Originally posted by: Sunner
If I made a claim and backed it up with a link to a company that sells toilet paper, that doesn't make me right only because the toilet paper company doesn't directly disprove me.
You've given plenty of links, but none that back you up.
That's a horrible analogy. First of all, I found creditable links, and not any normal link. Not only that, but I found 2 sources for each topic I found. You should read the links before you comment on them.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because you ARE wrong. Every link you gave is either outdated, beside the point, completely irrelevant, or just as wrong as you are.
For instance, if you're going to link gizmodo talking about HD not playing in 32bit vista, at least bother to look a little harder. A post from the SAME DAY, on the SAME SITE:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software...n-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php
A linux based HD-DVD player is STILL irrelevant.
The only thing I can slightly agree with you is that Aero Glass (3D), from everywhere I've read, does appear to require PS2.0. Aero standard (2d), does not. Although I don't see that as a problem, considering PS2.0 is several years old already.
The rest of your arguments are BS semantics and sophistry, and not even worth regarding.
I shouldn't have to translate every link I give you, but in this case, I will...
The date is irrelevant because it's well within reason (2006). Not only that, but Microsoft is not going to release information about their OS twice. Giving news twice about the same thing on two different days would be pointless.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/vista/wi...version-wont-play-hd-movies-196427.php
They say, "Looking forward to watching HD movies when you upgrade to Windows Vista next year? Tough luck: unless you're running the 64-bit version of Vista on a 64-bit processor (like the Core 2 Duo or recent Athlons), it looks like it won't play back copy protected HD video. The culprit? Windows itself: the 32-bit version of Vista can run unsigned code, which Microsoft thinks might provide a path to intercept the video and copy it."
Then they offer links to other articles saying the same thing. I also gave 2 other links to prove this.
Blueray and HD-DVD movies are all copyrighted. Therefore, they are encrypted. If the material is encrypted, then it is protected by the DRM provided in Vista. This does not apply to home videos, obviously. But the smart ones know I'm not talking about home videos.
http://geekswithblogs.net/lorint/archive/2006/04/25/76295.aspx
I'm wrong about this one. However, I do know that one is on the way. There aren't many HD-DVD drives for computer yet anyway.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188
This link explains that Windows is targeted not because it's the most used Desktop system. It goes into depth on how it's not true. Here's an excerpt.
He says, "Someone on a mailing list or discussion forum complains about the latest in a long line of Microsoft email viruses or worms and recommends others consider Mac OS X or Linux as a somewhat safer computing platform. In response, another person named, oh, let's call him "Bill," says, basically, "How ridiculous! The only reason Microsoft software is the target of so many viruses is because it is so widely used! Why, if Linux or Mac OS X was as popular as Windows, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms!"
Of course, it's not just "regular folks" on mailing lists who share this opinion. Businesspeople have expressed similar attitudes ... including ones who work for anti-virus companies. Jack Clarke, European product manager at McAfee, said, "So we will be seeing more Linux viruses as the OS becomes more common and popular."
Mr. Clarke is wrong.
Sure, there are Linux viruses. But let's compare the numbers. According to Dr. Nic Peeling and Dr Julian Satchell's Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software (note: the link is to a 135 kb PDF file):
"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory.""
http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth3
If you weren't convinced by that, I provided another link that says the same thing. Here's another excerpt.
It says, "Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don't see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux. While this may be true, at least in part, the intentional implication is not necessarily true: That Linux and Linux applications are no more secure than Windows and Windows applications, but Linux is simply too trifling a target to bother attacking."
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39247736,00.htm
This is an old exploit that I spoke on earlier. The link is old, but this is still relevant because the exploit had to be fixed during beta stages. It was meant to show you that Vista runs the same kernel code as Windows XP.
Lots of controversy back then.
It says, "Microsoft earlier this month broke its monthly patching cycle to rush out a "critical" fix for Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows 2000. Vista is not listed in Microsoft's security bulletin as vulnerable, but the updates for the forthcoming OS release refer to the same page on Microsoft's support Web site for details on the security issue.
The WMF security problem drew an unusual response in the security world. One expert crafted his own fix for the problem, before Microsoft provided its security update. Industry experts called the WMF bug one of the most serious Windows flaws to date and recommended the third-party fix. Microsoft, meanwhile, said users were not under massive attack."
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/168
This article simply explains the differences between GDDR2 and GDDR3 as well as DDR1 and DDR2. It goes into depth with links and pictures; further explaining the differences between the two. It was linked to help educate you on memory. Memory doesn't manipulate data at all. This article confirms it. No need for me to quote. It's fairly straight forward and to the point.