INQUIRER readers don't mind ads after all

I NOTICED the new Advertising but it didn't bother me one iota we get a lot of very useful Pc news that gives us a heads up on new technology no one does it better There is no such thing as a free ride so everyone that is complaining probulby expect everything for free I like those ads anyday compared to the Popups and Popunders .The Inquirer is the only way i can learn new meanings to words like Toilet just today i have learned it is called a Loo and a Cludgie where else can you learn that on a Pc info website come on people lighten up and thank Mike and all the other hard working Editors that contribute to the best site in the World .

Freddy Parker

I'd just like to write in supporting your Orange advert. No it's not particularly nice and those with slow computers or 31.2kbps on their modems may find it takes them a little longer to see the page…but surely you can ensure that the advert loads after the text comes up (I don't know if this already happens), and it's more likely to be the processor that causes the slowdown than the connection, especially on 1.4Mbps ADSL!!!

The Inquirer is a webzine with coverage of events ranging all over, and you seem to have reporters that really know what they're talking about (even if things get a little too biased at times). I just don't understand how people expect you to stay afloat, as if this site was set up out of charity! It amazes me how you guys survive on the amount of advertising you have considering you don't let companies pay your way and you have a fair few people in your employ. I've seen this kind of advertising in men's magazines, newspapers, all kinds of things. While the ad did crunch up the text to its left a little too much, I have no objection to the idea in principle, especially considering the state of advertising revenues and the kind of crap we have to put up with on other sites (e.g. sounds, adverts that move around to get your attention). I wish all these fragile souls (who apparently lack the ability not to look at the advert!) would wake up and realise how difficult it is to run a page as successful and incisive as yours while surviving on relatively small revenues from adverts. Vetting advertisers, yeah right! Shame? Just you try running a globally competitive news site!

I think it would be a shame if you submit to pressure from the kind of people who think that making money from a few tiny banners is the only acceptable form of income. They should know that money made from that advert run will make you money to make this a better website or at least keep you in the black. Perhaps they haven't noticed how many sites have closed down through lack of revenues, and that those who are succeeding are for the most part using far more intrusive forms of advertising.

Great site btw

Alex

Thanks to this advert your images/ads/ folder now shows up in my PAC rules.

Ordinarily I don't mind same site border ads but in-body swf ads are filter fodder.

Pyrenean

this is annoying to no end...however i at least run netscape and have banned all cookies form your site and all who advertise..the result? The ads in the articles do not register as a valid file and therefore do not show(banners are there however)..

God Bless,
William Warren

Ads? what ads? :) All I see is the big black boxes with "This ad zapped" in yellow text.

Naughty me

<ducks>

Peter

I just want you to know that I don't really care if you have ad's in the middle of the articles. As long as there aren't pop-up's everywhere I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned people who really dislike them should come up with some clever way of filtering the ads, we're all IT monkeys here.

What I don't understand is why people think they're so annoying, anyone remember picture books? They displaced the text all the time and we didn't care then, why should we care now?

Perhaps a more diplomatic placement at the bottom, but otherwise I'm still in love with the articles here.

Chuck Vose

I could not see the advert using my usual setup (suse 8.1 +netscape)

Netscape said I should download a plugin but found nothing to download.,I had to boot in windows to see it.its not fully effective having an advert which not all people can see,and the ad is intrusive.

Also on the AMD Athlon 64, shouldn't it be called the Duron 64 as it has limited cache.

Alex Curry

Great article: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7308

Google hunts down 'President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership'
I get the point you're making about how so many different people had the same "Divine Inspiration" at the same time. Amazing!

Google is great and you can find so many useful things, historically speaking.

It was pointed out during the Clinton years (8 years of unprecedented prosperity) that his various mouthpieces (no, not Monica)... OK, spokespeople - always seemed to say the exact same thing on the Sunday Morning News Shows. You know, as if they had all received the same "talking points" fax, or something. You'd think they'd have gotten the same message out, but with different words, but NO, they we're always the same quotes by different folks, all saying the same things, on different shows at the same time. "Divine Inspiration." Amazing!

One I can remember was a TV commentator showing a pieced together clip of all the "toons" out there same "We're Committed" Searching Google for "Clinton" + "We're Committed turns up -78- pages. Must have been the catch phrase of the 90's??
Google search set up for you

A Truly Kicked Around Phrase -22- pages:
Google search set up for you
Another fun one produces -35- pages most of the Bill's:
Google search set up for you

Where I find Google most helpful is when either Mr or Mrs Clinton, now former pres or Senator, find it in their hearts to offer advice to the Bushes. They'll come up with some real gem of advice about what the current pres __ought__ to be doing . . .

So, then what I'll do is search on something like this:
Google search set up for you
Google search set up for you

The 1st gives you "Waco," The 2nd "Oklahoma City." And just by running thru the years, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, etc - you can see in a jiffy what particular "successes" the former 1st couple were enjoying on a particular day in history. Very few dates coupled with "Clinton" have ever seemed to fail to produces a multitude of pages of result. They were (are) a most news-worthy couple.

Worth noting is, or so it would seem, is that when the couple are out on the stump offering their pearls of wisdom-filled advice, it appears that the old strategy of the "best defense is a good offense" is being employed. Rather than Bill & Hill having to live with the breaking story "WACO - 10 Years Later" for example, a day or so before hand, they would simply go out and seemingly break with tradition, open mouth, insert foot, and flame the pres's policy in the midst of "War With Iraq."

But, hey, as we learned in "Wag The Dog," all we need to do is distract the average person (and possibly news room/reporter) for 24 - 48 - 96 hours, and our problem is gone. Pure genius!

But if we do what the old bumper stick intones, and "Question former-Authority" using Google of course, we can relive History, and learn from their, er, successes.

Thank God for Google!

Dan Kurilla

Subject: PR shills screaming as budgets keep shrinking

In response to the interesting article by Samuel Clemens:

It is worth noting that the slump in potential PR contracts has also made the industry take a good, long look at itself. PR in the technology sector is now fitter, and leaner, than it has ever been. And in turn, is now acting as a beacon for PR in other sectors that haven't yet seen the impact of a slowing global economy.

Any IT PR company not offering performance related packages, for example, or scaleable contracts, is fast becoming jurassic! And credit must go to the profession for avoiding too many examples of 'no coverage-no fee' price wars that have been the cause of many an industry's decimation!

With the IPR and PRCA professional bodies keeping close tabs on the PR world, and feeding information back in to it, the industry has begun to act with the maturity expected from a profession that grew hand in hand with the printing press.

So lets hope for a future of swollen marketing budgets and lunches at The Ivy, but in the meantime lets get on with business.

Cheers,
Alex Needs

Subject: Bill Teel Is Up to Inquirer standards

Mr. Teels articles sound like the crying of a child.
A child whose special interest is never at fault and
certainly is holier than thou.
Rambus is an Intellectual Property company ,not an engineering company.They want to play victim and blame it on two different government agencies.
Articles in the Financial Times and on Reuters website speak to the bogus arguments of Rambus.
They influenced the adoption of SDRAM and filed a convoluted patent in the same time frame.That patent had to be broken down into 31 seperate patents ,could the vagueness of the first patent have been an accident or an intentional action ?
With so many lawyers on staff I find the former to be unlikely and the latter to be quite plausible.
The greater question is why did Rambus not begin the court proceedings in the days of SDRAM ?
And would these proceedings be occurring if the Intel P4 and Rambus deal had squashed DDR SDRAM ?
A lot of time lapsed between all these events ,if these patents are so valuable why did they not go to court sooner ?
Ditch Teel he is to biased to offer any view on the subject beyond pro-Rambus.

Jimbo

Another very baised report. It ignores the documents Rambus destroyed. This can cause a default or an adverse rulling against Rambuss. The court can assume the worse.

If Rambuss wins it will be the end of standards and a huge loss for the industry as a whole. Rambus should have taken the lawyers advice and gotten out of JEDEC but then the commitiee would have steered away from DDR because of Rambus' patents. It was known Rambus had patents and a general idea of what they were. That is why they were courted so hard to be on the committee. The Comittee would have fallen apart with out Rambus.

Steve Angell

I've been very ammused that you have been using Bill Teel as a "reporter" at the Rambus trial. A bit like the fox guarding the henhouse sort of thing. I've got a response to Bill's newly discovered vocation.

Sincerely,

John Moffett
KickAss Gear

I am very disappointed with your decision to carry Bill Teel's coverage of the FTC vs. Rambus trail. Not only does Teel possess direct financial and career advancing motivations for his articles (which you disclose), but he is shameless using his inq reports to promote his best interests.

Calling Desi Rhoden a "kingpin" is not just inflammatory, it is ridiculous. And at a very basic journalistic level you allow Teel to make this manipulative insult without providing any substantiation.

You probably know Mr. Rhoden as well as I do, and you probably know as much about JEDEC as I do. JEDEC has for years had the enormously difficult task of bringing together often contentious parties to work towards open standards. Sometimes it has been more effective than others, but it is a facilitating organization with little real power of its own.

Teel is obviously trying to produce a wave of public skepticism against JEDEC in order to make the truly nefarious Rambus appear victimized.

You, of all people, know better, Mike.

Van Smith

Subject: Intel Celeron is a customer deception

I agree with the article on the celeron 100%, it's a disgrace, but only the desktop version. The mobile celeron has 256k cache and is effectively the same performance as the original P4s.

In face the Toshiba 1415-173s with a mobile celeron 1.8ghz beats a lot of the laptops with a mobile p4 at 1.8 ghz.

I just wanted to mention that

Mark

Perhaps Intel should position the Celeron against the C3.

James Blasius

I have plenty of clients who just want a cost effective PC for the web, email and MS office. I cannot see why they should spend extra $100+ for a P4 that wil be idle most of the day. I understand you are a geek, but most people are not. To do what the average person does, which is using IE and Office on Windows XP, a 2.0Ghz Celeron is more than enough (given 256MB of RAM).

Also, wouldn't you think it would be more expensive for Intel to have a special low cost CPU design instead of using their mainstream CPU? Could they offer it at the same price, if so, for how long? Even if technically crippled, the Celeron is a good value, period. Get a life and on with it.

Best wishes
Zavier

Since when has Intel been deceiving anyone about the worthlessness of the latest Celeries. The reason for having the super mouse spinwheels is not wasting resources. Why let all that Pentium 4 silicon go to the trash when it can be sold as a budget chip--er,sort of? Arron sounds like an AMD fan, but I really don't know. So what if a few people are confused about the Pentiums and Celerons? It's not the end of the world.

Robin

I live in upstate NY where Walmart is King of the discount Stores. They have been selling plenty of their low cost Via solutions. Although I would not call the people who buy them enthusiasts, the processor gets the job done for people who just need to use e-mail and wordprocessor type apps. I Think the Celeron has plenty of Company at the very low end. While Via promotes Low Power low noise computers, Intel just sells their name. Either way many of these systems are being bought by people who don't know or care about performance. I think Deception is one of the key ingredients to successful marketing... Unfortunately.

Ayo

actualy, the 2G P4 Celeron is a great little CPU. low cost, low(er) power consumption, and a great way to start.

The Celeron was never about high performance. Its all about is entry point - you invest in a nice motherboard, with all the feature you want, like 400/533 bus, USB 2.0, SATA - or whatever, and get a full blown P4 later, when the prices drop.

Lynn

Intel, profiting from deception? It can't be!

Intel has never done any such thing, ever... BBBWWWAAAHAHAHAHA!

If it wasn't for lying, cheating, and stealing; Intel would have no income at all.

I'm glad to see you make the point that Intel's Mhz campaign is self-debunking.

But really, what else would we expect from their kind? They'd rather run ads than innovate.

The question I ask the review sites is; why don't we see MHz = MHz CPU reviews? The consumers still think it matters, to why not put Intel's cards on the table for them? 2.4GHz P4, 2.4Ghz Celeron, and a 2.4GHz Athlon XP.... oh wait.... The XP competes rather nicely without even getting up to 2.4GHz yet........ I'm so silly, nevermind.

Dustin

I just thought I would point out that PR rating is not used to show how a higher clock speed processor with reduced cache, is actually slower. They are used as a marketing scheme to show the real world performance, of slower clocked processors. AMD markets a 1.4 clock proc. as 1700+ when using there Athlon XP chip, but they did not us PR rating on the Duron processors they simply marketed them at their true clock speeds. I like PR rating, and it would be nice if Intel actually did a PR for there Celerons but I don't see that happening due to the design of PR rating. Just my thoughts.

Sincerely,
Dan Thomas

The Celeron actually makes a lot of sense. Yes its high clock will trick people into buying it, but that's not where the money is made. The money is made once they realise that it really is SLOW (probably when their kid says it won't run the game that they want to play). Then they have to go and look at upgrading, and yes they will probably end up buying an expensive P4 from the same company that sold them the "budget" CPU just because that's what fits into the slot (socket if you want to be pedantic).

Look at the flip side of this though. None of these users would blame Intel. Intel markets them as budget chips and that is what they are. If AMD made similar Kludge CPU it would be doomed to failure. In my opinion most people buy AMD because they want the fastest CPU for their money and they do some research into their options. Hence, none of these people would choose a dog processor no matter which company made it. So AMD doesn't have a naïve market to sell "budget" processors to. Intel does though. The people that buy the Celeron just see the Intel sign, the clock speed and the price tag.

Chalk one up for brand name marketing.

Regards,
Richard

Subject: Microsoft moves to own DVD format

According to, USATODAY as of Tuesday,

"Microsoft says the video quality, without needing new hardware, is three times that of current DVDs and better than HDTV broadcasts."

This is different than what you wrote. As news on the net proliferates these kind of ambiguous facts are becoming more and more common. Not saying you are wrong but someone does not have the facts correct. I guess we could take a look at MS past and assume your not quiet HD is closer to the truth.

PS thanks for the great site, I always enjoy your articles.

Daniel Fritzen

I have an HD decoder in my HTPC at home connected digital to a Big screen via DVI

I have downloaded the sample 720p content from Microsoft and it is FAR superior to the HD content that comes to me from local stations. I've watched several HD shows in 1080i widescreen from CBC and NBC and I find it so strange that Microsoft would claim it's not HD quality when in my opinion, MPEG-2 compression is out dated and the results I saw off their web site were astonishingly well mastered media files that had far less artifacts then broadcast 1080i.

Odd. I was quite looking forward to T2 in 1080p Windows Media because if the 720p demos are any indication of quality, the 1080p (claimed) T2 stream will kick the perverbial shit out of any broadcast HD I've ever seen.

So id it isn't HD what is it? I mean hell it looks better then HD-MPEG2.

Maybe I should be posting this in the forum.

Thanks
James MacDonald

Subject: Motorola helps China grab RISC market market

Of course it isn't in our best interest to transfer advanced technology to China. China has 1/5th of the total worlds population, the majority of whom will work for 10 cents an hour, making it an absolute cinch that we aren't going to make anything cheaper than they do. The only edge we have had is that we have technology that they aren't far enough along to have developed for themselves, which leaves us with something of value to possibly be able to sell to them.

For the last decade though we have had the greedy and stupid running things. People who have seen no problem with giving away the store.

Some of the more notable techs that have been transferred.

Nuclear weapons design and technology, stolen by the Chinese while Clinton and his first energy secretary turned a blind eye. Including the legacy codes that allow nuclear weapons testing without the physical explosion. (see super computers below)

Missle booster separation design. Clinton approved after the fact to cover a couple of companies that did the transfer so that they could get their satellites launched reliably. Before that they coulldn't even have hit us with ICBM's because half of them would have fallen back on them.

Advanced encryption technology. Allowing them secure communications that we could no longer decipher when we monitored them.

Super computers, approved by Clinton in response to a request for a relaxation of technology transfer rules, giving computer firms here even more than they had asked for.

Advanced aircraft technology. Boeing is building or has built a factory in China to turn out aircraft and transfer the technology for advanced aircraft manufacture and design.

Invitation extended by Clinton to the Chinese military to tour our military schools including a classified one that teaches combined forces military ops.

Automobile engine design and manufacture. I believe that it is General motors that builds their engines in China no and then ships them to the U.S.

etc etc etc.

And they wonder why the economy doesn't come back. The idiots have given away all of the technology and jobs.

Pat

In response to one of the letters you posted that started off like "Why do you presume the U.S. somehow...", I just have to say: Good for you, Mike.

Our situation is more obvious to the Brits than it is to even us.

Jacob

P.S. - That guy said we're in a country regulated by law, and then claims we're a democracy. I think the poor twit doesn't realize that democracy, by definition, is 'rule by majority' whereas a republic is 'rule by law' - which is why if 51% of the country decides that everyone with a British accent should be shot, it's not going to happen because our Constitution guarantees the God-given right to life. I wish more Americans would listen to the chastening of Madison in the Federalist Papers #10:

"Hence it is such that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Subject: Microsoft admits older software insecure and unreliable

NT4 was suppose to be the OS of security too, but then so was Win2k, and XP, and now they are saying that Win 2003 is suppose to be secure. Also note that all OS's were delayed and never released as originally planned !...so what is the difference ?

Now how many years after NT4 release and on it's death bed they are saying to users that we should not use it because after 7 years (or is it more) the OS is NOT-FIXABLE !!

"And it's pretty hard to ignore the almost daily security warnings."

Would you stake your life on software and a company like this ? If not than why do you trust your mission critical servers to them ?

People complain that there is no support for Open Source Software...Too all of them I say "have you tried it?"

I was afraid to switch over too but when I did, because of the large $ savings, I realized that problems in the OSS community get diagnosed and solved a lot faster then by calling the support line at $10/min. And if there is a big bug in the software it gets fixed right a way, not 6 months later in a service pack that fixes 100 bugs and creates another 50. So no you do not have to have a OSS nerd on your staff for support.

I guess I am writing this because I am tired reading people putting down OSS when they have not given it an honest fair chance, instead they just listen to ferries and butterflies.

Just 2c from a dedicated reader.
Peter

My first trip to your site found me at "Microsoft admits older software insecure and unreliable" story. This is so ridiculously biased that I doubt I'll be back. I suspect you're an intelligent person and so I wonder at the motives. I also wonder why so many people who are pro-Linux (nothing wrong with that) feel that they further their cause by being so anti-Windows and letting emotion cloud objectivity.

I know that this behavior makes me (one of those "on the fence" people) very nervous about information that I get about Linux. It reminds me of the Apple community. So much information appears tainted, or certainly not objective. I suspect I'm just wasting my time here, but if you have any influence on the Linux community, perhaps you can discuss this with your colleagues.

Dan

µ