Well folks I've got some tragic news out there, Windows Vista will be dropping a feature. But before you get too torn up about it, here's what the feature is: HD disc playback on 32 bit machines.

Now, the only reason I'm reporting this is because when people make a big deal about nothing in news stories, it tends to get me pissed off, and that's just what this is.

Let's take a look at the discontinuation of this critical Vista feature.

AMD has been selling 64-bit processors for 2 years and 11 months. Their standard processors are the Athlon 64 lineup, high-end is the X2 and FX, and low end is the Sempron. With the exception of the Sempron, that's all 64-bit. Intel sells 64-bit parts too, the Core 2 Duo is all 64 bit, and some of the later Pentiums were. Today on Newegg you can get yourself a 64-bit AMD chip for $86, maybe cheaper chips are available elsewhere. Point is, the hardware is out there, it's the standard.

Microsoft's feature cut would mean, unless you have one of these processors, you can't watch your 1280x720 or 1920x1080 discs such as Blu Ray and HD-DVD.

FUCKING WAAAAAH. First of all, with the exception of people who bought high-end 32-bit hardware right before all the high-end went to 64-bit, the only people with 32-bit processors will find an immediate problem when playing ANY video at 1280x720 or higher: Their processors cannot handle it. People with bargain 32-bit chips will find themselves woefully unable to play even 640x480 using H.264 codec, much less 1920x1080.

One also wonders what the HELL a person is doing with a $300-1000 Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive, new graphics card and display with the proper HD-secure cables to prevent copying of the signal, Windows Vista (which alone requires at least 1 GB of RAM to do much of anything smoothly, and a fast processor) and some bullshit $60 Sempron. "Dropping" support for 32-bit versions of Vista and playing HD-discs is the equivalent of game developers saying that you have to have a hardware graphics processor to play a game; ignoring the special features such a processor provides, trying to use an antiquated software solution would simply be too slow for it to work.

And honestly, even if you do have a 32 bit machine, plan on getting Vista and a HD drive the moment they come out, and not getting a processor upgrade, there is some good news. First, you can still do HD video in general, such as stuff right from files... just not discs. Although really it is possible to do the discs, you just have to do it right through Windows Media Player. The reason for this change is that Hollywood execs are afraid 32-bit versions of drivers will allow circumventing of HD-protection schemes.

Damnit I hate it when people make a big deal out of nothing. What's next, people have a hissy fit because their insurance stops coverage for using leeches for blood-letting? Get with the damn times.

I wish I could let my Tech Report stay up longer but this shit just has to be said.

Apple sucks balls.

Why is this? Well I've spent 50 minutes watching part of the Apple World Wide Developer Conference or whatever WWDC stands for. Let's take a look at some of their top 10 innovative new features for OS X.

It's 64-bit. Oh snap! Because Windows XP doesn't have a 64-bit edition, and Vista definitely isn't 64-bit (sarcasm there folks).

They're shipping what was previously beta software, such as Front Row (which is essentially Windows Media Center, shipped for years now and will be in every version of Vista), Boot Camp (gives you an OS X vs Windows XP menu when you start up your Mac, if you have XP installed) and Photo Booth (a useless application for taking pictures of yourself and applying photo effects).

They're adding "Spaces" which are essentially the Virtual Desktops that PCs have had for years. You can install them and have multiple virtual desktops to organize your applications on. Now they're animated, because Apple loves to animate shit. And of course it's new.

Spotlight, which they use to search the computers, now has features that Windows users should recognize--especially stuff ripped from Vista. Now they can use Boolean operators such as AND, OR, and NOT which you can use in Windows Desktop Search. You can also specify file types, which you can do in WDS. For example, "2 AND Gryphon NOT *.jpg" would give you stuff of 2 Gryphon which weren't jpegs (if you're searching for audio and video clips of/by him). If you go right to Spotlight it is by default a Recent Items folder; XP has had that for years, I can't even remember if they had it or not before then. If you open Spotlight and type, it auto-selects the best choice, so you can type in "WoW" and hit Enter and it should auto-launch World of Warcraft. Sounds neat, only problem is, I was doing this over a month ago on my Vista Beta machine (minus WoW. I don't like WoW.) which means they must've added the feature months or years ago.

Some developer-targeted animation technology which matters dip shit to users.

A new voice and braile support for some programs.

The ability to make widgets of a portion of a website, which auto-update...?

Sure, there are a couple things I didn't mention, which aren't entirely retarded. The point is that out of 10 fascinating features which are supposed to keep us on the edges of our seats, most of them are either things that have already been done by other people (especially Microsoft), or useless to end users. So every time Apple people whimper about "But you're COPYING us!" when Microsoft throws together a calendar program (and how many ways are there to make a calendar program, really? You can only add so many features and move the views and controls around so much) that looks similar, or adds the ability to instant-search (originally previewed on Vista, ripped off by Apple, now Apple says that Microsoft ripped them off) files on your desktop, do the world a favor and slap said Apple person. If we do it first somehow, Apple says it's a useless feature until it gets a cute name and a slight tweaking. If we do it at the same time, it's because Microsoft ripped Apple off. If we do it later, then we're "behind" and "copying". But when Apple copies us, it's not copying, it's improvement. Intel processors, which Apple publically hated for a decade? Now they're delighted to have Core, Core 2, and Xeon processors in every new mac they've designed. Right-clicking mice with scroll wheels? Oh, Apple did complain about it being too complicated, but they didn't copy us--no, they improved on it by removing the physical distinction between the buttons and making the wheel a sphere! It's like we're dealing with fucking children here. Rich children with expensive toys that glow and hum pleasantly and don't have a single sharp corner or exposed flaw. Children who love to put down others because they don't play with the same toys, and who go batshit insane and get excited when they gain 0.1% of the computer market share over the course of a quarter year (an increase of this sort being the first and only increase Apple has made in any quarter since Jobs started working). Like any rich children, take away their toys and they will cry...

Tweek's Tech Report! Updating you, the (potentially) clueless reader, in your knowledge of the modern and upcoming excitements of the technological sort.



First category! You Never Thought You'd See This Happen... (but it's true!)

What is it: AMD announces plans to buy ATI. For those who aren't in the know, AMD is the smaller of the two main PC processor designers and manufacturers, competing with Intel. ATI is the smaller of the two main PC graphics card designers, based in Canadia Land. This rather unusual business move would give AMD all the ATI products, names, brands, employees, and everything. Valued at 5.4 billion USD, it's twice as much money as AMD even has!

Why is it: Nobody knows for sure. It's been theorized that, if AMD didn't buy ATI, they would go out of business in 5 years for some reason. It's also been theorized that buying ATI would allow AMD to have very powerful graphics parts and motherboard chipsets, which would allow it to compete more directly with Intel and take a swipe at where Intel really blows: integrated graphics. It's also possible that AMD is trying to make a hybrid processor using the highly-threaded nature of graphics processors (in addition to the 10x performance increase over modern CPUs) to beat Intel's architecture in 5 years or so (which is as long as it takes to design, test, and make a modern CPU architecture).

Why it matters: Hard to say as well for now. It could mean a significant increase in processor or graphics card performance from the AMD/ATI products, or that AMD would make ATI graphics cards (ATI doesn't own any chip fabrication plants). Or maybe it will spell doom for ATI's graphics cards if AMD just wants their tech. It's mostly an interesting and unexpected twist right now.



What is it: Apple uses Intel Processors. Apple is this small company that has a stranglehold on 3% of the computer market, those 3% coming mostly from the ranks of the corporation-hating, artistically gifted, aesthetically correct, and white plastic supremecist subgroups of the human race. They also make the iPod, which I've heard has a rather nice vibrating dildo attachment that matches with the beat of your music. Note that Apple does not make the vibrator. Intel is that non-AMD processor maker who has been seen as the CPU leader for most of the lifetime of the device.

Why is it: Apple hates the shit out of Intel. Or at least, they did for 10 years. About a year ago they realized that a decade of Intel-bashing would have to come to a swift end when the PowerPC chips they were using failed to meet their needs. Basically they did it because they had to, nobody in their right mind would make a complete architecture overhaul like that unless it was needed. This is the company (Apple) who only really sells one computer anyway, a PowerPC chip with some DDR and a hard drive, usually built into an LCD and with a white plastic keyboard and mouse. Not to be confused with the white plastic PCs which Apple wants to distance its users from.

Why it matters: It's funny as hell. If you'd spent years watching Apple compare their computers to Intel-powered PCs (always Intel, very rarely AMD!) and then suddenly use their marketing to twist a 180 degree change in direction so it looks like they never faltered in their plans, you'd find it funny too.



What is it: Intel secretly admits to having fucked around for 5.5 years. They messed around with the Penium 4 since it was released in November 2002, only to replace it with the Core 2 Duo in 2006. These 5.5 years were considered having "fucked around" because in the end they just took the Pentium M, which is basically a modified Pentium 3, and based their new arcitecture off of that. That's right, the C2D is just a desktop version of a laptop version of a desktop processor from 1999. Intel spent 1 year working with something so good they'd use it 6-7 years later, and then spent 5.5 years using something so terrible they didn't even call the successor "Pentium 5."

Why is it: The Pentium 4 used the Netburst architecture, which sucked past about 4 GHz. They were hoping to push it to 10 GHz but after about 4, it simply produced too much heat.

Why it matters: Again, it's funny. While you could say "Wow, look how fast the Core 2 Duo processor is!" you can also say "Wow, Intel had to go back to their 1999 designs to actually get a decent product! I'm so glad I've been paying their brilliant design team since 2000.



What is it: Dell plans to use AMD processors. Dell, who is the largest and last big PC vendor not to use AMD processors, is finally planning to buy millions of them and sell them in everything from servers to desktops and laptops.

Why is it: Who knows? If they were going to use AMD, the past 3 years would've been the time to take advantage of it. Now Intel's Core 2 Duo has every advantage conceivable. Maybe Dell is doing it to avoid being involved in AMD's Intel antitrust lawsuit, though I doubt that will let the m avoid turning over business agreements, contracts, etc. So... who knows.

Why it matters: Because it's unusual, and Dell sells more PCs than anyone else. This means more business and exposure for AMD.



Second Category! The Eye of the Console Storm...

In late 2005, Microsoft put out the Xbox 360. In late 2006, within 3.5 months of now, Sony and Nintendo will put out the PS3 and Wii respectively. That puts us right now in the "eye of the storm" between the hyped launches of the Xbox 360 and the later next-gen consoles. Not that things are entirely calm, there's tons of speculation over pricing, features, performance, games, accessories, and online capabilities of the two newcomers compared with the 360. A quick summary of strengths of the system follows. Please remember that this doesn't count for "But I want to play the newest game from the ______ series!" That is a sad but unavoidable part of console purchasing. Sigh, the joy of living in PC land.



If you like...
Spending money
Online gaming
Good graphics
White plastic
Typical consoles
$60 a game
1280x720
...then you get... An Xbox 360.

If you like...
Saving money
Retro gaming
Current graphics
The underdog
Interactive gaming
$50 a game
512x384
...then you get... A Wii.

If you like...
Taking out loans
Insane graphics
Black and silver
Gaming systems from 2010
Ripping off Nintendo
$60+ a game
1920x1080
A selection of 33 new games between now and 2008
Blu Ray
Everything your PC can already do
Satan
...then you get... A PS3.



A gross oversimplification of things, perhaps, but not as gross as simplified as what I'm about to say:

Basically if you like modern games with a bit of a graphics, resolution, and price hike then you get an Xbox 360. If you're graphics crazy and have an HD TV and money falling out of your ass, then you get a PS3. If you're not bothered with slightly-better-than-current graphics for the next 3-5 years while getting cheap gaming and a new control interface, then you get a Wii.

...so yeah. I'm getting a Wii because I'm low on money, high on energy, and don't have an HD TV--nor could I take it to school with me if I did have one.


Third and final category (for now)! Technology developments!

Here's some stuff that's happened in the first half of 2006, or stuff that will happen some time in the next year or two or 5. Most of this is pretty close to happening...

Perpendicular HDD recording! No, you don't turn your hard drive on its side. These new harddrives will write data in a different way, allowing for up to 5-10x increase in data density. This means two major improvements that you, the consumer, will notice on your new perpendicular hard drive. First, read and write times should be 5-10x faster than before, simply because the hard drive head passes over 5-10x as much data at any given moment. Bear in mind that current hard drive interfaces can only handle at most 300 MB/sec and by 2007 should reach up to 600 MB/sec. As current hard drives can generally do 50-80 MB/sec on desktops, this should allow for these "next-gen hard drives" to make full use of (or be limited by) the hard drive interface bandwidth. To the end user, this translates to certain tasks being done up to 5-10x faster. Starting and shutting down, loading games and copying files should see a proportional speed hike. The second benefit, and arguably the better benefit, of this new technology will be 5-10x increase in storage capacity per surface area. This means if you keep the same size hard drive, you can see 5-10x the capacity. Laptops will be able to store 1,200 to 1,600 GB of space per drive and desktops should be able to hit as high as 5,000 GB. Imagine what you have right now, and then imagine having 10 times as much. Isn't technology wonderful? This also leads to the potential for making smaller hard drives. With desktops this isn't currently an issue, as the hard drive is a fairly small device. With laptops this could mean smaller drives, although as the thickness wouldn't decrease much, the benefits would be minimal. More likely than not, it will simply result in greater storage capacity for everyone in the upcoming years. Please note that while some portable devices, such as iPods and non-Apple HDD-based players (Gmini, Zune, Zen Vision, etc), could see a 5-10x increase in both speed and capacity (wouldn't 600 GB in your pocket be sweet?) it won't improve the capacity for other smaller devices, such as flash-based MP3 players (anything that isn't at least as long and tall as a credit card, such as the iPod Nano) or USB "key chain" drives. Those are limited by the size of transistors which is a totally different matter. Never fear though, it will soon be possible to buy 4 and 8 GB key chain drives and Nanos.

Multi-core CPUs!This is partly new and partly not. There have been mainstream Dual-Core CPUs since at least 2005, but now you can get them for as low as $107 on Newegg, possibly a bit lower elsewhere. For those of you who aren't in the know (why would you even be reading this O.o?) a dual core processor basically takes two processors and sticks them on the same chip. It allows your computer to do, in theory, twice as much work. This doesn't mean it works twice as fast, because most current programs are single-threaded--they can only take advantage of one processor core. However, some newer applications and games (such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) will utilize a second processor core. Even if you can't use the core for the big programs, they will still do other tasks while your big program runs, such as virus scans, internet traffic, explorer.exe and other jobs which can give your "big programs" more processor power to work with on the other core. The "new" news here is quad-core. Current processors generally only go up to 2 cores per chip, although the Xbox 360 has 3 cores and the PS3 will have 8 cores. Later this year we should see 4 (quad) core processors from Intel, and from AMD a few months following. This means your computer will be able to do 4 times as much work as before, or 2 times as much if you already have a dual core. Exciting times for processor performance increase. And this isn't even taking into consideration the general improvements in performance per-core! So you'll end up with more cores which are each more capable than before!

Multi-CPU systems! This isn't really new. Not entirely at least. It's been possible to get dual Xeon and dual Opteron processors in business workstations and servers, as well as dual Xeon and dual PowerPC processors in Apple computers for a number of years. You could do it before then, but it was relatively uncommon. The reason it's news is because AMD plans on making it a reality for the desktops of 2006 and beyond. They're planning on announcing dual-socket processors, where you can stick multiple CPUs in one computer, as soon as this year. This is seperate from multi-core CPUs, and in fact the benefits are cummulative. It should be possible to get, in 2007, a system that has 2 AMD CPUs which each have 4 cores. This translates to 8x the raw processing power of most computers today, more if you consider that the cores will each probably be faster than a current one. Of course, this is all theoretical--in reality there are diminishing returns, and those single-threaded applications I mentioned above won't get any faster, no matter how many cores you put in. Time will fix that, though.

64-bit computing! It doesn't mean much to most people other than a buzz-word and for the most part, that's what it is. Until you need more than 4 GB of RAM (most people today are probably fine with 512-768 MB, silly them!) it doesn't impact you much. When you want >4 GB of RAM, you need a 64-bit computer to address that. Windows Vista will be 64-bit, and OS X can do 64-bit (although the Core 1 processors that their new computers use are 32-bit, negating the benefits).

Windows Vista! It won't be out until early 2007 in stores, we hope, but this years-in-the-making operating system should be a nice improvement for PC users. We hope. If you like OS X animations, fade effects, transparency effects, and lots of meaningless eyecandy, then this will have that. If you want faster searching, reorganized features, more features, fewer viruses, better security, and 64-bit computing then you'll want Vista, assuming your computer can run it. It has a bunch of stuff that OS X has which Windows has needed for a while. Not really a reason to make OS X people switch back, but it should keep more Windows people where they are, and improve things for everyone.

LCDs are cheap! I just realized this when browsing Newegg. They have a 20.1" LCD that displays 1600x1200, by Samsung, with exceptionally good ratings, for $290 after a $60 mail-in rebate. Back in 2001 or 2002, a 20.1" display could set you back $1800. Now you can get it for less than 1/6th of that price, with better technology and features as well. Suddenly a whole lot of display space becomes affordable for a whole lot of people. This isn't a new trend as prices have been decreasing, but you can get these things for really cheap now. Seriously, they're not luxury items at all. Check it out here: [link]

High-Definition! Not new either, but there are new things on the way. HD-DVD (High-Definition DVD) and Blu-Ray discs are on the horizon, and we should see readers/burners before the close of 2006. They will be expensive, mind you, at anywhere from $200-2000 a pop, and the media will be pricey too--currently a Blu-Ray disc costs about $1/GB to burn and a little more for a rewritable version, compared to as low as $.05/GB for current DVD+/-Rs. and $.30-$.60/GB for hard drives. Still, at 25-50 GB per DVD-sized disc, it may be worth it to some people. Just as there was a point where the higher capacity of DVD+R's (meaning fewer discs to burn) made it worthwhile for me to spend that little bit extra on DVDs rather than CD-Rs, there will be a point where the price of DVDs stops dropping and the price of these new discs starts dropping, and it will be worth storing 10 DVDs worth of content in the space of one for a price premium. In other HD news, the PS3 and Xbox 360 will support Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media (the 360 by purchasing an add-on drive for $100-200) and resolutions, letting you play games at up to 10 times the display resolution of modern consoles. That is, if your TV can support it.

That's all for now, I'll add more as I think of it!

I was gonna see if I could figure out HOW THE BLOODY HELL YOU PUT IMAGES IN YOUR DA JOURNALS. I assumed that it was using HTML. I assumed wrong. So now I'm miffed at DA.

I've figured it out, he's suffered severe burns to his body. That's the only way to explain not getting out to visit friends when they still seem so keen to hang out. Either that or he just plain doesn't like us. Can anyone in the household confirm the presence of tragic, disfiguring burns?