I feel sorry for people who play movies on laptops.
Unless they have a DVI-HDCP output, which I doubt any today do.
I feel sorry for people who play movies on laptops.
Unless they have a DVI-HDCP output, which I doubt any today do.http://news.com.com/2061-10794_3-6109427.html
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software...n-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php
Like I said...don't believe everything you read.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software...n-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php
Like I said...don't believe everything you read.
Regardless of the truth of this minute matter, it reminds us that we travel the road to madness as long as law and reality differ as much as they do. Surely we can all at least agree on this.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 57,925
- 8,188
- 126
What's the big deal anyway? DVD quality's good enough. I grew up with a b&w tv with rabbit ears to get 4 fuzzy tv channels. Then came the vcr which had great picture quality over that, and now DVD. I'm completely happy to keep things the way they are. I can live with playing anything I want at current resolution
It's not about just about the license fee and yes, of course backward compatibility is a major issue (btw how much 'official' support there is for 16-bit apps starting from win2k when microsoft started saying bye bye to 9x versions?), but guys, I'm talking big picture here
. Think about the reasons that made microsoft dumped the 9x line, they did it so they can focus more on a single line (or a smaller line) of general use desktop OS and to have better bang for every man-hour in creating / supporting & patching / adding value as in support new technology in existing OSs and by new technology I mean both hardware and software (i.e. like XP SP1 added support for USB.2 and better wireless encryption or is that from SP2?).
Imho microsoft may be big but vista seems to be bigger.
My personal theory is that with every new generation of OS microsoft will have more difficulties for three reasons:
A. In every new generation of OS, microsoft tries to add as much features(*) as they possibly can (hell XP is almost a classical example of creeping featurism, next to win2k, and so is ME compared to 98SE, and I have no doubt that vista will also be like that).
B. Windows as a whole is not modulated enough.
C. They have to offer extensive backward compatibility.
When you consider that a lot of these added features(*) are new APIs or at the API level (API like, if you wish) like WMI (
wiki) and DCOM (wiki). This, combined with the other two issues will (imho) make any subsequent OS development harder in an almost exponential way.
If you look at the pattern of timing that microsoft announced about both dropped features and pushing the launching date back, it easy to see that they are reaching the point where they have to make some cost-effective decisions ("adding/debugging this feature is starting to take too much time, is this feature important enough for us to push vista back again?"), and they are hitting that point a LOT.
There are ways out of this (my education forces me to either offer a solution whenever I have some criticism or to STFU, so bare with me). Respectively (from the previous listed):
A. They (microsoft) can stop adding so much goddamn features into every OS they make, but that isn?t going to happen. This is a well known established strategy for microsoft, to offer as much software as possible, to have a foothold in any software market under the sun, to eventfully reach a point where windows and Office will together cover 99% of the needs of 99% of users. Now, because microsoft is so big they can actually go for that kind of strategy and still offer some decent software (sometime when i see in microsoft documentation the quote "to offer our partners" it is replaced in my mind automatically with "to offer to our soon to be new division").
However, vista (and its successor I'm sure, to an even greater extend) is reaching to a point where even microsoft is starting to have lots of difficulties, and is starting to make a lot of compromises.
B. I'm pretty sure that vista is more modulated then 2k/XP but considering how much time and other resources it take to fully modulate a behemoth piece of software like xp/vista, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that vista isn?t far off from XP in the modulation department, and I'm not talking about just better separation between the kernel and the user land, but a better modulated API structure, where the cross dependencies are not complicated enough to give Albert Einstein a migraine (is there a way to write a networking program to XP and lunching it without triggering more then a third of the background services and reading from less then a several dozens of windows DLLs), I wander how bad vista will be in that department, and I'm not optimistic.
C. Eventually something has to give. Like when microsoft said "enough is enough" and started to pull away from the 9x family, or like in XP SP2 when it broke some apps (although some will argue that some of the changes in XP2 should have been in XP from the start). A relatively good example of this is DirectX where microsoft has reached the point where you can't add an additional floor to the existing building because they have reach the limitation of the foundation, and the only way to build a higher building is to tear it down so they can build a better foundation, its only a relatively good example because the a LOT has changes in computer games and multimedia since the first DirectX 1.
Now, if microsoft can push a critical mass of users to 64-bit, it can in 4-5 years time announce a shorter Life-Cycle Policy to the 32-bit vista (faster retirement), and for their next OS to offer less backward compatibility (like NTs kernels support to 16-bit, it's there, but there isn?t a lot of it), giving them the ability to stop support for a TON of old code in their next generation OS (the one after vista), scheduled for somewhere like 2013.
However if micosoft can't pull that off, they will need to offer support for legacy software that was wrote to an 32-bit APIs microsoft created for more then 15 years ago, and there is a TON more 32-bit software then 16-bit, and supporting all the older 32-bit APIs will be programming hell (there are a lot more 32-bit APIs, and even if there aren?t a lot of them, they are much more difficult to support then DOS), if you think vista took a lot of time to make, wait for its successor! Something like that will take more then 3-4 years to make, think more like 6-7 years if not more, this is why i said it would be exponential more difficult.
It's in microsoft best interest to leave 32-bit behind as soon as possible, and they will try to 'encourage' people to move to 64-bit, using well known tactics, even if it isn?t true in this particular case.
edit
big post = lots of errors
add links
HDCP != HD
Todays computers are perfectly capable of playing High-def content.
HDCP is already a failure as a DRM sceme. You need not only to have 64bit, but you need to have hardware that supports HDCP protected path all the way from the disc player to the monitor. (the motherboard, the video card, the disc player, the monitor, etc etc). All of that has to be bought new if you want to play HDCP encrypted content.
Anyways HDCP has been cracked for years now. Right now you can go to Germany and buy a device that will strip out the protection if you wanted to.
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/21/the-clicker-hdcps-shiny-red-button/
HDCP is next to worthless for what it is designed to do.
heh?!?
Did you even think about what you just said ?
HD on laptops? Are you insane?
How much a Turion X2s based capable of high definition (aka BIG ASS SCREEN!) will:
1. Cost?
2. Weight?
3. be portable (size)?
4. Offer battery time?
"I feel sorry for" for people that let their fanboyism make them lose clarity, and the ability to think straight.
Computer monitors from 10 years ago already had higher resolution then HD. (although the hardware wasn't there)
For instance 1080p HDTV is just 1920x1080 resolution. That would be top of the line. A more typical would be 1280x720, which is 720p.
TV resolution is around 480x480 in computer resolution terms (it's actually something odd like 540x480 or something, but some of that is audio data)
DVD resolution is close to 720x480. (of course keep in mind that for TV this gets compressed, and that for TV vs computer the pixels are different shapes.)
A laptop like that with a decent video card shouldn't have a problem with it.
If you want to test you can get HD content via Bittorrent.
http://orange.blender.org/download
http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD.avi.torrent
It is in 1080p-style resolution and it is actually from the first HD DVD movie ever to be sold in Europe, which is kinda funny.
Keep in mind that it's a short film, only 815Meg downloads. And is 100% completely legal to download.
It is AVI file in MPEG4 format with AC3 5.1 surround sound. You can test out how well your hardware performs with it if you want.
This way you can prove to yourself that your machine (including newer laptops) are able to play it back well.
The HD technology is meant for the living room, 6+ feet away from the TV, it's seems like an over kill to me from 20cm distant (although I admittedly haven't seen good HD content on computer rig, HDTV yes).
Are there any laptops like that?
Are they portable or just desktop replacement?
And what about their battery life (while viewing HD content)?
edit
i still remember seeing a dvd on a laptop and after the 2 hours my eyes hurt.
edit2
the bigger thinkpad i can find is 1440x1050 and google didnt give much either (many people hook their laptop to 5.1 sound systems? wft?
)HD is ment to provide higher resolutions and to standardize the video display technology.
With TVs being mostly 1950's technology with 1990's DVD technology with 2000's digital computer graphics technology with 1970's motion picture technology it's a nightmare to do things like television signals, color management and stuff like that. Different resolutions, different shapes of pixels. framerates. It's a nightmare.
With HD they tried to make everything all standardized. Makes the technology cheaper, makes making content cheaper, increases the quality for everybody.
Big TVs in living rooms is what they are trying to do to sell it to you.
A lot of that probably has to do with the poor quality of laptop displays compared to CRT television and computer displays and the expensive plasma stuff.
However your right. There realy isn't much of a point to it.
Thats a BIG difference from saying it can't be done.
Probably if you want a mobile way to play HD quality content you'd probably want one of those little pocket projectors that people are starting to come out with now.
You have the LCD being used as a light source for these things and thus it can be a lot smaller and produce less heat then the traditional light bulb stuff.
Still pretty new stuff so the quality isn't probably going to be as nice or the picture as bright as current full-sized stuff, but eventually it'll be as nice.
It would be nice to be able to just whip out your laptop, and take a little projector out of your bag and watch movies whenever you want to, right? A nice little luxury or toy. Take it with camping trips, a lot easier to carry then a plasma screen.
Like this little guy:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/products/projectors/mobileprojector/spp300memxedc.asp
Little DLP projector. Only 800x600 resolution, so HD will be overkil, but I am sure you'll see higher resolutions in another year or two. You get the idea.
Our sales guy have something like that for those, according to him, " 'on the fly' presentation and it also gives me a hi-tech pitch and angle." (lol), he is very excited about it, you should see him with a customer, first he shows him his latest gadget, and after 5 minutes he is already live, and after another 5m he is halfway through the presentation, sneaky bastard.Originally posted by: drag
It would be nice to be able to just whip out your laptop, and take a little projector out of your bag and watch movies whenever you want to, right? A nice little luxury or toy. Take it with camping trips, a lot easier to carry then a plasma screen.
Like this little guy:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/products/projectors/mobileprojector/spp300memxedc.asp
Little DLP projector. Only 800x600 resolution, so HD will be overkil, but I am sure you'll see higher resolutions in another year or two. You get the idea.
"Take it with camping trips, a lot easier to carry then a plasma screen."
That just reminded me of "pimp my ride".
/edit
but i never said thatThats a BIG difference from saying it can't be done.
And also why dosnt anyone nitpicking my bigass post, my bigass is all alone
/edit
but i never said thatThats a BIG difference from saying it can't be done.
And also why dosnt anyone nitpicking my bigass post, my bigass is all alone
Ok.
Somebody should nitpick your big-ass post, definately.
Taken from the first article:
So that means Vista [HD]DVD playback will be just like XP's in that you have to get the codecs from a third-pary's software player? Sounds like something fell apart at the negotiating table.
Yeah I'm kinda board right new, slow day.Ok.
NOW if Possible.Somebody should nitpick your big-ass post, definately.
/edit
bored, !board bah
n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
Thanx for being the one who can't think clearly.
First off, i f*cking hate being labeled a fanboi when i am not.
I have an E6400 & P5B Deluxe arriving at werk for me today
So yes, i'm a fanboi :roll:
You may not watch movies on your laptops, but alot of people do.
I just happen to be in sales, & one of the number one uses people always tell me they want their laptop for is watching DVDs (aftering internet stuff of course) :roll:
So yes, they will want to watch HD content too.
You don't need a "big ass" screen to watch HD either.
Sure, not all notebooks will have 1920x1200, but that doesn't mean people won't want to watch their movies downscaled to 1280x768 anyway, cause yes, again, i know they will.
I have nothing against the Core Duo processor.
It's the best out there presently for a notebook, excepting the oversight of Intel on leaving 64-bit ability out.
And yes, in light of this news, i call that an oversight.
Just like AMD sitting on their derriere ever since they started out with the A64s is an oversight IMO.
Then what is the point of preferring HD content if you won't be able to see the difference? It will just make the GPU and CPU consume more battery with no significant gain. And yes, you are a fanboy, at least a little bit, overemphasizing ("I feel sorry for") a very minor advantage of one CPU/GPU/platform over another, when the ability to enjoy that advantage doesn't exist right now, will come at a very high cost and will hinder the final product in other areas (portability and battery life) which are more important to the said final product is exactly what make you look like a fanboy, even if you aren't one.Originally posted by: n7
Thanx for being the one who can't think clearly.
First off, i f*cking hate being labeled a fanboi when i am not.
I have an E6400 & P5B Deluxe arriving at werk for me today
So yes, i'm a fanboi :roll:
You may not watch movies on your laptops, but alot of people do.
I just happen to be in sales, & one of the number one uses people always tell me they want their laptop for is watching DVDs (aftering internet stuff of course) :roll:
So yes, they will want to watch HD content too.
You don't need a "big ass" screen to watch HD either.
There isnt even one right now, and even if there is ONE, it doesnt change the overall picture,
Then they wasted their money on a feature they don?t enjoy of.
For windows 64-bit is less important right now, this might change in a few months, but right now this isn?t anything but future proofing, which is important only to a certain extent. As it stand right now i disagree with you that this is an important consideration while purchasing a new system, and definitely not something to feel sorry about.
/edit
Do you want to start a poll asking how many people are having 64-bit windows on their laptop?
Do you or anyone can estimate if this (having vista play HD without additional software) will add to final cost, my guess is none but I'm looking for a second opinion.
Btw, if vista can offer this, wont all of the M$ s0x kiddies scream unfair business practice.
n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
Then they wasted their money on a feature they don?t enjoy of.
For windows 64-bit is less important right now, this might change in a few months, but right now this isn?t anything but future proofing, which is important only to a certain extent. As it stand right now i disagree with you that this is an important consideration while purchasing a new system, and definitely not something to feel sorry about.
/edit
Do you want to start a poll asking how many people are having 64-bit windows on their laptop?[/quote]
There are no notebooks that do 1920x1200? :laugh:?
You must be kidding.
Then they wasted their money on a feature they don?t enjoy of.[/quote]
The general population buying PCs does that every single time they buy one :roll:
You seriously don't keep in touch with reality outside your box much do you?
I'm done arguing with you, as i can tell you like to troll things down to a level you can keep to yourself.
Yawn
/edit
I just reread your post, and wtf?
And if you don?t benefit from the transaction in a direct way, then that is THE worst reasoning i have ever seen in my li... Nah i have seen worse.
link?
heh?!?
/edit
I just reread your post, and wtf?
So the fact that the average consumer makes a poor decision is a good reason to recommend them something they wont ever use, if you're the one that benefits from it being sold (stock, commissions) then ok, now I know whats behind your post (morals aside).
And if you don?t benefit from the transaction in a direct way, then that is THE worst reasoning i have ever seen in my li... Nah i have seen worse.
The final cost of the product? I dunno, but it would certainly add to the cost of the project itself. Time, money and resources needed to code this. Isn't going to happen now because a) see below and b) it's way too late in the development process.
Yeah, this is generally the reason why it's left up to the ISVs.
I'm so confused by this thread. I bought this neat little notebook (a Dell M70) about a year-and-a-half ago. I am so disgusted to learn that its native resolution isn't 1920x1200. Oh wait...
I'm so sorry to hear that, to bad you bought a laptop without 64-bit support, you must be really disappointed.
Thank you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter