Microsoft turns to technology licensing for Xbox Next
R420
Yet another article on MS's plans for building the new Xbox.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=2534
Microsoft turns to technology licensing for Xbox Next
Rob Fahey 16:33 10/11/2003
Are off the shelf components hurting MS' pocket too much?
Recent agreements signed by Microsoft with a variety of companies to
supply technology for the successor to Xbox reveal that the company is
switching to the manufacturing model preferred by its rivals.
While the Xbox is formed of off the shelf components supplied by
leading technology firms such as Intel and NVIDIA, the contracts for
technology for the next generation console, codenamed Xenon, indicate
that the company's attitude to manufacturing has changed considerably.
Rather than buying devices which are effectively PC components from
manufacturers, Microsoft's next generation plan revolves around
licensing technology designs from key suppliers such as ATI, IBM and
SIS Technologies, and then arranging for the manufacture of these
chipsets itself - effectively becoming a full-scale chip maker, albeit
one without a fabrication plant of its own.
This new approach means that rather than selling components to
Microsoft, as NVIDIA and Intel do, ATI and IBM will be receiving
royalties for the use of their technology - but Microsoft will have
ultimate control over the manufacturing and final use of that
technology, effectively giving the company far more control over its
own platform, and the ability to make significant cost savings on
manufacture.
This is the same system that Nintendo and Sony operate, and it's one
ATI and IBM are familiar with - since they've worked with Nintendo and
Sony respectively on console projects. ATI provides the graphics
hardware for Nintendo's GameCube under broadly the same terms as its
new deal with Microsoft for Xenon, while IBM is one of Sony's
development partners on the Cell microprocessor for the PS3.
Another benefit for Microsoft is that this form of technology
licensing will make the Xenon platform into a far more proprietary
system than the Xbox, thus making it far less likely that people will
be able to hack the system to run PC software. This has been a major
problem for the Xbox to date - the inclusion of PC components in the
box was a red flag to a bull as far as software hackers were
concerned, and it's thought that many Xboxen are now used as home
media centres and emulators rather than as games consoles as a result.
The technology licensed from ATI is likely to be based on that used in
the company's Radeon cores, but will probably be modified
significantly to fit a games console's requirements. Similarly, it's
expected that the CPU core licensed from IBM will be a PowerPC core,
but it may be modified to fit into the Xenon platform - in much the
same way that the PS2 runs a MIPS architecture core which has been
modified with a new instruction set to make it more useful for console
gaming purposes.
Although this will probably deter the hackers to some degree, and the
business and manufacturing model open to Microsoft will almost
certainly save it significant amounts of money (with actual physical
manufacture of the chips likely to be outsourced either to the Far
East or back to IBM itself), it has its drawbacks. The company touted
the Xbox as the easiest platform of its generation to develop on
because it was so similar to the PC; this will not necessarily hold
true for Xenon, which won't be based on an x86 architecture like the
Xbox and the PC. Making life tougher for the hackers may also make it
tougher for legitimate developers - and there are also major question
marks over how this console will manage to maintain backwards
compatibility and play Xbox games, with rumours abounding that
Microsoft has approached emulation specialists Connectix with a view
to solving this thorny issue.
The Posting One
"R420" <radeo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51488ce2.03111...@posting.google.com...
>
microsoft.public.xbox,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardwar
USAF LM
> M$ Terminology 101: Approach = Buy
So you really think MS is going to buy ATI and IBM? Probably not, but I
see where you're coming from. When MS approached Intel and nVidia to
provide the CPU and GPU, respectively, neither company was bought by MS.
On second thought, maybe you're just talking out of your ass.
--
Swi
Load Clear
stacey
> Making life tougher for the hackers may also make it
> tougher for legitimate developers
Just like trying to make life tougher on pirates with XP also made life
tougher for legitimate users. Didn't stop the pirates but it does still
make life tougher on legit users.
I have to wonder what % of x-boxes have been hacked compared to those that
haven't? And what % of hackers will stop hacking boxes just because MS
makes life tougher on developers.
--
Stacey
RusH
news:51488ce2.03111...@posting.google.com:
> licensing technology designs from key suppliers such as ATI, IBM and
> SIS Technologies, and then arranging for the manufacture of these
> chipsets itself - effectively becoming a full-scale chip maker, albeit
> one without a fabrication plant of its own.
NOOOOOO, my nightmare comes true, i want to scream ! NOOO
Somebody stop them. First they make consoles on their own, next
they build a fab, and then all hell breake loose - they
make theyr little shiny proprietary PCs with are the only
one able to run Windows 2007 ... wake me up please.
Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH // [502-20-14-27 tylko SMS]
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/ <-- to prawdziwy ja
Pent-up passive-aggressive dork alert! Whoop! Whoop!
Whoop! Whoop! Boy, you're really lighting up this alarm here!
Ice Wipe Inc.
MS's arrogence has gotten quite out of hand in the last few years. XP is a
good example of that, that OS is like a mine field full of viruses. If they
think they can buy any new conpanies with using pressure, they won't
hesitate.
Oh yeah, can't forget to mention that they are pretty lazy as well, each new
OS they make is worst then the last. And can't forget the spying too.
Though I do wonder how much longer the shareholders will take before they
start demanding real results in the Console industry, with Japan as good as
gone, its a matter of time before Euro follows....(you can only offer so
many games for free without looking desperate, example Australia)
Oh well, no matter MS has plenty of bloodsoaked billions in their greedy
hands.
"USAF LM" <Mm...@spam.yum> wrote in message
news:3fb17f26$1...@news03.toast.net...
Roj
<birdw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think he meant 'Bully' then 'buy'.
>
>MS's arrogence has gotten quite out of hand in the last few years. XP is a
>good example of that, that OS is like a mine field full of viruses.
You know, there's an old saying:
Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear. I am yet to
see the myriad "virii" you speak of.
>If they>think they can buy any new conpanies with using pressure, they won't
>hesitate.
...and neither will IBM or Sony, or.... or... or...
Welcome to the American Dream.
>Oh yeah, can't forget to mention that they are pretty lazy as well, each new
>OS they make is worst then the last. And can't forget the spying too.
More typical anti-MS RabbleSpeak. In my experience, each MS OS has
improved although not every release has been a significant
improvement.
XP has been.
>Oh well, no matter MS has plenty of bloodsoaked billions in their greedy
>hands.
Oh puhleeze, kid - it's long since stopped being "n33t" (or whatever
that pitiful excuse for Webonics HipSpeak uses) to beat up on MS. Try
getting a life outside of the acne cream.
--
Roj
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
- Ulysses
Dr.z3n
news:2kn4rvs5gumi51fs4...@4ax.com...
>
>
> More typical anti-MS RabbleSpeak. In my experience, each MS OS has
> improved although not every release has been a significant
> improvement.
WinME wasn't an improvement over 98, nor 2000 (both were out at the time).
> XP has been.
BZZZT, not over 2000, although I can see how this may be subjective. In
most respects (stability, responsiveness, ease of maintenence) 2k whips XP
hands-down.
> >Oh well, no matter MS has plenty of bloodsoaked billions in their greedy
> >hands.
> Oh puhleeze, kid - it's long since stopped being "n33t" (or whatever
> that pitiful excuse for Webonics HipSpeak uses) to beat up on MS. Try
> getting a life outside of the acne cream.
I agree, blood-libel isn't something one just goes around and 'does'. Par
for the course, this wank was using MS products to post his msg. Gee-wiz.
Where from I wonder does MS have blood on its hands? I missed that. (maybe
they hooked Mugabe up w/ teh office 2004?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/03_march/10/pano
ramamugabe.shtml
Dr.z3n
R420
> M$ Terminology 101: Approach = Buy
>
that doesn't make sense.
Why would MS buy any of those companies (IBM, ATI, SiS) when MS can
simply licence the technology they need for Xbox 2 ?
Roj
wrote:
>"Roj" <asman@> wrote in message
>news:2kn4rvs5gumi51fs4...@4ax.com...
>>
>
>>
>> More typical anti-MS RabbleSpeak. In my experience, each MS OS has
>> improved although not every release has been a significant
>> improvement.
>
>WinME wasn't an improvement over 98, nor 2000 (both were out at the time).
>
>> XP has been.
>
>BZZZT, not over 2000, although I can see how this may be subjective. In
>most respects (stability, responsiveness, ease of maintenence) 2k whips XP
>hands-down.
I have to disagree. If you turn off all the cutesy-poo garbage in the
XP interface (animation, fading), you get back the speed. The disk
I/O is markedly improved. The memory management is tweaked and
faster. The stability is improved by over 20% compared to 2K. In
terms of ease of maintenance, the improved self-healing is definitely
a cut above 2K (although it can occasionally get in one's way) and the
vastly increased hardware support is a major boon as well.
And no, there's nothing subjective about any of this; I don't know
where you get your information from but ours come from testing the
product extensively (read: hammering the **** out of it) in-house.
All that being said, we're not going to rip out our sizable investment
in Win2K desktop machines (10K desktops coast to coast) and migrate to
XP - it's just not cost effective.
>I agree, blood-libel isn't something one just goes around and 'does'. Par
>for the course, this wank was using MS products to post his msg.
ROFL!
Tony Hill
>
>BZZZT, not over 2000, although I can see how this may be subjective. In
>most respects (stability, responsiveness, ease of maintenence) 2k whips XP
>hands-down.
And XP adds several new important features, like an integrated
firewall and sufficient user-switching options that it makes it very
practical (and advisable IMO) to run applications as a
non-administrator on your home desktop, a first for Windows. I call
WinXP two steps forward, one step backward.
Of course, I'm still running Win2K. ~$150 is a lot of money to spend
for just one step forward.
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
RusH
> The stability is improved by over 20% compared to 2K.
ROFL, tell me what is wrong in this sentence :
"You are 20% dead" or "Earth is 20% round"
face it - its unstable
Andrew
>faster. The stability is improved by over 20% compared to 2K. In
Thats not my experience, I found XP far more unstable so I went back
to 2000 Pro. The only advantage I found with XP was that it boots
quicker - whoop de doo.
--
Andrew. To email unscramble n...@gurjevgrzrboivbhf.pbz & remove spamtrap.
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim messages to quote only relevent text.
Check groups.google.com before asking a question.
chrisv
wrote:
>> Oh puhleeze, kid - it's long since stopped being "n33t" (or whatever
>> that pitiful excuse for Webonics HipSpeak uses) to beat up on MS. Try
>> getting a life outside of the acne cream.
>
>I agree, blood-libel isn't something one just goes around and 'does'. Par
>for the course, this wank was using MS products to post his msg. Gee-wiz.
>Where from I wonder does MS have blood on its hands? I missed that. (maybe
>they hooked Mugabe up w/ teh office 2004?)
Duuhhhh... Micro$oft is a monopoly. Using their products is not an
endorsement of them.
chrisv
>>I agree, blood-libel isn't something one just goes around and 'does'. Par
>>for the course, this wank was using MS products to post his msg.
>
>ROFL!
Idiot.
Roj
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:45:58 -0500, Roj <asman@> wrote:
>
>>faster. The stability is improved by over 20% compared to 2K. In
>
>Thats not my experience, I found XP far more unstable so I went back
>to 2000 Pro. The only advantage I found with XP was that it boots
>quicker - whoop de doo.
I not so humbly submit that it's your hardware, specifically your
drivers. In *our* experience, that's the only thing that can bring XP
down. Apart form our corporate testing, I have five machines in my
house running XP - none ever crash or give grief and they run 24/7.
Roj
wrote:
...and being able to speak (or type) is not indicative that one is
intelligent.
Kill Hank vol. 1
> Duuhhhh... Micro$oft is a monopoly. Using their products is not an
> endorsement of them.
It is when there are alternatives that are easily found.
chrisv
Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
Kill Hank vol. 1
> Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
> Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
For every Micro$$$oft product there i$ an alternative that i$ ea$y to
purcha$e or download.
Don't want to use Window$, there's Linux or Apple.
Don't like Outlook Expre$$, use Eudora or Forte Agent.
Don't like Office, use Corel.
Don't like Explorer, use Net$cape or Opera.
Unle$$ you work in an office where everyone must be u$ing the $ame
program$, you can u$e anything you want. Most people don't want to
bother becau$e they find nothing wrong with they are given.
They only thing I'll give you is Window$. Unle$$ you a programmer,
Window$ is the only O$ you can get on the PC.
Phil Da Lick!
news:CXqsb.8558$aT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I think he meant 'Bully' then 'buy'.
>
> MS's arrogence has gotten quite out of hand in the last few years. XP is
a
> good example of that, that OS is like a mine field full of viruses. If
they
> think they can buy any new conpanies with using pressure, they won't
> hesitate.
>
> Oh yeah, can't forget to mention that they are pretty lazy as well, each
new
> OS they make is worst then the last. And can't forget the spying too.
>
> Though I do wonder how much longer the shareholders will take before they
> start demanding real results in the Console industry, with Japan as good
as
> gone, its a matter of time before Euro follows....(you can only offer so
> many games for free without looking desperate, example Australia)
>
> Oh well, no matter MS has plenty of bloodsoaked billions in their greedy
> hands.
ignoring your comments about shareholders and stuff, and conentrating on the
os issue: longhorn will incorporate DRM as default. how's that for your
civil liberties? i can gues how it'll be for M$'s profit margin...
Dr.z3n
news:c547rvcj4imdphrds...@4ax.com...
> >I agree, blood-libel isn't something one just goes around and 'does'.
Par
> >for the course, this wank was using MS products to post his msg.
Gee-wiz.
> >Where from I wonder does MS have blood on its hands? I missed that.
(maybe
> >they hooked Mugabe up w/ teh office 2004?)
>
> Duuhhhh... Micro$oft is a monopoly. Using their products is not an
> endorsement of them.
>
No, but it's a statement as to someone's idiocy when there are so many good
alternatives out there. A monopoly would exist if there were no
alternatives.
Making me teach vocabulary on Usenet makes little baby jebus cry.
Dr.z3n
Dr.z3n
"Kill Hank vol. 1" <fake...@coldmail.gov> wrote in message
news:HYWdnWzQRIs...@comcast.com...
Hank, not only are there worthwhile commercial application$ that would fit
his need$, but there are better *FREEWARE* program$ ($ome you li$ted).
$somebody need$ to get ahold of them$selve$.
Dr.z3n
Maniac
wrote:
it's not that hard.. the thing is do people really WANT to? nope,
other than a few dissenters.
chrisv
wrote:
Idiot. M$ is a monopoly. The fact that "alternatives" exist does not
mean they are not a monopoly. Duh.
chrisv
<fake...@coldmail.gov> wrote:
>chrisv wrote
>
>> Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
>> Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
>
>For every Micro$$$oft product there i$ an alternative that i$ ea$y to
>purcha$e or download.
>
>Don't want to use Window$, there's Linux or Apple.
>Don't like Outlook Expre$$, use Eudora or Forte Agent.
>Don't like Office, use Corel.
>Don't like Explorer, use Net$cape or Opera.
None of that makes my statement untrue. Learn how to think.
Andrew
wrote:
>Idiot. M$ is a monopoly. The fact that "alternatives" exist does not
>mean they are not a monopoly. Duh.
They are a monopoly at publishing Windows just like BMW have a
monopoly on making BMW cars. There are other OS'es to use just like
there are other cars to drive that aren't BMW's.
chrisv
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:36:59 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Idiot. M$ is a monopoly. The fact that "alternatives" exist does not
>>mean they are not a monopoly. Duh.
>
>They are a monopoly at publishing Windows just like BMW have a
>monopoly on making BMW cars. There are other OS'es to use just like
>there are other cars to drive that aren't BMW's.
Wrong, idiot.
Andrew
wrote:
>Wrong, idiot.
Care to elaborate on that or do you just want to come across as an
asinine wanker?
Snakes...
Ok, so perhaps by some weird logic using a MS product doesn't mean you're
personally endorsing them but you're still giving them your money, and
that's all they really care about.
In a nut shell, you support Microsoft.
--
Why did it have to be snakes?
chrisv
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:46:00 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Wrong, idiot.
>
>Care to elaborate on that or do you just want to come across as an
>asinine wanker?
You know, for someone who says "Trim messages to quote only relevent
text" in his sig, you sure are good at trimming relevant text.
If you're too stupid to see what you posted was wrong, I can't help
you.
Jan Panteltje
1" <fake...@coldmail.gov> wrote in <HYWdnWzQRIs...@comcast.com>:
>chrisv wrote
>
>> Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
>> Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
>
>For every Micro$$$oft product there i$ an alternative that i$ ea$y to
>purcha$e or download.
>
>Don't want to use Window$, there's Linux or Apple.
1 2
>Don't like Outlook Expre$$, use Eudora or Forte Agent.
>Don't like Office, use Corel.
3
>Don't like Explorer, use Net$cape or Opera.
4
>
>Unle$$ you work in an office where everyone must be u$ing the $ame
5
>program$, you can u$e anything you want. Most people don't want to
6
>bother becau$e they find nothing wrong with they are given.
>
>They only thing I'll give you is Window$. Unle$$ you a programmer,
7
Handwork, u$e good editor in Linux and replace function
>Window$ is the only O$ you can get on the PC.
8
Kill Hank vol. 1
> None of that makes my statement untrue. Learn how to think.
This was your statement: "Using their products is not an endorsement of
them." I don't know about you, but if there's a product I don't like I
don't buy it. If you purchase and use thier products it means you
endorse them. Learn how not to be an idiot.
Kill Hank vol. 1
> >Care to elaborate on that or do you just want to come across as an
> >asinine wanker?
>
> You know, for someone who says "Trim messages to quote only relevent
> text" in his sig, you sure are good at trimming relevant text.
>
> If you're too stupid to see what you posted was wrong, I can't help
> you.
I'm guessing you like to come across as an asinine wanker.
Andrew
<fake...@coldmail.gov> wrote:
>I'm guessing you like to come across as an asinine wanker.
>
I think he proved he does :-)
Roj
wrote:
>Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
>Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
Ease has zip to do with it - convenience does.
Roj
wrote:
>None of that makes my statement untrue. Learn how to think.
It most assuredly debunks your "premise" (and I use the term loosely).
If alternatives are easily and readily available, then it ain't no
biggie to get away. Go read my list posted in another message in this
thread and learn a few things. By the way and to further hammer the
nails into the coffin of your statements, more than a few of those
apps are *cross-platform*.
Roj
<phil_t...@NOSPAMPLEASE.hotmail.com> wrote:
>ignoring your comments about shareholders and stuff, and conentrating on the
>os issue: longhorn will incorporate DRM as default. how's that for your
>civil liberties? i can gues how it'll be for M$'s profit margin...
How do you expect it to enhance their profit margins?
chrisv
Said the idiot. Learn how to think.
chrisv
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:37:59 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>None of that makes my statement untrue. Learn how to think.
>
>It most assuredly debunks your "premise" (and I use the term loosely).
Wrong.
chrisv
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:16:38 -0600, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
>>Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
>
>Ease has zip to do with it - convenience does.
Oh, and "ease" and "convenience" are not closely-related concepts?
Damn, you people are stupid.
chrisv
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:11:30 -0700, "Kill Hank vol. 1"
><fake...@coldmail.gov> wrote:
>
>>I'm guessing you like to come across as an asinine wanker.
>>
>I think he proved he does :-)
At least I'm not stupid.
Snakes...
Said the linux nerd. Learn how to debate.
Snakes...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Roj
wrote:
>>>Which very often is not the case. If it was so easy to get away from
>>>Micro$oft, they wouldn't have the market share they do. Duh.
>>
>>Ease has zip to do with it - convenience does.
>
>Oh, and "ease" and "convenience" are not closely-related concepts?
>Damn, you people are stupid.
Not everything that is convenient is easy. It's convenient for you to
blast Microsoft - so many do it. The problem is that it sure isn't
easy for you (or the naysayers) to substantiate your allegations
beyond shrill rhetoric and name calling.
Roj
wrote:
>Wrong.
So prove it.
So far you've spewed a lot of rhetoric with absolutely no backup. Put
up or shut up.
Roj
wrote:
>Said the idiot. Learn how to think.
Lad, you've had your five minutes of fame.
Blow away.
Roj
wrote:
>At least I'm not stupid.
Might I quote Forest Gump in this instance?
Kill Hank vol. 1
> Said the idiot. Learn how to think.
Why don't you teach us how to think and show us some back up to your
claims? All you know how to do is call everyone an idiot.
Keith R. Williams
<asman@> says...
Sorry, but as wrong as ChrisV is about Intel processors ;-), you
have no footing here. Convienient ~ easy. They don't call them
"convenience marts" (A.K.A Quickie-Mart) for nothing.
However, if you wish to use the terms in incongruent sentences,
how about:
It's "easy" to blast M$ucks.
It's "convenient" to redefine terms to suit your agenda.
--
Keith
Roj
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Sorry, but as wrong as ChrisV is about Intel processors ;-), you
>have no footing here. Convienient ~ easy.
Not at all. It's convenient for me to have a Quickie half a mile from
my house. That does not necessarily make it easy for me to get there.
Now, if it were convenient *and* easy...
The terms are not necessarily synonymous. :)
The little lost angel
>Not at all. It's convenient for me to have a Quickie half a mile from
>my house. That does not necessarily make it easy for me to get there.
>
>Now, if it were convenient *and* easy...
>The terms are not necessarily synonymous. :)
I guess not being a native English speaker makes this example
contradictory to me... How can it be convenient to have a quickie half
a mile from your house if it is not easy to get there?
It made sense if I reversed it, ie easy to get there but not
convenient to have a quickie there, or even convenient to get there
but not easy to have a quickie.
Or maybe my English just plain sucks :P
--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me :)
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code
Tony Hill
a?n?g?e?l...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com (The little lost angel) wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:58:11 -0500, Roj <asman@> wrote:
>>Not at all. It's convenient for me to have a Quickie half a mile from
>>my house. That does not necessarily make it easy for me to get there.
>>
>>Now, if it were convenient *and* easy...
>>The terms are not necessarily synonymous. :)
>
>I guess not being a native English speaker makes this example
>contradictory to me... How can it be convenient to have a quickie half
>a mile from your house if it is not easy to get there?
Maybe if there is a big honking river (with no bridges) between you
and the quickie-mart?
>It made sense if I reversed it, ie easy to get there but not
>convenient to have a quickie there, or even convenient to get there
>but not easy to have a quickie.
I think we all know that it's not always easy to have a quickie.
Organizing schedules and a meeting place to do that can sometimes be
rather difficult, and that's assuming that you've already got someone
lined up to have a quickie with!
Ohh wait.. were we still talking about convenience stores? Umm..
never mind then! :>
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Keith R. Williams
l...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:58:11 -0500, Roj <asman@> wrote:
> >Not at all. It's convenient for me to have a Quickie half a mile from
> >my house. That does not necessarily make it easy for me to get there.
> >
> >Now, if it were convenient *and* easy...
> >The terms are not necessarily synonymous. :)
>
> I guess not being a native English speaker makes this example
> contradictory to me... How can it be convenient to have a quickie half
> a mile from your house if it is not easy to get there?
>
> It made sense if I reversed it, ie easy to get there but not
> convenient to have a quickie there, or even convenient to get there
> but not easy to have a quickie.
As usual, l'Angel, you have it right. Indeed I'm not sure Roj is
a Y1L type. His differentiation makes no sense.
> Or maybe my English just plain sucks :P
Sure, that's the beauty of the language. Though I've never found
it easy to find a quickie, though the easy ones are quick.
...or, Quick women are fast, but so am I? ...err, that wasn't
quite what I wanted to say... ;-)
--
Keith
Keith R. Williams
<asman@> says...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:43:03 -0500, Keith R. Williams
> <k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but as wrong as ChrisV is about Intel processors ;-), you
> >have no footing here. Convienient ~ easy.
>
> Not at all. It's convenient for me to have a Quickie half a mile from
> my house. That does not necessarily make it easy for me to get there.
>
> Now, if it were convenient *and* easy...
>
> The terms are not necessarily synonymous. :)
I suggest that you study the language some more. They are indeed
synonymous. ChrisV has you dead-wrong here.
--
Keith
Roj
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>As usual, l'Angel, you have it right. Indeed I'm not sure Roj is
>a Y1L type. His differentiation makes no sense.
I am native English but consider:
What good is half a mile from my house if I have to jump through hoops
for that half mile to get there (multiple traffic lights, construction
on the roads, etc.)?
The local Wal-Mart is indeed about a mile from my house. That makes
it very convenient. Unfortunately right now the city has torn up the
road and is doing major work on it. So much for ease of getting
there.
First hand experience trumps hypothetical every time.
Think *outside* the box...
Keith R. Williams
<asman@> says...
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:40:50 -0500, Keith R. Williams
> <k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >As usual, l'Angel, you have it right. Indeed I'm not sure Roj is
> >a Y1L type. His differentiation makes no sense.
>
> I am native English but consider:
Ok, now I'm totally confused by your illiteracy.
> What good is half a mile from my house if I have to jump through hoops
> for that half mile to get there (multiple traffic lights, construction
> on the roads, etc.)?
Then it is not convenient to shop there is it, Roj? It's not
easy, thus it cannot be convenient. A pretty simple concept, no?
> The local Wal-Mart is indeed about a mile from my house. That makes
> it very convenient. Unfortunately right now the city has torn up the
> road and is doing major work on it. So much for ease of getting
> there.
Then it is not convenient, nor easy to get there. <see above>
> First hand experience trumps hypothetical every time.
Logic trumps illiteracy, every time.
> Think *outside* the box...
Think!
--
Keith
Roj
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Ok, now I'm totally confused by your illiteracy.
I however am not in the slightest bit befuddled by your lack of
understanding. ;)
>Then it is not convenient to shop there is it, Roj?
Sure it is. Just not right now.
>It's not easy, thus it cannot be convenient. A pretty simple concept, no?
Only for the simple. ;)
>Logic trumps illiteracy, every time.
Then you quite obviously have a ways to go since you need to
strengthen both skills. Persevere and don't lose hope though - one
day you may well get there. ;)
Or at least you may think you will...
Roj
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
** snippage **
Now, assuming you can read (a quite valid assumption) and understand
(that one's a bit of a stretch but I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt for the sake of argument), here are two quickies (no pun
intended - it would be wasted upon you anyway) from Google, thus
easily accessible by all:
Web Definition: easy - with ease (`easy' is sometimes used
informally for `easily'); "she was easily excited"; "was easily
confused"; "he won easily"; "this china breaks very easily"; "success
came too easy"
Web Definition: convenient - suited to your comfort or purpose or
needs; "a convenient excuse for not going"
I'm sure the resulting torrential flow of illogic attempting to
justify your viewpoint will be most entertaining (at least to some),
but I think the above spells it out in black and white, consequently
putting the issue to bed.
There endeth the lesson - and my participation in your efforts at
"Continuing Education".
JAD
"Roj" <asman@> wrote in message news:396rrv08h3orrkk1p...@4ax.com...
The little lost angel
>I am native English but consider:
>
>What good is half a mile from my house if I have to jump through hoops
>for that half mile to get there (multiple traffic lights, construction
>on the roads, etc.)?
Yup, it's neither easy or convenient to get there.
>The local Wal-Mart is indeed about a mile from my house. That makes
>it very convenient.
That *made* it convenient and easy.
>Unfortunately right now the city has torn up the
>road and is doing major work on it. So much for ease of getting
>there.
This *makes* inconvenient and not easy. After they're done with the
road, it *will* be convenient and easy again, no?
After all, how can we say something is convenient when it's not
convenient or easy to get/use/do it???
Kinda like saying somebody learns things very quickly but takes a long
time to be taught things...