Your comparison makes no sense. First of all, Starbucks doesn't have a monopoly in the coffeemarket. But even more obvious, they aren't using their influence in the coffeemarket to gain a monopoly in the sandwichmarket.
Yes, of course. But they did this out of free will, not because they were required to do anything. The investigation into Internet Explorer was still underway when MS introducted the ballot screen.
Or better even: claiming that someone is British and then letting them refer to someone's butt as her "fanny". That doesn't mean what you think it means, Americans.
Maybe not on a PC, but in a handheld device you really can't let the CPU do the decoding. You simply can't get the 10 hours (or so) of video playback on a phone that way with today's chips and batteries. A dedicated video decoding chip is the only option for such devices and right now, a chip for decoding MP4/H264 is already present in most systems.
Unless you want more throughput: manipulate more objects at once, serve more users at once, etc. If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead, you may need to recode inner loops in C.
Instead of going through the expensive and painful process of rewriting parts of your application in a more efficient manner, you could also just through more machines in your server rack and be done with it. Adding/upgrading servers if often a lot cheaper than optimizing your code, and also introduces less new bugs.
1) Make itself more compatible with PC to the point where game makers, either do not have to make changes to their games for compatibility reasons, or little enough to justify the expense for the few Macs out there (comparatively speaking).
I think you are right in stating that this will never happen. And that's a good thing too, because it would be ridiculous to expect one platform to run the applications written for another platform. I'm all for cross-platform development, but not too the point where every application is really just developed for one platform and the other platforms should adapt to it. That makes no sense both technically and commercially.
2) Either A) Grab more market share and/or B) Make it more profitable to sell a game for a single Mac than a PC. (Part of this might be less pirated copies for instance).
A gaming industry for Macs is only going to exist if there is profit in it for them.
I think there are more Macs in the world than Playstation 3's, so you'd say it is a more attractive market already than that. Valve seems to agree, and EA has also stated they will release more titles for Mac OS X. Market share for Apple has been steadily increasing since Jobs took control in '97, and lately they're working together with NVidia to make sure even the lower end Macs are capable of some 3D graphics stuff. I think they're on the right path to gain some interest from game developers and publishers. But then again, PC gaming is dying anyway:P
No, I seriously don't. You disprove of the concept of different platforms competing against each other? Or do you think one platform should be able to run the applications written for other platforms? What is your point?
Of course you are right the "industry" isn't a proper something to blame either. But in the end, it's the games industry (developers, publishers) itself which decides what platforms games are released on and which aren't. It's not Apple's decision a lot of games are not released on the Mac, nor do they have a lot of say in it.
From a consumer point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense to purchase a Mac and expect to run a lot of games on it. The games simply aren't there. So if you are a consumer and you like to play games, you shouldn't buy a Mac. Simple as that. But this isn't a property of the Mac, it's a property of the games industry. They don't release for the Mac, not because the Mac doesn't want to host your games. It's simple logic, really.
What it comes down to is that the availability of 3rd party products is not a valid argument to judge a platform on. It is of course an argument for your personal choice of platform, because you obviously choose the platform which will run the applications you desire to use. But you can't say it's platform's fault for not hosting your desired application, because it has no say in it.
One of the things I don't like about Mac (and there are a few) is that many games are not released for Mac or if they are, they are released way after they are released for everything else.
That's an argument against the games industry, not against the Mac.
Instead, we see comparisons of advertised speeds and "price per advertised megabit," which are especially misleading. Advertised broadband speeds vary from actual speeds. In North America, this is largely a result of "network overhead," and is quite modest. In Europe, however, the variation is often dramatic.
What a weasily way to make it sound like internet connections in the US are not so bad. The reason why advertised speeds aren't so different from actual speeds in the US, is because the offer is extremely low. If you have an advertised 3 Mbit connection in the US and in reality you get 2 Mbit, that's only a 1 Mbit difference. But if you have a line for the same monthly fee in Europe, advertised as 20 Mbit and you actually get 12 Mbit, there's suddenly a whopping 8 Mbit difference. So according to these folks, the 20 Mbit line is a lot worse than the 3 Mbit line.
Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want, but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media.
They think it sounds great. Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing. That's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time. But it will never stick, because in reality, it's just not very useful.
so this means that in the near future ill have to have quad sli pci-e cards with 1tb of ram and a few extra powersupplies to render all of the popup/under/over/through ads.
Not if you stick to Internet Explorer. Then you just need the TB of RAM to render the Flash elements sent to you as an alternative for the native XML3D/HTML5/Javascript ads.
The thing is though that the answer basically is "without having your employer fix it for you or by going to a country where the population fixes it for each other, you can't get proper health care unless you have a lot of money".
Slashdot Mirror
Your comparison makes no sense. First of all, Starbucks doesn't have a monopoly in the coffeemarket. But even more obvious, they aren't using their influence in the coffeemarket to gain a monopoly in the sandwichmarket.
So how is this different from the iPhone not allowing any other browsers?
Because the iPhone doesn't have a monopoly in the phonemarket.
Yes, of course. But they did this out of free will, not because they were required to do anything. The investigation into Internet Explorer was still underway when MS introducted the ballot screen.
I still find it a little strange that Microsoft is being required to "promote the competition" in their own product.
Microsoft isn't required to do anything by anyone. The Browser Ballot Screen is entirely thought up and implemented by Microsoft themselves.
Ah, like ringing someone up. Thanks!
So what's the other meaning, apart from getting a girl pregnant?
i've forgotten which part was the vulva
Only on Slashdot...
Or better even: claiming that someone is British and then letting them refer to someone's butt as her "fanny". That doesn't mean what you think it means, Americans.
Mass Effect 2 has outstanding voice acting, performed by quite a few well-known SciFi actors. That game doesn't cost $100.
Yeah, because if you can't see it, it has to be gone.
Same with editting. Like they don't store the previous versions of your profile.
You are exactly right. Performance isn't the issue at all, it's rather a nice side effect.
Maybe not on a PC, but in a handheld device you really can't let the CPU do the decoding. You simply can't get the 10 hours (or so) of video playback on a phone that way with today's chips and batteries. A dedicated video decoding chip is the only option for such devices and right now, a chip for decoding MP4/H264 is already present in most systems.
Unless you want more throughput: manipulate more objects at once, serve more users at once, etc. If a Python program is spending most of its time in interpreter overhead, you may need to recode inner loops in C.
Instead of going through the expensive and painful process of rewriting parts of your application in a more efficient manner, you could also just through more machines in your server rack and be done with it. Adding/upgrading servers if often a lot cheaper than optimizing your code, and also introduces less new bugs.
1) Make itself more compatible with PC to the point where game makers, either do not have to make changes to their games for compatibility reasons, or little enough to justify the expense for the few Macs out there (comparatively speaking).
I think you are right in stating that this will never happen. And that's a good thing too, because it would be ridiculous to expect one platform to run the applications written for another platform. I'm all for cross-platform development, but not too the point where every application is really just developed for one platform and the other platforms should adapt to it. That makes no sense both technically and commercially.
2) Either A) Grab more market share and/or B) Make it more profitable to sell a game for a single Mac than a PC. (Part of this might be less pirated copies for instance).
A gaming industry for Macs is only going to exist if there is profit in it for them.
I think there are more Macs in the world than Playstation 3's, so you'd say it is a more attractive market already than that. Valve seems to agree, and EA has also stated they will release more titles for Mac OS X. Market share for Apple has been steadily increasing since Jobs took control in '97, and lately they're working together with NVidia to make sure even the lower end Macs are capable of some 3D graphics stuff. I think they're on the right path to gain some interest from game developers and publishers. But then again, PC gaming is dying anyway :P
Surely you get it?
No, I seriously don't. You disprove of the concept of different platforms competing against each other? Or do you think one platform should be able to run the applications written for other platforms? What is your point?
Of course you are right the "industry" isn't a proper something to blame either. But in the end, it's the games industry (developers, publishers) itself which decides what platforms games are released on and which aren't. It's not Apple's decision a lot of games are not released on the Mac, nor do they have a lot of say in it.
From a consumer point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense to purchase a Mac and expect to run a lot of games on it. The games simply aren't there. So if you are a consumer and you like to play games, you shouldn't buy a Mac. Simple as that. But this isn't a property of the Mac, it's a property of the games industry. They don't release for the Mac, not because the Mac doesn't want to host your games. It's simple logic, really.
What it comes down to is that the availability of 3rd party products is not a valid argument to judge a platform on. It is of course an argument for your personal choice of platform, because you obviously choose the platform which will run the applications you desire to use. But you can't say it's platform's fault for not hosting your desired application, because it has no say in it.
Your post makes no sense. How is it Apple's fault that the industry doesn't create games for their platform?
Is it Nintendo's fault that Halo is not released for the Wii as well?
One of the things I don't like about Mac (and there are a few) is that many games are not released for Mac or if they are, they are released way after they are released for everything else.
That's an argument against the games industry, not against the Mac.
Why? How often do you actually use someone else's computer?
Instead, we see comparisons of advertised speeds and "price per advertised megabit," which are especially misleading. Advertised broadband speeds vary from actual speeds. In North America, this is largely a result of "network overhead," and is quite modest. In Europe, however, the variation is often dramatic.
What a weasily way to make it sound like internet connections in the US are not so bad. The reason why advertised speeds aren't so different from actual speeds in the US, is because the offer is extremely low. If you have an advertised 3 Mbit connection in the US and in reality you get 2 Mbit, that's only a 1 Mbit difference. But if you have a line for the same monthly fee in Europe, advertised as 20 Mbit and you actually get 12 Mbit, there's suddenly a whopping 8 Mbit difference. So according to these folks, the 20 Mbit line is a lot worse than the 3 Mbit line.
Lies, damn lies and statistics, right.
Dude, it's the internet. There's going to be people at your door all the time. As long as your lock is in order, there's nothing to worry about.
So there have been a million failed attempts to log in over SSH in a year. That's about one failed attempt every 30 seconds.
What's wrong with that? It's not like they're getting in, right?
Just like Second Life, the 3D web is not something people actually want, but more something which makes sense to old fashioned journalists who write for old fashioned media.
They think it sounds great. Looking at pretty things instead of reading boring stuff is in their eyes the ultimate evolution of computing. That's why you keep reading this sort of stuff all the time. But it will never stick, because in reality, it's just not very useful.
so this means that in the near future ill have to have quad sli pci-e cards with 1tb of ram and a few extra powersupplies to render all of the popup/under/over/through ads.
Not if you stick to Internet Explorer. Then you just need the TB of RAM to render the Flash elements sent to you as an alternative for the native XML3D/HTML5/Javascript ads.
rocket surgery
I see the US health care system is in worse shape than I thought.
The thing is though that the answer basically is "without having your employer fix it for you or by going to a country where the population fixes it for each other, you can't get proper health care unless you have a lot of money".
I hope the guy has a lot of money, I suppose.