mediajunk

In an interview with Bill Gates in today's Seattle Times, he appears unperturbed about Microsoft's competition from Google, Apple and others, and even heaps praise on them, but is unable to resist the odd sideswipe (e.g. Google is going through a "honeymoon period").

The mention of erstwhile competitors such as WordPerfect brought to mind an excellent 1992 article by James Gleick, entitled Chasing Bugs in the Electronic Village, about his eager wait for Microsoft Word for Windows 2.0 -- and subsequent frustration.

Gleick's article (which, incidentally, formed part of a compilation of his essays that I read on holidays last week -- my memory for essays doesn't stretch to decades!) the insights it gave into the tactics of the then young and nimble Seattle software company:

"But Microsoft's marketing strategists had more pressing problems. Winword was by far the dominant word processing program designed to be used with Microsoft's Windows operating environment, but a relatively small number of personal-computer users use Windows.

Overall, the market leader by a large margin was WordPerfect, which was known to be beta testing its long-awaited entry into the Windows market. Microsoft officials were worried. WordPerfect commands enormous loyalty, in part because -- unlike Microsoft -- the company makes a practice of releasing frequent free upgrades to repair even minor bugs, and in part because it maintains, at enormous expense, a toll-free telephone support line -- an investment Microsoft, which says it fields 14,000 calls a day, has been unwilling to make."

Update: Gates is clearly on a media offensive. He gives an interview in CNET today too, where he elaborates on his "honeymoon" comments, which I believe are a bit snide. Maybe he's rattled?

Ireland is to become the first country in the world to have completely digital cinema, according to a report in Electric News.

Digital Cinema Limited (DCL), the Irish subsidiary of the digital cinema technology firm Avica Europe, will be installing new technology into 500 screens in 105 sites throughout the country at a cost of EUR40 million, making Ireland the first country in the world to convert all cinemas to a digital format from 35mm film.

The new technology will make it easier for smaller cinemas to get faster access to new movies rather than having to wait for bigger cinemas to finish their run of a specific movie. It is likely too that the cost of movies in digital format will reduce in time, according to [DCL spokesperson] Cummins.

Interesting. Of the perceived benefits, however, I hadn't really noticed any delay in films hitting cinema screens in the provinces -- unlike the 1980s, when Dublin got releases first. I presume that the country as a whole now get a greater number of prints.

I imagine that, in the future, releases will be made on a worldwide basis, synchronised so that movies premiere in cinemas around the world on the same day. To do this, cinemas would not only need to be digital, but would have to be capable of receiving encrypted, high-quality downloads, directly from source distributors, usually the Hollywood Studios.

But, you point out, wouldn't a move to digital ultimately favour independent filmmakers, as the cost of distribution would be dramatically reduced? Perhaps, but as far as I know the major barriers to entries for independent filmmakers these days are still the production costs -- dominated by the cost of CGI graphics and copyright payments (even to show a picture on a wall in a movie today, you may have to pay a fee -- and the major studios want to keep it that way).

Plus ca change...

Today, when we think of PCs, we think of (maybe) IBM and (definitely) Microsoft Windows. And when we think of photocopiers, we think of Xerox.

But it all could have been so different. In its Research Center at Palo Alto (PARC), scientists working for Xerox developed the first personal computers and the first graphical user interfaces (GUIs). The Alto personal computer was first developed in 1973 -- almost two decades before IBM PCs would take the world by storm!

Missed opportunities? Perhaps, but at least Xerox managed to corner the photocopier market, and their errors can be forgiven when we realise that, in 1943, IBM chairman Thomas Watson forecast a world market for "maybe only five computers."

The fascinating history of Xerox's inventions -- from photocopiers and business applications to more general computing devices -- is recounted on the PARC website.

At an otherwise run-of-the-mill conference in San Francisco next week, a heavyweight triumvirate consisting of IBM, Sony and Toshiba will announce details of an immanent technology that is expected by many to usher in a new generation of personal computing.

The group's new "Cell Architecture" chip is not just a more powerful microchip, it is also a new kind of microchip. The trio have redesigned the hardware and software architecture of the microchip from scratch, opening up new possibilities for distributed number-crunching and communications among all sorts of household appliances, from TV sets to mobile phones.

In short, the Cell may well change the way all computerized devices behave, much as the internet changed the way personal computers behave. Chips in servers, PCs, cars, cameras, PDAs and mobile phones will be able to "talk" to each other, and to share tasks. Indeed, the manufacturers claim that the product is being developed for the Playstation3 -- I suspect they are trying to avoid too much hype.

The Cell chip itself has been described by computer.org as a "supercomputer", not only capable of impressive linear computing, but also utilising advanced distributed computing techniques.

The Register claims that "no chip in years has caused as much excitement".

For an introductory (and nonetheless mind-boggling) explanation of the Cell and why it is so different to any chip that has gone before, see Nicholas Blanchford's comprehensive analysis.

Like most internet users, I hate seeing the "HTTP: 404" message. You know the one -- it means that the page you are looking for can't be found (because it no longer exists, or was moved, or never existed in the first place).

404 pages are actually customisable, and I like when sites take the trouble to do this. Of course, I intend to create my own 404 pages too -- it's one of those things that's way, way down my to-do list. It would probably take just a little longer than the time it's taking to write this entry, but strangely that doesn't move it up the list.

So what's stopping me? Maybe it's because I can't top this 404 - p0rn not found page.

I'll probably just end up stea ... eh, "borrowing" one from this collection of the web's best 404s.