Just ignore them. It's been covered a million times that Microsoft makes money on virtually every product except the XBox, MSN, and their Business Software division (which is the newly acquired Great Plains Software). Some FUDster read a "The National Enquirer" Register story misquoting an SEC filing and it just gets repeated, and repeated, and repeated.
The SEC filings all make this brutally clear, but slashbots are too busy taking whatever fictitious piece of anti-MS fud they can find and repeating it like good little propaganda monkeys.
Given that North America and Western Europe comprise the majority of software sales, yeah, that's true. It's ESPECIALLY true given that we're talking about NORTH AMERICAN TAX SOFTWARE. Oh, no, maybe they're really trying to thwart those Taiwanese who have a curious desire to submit a US tax return.
The eyeTV is doing the compression itself, compressing the video stream to a MPEG1 stream (otherwise it wouldn't have a hope in hell of feeding it over USB), so basically your PC has been relieved of the most difficult task. In any case in the hopes of reasonably high quality, I'm talking about fairly high resolutions using a better codec such as MPEG2.
As mentioned in another email, I know that my problems would be solved if I used a board that used hardware compression (as Microsoft has known when they spec'd out their media center PCs, making hardware compression mandatory) and have considered getting a add-in board to do this, however some of the add-in boards alone cost half the price of a Tivo. It just seems ridiculous to claim that a Tivo is unnecessary because one can "throw together" a PVR that'll do a substandard job (the Tivo apparently has excellent, faultless quality) with hundreds of dollars of equipment.
One aspect of that article that I definitely disagree with is the contention that technical debates cannot occur over email (or similarly via corporate or group newsgroups). While I will absolutely agree that technical debates can get very heated, and many egos have been bruised, I would take an email debate on technology over a "let's meet about it" any day of the week. Why? In email conversation it is the facts that do the talking: Anyone has the ability, and indeed the responsibility, to research the positions taken at their leisure, and interject if they find fault, as ultimately the truth and correct course of action is the paramount concern. In a meeting, on the other hand, it is sales skills that win the day: Extroverts with overwhelming self-confidence invariably convince the crowd, while the technically proficient, who generally are more aware of the limits of their knowledge and hence don't exude the sludge of unfounded-confidence, stay quiet. I've witnessed this happen quite a few times, and it leads to short term buy-in that just leads to non-resolution after non-resolution. An adversity to email debates on technical merits is often based in all the wrong reasons: Giving "equal voice" to the technically less capable. Protecting ignorance. Protecting unfounded pride.
Um...okay. I've now tried video capture and simultaneous playback on three machines: A Athlon XP 1800, a Celeron 1.7Ghz, and a P3 667 - Even the Athlon 1800XP just barely can record while playing back a separate section of the video while recording at a half decent bit rate and resolution (of course this is the land of people claiming that a single CD VCD is "DVD quality", so it's hard to really quantify this for the masses). Yes I can carefully shut set the PC aside to single purposedly record a show, and I can play it back, but it is woefully incapable of doing both at once.
The only possible redemption would be if I picked up one of those Happauge cards with onboard MPEG2 compression, which is something that I've seriously considered.
Cheap commodity hardware? Says who? I have a Celeron 1.7Ghz/256MB RAM that I specifically put together as a "Media Center" PC, and doing a capture with the ATI TV Wonder PCI at a half decent resolution (I expect minimal degradation from broadcast quality: If it doesn't at least beat a $60 VCR then it hardly seems worthwhile) consumes 60%+ of the CPU. With a 5400RPM 30GB drive, it is IMPOSSIBLE to time shift (watching one part of the show while a later part records) as the machine simply doesn't have the power. In the end the quality is degraded from broadcast and usefulness is limited. I'd take a Tivo in a second if it were available in Canada. There is a Bell PVR that works with their satellite that is supposedly fantastic, however it obviously requires the satellite service, and currently as a cable modem user I don't have it.
Indeed, both Altavista and Excite started with clean interfaces long before Google hit the scene and "invented" it, though you couldn't convince the Googolians of that: They're too busy praying to their Google gods.
P.S. Google is truly a great site, and the number 1 search engine by far right now, but it is fascinating to see the Google love.
My source is that I read the financial section of the paper, and have for years: The evidence adds up. Without delving too deep, I found this snippet from this page. It's quite ironic when many would think that IBM or HP would be selling 1/2 the computers, when actually their revenues are up, just not up as much as they'd like.
"Forrester published a downbeat forecast this week for technology spending to grow just 1.9 percent in 2003 over 2002, saying that complex business software projects would fall back, while systems that save money, make companies feel more secure, and store growing amounts of data will fare better. The 2003 forecast compares with last year's 2.3 percent spending growth over 2001."
The "slump" is a modest 1.9% growth, following a prior "slump" year with just 2.3% growth.
Well firstly you never said you lived in either Poland or Saigon, so the question stands: Where I live such piracy is extremely rare, hence anti-piracy is about stopping the average Joe.
When you have actual stores selling illegal copies for $1, how is your $30 boxed product going to compete?
I'm not sure where you live, but here in North America such organized piracy is very rare. Why? Because, much like dealing drugs, you become an easy target for law enforcement. I don't know anyone who's bought applications from a counterfeit duplication house, but I know plenty of people who've duped applications from friends and family.
What will bring the next windfall will be a synergetic grouping of cost effective methods or products, with multiple applications, each resulting from a different source (corporation, university dept, etc.) It most likely won't be nanotech or biotech, considering the cost of development. I do know that it will seem obvious in hindsight.
Again I just wanted to clarify: The "windfall" in technology was never a windfall at all (technology has been making the steady march forward for a couple of decades now), but rather was a classic investor's pyramid scheme -- It could have easily have been marbles or George Foreman Grills that got the markets fired up and we'd have the "Grill Heavy Nasdaq Composite". As far as hindsight, there were many people clanging the bells of doom for the ridiculous overvaluations back in 1998, but to many investors they were just trying to rain on their parade so they were ignored.
Tech spending is basically the gross sales of the major technology companies: It has actually been edging UPWARDS year over year. Never confuse the stock markets with reality, because they often are quite disassociated.
and then mix in a little FUD (that IRC DCCs are "trojan packed distribution"s).
Interesting. Are you defending IRC DCCs? (which are not fair use, btw) Do you personally vouch for their trustworthiness?
You get extra creativity points for painting those who would like to exercise their right to fair use with software as "someone who'll jerk around in an IRC room all night".
Yes, it really was creative given that the post I was replying to explicitly commented on IRC rooms as disproving the merits of copy protection.
I realize you got a knee-jerk desire to respond however inaccurately to defend your right to fair use (apparently to go on IRC and DCC apps), however next time try to get the context of the the discussion before engaing your fingers.
which their techniques don't. Don't believe me? Check IRC sometime
While it's been repeated a million times, it still needs to be said: Anti-piracy is about the average Joe, not dedicated pirates. These sorts of efforts are aimed at stopping Bob from spitting off a dupe of a game for Ted who is over to watch the game, not to thwart someone who'll jerk around in an IRC room all night trying to DCC a trojan packed distribution.
You have to realize that the PC boom didn't segway immediately into the Internet boom.
Was that segway a typo, intending segue, or were you being clever?:-)
In any case, the "boom" had exceedingly little to do with any particular technology, but it had to do with a mad rush to the trough with a lot of investment bankers making a lot of money, and like all overblown bubbles eventually it burst. It may as well have been a boom over pet rocks (err, P2P Open Source Bluetooth Linux pet rocks) or hoola hoops for all the actual technology mattered.
Quick fact that a lot of people fail to appreciated: Year over year tech spending has been increasing year over year, albeit at a small amount. Today more is spent on technology and technology solutions in the computer arena than it was during the "super boom". Tell me again about what will bring about the next windfall?
Did you by chance format the drive with a FAT32 filesystem? FAT32 includes no security, so unfortunately it is the exception, and indeed anyone can read or write whatever they'd like.
Of course we need to know when and what he patented to draw such a conclusion. Another, equally viable, possibility is that he's a little guy who really did "invent" something, but he's getting steamrolled in court because it's "Stambler, Leon", and not "Big Business Inc".
You have to have a bleeding PhD in Windows technology to even figure out how to do basic stuff like locking down important files.
Right click on the file/directory, choose properties, go to the Security tab. It's as simple as that. Windows 2000 and above includes an inherit bit that will inherit the permissions of the parent, easing administration (on NT4 you can cascade the setting down, or use a tool like cacls), or if you're really serious you can turn off "Bypass Traverse Checking" and the user will require access up the entire folder chain to access a file (useful if you are REALLY hyper serious and want to ensure that a random file somewhere doesn't have User rights). In any case a default install of Windows 2000 or Windows XP is quite secure, with only read access on system files for non-Admins (despite the FUD on here), however there are a slew of security kits Microsoft distributes that let you choose your configuration (i.e. "Web server on the internet") and it goes through and sets ACLs and user rights system wide.
For software developers I'd say it is mathematically impossible to lock down a Windows machine. The ones I know simply outsmart the admins and ignore company policy in order to get their jobs done.
Just like someone could use a boot floppy and "outsmart the admins" and ignore company policy to get their job done with Linux, or FreeBSD, or virtually any other OS. We've said it a million times here that without physical security (i.e. the user directly using the PC) there is no security, and it's amazing how people forget it when it comes to Windows bashing time.
However, your claims are just completely absurd anyways. Windows has an ACL structure, group inheritence and permissions structure far more comprehensive and pervasive than Linux. This is a mathematical fact. Windows, by default, secures system files to require Power User or Administrator access (despite others claiming otherwise. The only way a user deleted printer drivers is if the printer driver installed itself as C:\Canon or something and didn't then set the ACLs), which is why one needs Administrator rights to install applications. Windows includes features and functionality that is sort of Palladium-ish and allows you to only allow signed executables, or to bar uncertified executables altogether.
The real problem with Windows (obviously the NT line) is the slew of Linux users who come over, set themselves as Administrator, totally fubar the machine, and then proclaim that the system is insecure.
You cannot run another copy of Explorer.exe with it (and so you cannot access the control panel as administrator using this trick).
Ermm, what are you looking to do in the Control Panel? The control panel apps themselves can be Run As Administrator, circumventing the need to "run the control panel" (which is just a window container) as Administrator.
Wow I could not disagree with you more. Firstly, virtually every user when given the option of tabs absolutely loves it after a short while (especially in something like Opera which creates the perfect duo by adding in mouse gestures as well). Of course the exception is beginner users who like their web world nice and constrained to one single browser window/tab, and for them it's just a nuisance (as the linked article comments on), however for advanced users tabs are an absolute no brainer.
Why? It's a form of organization. Web pages are all information pages (books of sorts), and I don't need them mixed up as equal citizens in the general application scheme alongside Excel spreadsheets, development tools and other general applications. I like my web pages all organized together because I usually deal with them together as a distinct thought process.
The only people for whom MDI is a thing of the past are absolute beginners: People who might have two Excel spreadsheets open, and then they shut them down to open up a web browser. Don't be fooled that Office XP, for instance, is initially configured for new users, unless you yourself are one.
Wow, if that's a joke (and I take it that you're the poster who realize how dumbass it is and now is rescinding it and claiming it was a joke), then it's a pathetic joke. There is absolutely nothing even remotely funny about it, and instead it just comes across as mentally challenged.
That would be a horrendous solution: So instead of the game knowing precisely what is necessary for a specific situation and time in the game, the operating system has to guesstimate? Virtually memory was a short term hack when memory was critically limited: Nowadays you could literally disable it in most configurations. I'd rather pay $60 for another 256MB DIMM than have swapping.
Seek times is the one thing that faster rotational speeds improve, however in most use nowadays with intelligent disk controls and caching, it's gross throughput that matters, and for that it's the technology of the drive/drive density that matters, and it's been edging steadily upwards at a constant pace (contrary to the gist of the article that the hard drive market has been static). For example if drive A has twice the data density per roation than drive B, obviously drive A would still have a higher gross transfer rate even if it ran at 5400RPM while the other ran at 10000RPM. Without all of the data the RPMs really don't say a lot.
You've made my day good sir. Brilliant post that is right on the money. Whenever someone writes one of those "NOT FOR ME!" it gets the circle-jerk of justifications going with people consoling themselves that only suckas buy the latest and greatest.
Slashdot Mirror
Just ignore them. It's been covered a million times that Microsoft makes money on virtually every product except the XBox, MSN, and their Business Software division (which is the newly acquired Great Plains Software). Some FUDster read a "The National Enquirer" Register story misquoting an SEC filing and it just gets repeated, and repeated, and repeated.
The SEC filings all make this brutally clear, but slashbots are too busy taking whatever fictitious piece of anti-MS fud they can find and repeating it like good little propaganda monkeys.
Given that North America and Western Europe comprise the majority of software sales, yeah, that's true. It's ESPECIALLY true given that we're talking about NORTH AMERICAN TAX SOFTWARE. Oh, no, maybe they're really trying to thwart those Taiwanese who have a curious desire to submit a US tax return.
The eyeTV is doing the compression itself, compressing the video stream to a MPEG1 stream (otherwise it wouldn't have a hope in hell of feeding it over USB), so basically your PC has been relieved of the most difficult task. In any case in the hopes of reasonably high quality, I'm talking about fairly high resolutions using a better codec such as MPEG2.
As mentioned in another email, I know that my problems would be solved if I used a board that used hardware compression (as Microsoft has known when they spec'd out their media center PCs, making hardware compression mandatory) and have considered getting a add-in board to do this, however some of the add-in boards alone cost half the price of a Tivo. It just seems ridiculous to claim that a Tivo is unnecessary because one can "throw together" a PVR that'll do a substandard job (the Tivo apparently has excellent, faultless quality) with hundreds of dollars of equipment.
One aspect of that article that I definitely disagree with is the contention that technical debates cannot occur over email (or similarly via corporate or group newsgroups). While I will absolutely agree that technical debates can get very heated, and many egos have been bruised, I would take an email debate on technology over a "let's meet about it" any day of the week. Why? In email conversation it is the facts that do the talking: Anyone has the ability, and indeed the responsibility, to research the positions taken at their leisure, and interject if they find fault, as ultimately the truth and correct course of action is the paramount concern. In a meeting, on the other hand, it is sales skills that win the day: Extroverts with overwhelming self-confidence invariably convince the crowd, while the technically proficient, who generally are more aware of the limits of their knowledge and hence don't exude the sludge of unfounded-confidence, stay quiet. I've witnessed this happen quite a few times, and it leads to short term buy-in that just leads to non-resolution after non-resolution.
An adversity to email debates on technical merits is often based in all the wrong reasons: Giving "equal voice" to the technically less capable. Protecting ignorance. Protecting unfounded pride.
Um...okay. I've now tried video capture and simultaneous playback on three machines: A Athlon XP 1800, a Celeron 1.7Ghz, and a P3 667 - Even the Athlon 1800XP just barely can record while playing back a separate section of the video while recording at a half decent bit rate and resolution (of course this is the land of people claiming that a single CD VCD is "DVD quality", so it's hard to really quantify this for the masses). Yes I can carefully shut set the PC aside to single purposedly record a show, and I can play it back, but it is woefully incapable of doing both at once.
The only possible redemption would be if I picked up one of those Happauge cards with onboard MPEG2 compression, which is something that I've seriously considered.
Cheap commodity hardware? Says who? I have a Celeron 1.7Ghz/256MB RAM that I specifically put together as a "Media Center" PC, and doing a capture with the ATI TV Wonder PCI at a half decent resolution (I expect minimal degradation from broadcast quality: If it doesn't at least beat a $60 VCR then it hardly seems worthwhile) consumes 60%+ of the CPU. With a 5400RPM 30GB drive, it is IMPOSSIBLE to time shift (watching one part of the show while a later part records) as the machine simply doesn't have the power. In the end the quality is degraded from broadcast and usefulness is limited. I'd take a Tivo in a second if it were available in Canada. There is a Bell PVR that works with their satellite that is supposedly fantastic, however it obviously requires the satellite service, and currently as a cable modem user I don't have it.
Indeed, both Altavista and Excite started with clean interfaces long before Google hit the scene and "invented" it, though you couldn't convince the Googolians of that: They're too busy praying to their Google gods.
P.S. Google is truly a great site, and the number 1 search engine by far right now, but it is fascinating to see the Google love.
My source is that I read the financial section of the paper, and have for years: The evidence adds up. Without delving too deep, I found this snippet from this page. It's quite ironic when many would think that IBM or HP would be selling 1/2 the computers, when actually their revenues are up, just not up as much as they'd like.
"Forrester published a downbeat forecast this week for technology spending to grow just 1.9 percent in 2003 over 2002, saying that complex business software projects would fall back, while systems that save money, make companies feel more secure, and store growing amounts of data will fare better.
The 2003 forecast compares with last year's 2.3 percent spending growth over 2001."
The "slump" is a modest 1.9% growth, following a prior "slump" year with just 2.3% growth.
Well firstly you never said you lived in either Poland or Saigon, so the question stands: Where I live such piracy is extremely rare, hence anti-piracy is about stopping the average Joe.
When you have actual stores selling illegal copies for $1, how is your $30 boxed product going to compete?
I'm not sure where you live, but here in North America such organized piracy is very rare. Why? Because, much like dealing drugs, you become an easy target for law enforcement. I don't know anyone who's bought applications from a counterfeit duplication house, but I know plenty of people who've duped applications from friends and family.
What will bring the next windfall will be a synergetic grouping of cost effective methods or products, with multiple applications, each resulting from a different source (corporation, university dept, etc.) It most likely won't be nanotech or biotech, considering the cost of development. I do know that it will seem obvious in hindsight.
Again I just wanted to clarify: The "windfall" in technology was never a windfall at all (technology has been making the steady march forward for a couple of decades now), but rather was a classic investor's pyramid scheme -- It could have easily have been marbles or George Foreman Grills that got the markets fired up and we'd have the "Grill Heavy Nasdaq Composite". As far as hindsight, there were many people clanging the bells of doom for the ridiculous overvaluations back in 1998, but to many investors they were just trying to rain on their parade so they were ignored.
Tech spending is basically the gross sales of the major technology companies: It has actually been edging UPWARDS year over year. Never confuse the stock markets with reality, because they often are quite disassociated.
and then mix in a little FUD (that IRC DCCs are "trojan packed distribution"s).
Interesting. Are you defending IRC DCCs? (which are not fair use, btw) Do you personally vouch for their trustworthiness?
You get extra creativity points for painting those who would like to exercise their right to fair use with software as "someone who'll jerk around in an IRC room all night".
Yes, it really was creative given that the post I was replying to explicitly commented on IRC rooms as disproving the merits of copy protection.
I realize you got a knee-jerk desire to respond however inaccurately to defend your right to fair use (apparently to go on IRC and DCC apps), however next time try to get the context of the the discussion before engaing your fingers.
which their techniques don't. Don't believe me? Check IRC sometime
While it's been repeated a million times, it still needs to be said: Anti-piracy is about the average Joe, not dedicated pirates. These sorts of efforts are aimed at stopping Bob from spitting off a dupe of a game for Ted who is over to watch the game, not to thwart someone who'll jerk around in an IRC room all night trying to DCC a trojan packed distribution.
You have to realize that the PC boom didn't segway immediately into the Internet boom.
:-)
Was that segway a typo, intending segue, or were you being clever?
In any case, the "boom" had exceedingly little to do with any particular technology, but it had to do with a mad rush to the trough with a lot of investment bankers making a lot of money, and like all overblown bubbles eventually it burst. It may as well have been a boom over pet rocks (err, P2P Open Source Bluetooth Linux pet rocks) or hoola hoops for all the actual technology mattered.
Quick fact that a lot of people fail to appreciated: Year over year tech spending has been increasing year over year, albeit at a small amount. Today more is spent on technology and technology solutions in the computer arena than it was during the "super boom". Tell me again about what will bring about the next windfall?
Did you by chance format the drive with a FAT32 filesystem? FAT32 includes no security, so unfortunately it is the exception, and indeed anyone can read or write whatever they'd like.
Of course we need to know when and what he patented to draw such a conclusion. Another, equally viable, possibility is that he's a little guy who really did "invent" something, but he's getting steamrolled in court because it's "Stambler, Leon", and not "Big Business Inc".
The patents (I believe)
You have to have a bleeding PhD in Windows technology to even figure out how to do basic stuff like locking down important files.
Right click on the file/directory, choose properties, go to the Security tab. It's as simple as that. Windows 2000 and above includes an inherit bit that will inherit the permissions of the parent, easing administration (on NT4 you can cascade the setting down, or use a tool like cacls), or if you're really serious you can turn off "Bypass Traverse Checking" and the user will require access up the entire folder chain to access a file (useful if you are REALLY hyper serious and want to ensure that a random file somewhere doesn't have User rights). In any case a default install of Windows 2000 or Windows XP is quite secure, with only read access on system files for non-Admins (despite the FUD on here), however there are a slew of security kits Microsoft distributes that let you choose your configuration (i.e. "Web server on the internet") and it goes through and sets ACLs and user rights system wide.
For software developers I'd say it is mathematically impossible to lock down a Windows machine. The ones I know simply outsmart the admins and ignore company policy in order to get their jobs done.
Just like someone could use a boot floppy and "outsmart the admins" and ignore company policy to get their job done with Linux, or FreeBSD, or virtually any other OS. We've said it a million times here that without physical security (i.e. the user directly using the PC) there is no security, and it's amazing how people forget it when it comes to Windows bashing time.
However, your claims are just completely absurd anyways. Windows has an ACL structure, group inheritence and permissions structure far more comprehensive and pervasive than Linux. This is a mathematical fact. Windows, by default, secures system files to require Power User or Administrator access (despite others claiming otherwise. The only way a user deleted printer drivers is if the printer driver installed itself as C:\Canon or something and didn't then set the ACLs), which is why one needs Administrator rights to install applications. Windows includes features and functionality that is sort of Palladium-ish and allows you to only allow signed executables, or to bar uncertified executables altogether.
The real problem with Windows (obviously the NT line) is the slew of Linux users who come over, set themselves as Administrator, totally fubar the machine, and then proclaim that the system is insecure.
You cannot run another copy of Explorer.exe with it (and so you cannot access the control panel as administrator using this trick).
Ermm, what are you looking to do in the Control Panel? The control panel apps themselves can be Run As Administrator, circumventing the need to "run the control panel" (which is just a window container) as Administrator.
Wow I could not disagree with you more. Firstly, virtually every user when given the option of tabs absolutely loves it after a short while (especially in something like Opera which creates the perfect duo by adding in mouse gestures as well). Of course the exception is beginner users who like their web world nice and constrained to one single browser window/tab, and for them it's just a nuisance (as the linked article comments on), however for advanced users tabs are an absolute no brainer.
Why? It's a form of organization. Web pages are all information pages (books of sorts), and I don't need them mixed up as equal citizens in the general application scheme alongside Excel spreadsheets, development tools and other general applications. I like my web pages all organized together because I usually deal with them together as a distinct thought process.
The only people for whom MDI is a thing of the past are absolute beginners: People who might have two Excel spreadsheets open, and then they shut them down to open up a web browser. Don't be fooled that Office XP, for instance, is initially configured for new users, unless you yourself are one.
Wow, if that's a joke (and I take it that you're the poster who realize how dumbass it is and now is rescinding it and claiming it was a joke), then it's a pathetic joke. There is absolutely nothing even remotely funny about it, and instead it just comes across as mentally challenged.
That would be a horrendous solution: So instead of the game knowing precisely what is necessary for a specific situation and time in the game, the operating system has to guesstimate? Virtually memory was a short term hack when memory was critically limited: Nowadays you could literally disable it in most configurations. I'd rather pay $60 for another 256MB DIMM than have swapping.
Yeah I really hope they invent that stuff soon!
Seek times is the one thing that faster rotational speeds improve, however in most use nowadays with intelligent disk controls and caching, it's gross throughput that matters, and for that it's the technology of the drive/drive density that matters, and it's been edging steadily upwards at a constant pace (contrary to the gist of the article that the hard drive market has been static). For example if drive A has twice the data density per roation than drive B, obviously drive A would still have a higher gross transfer rate even if it ran at 5400RPM while the other ran at 10000RPM. Without all of the data the RPMs really don't say a lot.
You've made my day good sir. Brilliant post that is right on the money. Whenever someone writes one of those "NOT FOR ME!" it gets the circle-jerk of justifications going with people consoling themselves that only suckas buy the latest and greatest.