I agree. 'HD-DVD' may be a tad boring as names go, but it tells you exactly what it is, and in a way that even a mainstream, very non-technical person can get.
'Blu-ray' is a lot more esoteric, most ppl have no idea that a blue laser is involved or why it's important.
Going forward, if it were me, I'd re-name Blu-Ray to 'Blu-Ray HD' or somesuch.
What do you mean! Sure the consumer decided. Retailers offered both formats. The consumers bought more Blu Ray than HD. 2 competing formats fought it out in the marketplace and the major of consumers voted with their dollars that they wanted Blu Ray over HD. I don't remember anyone being held hostage until they bought a Blu Ray. I bought neither.
Give me a break. The consumers didn't decide anything. Besides the Blue Ray player that was included with the Sony PS3, hardly any stand alone players were even sold. Fact is, far more HD players were sold as stand alone units then Blue Ray players. Do a Google search, the margin was something like 4 HD players for every 1 Blue Ray player. Granted, the PS3 made the numbers seem lopsided in the other direction. Strange really, as hardly anybody I know has used the DVD player build in the PS2 as their DVD player. People buy games systems to play games, not watch video. Including the Blue Ray players in Sony PS3s to determine total amount of players sold is kindof like including cell phones in the sale of MP3 players to suggest Nokia is really the most successful maker of music players. If anything, the Blue Ray player is just a mere afterthought in a consumer's decison to buy the PS3.
Moreover, even with the PS3 sales included, the number of Blueray players in the wild is peanuts compared to standard DVD players. Certainly, not enough to decide the victor considering the sales of HD content is almost relatively non existent compared to typical DVD sales (again do a Google search).
Make no mistake, studios and retailors decided the victor. Consumers will inadvertently support whatever format is hand feed to them because they eventually will not have a choice. Most consumers are to ignorant to know the difference. Here big studios were paid big dollars to support a particular format. Do a Google search, recently both Fox and Warner were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to go with Blue Ray. Consumers are not going to buy into a format that doesn't have any content.
Which brings us to my next point. Retailors wanted a winner selected because it cost more money to support multiple formats. They had to buy movies for both formats, stock players for both, and divide advertising costs. Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix could care less what consumers were selecting, as the sales were almost non existent. They merely wanted a winner. They picked the camp with the most studio support. Afterall, they are in the business of selling content.
Blue Ray might have benefits. However, HD for consumers was the more open format. Like everything Sony does, DRM was the primary thought behind Blueray.
I was comparing it to the same reason of why people buy PCs over Macs, they don't know any better. Most, 90%, have never even spent 3 seconds with a Mac.
Same with PS3, most people bought it because they thought "PS2 Successor" and because of all the hype surrounding it. Why do you think PS3 sales fell flat after launch? Because its expensive? No, they dropped the price, it didn't help. People realized that it didn't live up to its promise and looked elsewhere for satisfaction, some bought it because they liked it regardless, others bought it because they were clueless. Overall it definently did not fly off the shelves
PS3 was all hype when it launched, It launched DOA and sales fell flat, and it hasn't gotten any better since. Its still just all hype, nothing more.
PS3 sales are flat because the Blue Ray player was included. The Blue Ray player didn't add enough value to justify an otherwise marginally better gaming platform. I say marginally better because PS3 has more potential then the X-Box, The hardware is more powerful. Sony, however, released its product a year behind Microsoft. Consequently, it will take a while to catch up in terms of games and to refine its performance. Sony also doesn't have the defective hardware problem the X-Box suffers. I honestly doubt the Blue Ray player was a big plus in anybody's mind when buying a PS3. It personally is the reason I haven't bought one. Die hard gamers bought a PS3 despite the Blue Ray player.
The main advantage to the Blu-Ray player I saw when buying the PS3 was the storage space for games. For a recent example of this limit being a problem for the X360 see GTA:4 commentary. The developers were (are) quite concerned about the limits of the DL-DVD.
TBell, do you intentionally make your posts hard to read with tons of spelling, grammatical and factual errors? Proofread, spellcheck, edit and above all, check your facts, please. You keep telling people to do Google searches but never cite any websites that back your claims. Everybody knows you can't trust everything you read on the Web, but you don't give us any way to judge the sites you're using to back up your arguments. No reputable websites back your contention that Sony or the BDA paid off Fox or Warner. Your other points are just as shaky.
Besides, when all is said and done, you can rail and rant all you want that it wasn't a fair fight and Sony did this and Sony screwed up, but the simple, undeniable fact of the matter is Blu-ray won. You can type until your fingers are raw and it won't change a blessed thing.
Strange really, as hardly anybody I know has used the DVD player build in the PS2 as their DVD player. People buy games systems to play games, not watch video.
Including the Blue Ray players in Sony PS3s to determine total amount of players sold is kindof like including cell phones in the sale of MP3 players to suggest Nokia is really the most successful maker of music players. If anything, the Blue Ray player is just a mere afterthought in a consumer's decison to buy the PS3.
Wow... really? Because I certainly bought a PS2 as much to have a DVD player as to have a game system. And I'll be buying a PS3 as much to have a Blu-Ray player as to have a game system. Why not? With standalone players priced the way they are, it makes a lot of sense. I'm far from the only person I know who did/is doing the same thing.
In an unrelated side note, I've officially GIVEN UP on Safari... it just will NOT let go of memory, and sooner or later I'm hitting the disk and everything gets very slooooooooow. Even quitting or resetting Safari doesn't seem to help much.
And I still, even with 3.0.4, get the occasional crash on top of everything else.
Now running Firefox 3 Beta 3, with no regrets. Sorry Stevie, I gave it every chance... you just didn't deliver.
.
Did you open up the Activity window to see if a particular download was hanging up? Tonight I had problems where it was taking two minutes or more to download individual AppleInsider pages. I opened the Activity window and found Doubleclick was failing to respond. Safari eventually timed out and completed the download. The problem could be Doubleclick not Safari. -- This isn't the first time Doubleclick has caused problems. They just are unable to do their job properly.
Oh, BTW, to anyone who says "downloads are the future," see this article at Macworld. You may or may not get really fat pipes in the future, but it won't be all the data you want anymore. So is it really worth paying for a download from the iTunes store or wherever, paying for the bandwidth and paying for the disk space to store it on or the blank to burn it to rather than just ordering the movie on Blu-ray?
It could be that with really fast pipes, such as what Verison will be serving up in the next few years, with at&t following, we may not need to store anything locally, except for portable viewing, and maybe not even then.
Verison is planning 150Mb/s. They also have upgrade plans for a 1Gb/s speed.
With that, downloading even 1080p with decent compression (or none!) would take under a minute.
Give me a break. The consumers didn't decide anything. Besides the Blue Ray player that was included with the Sony PS3, hardly any stand alone players were even sold. Fact is, far more HD players were sold as stand alone units then Blue Ray players. Do a Google search, the margin was something like 4 HD players for every 1 Blue Ray player. Granted, the PS3 made the numbers seem lopsided in the other direction. Strange really, as hardly anybody I know has used the DVD player build in the PS2 as their DVD player. People buy games systems to play games, not watch video. Including the Blue Ray players in Sony PS3s to determine total amount of players sold is kindof like including cell phones in the sale of MP3 players to suggest Nokia is really the most successful maker of music players. If anything, the Blue Ray player is just a mere afterthought in a consumer's decison to buy the PS3.
Moreover, even with the PS3 sales included, the number of Blueray players in the wild is peanuts compared to standard DVD players. Certainly, not enough to decide the victor considering the sales of HD content is almost relatively non existent compared to typical DVD sales (again do a Google search).
Make no mistake, studios and retailors decided the victor. Consumers will inadvertently support whatever format is hand feed to them because they eventually will not have a choice. Most consumers are to ignorant to know the difference. Here big studios were paid big dollars to support a particular format. Do a Google search, recently both Fox and Warner were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to go with Blue Ray. Consumers are not going to buy into a format that doesn't have any content.
Which brings us to my next point. Retailors wanted a winner selected because it cost more money to support multiple formats. They had to buy movies for both formats, stock players for both, and divide advertising costs. Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix could care less what consumers were selecting, as the sales were almost non existent. They merely wanted a winner. They picked the camp with the most studio support. Afterall, they are in the business of selling content.
Blue Ray might have benefits. However, HD for consumers was the more open format. Like everything Sony does, DRM was the primary thought behind Blueray.
Your numbers are off. The ratio during most of the time up to the last quarter was 2 to 1, not 4 to 1.
But that bgan to change in the holiday season, as BD player sales increased more than Hd-DVD sales did. and that was after Toshiba paid Paramount to stop producing BD disks.
You might say that Toshiba ws the one trying to decide for us.
That BS about Fox and Warner has been debunked so many times already it's not worth mentioning it.
Your second to last paragraph is correct, but then you go and spoil it again with the silliness in the last one.
BD has the same DRM as HD-DVD. Look it up. Both have Managed Copy. that's all that matters. As though most people will want to pay more for extras.
PS3 sales are flat because the Blue Ray player was included. The Blue Ray player didn't add enough value to justify an otherwise marginally better gaming platform. I say marginally better because PS3 has more potential then the X-Box, The hardware is more powerful. Sony, however, released its product a year behind Microsoft. Consequently, it will take a while to catch up in terms of games and to refine its performance. Sony also doesn't have the defective hardware problem the X-Box suffers. I honestly doubt the Blue Ray player was a big plus in anybody's mind when buying a PS3. It personally is the reason I haven't bought one. Die hard gamers bought a PS3 despite the Blue Ray player.
Now that is a really specious argument. If you were to argue that the price of the PS3 was too high in the beginning, and part of that reason was the inclusion of the BD drive, it would make sense.
But please don't try to tell people that the PS3 didn't sell as well as it should have because of BD, the format, as you are implying!
Price, yes. Format, no. Now that the price has dropped to just $50 more than the 360, sales have jumped, and are actually higher than the 360. It's a far better value.
You do know that the BD player plays DVD and CD's as well, don't you? There is no reason for someone who knows what the unit is to not buy it because of it.
Jeez, the game mags, and sites, have explained this very well, ad infinitum.
Sony also has more room to drop prices than MS does, BECAUSE of the newer technology.
There is a serious security issue as well, though I can't seem to find the reference right now.
That's ok... I don't use YahooMail. I'm a Gmail and Hotmail guy (had the Hotmail acct from before Microsoft bought the company).
And Ars Technica overall really liked Firefox 3.0b3:
I'm extremely impressed with Firefox 3 beta 3. I've been using the nightly builds for quite some time now, and I'm convinced that Firefox 3 is very close to being ready for widespread adoption. There are still a number of minor issues, but I suspect that they will be resolved very soon. Firefox 3 delivers massive improvements over Firefox 2 in almost every conceivable way, particularly in the areas of performance and memory overhead. Users who want to give beta 3 a try can download it from Mozilla's web site.
I've just completely given up on Safari... it's so bad that it makes my entire system unresponsive when its futzing up... can't even bring up the Force Quit for the longest time, or anythhing else.
That's ok... I don't use YahooMail. I'm a Gmail and Hotmail guy (had the Hotmail acct from before Microsoft bought the company).
And Ars Technica overall really liked Firefox 3.0b3:
I'm extremely impressed with Firefox 3 beta 3. I've been using the nightly builds for quite some time now, and I'm convinced that Firefox 3 is very close to being ready for widespread adoption. There are still a number of minor issues, but I suspect that they will be resolved very soon. Firefox 3 delivers massive improvements over Firefox 2 in almost every conceivable way, particularly in the areas of performance and memory overhead. Users who want to give beta 3 a try can download it from Mozilla's web site.
I've just completely given up on Safari... it's so bad that it makes my entire system unresponsive when its futzing up... can't even bring up the Force Quit for the longest time, or anythhing else.
.
It's a G-Mail problem too. The article mentioned that as well.
I can't understand why you are having such problems. I have to assume that there is some corruption in your system that's doing this to you. Your problems are much more than most people seem to be having.
It's a G-Mail problem too. The article mentioned that as well.
I can't understand why you are having such problems. I have to assume that there is some corruption in your system that's doing this to you. Your problems are much more than most people seem to be having.
Don't know what to tell ya, Mel... I've been using GMail on Firefox 3.0b3, with no issues significant enough for me to notice as of yet.
Far as my system being corrupted, well, doesn't seem to be-- Safari (and the very similar WebKit) is the only app that's been giving me problems.
It's a G-Mail problem too. The article mentioned that as well.
I can't understand why you are having such problems. I have to assume that there is some corruption in your system that's doing this to you. Your problems are much more than most people seem to be having.
Nope, it's not an isolated problem. Webkit has serious issues with memory leaks and overhead and it's about time that Apple started to do something about it. It happens on both my machine and my GF's.
Do use use Safari or any other webkit-based browser? How long has it been running? Check out the "real memory" column of Activity Monitor to see how much memory it's using.
It's official. Toshiba made the announcement early this morning (U.S. time). They're stopping production and will finish up by the end of March. So much for the official corporate line yesterday that the rumors were false and that no decision had been made.
It could be that with really fast pipes, such as what Verison will be serving up in the next few years, with at&t following, we may not need to store anything locally, except for portable viewing, and maybe not even then.
Verison is planning 150Mb/s. They also have upgrade plans for a 1Gb/s speed.
With that, downloading even 1080p with decent compression (or none!) would take under a minute.
You misunderstand. That's exactly what the article says the ISPs don't want. They're claiming their networks are stressed, even with a relatively small number of heavy users today. Imagine if everybody did it. If you want to be able to download hundreds of gigabytes or even terabytes of data a month, they're going to make you pay for that. No local storage would be their worst nightmare. They'd have to keep transferring the same large movie files over and over again if you want to watch it more than once. They're not testing bandwidth caps, tiered pricing and packet shaping for no reason. Read the article, don't just skim it. Note where it says:
Quote:
Consumer advocates say that it’s only a matter of time before average high-speed Internet users get slapped with the label “hog.”
Comments
'Blu-ray' is a lot more esoteric, most ppl have no idea that a blue laser is involved or why it's important.
Going forward, if it were me, I'd re-name Blu-Ray to 'Blu-Ray HD' or somesuch.
.
What do you mean! Sure the consumer decided. Retailers offered both formats. The consumers bought more Blu Ray than HD. 2 competing formats fought it out in the marketplace and the major of consumers voted with their dollars that they wanted Blu Ray over HD. I don't remember anyone being held hostage until they bought a Blu Ray. I bought neither.
Give me a break. The consumers didn't decide anything. Besides the Blue Ray player that was included with the Sony PS3, hardly any stand alone players were even sold. Fact is, far more HD players were sold as stand alone units then Blue Ray players. Do a Google search, the margin was something like 4 HD players for every 1 Blue Ray player. Granted, the PS3 made the numbers seem lopsided in the other direction. Strange really, as hardly anybody I know has used the DVD player build in the PS2 as their DVD player. People buy games systems to play games, not watch video. Including the Blue Ray players in Sony PS3s to determine total amount of players sold is kindof like including cell phones in the sale of MP3 players to suggest Nokia is really the most successful maker of music players. If anything, the Blue Ray player is just a mere afterthought in a consumer's decison to buy the PS3.
Moreover, even with the PS3 sales included, the number of Blueray players in the wild is peanuts compared to standard DVD players. Certainly, not enough to decide the victor considering the sales of HD content is almost relatively non existent compared to typical DVD sales (again do a Google search).
Make no mistake, studios and retailors decided the victor. Consumers will inadvertently support whatever format is hand feed to them because they eventually will not have a choice. Most consumers are to ignorant to know the difference. Here big studios were paid big dollars to support a particular format. Do a Google search, recently both Fox and Warner were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to go with Blue Ray. Consumers are not going to buy into a format that doesn't have any content.
Which brings us to my next point. Retailors wanted a winner selected because it cost more money to support multiple formats. They had to buy movies for both formats, stock players for both, and divide advertising costs. Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix could care less what consumers were selecting, as the sales were almost non existent. They merely wanted a winner. They picked the camp with the most studio support. Afterall, they are in the business of selling content.
Blue Ray might have benefits. However, HD for consumers was the more open format. Like everything Sony does, DRM was the primary thought behind Blueray.
I was comparing it to the same reason of why people buy PCs over Macs, they don't know any better. Most, 90%, have never even spent 3 seconds with a Mac.
Same with PS3, most people bought it because they thought "PS2 Successor" and because of all the hype surrounding it. Why do you think PS3 sales fell flat after launch? Because its expensive? No, they dropped the price, it didn't help. People realized that it didn't live up to its promise and looked elsewhere for satisfaction, some bought it because they liked it regardless, others bought it because they were clueless. Overall it definently did not fly off the shelves
PS3 was all hype when it launched, It launched DOA and sales fell flat, and it hasn't gotten any better since. Its still just all hype, nothing more.
PS3 sales are flat because the Blue Ray player was included. The Blue Ray player didn't add enough value to justify an otherwise marginally better gaming platform. I say marginally better because PS3 has more potential then the X-Box, The hardware is more powerful. Sony, however, released its product a year behind Microsoft. Consequently, it will take a while to catch up in terms of games and to refine its performance. Sony also doesn't have the defective hardware problem the X-Box suffers. I honestly doubt the Blue Ray player was a big plus in anybody's mind when buying a PS3. It personally is the reason I haven't bought one. Die hard gamers bought a PS3 despite the Blue Ray player.
Didn't Bill gates say something similar about not needing more than 640K of RAM ??
No, it was someone else.
And I was referring to the current time period (i.e. this year.) That should've been obvious.
Besides, when all is said and done, you can rail and rant all you want that it wasn't a fair fight and Sony did this and Sony screwed up, but the simple, undeniable fact of the matter is Blu-ray won. You can type until your fingers are raw and it won't change a blessed thing.
Strange really, as hardly anybody I know has used the DVD player build in the PS2 as their DVD player. People buy games systems to play games, not watch video.
Including the Blue Ray players in Sony PS3s to determine total amount of players sold is kindof like including cell phones in the sale of MP3 players to suggest Nokia is really the most successful maker of music players. If anything, the Blue Ray player is just a mere afterthought in a consumer's decison to buy the PS3.
Wow... really? Because I certainly bought a PS2 as much to have a DVD player as to have a game system. And I'll be buying a PS3 as much to have a Blu-Ray player as to have a game system. Why not? With standalone players priced the way they are, it makes a lot of sense. I'm far from the only person I know who did/is doing the same thing.
*shrug*
.
Have you tried WebKit nightly builds?
Ok, tried WebKit. Same result.
I now officially kick Safari and all things Safari-related to the curb.
Back to Firefox 3 Beta 3.
.
In an unrelated side note, I've officially GIVEN UP on Safari... it just will NOT let go of memory, and sooner or later I'm hitting the disk and everything gets very slooooooooow. Even quitting or resetting Safari doesn't seem to help much.
And I still, even with 3.0.4, get the occasional crash on top of everything else.
Now running Firefox 3 Beta 3, with no regrets. Sorry Stevie, I gave it every chance... you just didn't deliver.
.
Did you open up the Activity window to see if a particular download was hanging up? Tonight I had problems where it was taking two minutes or more to download individual AppleInsider pages. I opened the Activity window and found Doubleclick was failing to respond. Safari eventually timed out and completed the download. The problem could be Doubleclick not Safari. -- This isn't the first time Doubleclick has caused problems. They just are unable to do their job properly.
Oh, BTW, to anyone who says "downloads are the future," see this article at Macworld. You may or may not get really fat pipes in the future, but it won't be all the data you want anymore. So is it really worth paying for a download from the iTunes store or wherever, paying for the bandwidth and paying for the disk space to store it on or the blank to burn it to rather than just ordering the movie on Blu-ray?
It could be that with really fast pipes, such as what Verison will be serving up in the next few years, with at&t following, we may not need to store anything locally, except for portable viewing, and maybe not even then.
Verison is planning 150Mb/s. They also have upgrade plans for a 1Gb/s speed.
With that, downloading even 1080p with decent compression (or none!) would take under a minute.
Give me a break. The consumers didn't decide anything. Besides the Blue Ray player that was included with the Sony PS3, hardly any stand alone players were even sold. Fact is, far more HD players were sold as stand alone units then Blue Ray players. Do a Google search, the margin was something like 4 HD players for every 1 Blue Ray player. Granted, the PS3 made the numbers seem lopsided in the other direction. Strange really, as hardly anybody I know has used the DVD player build in the PS2 as their DVD player. People buy games systems to play games, not watch video. Including the Blue Ray players in Sony PS3s to determine total amount of players sold is kindof like including cell phones in the sale of MP3 players to suggest Nokia is really the most successful maker of music players. If anything, the Blue Ray player is just a mere afterthought in a consumer's decison to buy the PS3.
Moreover, even with the PS3 sales included, the number of Blueray players in the wild is peanuts compared to standard DVD players. Certainly, not enough to decide the victor considering the sales of HD content is almost relatively non existent compared to typical DVD sales (again do a Google search).
Make no mistake, studios and retailors decided the victor. Consumers will inadvertently support whatever format is hand feed to them because they eventually will not have a choice. Most consumers are to ignorant to know the difference. Here big studios were paid big dollars to support a particular format. Do a Google search, recently both Fox and Warner were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to go with Blue Ray. Consumers are not going to buy into a format that doesn't have any content.
Which brings us to my next point. Retailors wanted a winner selected because it cost more money to support multiple formats. They had to buy movies for both formats, stock players for both, and divide advertising costs. Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix could care less what consumers were selecting, as the sales were almost non existent. They merely wanted a winner. They picked the camp with the most studio support. Afterall, they are in the business of selling content.
Blue Ray might have benefits. However, HD for consumers was the more open format. Like everything Sony does, DRM was the primary thought behind Blueray.
Your numbers are off. The ratio during most of the time up to the last quarter was 2 to 1, not 4 to 1.
But that bgan to change in the holiday season, as BD player sales increased more than Hd-DVD sales did. and that was after Toshiba paid Paramount to stop producing BD disks.
You might say that Toshiba ws the one trying to decide for us.
That BS about Fox and Warner has been debunked so many times already it's not worth mentioning it.
Your second to last paragraph is correct, but then you go and spoil it again with the silliness in the last one.
BD has the same DRM as HD-DVD. Look it up. Both have Managed Copy. that's all that matters. As though most people will want to pay more for extras.
PS3 sales are flat because the Blue Ray player was included. The Blue Ray player didn't add enough value to justify an otherwise marginally better gaming platform. I say marginally better because PS3 has more potential then the X-Box, The hardware is more powerful. Sony, however, released its product a year behind Microsoft. Consequently, it will take a while to catch up in terms of games and to refine its performance. Sony also doesn't have the defective hardware problem the X-Box suffers. I honestly doubt the Blue Ray player was a big plus in anybody's mind when buying a PS3. It personally is the reason I haven't bought one. Die hard gamers bought a PS3 despite the Blue Ray player.
Now that is a really specious argument. If you were to argue that the price of the PS3 was too high in the beginning, and part of that reason was the inclusion of the BD drive, it would make sense.
But please don't try to tell people that the PS3 didn't sell as well as it should have because of BD, the format, as you are implying!
Price, yes. Format, no. Now that the price has dropped to just $50 more than the 360, sales have jumped, and are actually higher than the 360. It's a far better value.
You do know that the BD player plays DVD and CD's as well, don't you? There is no reason for someone who knows what the unit is to not buy it because of it.
Jeez, the game mags, and sites, have explained this very well, ad infinitum.
Sony also has more room to drop prices than MS does, BECAUSE of the newer technology.
Ok, tried WebKit. Same result.
I now officially kick Safari and all things Safari-related to the curb.
Back to Firefox 3 Beta 3.
.
There are some issues:
http://arstechnica.com/staff/nate.ar...3-webmail-woes
There is a serious security issue as well, though I can't seem to find the reference right now.
There are some issues:
http://arstechnica.com/staff/nate.ar...3-webmail-woes
There is a serious security issue as well, though I can't seem to find the reference right now.
That's ok... I don't use YahooMail. I'm a Gmail and Hotmail guy (had the Hotmail acct from before Microsoft bought the company).
And Ars Technica overall really liked Firefox 3.0b3:
I'm extremely impressed with Firefox 3 beta 3. I've been using the nightly builds for quite some time now, and I'm convinced that Firefox 3 is very close to being ready for widespread adoption. There are still a number of minor issues, but I suspect that they will be resolved very soon. Firefox 3 delivers massive improvements over Firefox 2 in almost every conceivable way, particularly in the areas of performance and memory overhead. Users who want to give beta 3 a try can download it from Mozilla's web site.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-3-beta-3.html
I've just completely given up on Safari... it's so bad that it makes my entire system unresponsive when its futzing up... can't even bring up the Force Quit for the longest time, or anythhing else.
.
That's ok... I don't use YahooMail. I'm a Gmail and Hotmail guy (had the Hotmail acct from before Microsoft bought the company).
And Ars Technica overall really liked Firefox 3.0b3:
I'm extremely impressed with Firefox 3 beta 3. I've been using the nightly builds for quite some time now, and I'm convinced that Firefox 3 is very close to being ready for widespread adoption. There are still a number of minor issues, but I suspect that they will be resolved very soon. Firefox 3 delivers massive improvements over Firefox 2 in almost every conceivable way, particularly in the areas of performance and memory overhead. Users who want to give beta 3 a try can download it from Mozilla's web site.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-3-beta-3.html
I've just completely given up on Safari... it's so bad that it makes my entire system unresponsive when its futzing up... can't even bring up the Force Quit for the longest time, or anythhing else.
.
It's a G-Mail problem too. The article mentioned that as well.
I can't understand why you are having such problems. I have to assume that there is some corruption in your system that's doing this to you. Your problems are much more than most people seem to be having.
It's a G-Mail problem too. The article mentioned that as well.
I can't understand why you are having such problems. I have to assume that there is some corruption in your system that's doing this to you. Your problems are much more than most people seem to be having.
Don't know what to tell ya, Mel... I've been using GMail on Firefox 3.0b3, with no issues significant enough for me to notice as of yet.
Far as my system being corrupted, well, doesn't seem to be-- Safari (and the very similar WebKit) is the only app that's been giving me problems.
My feelings towards Safari are summed up thusly:
Yo! I'm DONE with you!
...
Ah, you young whippersnapper, I started out with Pong in college.
My sources inform me that *you* invented Pong.
It's a G-Mail problem too. The article mentioned that as well.
I can't understand why you are having such problems. I have to assume that there is some corruption in your system that's doing this to you. Your problems are much more than most people seem to be having.
Nope, it's not an isolated problem. Webkit has serious issues with memory leaks and overhead and it's about time that Apple started to do something about it. It happens on both my machine and my GF's.
Do use use Safari or any other webkit-based browser? How long has it been running? Check out the "real memory" column of Activity Monitor to see how much memory it's using.
It could be that with really fast pipes, such as what Verison will be serving up in the next few years, with at&t following, we may not need to store anything locally, except for portable viewing, and maybe not even then.
Verison is planning 150Mb/s. They also have upgrade plans for a 1Gb/s speed.
With that, downloading even 1080p with decent compression (or none!) would take under a minute.
You misunderstand. That's exactly what the article says the ISPs don't want. They're claiming their networks are stressed, even with a relatively small number of heavy users today. Imagine if everybody did it. If you want to be able to download hundreds of gigabytes or even terabytes of data a month, they're going to make you pay for that. No local storage would be their worst nightmare. They'd have to keep transferring the same large movie files over and over again if you want to watch it more than once. They're not testing bandwidth caps, tiered pricing and packet shaping for no reason. Read the article, don't just skim it. Note where it says:
Consumer advocates say that it’s only a matter of time before average high-speed Internet users get slapped with the label “hog.”
And that's at today's speeds.