You need to better understand realtime Mach scheduling before you spout off. Your counter-examples are incorrect.
Then enlighten all of us. Technical details, please, explaining why. Precise details, I'm tired of the handwaving.
Quote:
Resource issues due to social situations are not engineering problems. Shared computers are a social choice and there is no clean way to make an all encompassing transparent engineering solution to a social issue. The resource issue is already here, not new because of DVR. I don't see Apple killing Fast User Switching or multi-tasking because there might be a resource conflict.
As I pointed out before, perhaps you missed it, I can't think of a situation until now that had the combination of *scheduled* *resource-intensive* *consumer-oriented* jobs popping up in the background. Can you? Those three criteria are important. 'Scheduled' because it means that the current user may or may not know that it is coming up... and surprises are bad. 'Resource-intensive' because it means that the current user may suddenly find their user experience degrading badly. 'Consumer-oriented' because it means that the target users are not likely to have the technical savvy to understand what's going on, how to alleviate it, or why they have to in the first place.
Take away any one of those, and the situation isn't new. It is the combination of those three that would be new. To make things worse, 'consumer-oriented' implies 'consumer grade hardware', which only makes 'resource-intensive' even worse.
Real-time threads simply don't make this go away, as you asserted. They alleviate it, they do not make it go away.
And besides... is it a social problem (which I disagree with), or an engineering problem? Your assertion that the solution was simply to use real-time threads would indicate that you at least then thought it was an engineering problem. What changed your mind?
Quote:
I will give you one small point though, digital vs analog input signals--the analog will require some conversion and encoding. This adds a wrinkle that makes it a little more difficult for an iMac, but then it is not realistic to expect an iMac to handle FCP + anything as they are already WAY behind the power curve and extremely under-powerd for FCP work on its own. I don't think your users situation would be a realistic damning of the concept this way. And for both satellite and digital cable your arguments are groundless.
And I'll give you the point that I was considering analog signals, not digital. You're right that digital signals require less processing power... but then you've just limited the product to those with digital satellite and cable. First it was just G5 users that was being bandied about as a solution, then only allowing digital TV signals... how far down do you want to pare the potential market? You just *know* that any limitations will be screamed and whined about incessantly, and used as 'proof' that Apple is just screwing over users yet again, blah blah blah...
In my estimation, an iDVR app would require an analog solution to be acceptable to Apple. Given that, the resources needed go up substantially, and you're right back into the intersection of the three axes I outlined above.
The products that are going to be successful will be PC hardware, in a stylish box. They will be running custom software ( Windows Media Center, Linux with custom software, BeOS ) and their users wont know or care that what they have is a computer. It will just be a DVR.
I agree with this...and what you described IS TiVO. BTW...You've also described the iPod.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
All bow to the omnipooptent Kickaha. The only person who is able to wave hands wile yet claiming the vision is obscured by someone else doing it.
Dude, when you are done with your reductionistic creative reading and restating it might be possible to exchange views, until then go have a beer 'cause you really need gain some perspective.
Hey, if you aren't willing to articulate your position on real-time threads, so be it. If you honestly have some technical reason why your position is credible, I would honestly be interested in hearing it. I've given mine. Just asking for the same in return.
I agree with this...and what you described IS TiVO. BTW...You've also described the iPod.
Thats pretty much the point. All consumer hardware is moving to the 'computer with application specific software' model. This is really the start of the smart, wired house. Once you get a heap of these devices it is only natural to want to get them talking to each other. Personal computers, obviously, are just as capable at running the software as the dedicated devices, but because it has to run in the software and ergonomic context of the computer it just isnt the same.
Thats pretty much the point. All consumer hardware is moving to the 'computer with application specific software' model. This is really the start of the smart, wired house. Once you get a heap of these devices it is only natural to want to get them talking to each other.
Yes, and I believe this may be Apple's vision.
Quote:
Personal computers, obviously, are just as capable at running the software as the dedicated devices, but because it has to run in the software and ergonomic context of the computer it just isnt the same.
I agree, and this is something that some folks don't get. It is a "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" sort of thing.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Mine neither, but you have only said it won't work, just as nebulous as my statement that RT threads support the playback function. I don't make any claim of how many cycles are left over for other stuff. You can try and pull apart my earlier posts in a linguistic twist to say other things, but that's all it boils down to.
Er, actually you claimed that real-time threads eliminated the problem, outright, which is quite a bit stronger assertion than support of the playback function. That was the point that I was taking issue with, and the only point I was attempting to shoot down though a simple gedankenexperiment. I've got no problem with asserting that real-time threads help, and if used well could help a *lot*. I'm just not convinced that RT on current consumer hardware is enough for handling encoding of analog signals and providing a solid simultaneous live user experience. *shrug*
Quote:
We have both dealt with the issue to the same depth so far. After as many years with gents working for me as I have, I have developed an ability to detect partially thought out arguments and counterpoints. I can be convinced and change my mind if the loop is closed in a technically competent manner, but until then lightly supported opinions are just that. Unless you are willing to get elbow deep in technical discussion and can support you position, why should I take your word over anyone else's, let alone my own? I'm not calling you out, just calling it like it is. I'm perfectly fine letting others decide what's what based on high level discussions. Anyone who knows the lower level stuff has already figured out what is realistic for themselves by now.
Fair enough. I would actually enjoy a lower-level discussion, but I suspect neither of us really has the time to devote to it.
Quote:
And the rest of the issues pretty much run into style point discussions where we differ as to whether or not an acceptable UI can handle the issues in an acceptable friendly manner. That's non-trivial fluff that really can only be verified with a prototype and Grandma/Aunt Pearl/Sister Suzie. I'll agree to disagree and await a proper test. We should know in the next 5 years or so.
Agreed. The consumer hardware will get there eventually, and this will all be moot.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Yeah today's MPEG2 isn't difficult to encode/decode. Even the bargain basement Cableco DVRs come with dual tuners and can record two shows simultaneously while watching a 3rd.
I think Apple will need to champion MPEG4 and AVC though to take advantage of small filesizes. But that can wait a year or so until power increases sufficiently.
Now that things are on a happier note, here IS a little technical detail or two:
Does anyone you really think a DVR application that can run two recording streams and one output/display stream simultaneously using a 72Mhz PPC 403GCX talking to 8MB RAM is going to put that much resource dent into a G5 based machine?
Although not nessecarily the hard word on tivo hardware, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/TiVo confirms my belief that the tivo uses an mpeg encoder/decoder chip to do all the hard lifting. The slow powerpc is just there to adjudicate DMA transfers and draw the interface.
Video playback is a pretty well beaten issue. But what are you going to use to encode with? My experience with encoding amounts to this: sub ghz machines can manage motion jpeg in real time at full frame rate, full resolution, just. Motion jpeg, although it looks fine, is pretty heavy on disk usage ( no intra frame compression ). mpeg one is doable, but only supports QIF ( 320x240 or so ) so loses on the quality side for me. mpeg two is pretty much out of the picture. Once you get over a ghz then mpeg 2 becomes possible. In these cases the machines are flat out, and any interruption causes frame drops. Forget about intensive codecs like mpeg4 or that new one Apple is supportin ( H264? ). Get towards 2ghz and things are easier.
There are solutions. mpeg encoders arent that expensive. A high end DX 9 gpu could probably do a lot of it. Dual cpu machines wont have the issues with load. But, mpeg encoders arent flexible, and are only usefull for mpeg encoding. Highend gpus are expensive, dual cpus are expensive.
It is possible, just dont expect doom 3 to play very well when the recorder steps in. I dont think the iMac 3 will get a high end gpu or dual cpus, so that leaves dedicated hardware. In a general purpose machine dedicated hardware drives up the cost for everyone, while only adding value for some. Not a smart move for Apple. When you can get a tivo for $99 ( subsidised ) why would Apple spend that money to put one in the iMac ( unless they had a subscription scheme to support it ). Of course, you can buy all this stuff as cheap ( $120 ) PCI cards. But the iMac wont have PCI slots either.
Comments
Originally posted by AirSluf
You need to better understand realtime Mach scheduling before you spout off. Your counter-examples are incorrect.
Then enlighten all of us. Technical details, please, explaining why. Precise details, I'm tired of the handwaving.
Resource issues due to social situations are not engineering problems. Shared computers are a social choice and there is no clean way to make an all encompassing transparent engineering solution to a social issue. The resource issue is already here, not new because of DVR. I don't see Apple killing Fast User Switching or multi-tasking because there might be a resource conflict.
As I pointed out before, perhaps you missed it, I can't think of a situation until now that had the combination of *scheduled* *resource-intensive* *consumer-oriented* jobs popping up in the background. Can you? Those three criteria are important. 'Scheduled' because it means that the current user may or may not know that it is coming up... and surprises are bad. 'Resource-intensive' because it means that the current user may suddenly find their user experience degrading badly. 'Consumer-oriented' because it means that the target users are not likely to have the technical savvy to understand what's going on, how to alleviate it, or why they have to in the first place.
Take away any one of those, and the situation isn't new. It is the combination of those three that would be new. To make things worse, 'consumer-oriented' implies 'consumer grade hardware', which only makes 'resource-intensive' even worse.
Real-time threads simply don't make this go away, as you asserted. They alleviate it, they do not make it go away.
And besides... is it a social problem (which I disagree with), or an engineering problem? Your assertion that the solution was simply to use real-time threads would indicate that you at least then thought it was an engineering problem. What changed your mind?
I will give you one small point though, digital vs analog input signals--the analog will require some conversion and encoding. This adds a wrinkle that makes it a little more difficult for an iMac, but then it is not realistic to expect an iMac to handle FCP + anything as they are already WAY behind the power curve and extremely under-powerd for FCP work on its own. I don't think your users situation would be a realistic damning of the concept this way. And for both satellite and digital cable your arguments are groundless.
And I'll give you the point that I was considering analog signals, not digital. You're right that digital signals require less processing power... but then you've just limited the product to those with digital satellite and cable. First it was just G5 users that was being bandied about as a solution, then only allowing digital TV signals... how far down do you want to pare the potential market? You just *know* that any limitations will be screamed and whined about incessantly, and used as 'proof' that Apple is just screwing over users yet again, blah blah blah...
In my estimation, an iDVR app would require an analog solution to be acceptable to Apple. Given that, the resources needed go up substantially, and you're right back into the intersection of the three axes I outlined above.
Originally posted by mmmpie
The products that are going to be successful will be PC hardware, in a stylish box. They will be running custom software ( Windows Media Center, Linux with custom software, BeOS ) and their users wont know or care that what they have is a computer. It will just be a DVR.
I agree with this...and what you described IS TiVO. BTW...You've also described the iPod.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
All bow to the omnipooptent Kickaha. The only person who is able to wave hands wile yet claiming the vision is obscured by someone else doing it.
Dude, when you are done with your reductionistic creative reading and restating it might be possible to exchange views, until then go have a beer 'cause you really need gain some perspective.
Hey, if you aren't willing to articulate your position on real-time threads, so be it. If you honestly have some technical reason why your position is credible, I would honestly be interested in hearing it. I've given mine. Just asking for the same in return.
No skin off my nose.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I agree with this...and what you described IS TiVO. BTW...You've also described the iPod.
Thats pretty much the point. All consumer hardware is moving to the 'computer with application specific software' model. This is really the start of the smart, wired house. Once you get a heap of these devices it is only natural to want to get them talking to each other. Personal computers, obviously, are just as capable at running the software as the dedicated devices, but because it has to run in the software and ergonomic context of the computer it just isnt the same.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Thats pretty much the point. All consumer hardware is moving to the 'computer with application specific software' model. This is really the start of the smart, wired house. Once you get a heap of these devices it is only natural to want to get them talking to each other.
Yes, and I believe this may be Apple's vision.
Personal computers, obviously, are just as capable at running the software as the dedicated devices, but because it has to run in the software and ergonomic context of the computer it just isnt the same.
I agree, and this is something that some folks don't get. It is a "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" sort of thing.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Mine neither, but you have only said it won't work, just as nebulous as my statement that RT threads support the playback function. I don't make any claim of how many cycles are left over for other stuff. You can try and pull apart my earlier posts in a linguistic twist to say other things, but that's all it boils down to.
Er, actually you claimed that real-time threads eliminated the problem, outright, which is quite a bit stronger assertion than support of the playback function.
We have both dealt with the issue to the same depth so far. After as many years with gents working for me as I have, I have developed an ability to detect partially thought out arguments and counterpoints. I can be convinced and change my mind if the loop is closed in a technically competent manner, but until then lightly supported opinions are just that. Unless you are willing to get elbow deep in technical discussion and can support you position, why should I take your word over anyone else's, let alone my own? I'm not calling you out, just calling it like it is. I'm perfectly fine letting others decide what's what based on high level discussions. Anyone who knows the lower level stuff has already figured out what is realistic for themselves by now.
Fair enough. I would actually enjoy a lower-level discussion, but I suspect neither of us really has the time to devote to it.
And the rest of the issues pretty much run into style point discussions where we differ as to whether or not an acceptable UI can handle the issues in an acceptable friendly manner. That's non-trivial fluff that really can only be verified with a prototype and Grandma/Aunt Pearl/Sister Suzie. I'll agree to disagree and await a proper test. We should know in the next 5 years or so.
Agreed. The consumer hardware will get there eventually, and this will all be moot.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
I think Apple will need to champion MPEG4 and AVC though to take advantage of small filesizes. But that can wait a year or so until power increases sufficiently.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Now that things are on a happier note, here IS a little technical detail or two:
Does anyone you really think a DVR application that can run two recording streams and one output/display stream simultaneously using a 72Mhz PPC 403GCX talking to 8MB RAM is going to put that much resource dent into a G5 based machine?
Although not nessecarily the hard word on tivo hardware, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/TiVo confirms my belief that the tivo uses an mpeg encoder/decoder chip to do all the hard lifting. The slow powerpc is just there to adjudicate DMA transfers and draw the interface.
Video playback is a pretty well beaten issue. But what are you going to use to encode with? My experience with encoding amounts to this: sub ghz machines can manage motion jpeg in real time at full frame rate, full resolution, just. Motion jpeg, although it looks fine, is pretty heavy on disk usage ( no intra frame compression ). mpeg one is doable, but only supports QIF ( 320x240 or so ) so loses on the quality side for me. mpeg two is pretty much out of the picture. Once you get over a ghz then mpeg 2 becomes possible. In these cases the machines are flat out, and any interruption causes frame drops. Forget about intensive codecs like mpeg4 or that new one Apple is supportin ( H264? ). Get towards 2ghz and things are easier.
There are solutions. mpeg encoders arent that expensive. A high end DX 9 gpu could probably do a lot of it. Dual cpu machines wont have the issues with load. But, mpeg encoders arent flexible, and are only usefull for mpeg encoding. Highend gpus are expensive, dual cpus are expensive.
It is possible, just dont expect doom 3 to play very well when the recorder steps in. I dont think the iMac 3 will get a high end gpu or dual cpus, so that leaves dedicated hardware. In a general purpose machine dedicated hardware drives up the cost for everyone, while only adding value for some. Not a smart move for Apple. When you can get a tivo for $99 ( subsidised ) why would Apple spend that money to put one in the iMac ( unless they had a subscription scheme to support it ). Of course, you can buy all this stuff as cheap ( $120 ) PCI cards. But the iMac wont have PCI slots either.