On small puddle-jumper flights, the fourth row of seats will now be removed. More room for cargo! And the plane now only has capacity for 9 passengers!
They can fit a really BIG black box back in the cargo area now.
There is one true way to accomplish each task. And it is either direct from Apple or sanctioned by the Apple Community, eh?
Be careful who you call a 'Windows Idiot' because it is not, and never was a simple Apple vs. 'IBM' (to use the old terminology, which is reminiscent of the way the Amish refer to all non-Amish people as 'the English').
You're correct that Apple isn't good enough to write an OS that will support thousands and thousands of permutations of third party hardware. They instead control a little playground of hardware and restrict their customers to only using said hardware. They couldn't even write a preemptive multitasking OS that didn't suck. They had to hire in Jobs' skunkworks operation which, again, just put a thick layer of makeup on something originated elsewhere.
It isn't actually very impressive. Apple is a layer of slick marketing and some clever 'industrial design.' But that's all they are capable of.
Yeah, other computers of the time were also closed-down, overpriced crap but today most of us, Apple fans included, are using PCs that descend from the sole architecture that *wasn't*.
Actually, it was Apple that ran each and every alternative GUI/OS out of the market on x86 back when there was a chance for a diverse mix. They essentially did Microsoft's work for them. Then, when the marketplace was cleared of all smaller competitors they went after Microsoft and Microsoft prevailed. If Apple hadn't used it's merry band of lawyers to wipe the market clean, we probably wouldn't be stuck with only Windows. There would be GEM and Geos and whatever else would have evolved in the more open environment of the time.
It is the fault of the Apple Legal Team of the 80's that Windows is the dominant GUI now.
The Mac world has a strong history of scant shareware and scarce freeware. Ask anybody who attempts to run a 'classic' version of MacOS in a useful capacity. It is all locked down stuff that nobody exists anylonger to unlock even if you DID want to give them money. And very very few pieces of useful freeware.
Also, it shouldn't be a surprise that 'Apple Developers' like the arrangement. They're used to selling their wares to a customer base enthusiastic about flashing the plastic.
Transferring data to/from them is a pain, they have small working memories (256k each), and you can't use all C++ features on them (no C++ exceptions, thus can't use most of the STL).
The horrors! How are the teams at Microsoft going to fit bloat in them, then!?!
So the message here is that they won't be able to *sell* these things since there isn't a market, nor well-defined uses for them. I guess that would be a panic situation for marketing types.
And since these things can't be 'just used' as a faster version of an 8088 processor, the way the CPU houses sold the 386 (frankly, one of the last cases where they had to scale a 'really big change' to an existing market that had almost no motivation to use the new features) there's a panic that people might just not buy the new stuff.
Where will it lead!?! The hardware upgrade cycle feeds all sorts of mouths that might otherwise have to actually provide meaningful innovative products.
Think about it for a minute. The CIOs are just in charge of the file cabinets (21th century version). It's not like they're in Marketing, Purchasing, or even Engineering.
Face it, most people aren't picking their providers based on roaming costs, and most people that use roaming extensively abroad are business travelers, who WILL pay extra for the convenience.
Face it: most Wi-Fi users are not international business travelers. So there's no swift end in sight.
Have the most popular browser and have it not be compatible, and you force everyone to be compatible with YOU -
Indeed. That's a trick that Microsoft learned from Netscape, who aimed to control the market in servers by introducing proprietary tags and features in their (free) browser that only their (closed, expensive) server could dish out.
Intel, of course, are producers of the ARM chips. You were aware, weren't you, that Intel's X-scale processors are ARM-architecture parts? Go here to read: "Further implementations of the ARM architecture are available from our Partners such as the Intel® XScale(TM) microarchitecture"
I'm less than impressed that you've discovered what an embedded controller is. Every computer sold comes equipped with a mouse. The mouse often has a Xilog or Microchip PIC processor in it. Yay! Yay! Those processors just plain beat Intel out. *shrug*
Those same computers feature motherboards that have diodes on them! Often they are 1N4148 diodes made by Motorola or Fairchild! There are MANY of said diodes on the motherboards! So Intel looses out again! To Fairchild or Motorola, or Lite-On, etc....
I'm pretty sure than AMD had their own processor archs ages ago. They made a 'bit slice' processor for a time where you could strap chips in series to make arbitrary bit-wide CPUs. But when they decided to become an x86 clone outfit, that's what they remained. It wasn't until Intel 'foundered' on the future path for x86 and started working on Itanium that AMD actually became more than a knock-off second sourcer.
(I am not an 'Intel backer' in the ludicrous Intel vs. AMD fanboy adventure, btw, just a bystander who finds it generally a ridiculous pursuit.)
People need to remember that AMD is only in the x86 business at all because they got their foot in the door as a second-source producer of Intel chips decades back. Without those old agreements, they wouldn't be making an x86 processor at all.
An OS is not necessary. There are powerful high level languages for the PIC architecture. I tend to view said languages as macro collections to make deploying PICs easier.
Yes, I have deployed compiled binaries on PIC controllers as small as the PIC10F202. (24 bytes of read/write memory, 768 bytes of program memory)
Not at all. Are you aware of how many embedded Intel chips there are? I am counting the older generation parts, of course. Aren't you also doing so with ARM?
Slashdot Mirror
Hay. I resemble that! Well, anyhow, I drove a '71 Camaro for about a year, back in 1985 or so. It was a terrible car.
Chances are pretty good Ron Paul won't be in Congress a year from now, though.
The odd one out is assembly, at least as far as I am concerned. I write almost exclusively assembly, but always on top of bare silicon.
Maybe PDP-11.
On small puddle-jumper flights, the fourth row of seats will now be removed. More room for cargo! And the plane now only has capacity for 9 passengers!
They can fit a really BIG black box back in the cargo area now.
So this guy has proven that every piece of music can be converted into a Windows Media Player Light Show?
Any 'doze user could have demonstrated that with a default OEM install of Windows XP Home and his stack of Led Zeppelin CDs.
There is one true way to accomplish each task. And it is either direct from Apple or sanctioned by the Apple Community, eh?
Be careful who you call a 'Windows Idiot' because it is not, and never was a simple Apple vs. 'IBM' (to use the old terminology, which is reminiscent of the way the Amish refer to all non-Amish people as 'the English').
You're correct that Apple isn't good enough to write an OS that will support thousands and thousands of permutations of third party hardware. They instead control a little playground of hardware and restrict their customers to only using said hardware. They couldn't even write a preemptive multitasking OS that didn't suck. They had to hire in Jobs' skunkworks operation which, again, just put a thick layer of makeup on something originated elsewhere.
It isn't actually very impressive. Apple is a layer of slick marketing and some clever 'industrial design.' But that's all they are capable of.
Yeah, other computers of the time were also closed-down, overpriced crap but today most of us, Apple fans included, are using PCs that descend from the sole architecture that *wasn't*.
The Xerox Alto?
Actually, it was Apple that ran each and every alternative GUI/OS out of the market on x86 back when there was a chance for a diverse mix. They essentially did Microsoft's work for them. Then, when the marketplace was cleared of all smaller competitors they went after Microsoft and Microsoft prevailed. If Apple hadn't used it's merry band of lawyers to wipe the market clean, we probably wouldn't be stuck with only Windows. There would be GEM and Geos and whatever else would have evolved in the more open environment of the time.
It is the fault of the Apple Legal Team of the 80's that Windows is the dominant GUI now.
Your example must-have feature is an obscure technology that a small minority of people would ever use.
Therefore it is something that will never exist whilst Apple puts firm barriers in the way of people developing it to suit their purposes.
It's okay, as long as people will acknowledge that Apple has always been a very closed environment.
The Mac world has a strong history of scant shareware and scarce freeware. Ask anybody who attempts to run a 'classic' version of MacOS in a useful capacity. It is all locked down stuff that nobody exists anylonger to unlock even if you DID want to give them money. And very very few pieces of useful freeware.
Also, it shouldn't be a surprise that 'Apple Developers' like the arrangement. They're used to selling their wares to a customer base enthusiastic about flashing the plastic.
Transferring data to/from them is a pain, they have small working memories (256k each), and you can't use all C++ features on them (no C++ exceptions, thus can't use most of the STL).
The horrors! How are the teams at Microsoft going to fit bloat in them, then!?!
You're sounding like that IBM 'Drive Thru' radio commercial now.
So the message here is that they won't be able to *sell* these things since there isn't a market, nor well-defined uses for them. I guess that would be a panic situation for marketing types.
And since these things can't be 'just used' as a faster version of an 8088 processor, the way the CPU houses sold the 386 (frankly, one of the last cases where they had to scale a 'really big change' to an existing market that had almost no motivation to use the new features) there's a panic that people might just not buy the new stuff.
Where will it lead!?! The hardware upgrade cycle feeds all sorts of mouths that might otherwise have to actually provide meaningful innovative products.
Think about it for a minute. The CIOs are just in charge of the file cabinets (21th century version). It's not like they're in Marketing, Purchasing, or even Engineering.
Face it, most people aren't picking their providers based on roaming costs, and most people that use roaming extensively abroad are business travelers, who WILL pay extra for the convenience.
Face it: most Wi-Fi users are not international business travelers. So there's no swift end in sight.
If we are going to adopt a policy of nuking pissants every time that they blow up an airliner
We aren't.
(nice long troll, though)
Have the most popular browser and have it not be compatible, and you force everyone to be compatible with YOU -
Indeed. That's a trick that Microsoft learned from Netscape, who aimed to control the market in servers by introducing proprietary tags and features in their (free) browser that only their (closed, expensive) server could dish out.
It's by no means a unique tactic of Redmondware.
Intel, of course, are producers of the ARM chips. You were aware, weren't you, that Intel's X-scale processors are ARM-architecture parts? Go here to read: "Further implementations of the ARM architecture are available from our Partners such as the Intel® XScale(TM) microarchitecture"
I'm less than impressed that you've discovered what an embedded controller is. Every computer sold comes equipped with a mouse. The mouse often has a Xilog or Microchip PIC processor in it. Yay! Yay! Those processors just plain beat Intel out. *shrug*
Those same computers feature motherboards that have diodes on them! Often they are 1N4148 diodes made by Motorola or Fairchild! There are MANY of said diodes on the motherboards! So Intel looses out again! To Fairchild or Motorola, or Lite-On, etc....
I'm pretty sure than AMD had their own processor archs ages ago. They made a 'bit slice' processor for a time where you could strap chips in series to make arbitrary bit-wide CPUs. But when they decided to become an x86 clone outfit, that's what they remained. It wasn't until Intel 'foundered' on the future path for x86 and started working on Itanium that AMD actually became more than a knock-off second sourcer.
(I am not an 'Intel backer' in the ludicrous Intel vs. AMD fanboy adventure, btw, just a bystander who finds it generally a ridiculous pursuit.)
People need to remember that AMD is only in the x86 business at all because they got their foot in the door as a second-source producer of Intel chips decades back. Without those old agreements, they wouldn't be making an x86 processor at all.
An OS is not necessary. There are powerful high level languages for the PIC architecture. I tend to view said languages as macro collections to make deploying PICs easier.
Yes, I have deployed compiled binaries on PIC controllers as small as the PIC10F202. (24 bytes of read/write memory, 768 bytes of program memory)
This isn't an Intel vs. AMD market segment. Intel may be marginalized, but AMD more so.
Intel is a minnow in this area.
Not at all. Are you aware of how many embedded Intel chips there are? I am counting the older generation parts, of course. Aren't you also doing so with ARM?