I'm pretty disgusted by the ridiculous interpretation you guys have of Sony's remarks. Their point is that it's hard to innovate when your main goal is just making the cheapest machine, not the best. It's like if Ferrari suddenly focused on making $10k hatchbacks because that's what people can afford - their supercars, what they are known for and what people care about, would suffer immensely.
Holy SHIT are you guys quick to jump to conclusions and condemn someone when you don't understand them.
I don't think this is at all of a surprise. Apple is just as an awful of a company as Microsoft is; perhaps moreso, now that Microsoft may learn from their mistakes (ha!) and Apple is just beginning to make them. People view Apple as this holy grail of corporations and they are just not. They are notoriously proprietary; I don't see why Slashdot doesn't just despise them like they do Microsoft, given/.'s love of open-source. Whenever I look at new Apple products I always have the back of my head the thought that I don't want them just because they are so closed off and limited. And above all Steve Jobs is just a bad guy. I wonder how many products Bill Gates has named after disowned children?
These kinda articles pop up all the time. They're nice excuses, but really, Linux isn't spreading because it's just not ready. Look at Linux on web servers; Apache has half the market, and that's because it's been ready for servers for a long time. Even with all of Vista's problems, it's still going to be a far more pleasant desktop experience for most consumers than Linux is.
Hey! You're an ass! The operating system and the GUI and the same thing for virtually everyone BUT YOU GUYS. The GUI is how you interact with the OS. Just because you and Linus want there to be scenario in which the GUI is completely distinct from the OS doesn't mean that will ever be the case. Just because MS decided to name the GUI Aero and Apple calls theirs Aqua (or Quartz) doesn't mean it's actually distinct from the OS. How can Apple claim that OS X looks better than Windows if the GUI isn't actually part of OS X?
I'm curious where this idea comes from. The operating system is absolutely the GUI. This is only not the case in Linux because the fractured nature of the community makes it so there is more than one window manager. In Windows and Mac, which command 95%+ of the market, the operating system and the GUI are considered the same by the end user.
The negative press surrounding Vista has had nothing to do with security. It's had to with bloat and incompatibility, mostly. I'm not really shocked that it's possible they got something right.
I don't think Vista is at all as bad as ME; Vista is actually useable as an OS, whereas ME was not at all. But they are very similar in the circumstances of their failures. ME followed in the footsteps of a very good OS (98SE) as did Vista (XP SP2; notice that both 98 and XP required service packs/replacement editions to be good). Both utterly failed in the marketplace. Both, however, introduced some great features. ME was the first version of Windows to include System Restore, which was then included in XP. But Vista, for me, has a much longer list of good features than ME. Vista will be mostly remembered as a failure, but its few great features will live on in later releases (Aero, I think, will be great if they can trim down some of the system requirements; it's not nearly as bad resources-wise as people say).
The 360's hardware problems are vastly overshadowed by the Wii's ridiculous success and the PS3's relative failure. It's really not going to taint their next-gen systems.
Warner Bros. biggest reason for switch to BR was that the format war was causing customers to buy fewer movies altogether (not just HD movies). This sort of thing isn't going to help ease the confusion. In addition, HD DVD is going to throw in everything they've got. I would imagine you will see HD DVD players at absurdly low prices, because even if they are losing a hundred bucks on each player, they are still recouping SOME cost. If you get the average consumer to look at it and realize, well this HD DVD player is $200 less than Blu-Ray, and the BR one might not even work in a couple months (even if that is not the actual situation, that possibility is still floating around), you may begin to see a rise in HD DVD sales.
I think the most important thing we've seen from Paramount and Universal's relationship with HD DVD is that these are NOT binding contracts. If there is any sort of significant consumer momentum towards HD DVD, studios are not going to hesitate to go where the money is. Just because Blu-Ray has a massive lead right now doesn't mean it will stay that way; remember, high-def movie sales are still a TINY fraction of total movie sales.
1. I use both Vista and Zune and I like them both. I fully understand than my positive experience with Vista has yet to be replicated by virtually anyone else and don't expect that to be any support for Microsoft, but given the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the Zune I would have to say your statement is simply a sad attempt to bundle every Microsoft product and say it's bad.
2. Every experience I've ever had with Java has been slow and cumbersome. OpenOffice runs loads better after I shut off Java, and this I have seen on every system I've used. I go out of my way to avoid Java because I've never had a good experience with it (besides Azureus, but I just love frogs).
3. Both HD DVD and Blu-Ray use the same codecs. Being afraid of WM9 being a widespread standard because Microsoft software is in HD DVD is like being afraid of Sony forcing you to watch HD movies on UMDs. It's a drastic analogy, to be sure, but there is this too much talk as if Microsoft IS HD DVD...and that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to be naive and choose one company to represent HD DVD, it's Toshiba, much the same as Sony "is" Blu-Ray.
4. I have not really used WinCE, no. But if I KNOW that something sucks (i.e. Java), I would rather try something new than stick with that. Also, the Dreamcast has some sticker on it that says "Powered by WinCE," and I loved the Dreamcast.
Basically, we've now gotten to the point that YOU hate HD DVD primarily because of your strange hatred of Microsoft, whereas I hate Blu-Ray primarily because of my strange hatred of Sony (also, I like maroon more than blue). It just goes to show that you can't really choose one side or the other without making shit up.
I'm talking about the software, I'm talking about the people who act as if "HD DVD" and "Microsoft" are interchangeable. It's absurd. Besides, I've used Java on a PC, and I'd much rather not have it on my DVD player.
Acting as if HD DVD is entirely controlled by Microsoft is an insane proposition. If you want to make one company "responsible" for HD DVD it's Toshiba, but only to the same extent as Sony is responsible for Blu-Ray: both companies can be considered the primary backer of their formats, but no one company developed the whole format, and no one has the final say on any business decision.
You can backup files to the system PERFECTLY FINE. It's just that once they are backed up, there is some problem editing the files on the server. While that's obviously a problem, why are people needing to edit their backups? I thought the point of a backup was just to be a copy of whatever is on your system. If you edit the file directly on your server you are leaving your PC with an older version - that doesn't make any sense.
The Zune? Are they kidding? The Zune destroys the iPod in every category, how is it a disappointment because so many kids are locked into iTunes and don't want to change?
And the iPhone - as much as I dislike the iPhone, it is far from disappointing. I'm not sure what PC World is using as their definition of "disappointment," but I'm pretty sure that it has to do with not meeting expectations. Am I missing something here, the iPhone (and to a lesser extent, Zune 2.0, but ironically, not the new iPods) met and exceeded expectations. Did anyone expect Apple to release an open product just out of nowhere?
The same reasoning applies to Facebook. It's a social network: social networks are stupid. Social networks are going to get progressively stupider and stupider because the owners constantly want more money, something that is incredibly difficult to do while your site is simple and useful. I completely expect a situation in which users just bounce around to various (god I hate saying this phrase) "social networking" sites because the old ones just get terrible.
I hate to say this, but Wikipedia's search is godawful. Sometimes it's more effective to just type what you want into the end of the URL and hope you hit a disambiguation page or something.
Try editing anything significant on Wikipedia. It's nearly impossible to get something to stick if you haven't read all the rules and policy they've implemented. And it's not like it's just a list of guidelines or something, it's article after article (and these are MASSIVE articles) that people are supposed to read before they edit anything. It's completely ridiculous.
Also, people on Wikipedia are really caught up in the idea of deleting instead of fixing. If something isn't formatted correctly, they don't fix it, they nominate it for deletion. So then the original editor has to go spend time convincing people his article is worthy of keeping before he can do anything to it. And in the meantime the article has a giant MARKED FOR DELETION tag that gives Wikipedia oh-so-much credibility.
I started the Antec page on Wikipedia. I haven't worked on it much, but literally moments after I started it some ill-informed deletion monger marked it for speedy deletion (this is the kind of deletion that people use when they think a page has no place on Wikipedia and doesn't need much debate) because Antec was not notable enough. Not because he actually thought a major computer hardware manufacturer wasn't important for an encyclopedia that includes a massive page on Jedi fighting styles, but because he hadn't ever heard of Antec, and couldn't be bothered to search around for anything. So he decided to delete it. It didn't get deleted, mind you, but it's a pain in the ass to convince people not to, because apparently the fact that there are pages for every other smaller case manufacturer isn't not justification for having a page on Wikipedia (that is an official Wikipedia policy, and is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard; if there are pages for every company LESS notable than Antec, then that is damn good justification for Antec having a page also).
eBay is a terrible idea because you're always spending more for questionable quality. I got my Wii because one weeknight at Wal-Mart they happened to have three. Also, most stores around here get their shipments in on Sundays, so if you just go wait at at Target or something on a Sunday morning you are pretty sure of getting one, because not many people are waiting outside randomly for a Wii (three of my friends did this and all three got them).
Well if you really want it, there's DX10, but that won't even be totally useful for gamers for another year-ish. The interface is actually fairly nice, although if you don't care about that it doesn't matter at all. I haven't had any problems using Vista; it never crashes or runs slow for me, and I want to think that my experiences are just vastly different than most, but of all the people I know personally that have used it, they all like it. It's just the media and a lot of underinformed people on the internet that seem to bash it the most, aside from the occasional person who actually had a bad experience (which is indeed a slightly often occurence). For me, the two features that I like the most are having search built in, and having an image of the various apps in Alt-Tab. In XP I had to have two apps (Google Desktop and AltTab something or other) to do this, and while Vista may boot slower on a clean install, it actually runs faster for me because I don't have to have 3rd party apps installed for these features.
In short, there's not a whole lot pushing you to Vista. But if you can get it on the cheap and your main apps have been updated for it, it's not a bad buy.
I think a lot of people would switch to Linux or OS X if the choice was between ads (Windows) and no ads.
Of course, Apple would probably just add in 3D transparent ads and people would love them.
HD movies on an HDTV look much better than SD movies on an HDTV, just because SD movies have to be stretched or upscaled. If you watch SD moves on SDTV and compare it to an HD movie on and HDTV you honestly aren't getting much of an improvement, assuming you are actually paying attention to a plot and not just looking at the picture quality.
"Neither format delivers anything that couldn't be done with DVDs using H.264. Who needs PC-style navigation or 20 hours of "extra features" when you can easily put an HD movie on DVD?"
Of course it can't be because a movie with six times (1920x1080 as opposed to 720x480) as many pixels can't fit on 8.5GB.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that they found the use of this on an Nvidia chipset "amusing?"
I'm pretty disgusted by the ridiculous interpretation you guys have of Sony's remarks. Their point is that it's hard to innovate when your main goal is just making the cheapest machine, not the best. It's like if Ferrari suddenly focused on making $10k hatchbacks because that's what people can afford - their supercars, what they are known for and what people care about, would suffer immensely.
Holy SHIT are you guys quick to jump to conclusions and condemn someone when you don't understand them.
I don't think this is at all of a surprise. Apple is just as an awful of a company as Microsoft is; perhaps moreso, now that Microsoft may learn from their mistakes (ha!) and Apple is just beginning to make them. People view Apple as this holy grail of corporations and they are just not. They are notoriously proprietary; I don't see why Slashdot doesn't just despise them like they do Microsoft, given /.'s love of open-source. Whenever I look at new Apple products I always have the back of my head the thought that I don't want them just because they are so closed off and limited. And above all Steve Jobs is just a bad guy. I wonder how many products Bill Gates has named after disowned children?
These kinda articles pop up all the time. They're nice excuses, but really, Linux isn't spreading because it's just not ready. Look at Linux on web servers; Apache has half the market, and that's because it's been ready for servers for a long time. Even with all of Vista's problems, it's still going to be a far more pleasant desktop experience for most consumers than Linux is.
Hey! You're an ass! The operating system and the GUI and the same thing for virtually everyone BUT YOU GUYS. The GUI is how you interact with the OS. Just because you and Linus want there to be scenario in which the GUI is completely distinct from the OS doesn't mean that will ever be the case. Just because MS decided to name the GUI Aero and Apple calls theirs Aqua (or Quartz) doesn't mean it's actually distinct from the OS. How can Apple claim that OS X looks better than Windows if the GUI isn't actually part of OS X?
I'm curious where this idea comes from. The operating system is absolutely the GUI. This is only not the case in Linux because the fractured nature of the community makes it so there is more than one window manager. In Windows and Mac, which command 95%+ of the market, the operating system and the GUI are considered the same by the end user.
The negative press surrounding Vista has had nothing to do with security. It's had to with bloat and incompatibility, mostly. I'm not really shocked that it's possible they got something right.
I don't think Vista is at all as bad as ME; Vista is actually useable as an OS, whereas ME was not at all. But they are very similar in the circumstances of their failures. ME followed in the footsteps of a very good OS (98SE) as did Vista (XP SP2; notice that both 98 and XP required service packs/replacement editions to be good). Both utterly failed in the marketplace. Both, however, introduced some great features. ME was the first version of Windows to include System Restore, which was then included in XP. But Vista, for me, has a much longer list of good features than ME. Vista will be mostly remembered as a failure, but its few great features will live on in later releases (Aero, I think, will be great if they can trim down some of the system requirements; it's not nearly as bad resources-wise as people say).
The 360's hardware problems are vastly overshadowed by the Wii's ridiculous success and the PS3's relative failure. It's really not going to taint their next-gen systems.
Warner Bros. biggest reason for switch to BR was that the format war was causing customers to buy fewer movies altogether (not just HD movies). This sort of thing isn't going to help ease the confusion. In addition, HD DVD is going to throw in everything they've got. I would imagine you will see HD DVD players at absurdly low prices, because even if they are losing a hundred bucks on each player, they are still recouping SOME cost. If you get the average consumer to look at it and realize, well this HD DVD player is $200 less than Blu-Ray, and the BR one might not even work in a couple months (even if that is not the actual situation, that possibility is still floating around), you may begin to see a rise in HD DVD sales.
I think the most important thing we've seen from Paramount and Universal's relationship with HD DVD is that these are NOT binding contracts. If there is any sort of significant consumer momentum towards HD DVD, studios are not going to hesitate to go where the money is. Just because Blu-Ray has a massive lead right now doesn't mean it will stay that way; remember, high-def movie sales are still a TINY fraction of total movie sales.
1. I use both Vista and Zune and I like them both. I fully understand than my positive experience with Vista has yet to be replicated by virtually anyone else and don't expect that to be any support for Microsoft, but given the overwhelmingly positive reviews of the Zune I would have to say your statement is simply a sad attempt to bundle every Microsoft product and say it's bad. 2. Every experience I've ever had with Java has been slow and cumbersome. OpenOffice runs loads better after I shut off Java, and this I have seen on every system I've used. I go out of my way to avoid Java because I've never had a good experience with it (besides Azureus, but I just love frogs). 3. Both HD DVD and Blu-Ray use the same codecs. Being afraid of WM9 being a widespread standard because Microsoft software is in HD DVD is like being afraid of Sony forcing you to watch HD movies on UMDs. It's a drastic analogy, to be sure, but there is this too much talk as if Microsoft IS HD DVD...and that just doesn't make any sense. If you want to be naive and choose one company to represent HD DVD, it's Toshiba, much the same as Sony "is" Blu-Ray. 4. I have not really used WinCE, no. But if I KNOW that something sucks (i.e. Java), I would rather try something new than stick with that. Also, the Dreamcast has some sticker on it that says "Powered by WinCE," and I loved the Dreamcast. Basically, we've now gotten to the point that YOU hate HD DVD primarily because of your strange hatred of Microsoft, whereas I hate Blu-Ray primarily because of my strange hatred of Sony (also, I like maroon more than blue). It just goes to show that you can't really choose one side or the other without making shit up.
I'm talking about the software, I'm talking about the people who act as if "HD DVD" and "Microsoft" are interchangeable. It's absurd. Besides, I've used Java on a PC, and I'd much rather not have it on my DVD player.
Acting as if HD DVD is entirely controlled by Microsoft is an insane proposition. If you want to make one company "responsible" for HD DVD it's Toshiba, but only to the same extent as Sony is responsible for Blu-Ray: both companies can be considered the primary backer of their formats, but no one company developed the whole format, and no one has the final say on any business decision.
You can backup files to the system PERFECTLY FINE. It's just that once they are backed up, there is some problem editing the files on the server. While that's obviously a problem, why are people needing to edit their backups? I thought the point of a backup was just to be a copy of whatever is on your system. If you edit the file directly on your server you are leaving your PC with an older version - that doesn't make any sense.
What the hell is wrong with the Zune 2? The reviews have been overwhelmingly positive and it beats the hell out of the iPod classic.
The Zune? Are they kidding? The Zune destroys the iPod in every category, how is it a disappointment because so many kids are locked into iTunes and don't want to change?
And the iPhone - as much as I dislike the iPhone, it is far from disappointing. I'm not sure what PC World is using as their definition of "disappointment," but I'm pretty sure that it has to do with not meeting expectations. Am I missing something here, the iPhone (and to a lesser extent, Zune 2.0, but ironically, not the new iPods) met and exceeded expectations. Did anyone expect Apple to release an open product just out of nowhere?
The same reasoning applies to Facebook. It's a social network: social networks are stupid. Social networks are going to get progressively stupider and stupider because the owners constantly want more money, something that is incredibly difficult to do while your site is simple and useful. I completely expect a situation in which users just bounce around to various (god I hate saying this phrase) "social networking" sites because the old ones just get terrible.
"Lucene provides search for Wikipedia"
I hate to say this, but Wikipedia's search is godawful. Sometimes it's more effective to just type what you want into the end of the URL and hope you hit a disambiguation page or something.
Didn't we already know this?
Try editing anything significant on Wikipedia. It's nearly impossible to get something to stick if you haven't read all the rules and policy they've implemented. And it's not like it's just a list of guidelines or something, it's article after article (and these are MASSIVE articles) that people are supposed to read before they edit anything. It's completely ridiculous.
Also, people on Wikipedia are really caught up in the idea of deleting instead of fixing. If something isn't formatted correctly, they don't fix it, they nominate it for deletion. So then the original editor has to go spend time convincing people his article is worthy of keeping before he can do anything to it. And in the meantime the article has a giant MARKED FOR DELETION tag that gives Wikipedia oh-so-much credibility.
I started the Antec page on Wikipedia. I haven't worked on it much, but literally moments after I started it some ill-informed deletion monger marked it for speedy deletion (this is the kind of deletion that people use when they think a page has no place on Wikipedia and doesn't need much debate) because Antec was not notable enough. Not because he actually thought a major computer hardware manufacturer wasn't important for an encyclopedia that includes a massive page on Jedi fighting styles, but because he hadn't ever heard of Antec, and couldn't be bothered to search around for anything. So he decided to delete it. It didn't get deleted, mind you, but it's a pain in the ass to convince people not to, because apparently the fact that there are pages for every other smaller case manufacturer isn't not justification for having a page on Wikipedia (that is an official Wikipedia policy, and is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard; if there are pages for every company LESS notable than Antec, then that is damn good justification for Antec having a page also).
eBay is a terrible idea because you're always spending more for questionable quality. I got my Wii because one weeknight at Wal-Mart they happened to have three. Also, most stores around here get their shipments in on Sundays, so if you just go wait at at Target or something on a Sunday morning you are pretty sure of getting one, because not many people are waiting outside randomly for a Wii (three of my friends did this and all three got them).
Well if you really want it, there's DX10, but that won't even be totally useful for gamers for another year-ish. The interface is actually fairly nice, although if you don't care about that it doesn't matter at all. I haven't had any problems using Vista; it never crashes or runs slow for me, and I want to think that my experiences are just vastly different than most, but of all the people I know personally that have used it, they all like it. It's just the media and a lot of underinformed people on the internet that seem to bash it the most, aside from the occasional person who actually had a bad experience (which is indeed a slightly often occurence). For me, the two features that I like the most are having search built in, and having an image of the various apps in Alt-Tab. In XP I had to have two apps (Google Desktop and AltTab something or other) to do this, and while Vista may boot slower on a clean install, it actually runs faster for me because I don't have to have 3rd party apps installed for these features.
In short, there's not a whole lot pushing you to Vista. But if you can get it on the cheap and your main apps have been updated for it, it's not a bad buy.
Carrots are delicious. If the current policy is "build fake bombs, get all you can eat carrot buffet," I am absolutely in.
I think a lot of people would switch to Linux or OS X if the choice was between ads (Windows) and no ads. Of course, Apple would probably just add in 3D transparent ads and people would love them.
HD movies on an HDTV look much better than SD movies on an HDTV, just because SD movies have to be stretched or upscaled. If you watch SD moves on SDTV and compare it to an HD movie on and HDTV you honestly aren't getting much of an improvement, assuming you are actually paying attention to a plot and not just looking at the picture quality.
"Neither format delivers anything that couldn't be done with DVDs using H.264. Who needs PC-style navigation or 20 hours of "extra features" when you can easily put an HD movie on DVD?"
Of course it can't be because a movie with six times (1920x1080 as opposed to 720x480) as many pixels can't fit on 8.5GB.