http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/95942/95942.html?Ad=1
While it doesn't surprise me, I'm surprised to find out that Dell is going to start offering a build of Linux known as Ubuntu in their Desktop and Laptops. The question at hand is, is this a smart move made by Dell? Will the product sell?
Here's my speculation on it:
Of all the linux builds out there, Ubuntu is the best choice. Aside from it being free and well supported, Ubuntu is also very user friendly compared to other builds of Linux. Also, since Linux is free and much less demanding in terms of hardware requirements. Combine that with open office and other open source programs that are available for linux, and you have a very cheap computer that can do all the basic things that any PC or Mac can do. For beginner developers, this would also be a great setup for them to start learning the basics of Linux.
However, The major problem with Linux is the same with Macs on the surface. That problem being comparability with other programs. Also Linux is a very do-it-yourself OS. I would know, I spent over 2 hours trying to install the graphics drivers in my Linux. (but thats another post)
Personally I think this would be great for mass producing for businesses, schools, and developers. Cheaper then a Mac and less resource intensive then PCs, Linux on the Dell is a great idea on the surface. Hopefully a niche community will buy this help spread the word that Linux isn't all command lines and databaseing. At this point, anything is better then Vista for atleast another year.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Linux part 1: install
So I log onto google, type in linux white box, and hit search. I find a site that has 4 ISOs for Whitebox. I proceed to download them all (at very nice speeds I may add) After the downloading I burned the iso to 4 different disks. Upon doing that, I promply insert the first disk and restart my computer. The computer loads up and the disk takes over after the BIOS is done loading. It starts asking me the usual questions of this is a licensed product and are you sure you want to install this etc. After words I hit a small wall. I kept thinking to myself, "when is it going to ask about the partitions of the drives that I need to install it on?" In the back of my mind I was scared that I would delete the partition that has all my music and games and work and such on it. I didn't want to lose that for sure. Finally the partition menu showed up not taking any chances I created a new partition with the old partition I made that housed a beta copy of Vista (and by golly was that build glitchy.) It then prompted me on whether I wanted to install a workstation version of the OS or a Server version. I prompted the Workstation version seeing as I didn't think I would be hosting anything anytime soon. After that. the install takes place. It took around 15 minutes to install everything. Then I promptly restarted my computer.
Coming up next: I get lost in linux
Coming up next: I get lost in linux
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD
http://news.com.com/Blu-ray+besting+its+high-def+DVD+rival/2100-1025_3-6178403.html
According to our good friends at CNET, and using some relyable sources. It turns out that Blu-Ray discs are out selling HD DVD at around a 70/30 ratio. My question to the world is why are people choosing Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. HD-DVDs are cheaper to make and produce, they cost less to buy, the players are much cheaper then any blu-ray player, and according to HighDefDigest
They are of either the same quality to the untrained eye, and of slightly better quality to the trained eye.
Blu-Rays are more expensive to produce, more expensive to buy, the players are much more expensive, as well as the other reasons that HighDefDigest
Again, why would people choose HD DVDs over Blu-Rays?
At the core of the technology, blu-rays do have more storage space then HDs, (around 50 gb at max storage) and they have the backing of more major movie labels then that of HDs.
In my personal opinion though, I think the true reason why Blu is beating HD is because of the PS3. The PS3 offers an extremely cheap Blu-Ray player at only $600. With the PS3 selling a lot of units into homes across America, it gave a decisive advantage over HD DVD players which really doesn't have a flagship player like Blu-Rays do with PS3s. For this reason, everyone who owns a PS3 will also own a Blu-Ray player and thus will go out and buy Blu-Ray movies for it so that the player functionality doesn't go to waste.
I personally think that Blu-Rays are a little ahead of it's time. There is no need for a disc that can store data of that quantity at this time. Especially with the cost of just making the discs and players, I wonder why the format was pushed as much as it was. The only real way I can see using that amount of space is for putting full seasons or entire series of TV shows onto one disc. In the gaming sector, the only way a disc would be filled up is if the game was stored completly uncompressed.
HD DVDs seems just right for the time. Having more but not too much more storage space, cheaper and easier to produce, and given the name, seems like a natural successor to the DVD discs. I will say that Blu Rays will eventually hold up better in the long run against HD DVDs. Given their overall higher storage capacity.
Who will rise as the victor? Only consumers will tell. And by consumers I mean the CEOs of Sony and Microsoft.
According to our good friends at CNET, and using some relyable sources. It turns out that Blu-Ray discs are out selling HD DVD at around a 70/30 ratio. My question to the world is why are people choosing Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. HD-DVDs are cheaper to make and produce, they cost less to buy, the players are much cheaper then any blu-ray player, and according to HighDefDigest
They are of either the same quality to the untrained eye, and of slightly better quality to the trained eye.
Blu-Rays are more expensive to produce, more expensive to buy, the players are much more expensive, as well as the other reasons that HighDefDigest
Again, why would people choose HD DVDs over Blu-Rays?
At the core of the technology, blu-rays do have more storage space then HDs, (around 50 gb at max storage) and they have the backing of more major movie labels then that of HDs.
In my personal opinion though, I think the true reason why Blu is beating HD is because of the PS3. The PS3 offers an extremely cheap Blu-Ray player at only $600. With the PS3 selling a lot of units into homes across America, it gave a decisive advantage over HD DVD players which really doesn't have a flagship player like Blu-Rays do with PS3s. For this reason, everyone who owns a PS3 will also own a Blu-Ray player and thus will go out and buy Blu-Ray movies for it so that the player functionality doesn't go to waste.
I personally think that Blu-Rays are a little ahead of it's time. There is no need for a disc that can store data of that quantity at this time. Especially with the cost of just making the discs and players, I wonder why the format was pushed as much as it was. The only real way I can see using that amount of space is for putting full seasons or entire series of TV shows onto one disc. In the gaming sector, the only way a disc would be filled up is if the game was stored completly uncompressed.
HD DVDs seems just right for the time. Having more but not too much more storage space, cheaper and easier to produce, and given the name, seems like a natural successor to the DVD discs. I will say that Blu Rays will eventually hold up better in the long run against HD DVDs. Given their overall higher storage capacity.
Who will rise as the victor? Only consumers will tell. And by consumers I mean the CEOs of Sony and Microsoft.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Joost is kinda cool
About a month and a half ago my Professor/Advisor introduced the class to a program simply called Joost. It is a media program created by the same persons that created Skype and Kazaa. The core of the program is to watch Television programs on your computer via P2P (peer to peer) sharing. It is completly free as well.
I checked out more info on Joost and signed up for the beta. Today I was able to download and give it a shot. Upon openning the program, it takes you into a full screen UI. This actually suprised and impressed me. The fact that it went into full screen gives it more of a TV feel and the interface is really slick and well made. Upon opening the program you sign in using a user account that you set up once you download the program. Of course you can switch between full screen and windowed mode.
On the left side of the screen you see a button called My Channels. Upon clicking on it you see a list of channels that you can choose from to view programs. These include well known names like MTV and Warner Brothers, to lesser known names in the media like Bite TV and Gamestar.
One thing that struck me was how many programs were available to watch on the beta. over 12 channels each having a good amount of content. The navigation is easy with its simple point-click interface and the quality of the videos is really really nice. Much better then Youtube as a comparison. Another nice feature is that if you shut off the program in the middle of a show and open it up again, you'll start right back where you left off.
Since it's a beta it does have it's fair share of issues. The biggest issue is lag time in the UI. The program is also pretty processor intensive, and it drains your bandwith. You really can't be downloading anything with Joost running otherwise you'll experience lag. I'm hopeful these issues will be fixed in the final version.
Over all it's a promising program. It's got the brains of the Kazaa and Skype empire along with a concept that everyone can enjoy AND a really nice interface to top it all off. Can't wait to try a release.
For more information visit:
http://www.joost.com
I checked out more info on Joost and signed up for the beta. Today I was able to download and give it a shot. Upon openning the program, it takes you into a full screen UI. This actually suprised and impressed me. The fact that it went into full screen gives it more of a TV feel and the interface is really slick and well made. Upon opening the program you sign in using a user account that you set up once you download the program. Of course you can switch between full screen and windowed mode.
On the left side of the screen you see a button called My Channels. Upon clicking on it you see a list of channels that you can choose from to view programs. These include well known names like MTV and Warner Brothers, to lesser known names in the media like Bite TV and Gamestar.
One thing that struck me was how many programs were available to watch on the beta. over 12 channels each having a good amount of content. The navigation is easy with its simple point-click interface and the quality of the videos is really really nice. Much better then Youtube as a comparison. Another nice feature is that if you shut off the program in the middle of a show and open it up again, you'll start right back where you left off.
Since it's a beta it does have it's fair share of issues. The biggest issue is lag time in the UI. The program is also pretty processor intensive, and it drains your bandwith. You really can't be downloading anything with Joost running otherwise you'll experience lag. I'm hopeful these issues will be fixed in the final version.
Over all it's a promising program. It's got the brains of the Kazaa and Skype empire along with a concept that everyone can enjoy AND a really nice interface to top it all off. Can't wait to try a release.
For more information visit:
http://www.joost.com
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Views on Freedom of speech on the internet
Here's my humble opinion on the whole issue regarding freedom of speech on the internet. I'm all for the 1st ammendment. And if I can say what ever I want, then anyone else should be able to as well, regardless of what they say. If someone wants to make a website that promotes hate against jews or blacks then let them. It's the people that look at the site and view the content's decision on whether to follow it or not. If a site seems suspicious and seems to be planning terrorist activity, then it should be MONITORED but not taken down. Monitoring a site is perfectly ok, or even having a mole inside the site acting as a member would be fine, just as long as they give the site a chance. Thats my opinion on the whole issue. Let them do it. If they say anything suspcious then monitor the site. Only when it is proven that they will act should the organization and site be shut down.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
