. Their very own personal tax havens.
They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well?
Their interests are already represented by both their employees and their shareholders. They are taxed 'separately' because otherwise, the people that made them up would use that as a loophole to pay no tax at all. Hell, the system already allows tricky juggling to reduce personal taxes (and taxes overall). "My company owns and maintains the yacht, and its for entertaining customers, so its a corporate tax deductable expense that I get to use practically year round without having to spend a personal dime on it..." Not only does the CEO not have to pay for the boat, so his lifestyle is 'improved' without requiring additional real salary, but its a corporate expense so the corporation gets to deduct that from its income before it pays taxes. I'm only over-simplifying slightly.
Besides, a corporations takes little more than a bit of paperwork and a 1000 bucks worth of fees. So, suddenly the wealthy can have literally as many votes as they want in whatever jurisdiction they want it.
I can't see how that could backfire.
Or do you believe in taxation without representation?
If you want to make a fuss about people who are taxed without representation there are plenty of REAL examples (young teens with jobs, residents of DC, etc...)
If there is only one button to press there is never a question "which button". I suspect that question alone has driven countless PC support tech's to their graves. I walked someone through a short process over the phone a while back and they asked me that like 20 times... because i said 'click' for 'left clicks'; half way through I started explicitly saying 'left click' but it didn't matter they'd either ask anyway "you said left right?", or click the wrong button anyway. "oops".
Not everyone benefits from multiple buttons. Some people are better off with just one. A lot of people, even.
I personally couldn't live with a one button mouse, but I applaud MacOS for requiring that every feature of the OS be accessible from one button. And of course, the Apple supports multiple button mice just fine, and uses those buttons logically.
My -only- complaint is that I can't get a powerbook with a right button on the trackpad.
Like the Lisa, the Newton, OS9, those ipods with the super scratcable screen, the puck mouse?
Apple has pulled its share of boners. Having a string of good products doesn't mean they are automatically super fantastic. They just happen to be super fantastic.
The 5GB limit would also severely impact me doing any work for the company through that sort of link, since a backup of a database for installation on a test machine would already get to over 15G. So I wouldn't even be able to do that once.
Yeah, I'd totally want to upload a 15GB database through my cell phone.
Those links are finally fast enough to be useful, but the amount of bandwidth available is tiny tiny fraction of what they can do on broadband, and their ability to increase wireless bandwidth is pretty limited. So they limit the amount any one person can use.
Well, a slipstreamed disk is a third-party modification, so I think it's a little bit shakey using it as a comparison.
3rd party? You can easily do it yourself, using your original disk, and stuff you download from microsoft.
I did try to create one a year ago but found it tediously difficult command-line sourcery (ironically what people often accuse Linux of) so I gave up. I've found a little utility now so I'll give it a go.
er.. its a single easy command, for a basic sp2 disc. Its a bit more work to integrate some of the other stuff that's come out since then, but its hardly command line sorcery. In any case, you are likely to face far more command line sorcery with Linux than with XP.
I do appreciate that if I walked into a shop and bought a boxed XP I would get an SP2 disk, but then that would cost me a lot of money to be able to easily install and OS I already own.
Fair enough. But you are actually buying a replacement LICENSE in addition to a mere disc. So not only would you be able to easily install the OS you already own, but also a copy on an additional machine.
That said, you can get replacement discs from Microsoft for nominal charge, provided you actually bought retail discs in the first place. Sadly most users are stuck with OEM support and crappy recovery discs, and lately they make it hard to get een that... but that's the OEM's policy not microsofts.
Finally, and although I hate to go here, if you can't slipstream it yourself, or don't want to, you can trivially get a torrent of a recent XP disc image with XP SP2 and most of the fixes since then. As long as you download the correct edition that matches your disc (Volume / Retail Upgrade / Retail Full / OEM) so that it accepts your key your fine.
Microsoft really only cares about your licenses and license keys, and whether your activated, and passed genuine advantage. They really don't care about the media. And I think its only a matter of time before they make them directly downloadable themselves.
At best its a grey area, and maybe it doesn't belong in a discussion like this, and I agree you shouldn't really have to go 'grey' to do this, but it truly is a case where no harm is being done.
As far as price, well, yes, yes it is expensive. If you buy a new computer then you'll have whatever OEM version of Vista along with that, which is how I suspect many people have come by XP. However, let's say I've got XP Pro, and I want to upgrade to Vista. In order to get the equivalent Vista version, Ultimate, I'd have to shell out $260.
Vista Business is the equivalent to XP Pro, and the MSRP on a retail upgrade is $199.00. Its not stil cheap I agree, but Ultimate is not the right product to compare to.
Vista Ultimate, if you wanted to equate it with XP would be Media Centre Edition, but even that's not entirely accurate. And MCE was never properly available retail so a price comparison is fairly hard.
That said, I would never advise anyone to upgrade to Vista from XP. If buying a new PC, sure, Vista is an option, but it rarely makes any sense to upgrade.
I'm not necessarily the average consumer, although I might be close, but if my behavior is any indication there are plenty of people who will start looking at Ubuntu over Vista when XP starts to lose support.
Bingo! For existing hardware Microsoft hasn't provided a reasonable upgrade path. Vista isn't cheap, doesn't offer anything compelling for the upgrade price, and runs like a dog on old hardware. Its a net loss on older hardware. Its also a significantly different UI. So someone on XP, facing XP's end-of-life should be looking hard at Ubuntu. Because while it also has a significantly different UI, its free and its fast on their hardware.
To combat this MS is going to have to extend the life of XP *much* longer than they wanted; and we are already seeing this start to happen. They are really caught between a rock and a hard place though, because the Vista upgrade isn't compelling they just need to extend support until enough of the XP hardware is obsolete enough that there aren't many people left contemplating what they are going to do when XP goes away. "They'll just buy new hardware and it will come with Vista." The trouble there is that unlike the 286-386-486-Pentium era where being even one generation back was pretty much obsolete, today processor generations are much less pronounced, and a 7+ year old Pentium III with 1GB of RAM is perfectly adequate for XP/Office provided you don't do something stupid like install Norton 2007 on it. In other words - its going to be a long time before the current crop of Pentium 4's goes away.
The main issue was that we have a WPA wireless network in our house and, after reinstalling XP, we couldn't connect to the network (since it wasn't until SP2 that XP supported WPA). This meant having to disable encryption on our router, downloading all the XP patches, and then re-enabling WPA.
I don't think WPA was installed/availab;e by default in Ubuntu either, at least not until quite recently. I remember having to manually apt-get the wpasupplicant packages for it, and not all that long ago? Not that it really matters....
Turns out there was no Ubuntu prior to XP SP2 at all. Even the oldest Warty Warthog wasn't released until (shortly) after SP2.
I was going to say a ubuntu disk from the same pre-SP2 era as your XP disc would have failed just as bad. But no, actually, there was no ubuntu disc from that era, and even much newer ubuntu discs didn't support WPA right off the disc. Somewhere between Around Edgy it was included I think, maybe Dapper. But certainly not Warty/Hoary/Breezy
At any rate, I just plugged it in with a cable rather than screw around with the wifi security on the router.
You create a new disc image, and you merge the service pack into it. You can also slipstream all the critical updates since SP2 to bring your install disc right up to date to today, not to mention add in the drivers you need for your RAID or whatever so you don't need to load those drivers by floppy, etc, etc. And then burn it to disc.
Really, its not that hard. Lots of tutorials on the web. And even a couple tools exist to make an already easy process even easier.
Its not as easy as downloading the latest ubuntu release, I readily concede you that. But its not that hard either.
Problem is that MS is probably not going to include a good many drivers because they aren't logo-certified or whatever that genuine driver crap is.
We shall see. The x64 edition of Vista by default will not accept unsigned drivers period. (Yes, that feature can be disabled, but its like disabling UAC, and strongly discourgaged... its nothing like the 'continue anyway' routine we have with XP.
I think this might actually make driver signing more common. It will be interesting to see how it plays out... people want the latest bug fixes NOW, not after a month of logo certification, especially in high profile devices like 3d graphics and sound.
Slashdot Mirror
1) A 7600GS at newegg seems to run around ~$80 not ~$50.
... If you can actually pull it off, by having the foresight to purchase an SLI board, and lucky enough to have selected a mid/low end card that actually is still available when its time to 'upgrade'.
2) Remember you have to find a 7600GS that was *identical* to the one you have. Same manufacturer, same timings, same amount of ram, same firmware, same hardware revision. Otherwise it ranges from 'doesn't work at all' to 'mostly works'.
3) I hereby concede your point. On the very low end hardware it actually does seem worth it
The peformance improvement when doing SLI of low/mid end cards actually is almost double. SLI on high end cards is generally not nearly as great of an improvement because at the high end GPU speed / pipeline count / etc isn't the primary performance bottleneck. And until today I mostly evaluated SLI on cards closer to the mid-upper end of the scale. This series of posts has opened my eyes to the substantial value of SLI on low end cards.
And nVidia's situation is almost entirely different from 3dfx's. 3dfx was an early leader in 3D card production who made a few stupid business decisions (e.g. alienating OEM manufacturers) and implemented SLI poorly (you needed two Voodoo2s and a 2D VGA card). nVidia is an enduring market leader whose SLI implementation is technically sound.
I also compared it to multi-cpu systems, which also have failed to get off the ground, until multi-core chips arrived. (insofar as a dual core is 'like' a dual cpu at least).
Alternate frame rendering over SLI would then significantly increase that box's gaming performance (nVidia claims up to 1.9x improvement, so its probably more like 1.4x - 1.5x for most cards). If this is enough to at least run future games, SLI already captures the market for people who would spend ~$40-$60 for another card just to keep playing new games, but wouldn't spend $100-$400 to play them perfectly.
The trouble with that is that future games need the technology in the future cards. Stuff like directx 10 throws a monkey wrench into someone with a 7000 series geforce who was planning to sli it.
Or the fact that an 8600 is practically the same price as a 7600. Granted a 7600 in SLI is faster than a single 8600... but I don't know if I could buy a 7600GT when an 8600GT is practically the same price (actually considerably cheaper since I would sell my 7600GT) I'd say over all upgrading to an 8600GT and selling the 7600GT represents a better value than going SLI on the 7600GT.
And if they were smart and didn't buy an SLI motherboard they still have $30 bucks in their pocket from not buying that.
Or what about someone running a 6600GT who can't match it. My old 6600GT is not listed on any of the online stores I frequent.
Point is, planning SLI like that is essentially buying today in anticipation of what you will need tomorrow, and in PC hardware that has ALMOST ALWAYS been a losing proposition. Buy today what you need today. Its ALMOST ALWAYS cheaper to buy tomorrow what you need tomorrow.
For anyone sane SLI (with both the voodoo's, and the modern cards) was so some time down the line, you could double your GFX performance by buying a 2nd card the same as your current on, for a vastly reduced price, and double your performance without having to pay anything like the cost of a next-gen card.
That looks great on paper, but proved to be a pipe dream in reality. You'd have to be insane to get sucked into that sort of marketing.
People who bought a card, with the intention of upgrading 'down the line' usually found that it was actually cheaper to just buy a new card rather than install a 2nd old one, especially as finding a 2nd old one a couple years down the road proved difficult. Plus the new cards always supported featureX, and even if you had 6 of your older cards it wouldn't be able to do featureX.
People got sucked into the same trap with processors. It was almost invariably better value to upgrade to a new CPU, than it was to add a 2nd 3 year old CPU to a system. The performance gain wasn't as good, the availability of the old chips was miserable, and they lost out on the faster bus speeds, new slot types, usb2 ports, and all the other 'bonuses' their friends new motherboard/cpu upgrades got them.
And the cost? Well after their friends sold their old mobo/cpu they paid about the same.
It's going to be really, really tough to pull off something like multi-core in the GPU realm with the transistor counts being as high as they are, and the heat issue being as prominent as it is.
You realize they said the same kind of things when the 3dfx monster II came out.
A couple years later a single geforce (gerforce "1") ruled supreme.
To paraphrase a classic line: "Technology finds a way."
I think, to an extent you are right, one of the reasons SLI died off completely the last time round, was the arrival of the agp slot if i recall right; but I don't think SLI has much hope of becoming mainstream until it fits on a single card. And who knows, maybe we'll see a dedicated AGP-express slot that renders pci-express, even dual-pci-express obsolete for graphics.
But then, you have to look at games like Crysis that just turn my machine into a whining bitch trying to get above 20fps in high detail modes on 1680x1050. Some people just don't like detail settings less than "Maximum".
We've had that issue since Falcon 4.0, if not even earlier. As for Crysis...I don't know what to say about that game. I think a lot of optimization is likely still possible and may or may not get done. Its not even out of beta.
I also know that no matter HOW MUCH POWER you put into a rig someone can trivially design a game that needs more. Just keep adding lights, shadows, transparencies, reflections, and viewing distance until the GPU's break under the weight, let that volume knob go to '11'.
And I think part of the current catchet of Crysis is that it can "require" that much power.
Go to a temp agency knowing only how to use macs or openoffice. They won't be able to place you.
True. But if you know how to write documents and create spreadsheets your already ahead of most applicants, and a couple days playing with Microsoft Office / Windows and you'll be ready to go.
The education system shouldn't be providing microsoft product training. It should be providing an education. Ideally, I'd want my kids high school "data processing" class to have:
Microsoft Office, Open Office, and iWork.
And require assignments be created in all 3. I want my kids be platform agnostic, and comfortable on all of them. Then when faced with Office 2007 "with ribbons" or faced with Star Office which they've never used at all, they'll cope just fine. Because they'll understand how "word processors" work, and they'll understand how "excel spreadsheets" work and what they do, and will be prepared to figure out how to achieve the effect they want in whatever program they are sitting in front of. And they'll be comfortable using the help and the internet to figure out how to achieve effect X in program Y.
You wouldn't have to license XP for this machine as it as far as I'm aware, it can't run XP as it uses a PPC chip. If the Microsoft licensing police question it just say 'Prove it'
No, that's how absurd the Microsoft educational licensing is. They *DO* have have to license XP for it.
The fact that it doesn't run it doesn't matter.
The fact that it CAN'T run it doesn't matter.
I'm going to clean up a wikipedia entry for free so someone else can make money off it?
And they're going to make money off it, by making people suffer advertising to see the cleaned up article?
No thanks, I'll just stick to regular wikipedia thanks, even with its warts its a hell of a lot less beastly than this idea.
However, this would be an excellent time for nVidia to start letting Intel use SLI on chipsets.
Meh, I'm unconvinced SLI is anything more than markting hot-rods to idiots. I think this is like the dual 3dfx Voodoo Monster II all over again. If the next generation cards can do in a single slot what todays cards need two or more in SLI for, then 99% of consumers will just wait for the next card, and only the twits who need/want the bragging rights of an SLI unit will go for it.
I doubt any games are ever going to require an SLI setup.
In any case think back to the 3dfx monster stuff and recall how that panned out. Instead of everyone needing an array of video cards to run the latest games the entire dual card thing was rendered obsolete because a single next gen card could beat a dual monster setup for half the price.
And look at whats happening in CPU's... virtually nobody has a quad socket motherboard; and even dual sockets are a rare niche product. Yet we've had support for it on the desktop since 2000. But instead the trend has been to multi-core cpu's. The cost benefit just isn't there for multiple socket cpus or multiple card video solutions. However, if they can do "SLI on a single board"... that will be your next generation solution.
My 0.02 on the subject...
The main difference between XP Pro and XP Home is that XP Home doesn't let you join a domain.
:)
I'd disagree, and say that for your average user, the lack of IIS, the dumbed down security model, the 5 connection limit instead of 10, and the crippled remote desktop were more important features than the domain stuff.
That said, as I said originally, the average XP Home user pirated XP Pro, not so much because they were desired to 'upgrade' but because if you are going to pirate XP you might as well pirate 'the good one'., regardless of whether or not you needed its features.
Couple that with the fact that xp pro was easier to obtain for two reasons - one the VLK keys only applied to pro, and 2 it was the one that had the crackers attention -- same thing, why would they bother to crack and redistribute the "home" version when they could get the "good one"
This is why you don't get to keep stolen goods, even if you didn't steal them and were unaware that they were stolen in the first place.
Well, that and the fact that they actually still belong to the person they were stolen from.
On Linux I can install all of KDE, in one command, pulling in dozens of packages, and have all that happen in a completely unattended manner
Unless you want to install something that hasn't been packaged for that sort of installation, or you want to install a version of it that hasn't been. Or you want to install something that's only available in an rpm... or only available as a tarball... or you have to compile it from source from CVS...
You call dependency issues an infrequent thing? Fair enough. Then again, I can't recall the last time I had to do it on windows either. If your computer is up to date via windows update (whether you run it automatically or manually) is pretty much a non-issue.
I ask a very simple thing: That software be installed. Once I ask that I want it to be just installed. I absolutely hate babysitting the thing.
6 of 1 half dozen of the other. Some people like changing the default install folder, deciding whether to import from another program, setting a different language, deciding whether or not to create a start menu/desktop/quicklaunch icon. Your's is just a preference, it is neither better nor worse than the Windows way of doing it.
I know I wouldn't software that required IE7 to install it for me. Nor a service pack. That would be like having Linux update the kernel all by itself when I try to install a media player.
My favourite are the ones that include some extra junk I don't want (google toolbar, itunes, etc).
What does Microsoft or Windows have to do with that? You think if Linux got a significant share of the desktop market, these companies wouldn't bundle their useless crud together on Linux too?
Who said anything about ease? I'm talking about convenience. I turn my computer on, start KDE, then start kdevelop. My work isn't interrupted by an antivirus slowing things down and popping up notifications about updates and some random box on the internet that decided to ping mine. If my hardware fails I can move the disk to new hardware with very minimal hassle.
Again, if the average joe used linux, norton would release a bloated annoying version of Norton to bother you every few minutes. You don't have to install it on linux, that's true, but then, that's true of Windows too, and you can get clamAV or AVG etc on Windows both of which don't get in your face.
When my Vista box boots I don't get a single popup or question. And my work is never interrupted by antivirus software or windows updates, or random idiots on the internet. But its not like linux is somehow immune from that claptrap... it would be trivial to write an application to do it, and if someone wrote it marketed it thousands of joe sixpacks would install it.
Kids' software needs are significantly different from that of adults, with the possible except of a good Office suite, which everybody needs. Where's the equivalent of your doodling software, trivia games, and all that stuff you would find in a primary school computer lab?
Actually the vast majority of that type of software runs pretty flawlessly under wine.
Its not generally complex software. I'm sure you could find exceptions, but for every exception that didn't work, you could probably easily find software that did. Its not like there are a shortage of 'doodling' and 'trivia' games to try.
That said, my daughter's kindergarten class has a classic iMac with OS9 on it. And I have no issues with that. Its a suitable machine for what they are doing with it.
It would be absurd for them to have to license XP Professional for it, even if it is a discounted copy.
And their employees and shareholders already pay taxes so following your logic corporations shouldn't be taxed.
That's not following 'my logic' at all.
Corporate interests are fully represented by its share holders (and employees).
Corporate incomes are only partially represented by the taxes paid by its share holders and employees since a coporation can have profit even after it pays out dividends and salaries.
1 guy incorporates, makes a million dollars in profit, withdraws a 100k as a salary and leaves the other 900k in the corporation, where he uses it to invest. Clearly the corporations interests are represented by the 1 person who owns it. But what about that 900k? Its effectively his money. He owns the corporation after all. Shouldn't it be taxed??
The analogy holds if you extend to a 2 person corporation, 3 people, or 100,000 people.
The corporation is fully owned by people. (at least ultimately). But its income, if it keeps some profit for itself, doesn't get reflected in the taxes paid by those people.
Please elaborate. How are the people who "make up" a corporation "not paying tax at all" if the corporation isn't paying tax?
If the corporation paid no tax, the people who owned them would keep as much in them as they possibly good. Their very own personal tax havens.
They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well?
Their interests are already represented by both their employees and their shareholders.
They are taxed 'separately' because otherwise, the people that made them up would use that as a loophole to pay no tax at all. Hell, the system already allows tricky juggling to reduce personal taxes (and taxes overall). "My company owns and maintains the yacht, and its for entertaining customers, so its a corporate tax deductable expense that I get to use practically year round without having to spend a personal dime on it..." Not only does the CEO not have to pay for the boat, so his lifestyle is 'improved' without requiring additional real salary, but its a corporate expense so the corporation gets to deduct that from its income before it pays taxes. I'm only over-simplifying slightly.
Besides, a corporations takes little more than a bit of paperwork and a 1000 bucks worth of fees. So, suddenly the wealthy can have literally as many votes as they want in whatever jurisdiction they want it.
I can't see how that could backfire.
Or do you believe in taxation without representation?
If you want to make a fuss about people who are taxed without representation there are plenty of REAL examples (young teens with jobs, residents of DC, etc...)
Actually, I'm pretty sure he's talking about this episode:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inner_Light_(TNG_episode)
God knows what weird messages he hears!
Only because its God delivering those messages personally.
At least, according to Cheney.
If there is only one button to press there is never a question "which button". I suspect that question alone has driven countless PC support tech's to their graves. I walked someone through a short process over the phone a while back and they asked me that like 20 times... because i said 'click' for 'left clicks'; half way through I started explicitly saying 'left click' but it didn't matter they'd either ask anyway "you said left right?", or click the wrong button anyway. "oops".
Not everyone benefits from multiple buttons. Some people are better off with just one. A lot of people, even.
I personally couldn't live with a one button mouse, but I applaud MacOS for requiring that every feature of the OS be accessible from one button. And of course, the Apple supports multiple button mice just fine, and uses those buttons logically.
My -only- complaint is that I can't get a powerbook with a right button on the trackpad.
Like the Lisa, the Newton, OS9, those ipods with the super scratcable screen, the puck mouse?
Apple has pulled its share of boners. Having a string of good products doesn't mean they are automatically super fantastic. They just happen to be super fantastic.
He's just channeling Stephen Colbert.
Difference being that Stephen is on Comedy Central.
The 5GB limit would also severely impact me doing any work for the company through that sort of link, since a backup of a database for installation on a test machine would already get to over 15G. So I wouldn't even be able to do that once.
Yeah, I'd totally want to upload a 15GB database through my cell phone.
Those links are finally fast enough to be useful, but the amount of bandwidth available is tiny tiny fraction of what they can do on broadband, and their ability to increase wireless bandwidth is pretty limited. So they limit the amount any one person can use.
What would you propose they do?
Well, a slipstreamed disk is a third-party modification, so I think it's a little bit shakey using it as a comparison.
3rd party? You can easily do it yourself, using your original disk, and stuff you download from microsoft.
I did try to create one a year ago but found it tediously difficult command-line sourcery (ironically what people often accuse Linux of) so I gave up. I've found a little utility now so I'll give it a go.
er.. its a single easy command, for a basic sp2 disc. Its a bit more work to integrate some of the other stuff that's come out since then, but its hardly command line sorcery. In any case, you are likely to face far more command line sorcery with Linux than with XP.
I do appreciate that if I walked into a shop and bought a boxed XP I would get an SP2 disk, but then that would cost me a lot of money to be able to easily install and OS I already own.
Fair enough. But you are actually buying a replacement LICENSE in addition to a mere disc. So not only would you be able to easily install the OS you already own, but also a copy on an additional machine.
That said, you can get replacement discs from Microsoft for nominal charge, provided you actually bought retail discs in the first place. Sadly most users are stuck with OEM support and crappy recovery discs, and lately they make it hard to get een that... but that's the OEM's policy not microsofts.
Finally, and although I hate to go here, if you can't slipstream it yourself, or don't want to, you can trivially get a torrent of a recent XP disc image with XP SP2 and most of the fixes since then. As long as you download the correct edition that matches your disc (Volume / Retail Upgrade / Retail Full / OEM) so that it accepts your key your fine.
Microsoft really only cares about your licenses and license keys, and whether your activated, and passed genuine advantage. They really don't care about the media. And I think its only a matter of time before they make them directly downloadable themselves.
At best its a grey area, and maybe it doesn't belong in a discussion like this, and I agree you shouldn't really have to go 'grey' to do this, but it truly is a case where no harm is being done.
As far as price, well, yes, yes it is expensive. If you buy a new computer then you'll have whatever OEM version of Vista along with that, which is how I suspect many people have come by XP. However, let's say I've got XP Pro, and I want to upgrade to Vista. In order to get the equivalent Vista version, Ultimate, I'd have to shell out $260.
Vista Business is the equivalent to XP Pro, and the MSRP on a retail upgrade is $199.00. Its not stil cheap I agree, but Ultimate is not the right product to compare to.
Vista Ultimate, if you wanted to equate it with XP would be Media Centre Edition, but even that's not entirely accurate. And MCE was never properly available retail so a price comparison is fairly hard.
That said, I would never advise anyone to upgrade to Vista from XP. If buying a new PC, sure, Vista is an option, but it rarely makes any sense to upgrade.
I'm not necessarily the average consumer, although I might be close, but if my behavior is any indication there are plenty of people who will start looking at Ubuntu over Vista when XP starts to lose support.
Bingo! For existing hardware Microsoft hasn't provided a reasonable upgrade path. Vista isn't cheap, doesn't offer anything compelling for the upgrade price, and runs like a dog on old hardware. Its a net loss on older hardware. Its also a significantly different UI. So someone on XP, facing XP's end-of-life should be looking hard at Ubuntu. Because while it also has a significantly different UI, its free and its fast on their hardware.
To combat this MS is going to have to extend the life of XP *much* longer than they wanted; and we are already seeing this start to happen. They are really caught between a rock and a hard place though, because the Vista upgrade isn't compelling they just need to extend support until enough of the XP hardware is obsolete enough that there aren't many people left contemplating what they are going to do when XP goes away. "They'll just buy new hardware and it will come with Vista." The trouble there is that unlike the 286-386-486-Pentium era where being even one generation back was pretty much obsolete, today processor generations are much less pronounced, and a 7+ year old Pentium III with 1GB of RAM is perfectly adequate for XP/Office provided you don't do something stupid like install Norton 2007 on it. In other words - its going to be a long time before the current crop of Pentium 4's goes away.
The main issue was that we have a WPA wireless network in our house and, after reinstalling XP, we couldn't connect to the network (since it wasn't until SP2 that XP supported WPA). This meant having to disable encryption on our router, downloading all the XP patches, and then re-enabling WPA.
I don't think WPA was installed/availab;e by default in Ubuntu either, at least not until quite recently. I remember having to manually apt-get the wpasupplicant packages for it, and not all that long ago? Not that it really matters....
Turns out there was no Ubuntu prior to XP SP2 at all. Even the oldest Warty Warthog wasn't released until (shortly) after SP2.
I was going to say a ubuntu disk from the same pre-SP2 era as your XP disc would have failed just as bad. But no, actually, there was no ubuntu disc from that era, and even much newer ubuntu discs didn't support WPA right off the disc. Somewhere between Around Edgy it was included I think, maybe Dapper. But certainly not Warty/Hoary/Breezy
At any rate, I just plugged it in with a cable rather than screw around with the wifi security on the router.
You download SP2.
You create a new disc image, and you merge the service pack into it. You can also slipstream all the critical updates since SP2 to bring your install disc right up to date to today, not to mention add in the drivers you need for your RAID or whatever so you don't need to load those drivers by floppy, etc, etc. And then burn it to disc.
Really, its not that hard. Lots of tutorials on the web. And even a couple tools exist to make an already easy process even easier.
Its not as easy as downloading the latest ubuntu release, I readily concede you that. But its not that hard either.
Problem is that MS is probably not going to include a good many drivers because they aren't logo-certified or whatever that genuine driver crap is.
We shall see. The x64 edition of Vista by default will not accept unsigned drivers period. (Yes, that feature can be disabled, but its like disabling UAC, and strongly discourgaged... its nothing like the 'continue anyway' routine we have with XP.
I think this might actually make driver signing more common. It will be interesting to see how it plays out... people want the latest bug fixes NOW, not after a month of logo certification, especially in high profile devices like 3d graphics and sound.