Re:More confident about Transmeta
on
Inside Transmeta
·
· Score: 2
You might be more confident about Transmeta because of the technology. But think about it, when was the last time that technology mattered more than marketing when it comes to the big sells.
You're exactly right. Successful Marketing is key to sales.
Although I wasn't stressing the marketing aspects in my (badly misspelled) post, for Transmeta to be successful as a company marketing (actually, sales) is key.
But, in this regard I think we've been confident of Transmeta for a long time: what other chip-startup has generated the buzz and excitement and anticipation over a x86 compatible chip (that may or may not be cheaper than Intel's own chips)? Name the current crop of x86 compatible chip manufacturers. "AMD, uh...". Now name the x86 chip manufactures whose every move is reported by even mainstream media with baited breath. Hmmmm....I can only think of one.
That Transmeta has a marketing edge is indisputable. Whether that will translate into sales is.
But I know I'll be rushing out to handle (and buy?) the first products available...
Oh, BTW, VHS vs Beta wasn't a matter of Marketing Prowness. Sony marketed Beta to the hilt. But VHS was an open standard that was good enough for the market's needs and cheap enough to distract the market from the better (and more expensive) Beta. In this regard, Transmeta may be on the right track, too. Why? Because they are targeting the industry standard x86 platform instead of some brand-new proprietary but technically superior and award-winning instruction set (think: Alpha). Transmeta won't even release the VLIW codes for direct manipulation (because they don't want to distract people from thinking their chip is in the x86 market). Of course, Crusoe may not be cheaper, but they are at least going for the largest market segment.
With Hype, Goodwill (they hired Linus), and technological promise on their side, I'm sure Intel, AMD and uh.... the others are worried.
After reading the article (which everyone does do, right?) I am more confident about Transmeta's technology and future (in the current market dynamics, of course). Why? Because the article does nto mention Linus Torvalds once (except. perhaps, in general reference in the "we hired people straight out of college" section).
Don't misunderstand, I am a fan of Torvalds.
It's just that Transmeta is not Linus' idea, it's his employer.
The fact that this article details the vision (and results of the working-out of that vision) rather than hyping it's Most Famous Employee(SM), is a Good Thing(TM).
skb racks are for musical gear but they hold rack mount computers just fine
An excellent suggestion. Most road shows have hardened experts (ad cases) for transporting sensitive electronic gear that needs to be setup quicker than it is broken down.
If you're into Lan Parties, spend a few nights with a travelling band and adopt their procedures. (No one can wrap cable as efficient as a good roadie).
Anyway, that's how I got started programming. I credit my dad with not buying the Atari game machine and forcing us to use the (clunkier) computer. That computer became a learning tool after I was tired of the games. But the whole thing was fun -- making a machine do what you told it to do and finding out why it isn't doing what you want it to do. *Sigh* I still enjoy it.
I liked my Apple II+ a lot, but got bored of AppleTrek and Lemonade Stand, so I started reading the Apple Basic book and loved it!. I made a Christmas card in Basic and... that was it. I was hooked.
Then, in High School, we had a SWTPc Uni-Flex multiuser computer donated to our school. It was great!
Many of my best friends were made in the computer room before, during and after school.
When I started thinking about a job, it was not hard to decide what path to take...
Note: I haven't read the article; the concept of an Internet-ready home is interesting enough
I've been looking for a home in the Long Beach, CA area (why? I don't know...). After the birth of my child last October I long for things like a yard, a pleasant street, a den, a... you understand. Things that an apartment just don't provide (here, anyway). So, I contact my friendly real-estate agent and arrange for a meeting.
First question: what are your needs in a home. First answer: we must be within 1600 feet of the local phone company switch.
Blew him away.
I explained: since ADSL came into my home I refuse to live without some kind of fast Internet connection at home. This connection allows me to work from home as if I was in the office (plus a few security hurdles, of course). This allows me to enjoy my son (oh, and my wife) much more than if I had to travel Highway 22 every morning to get to work.
The Internet has become a crucial part of my family's life: in a healthy way (well, except all the time I spend on Slashdot).
So, am I surprised there are stories about Internet-ready homes? Nope.
If you know of a good deal in the $230k to $260k range in decent parts of ADSL-capable Long Beach send me a note.
netscape.net:netscape.com::hotmail.com:microsoft.c om
I didn't mean to imply that I thought he worked for Netscape. I just figured he was firmly ensconced in the Netscape camp. Good catch, though; I'm glad that's clarified.
this is as useless as tits on a bull unless it runs on more than one OS.
I agree that cross-broswer and cross-platform compatibility (at least in elegantly degraded modes) is crucial to a successful public Internet publication/application. But, don't forget there are occasions to use Internet technologies in the context of a controlled envirnoment. Think of an extended Intranet. On an Intranet, usually within an organization, the tools can be dictated: to use this Intranet you must use XXXX Browser on XXXX OS.
For a distributed internation organization, using a APN over the Internet enables cheap networking. Add web browser applications in place of legacy charater-mode application and you have a robust, cheap client-server architecture to deploy corporate applications. On such a system, the employer can dictate the OS and browser to be used.
It is such a dual-setting that I'm working in. We have a publically accessible web application (browser/OS nuetral) and a VPN-deployed application for an extended Intranet (on which we specify IE 5.01 and Windows 98).
So, I don't know about bulls, but maybe this explains is why human males have those "useless" things...
I note your email domain (netscape.net) but I don't think you're intentionally FUD'ing. PerlScript is not to Perl what JavaScript is to Java. (I like JavaScript, BTW, but I recognize that it has nothing to do with Java, except share some latin-based characters). This articl e gives an excellent introduction to PerlScript. Here's an excerpt...this doesn't sound like emasculated Perl to me...
Of course not everyone reading this article will be coming from a VBScript background. Perhaps you've come from a Perl background, and have used CGI, or mod_perl or some such solution. What can PerlScript offer you? I'll cover exactly what it can offer in detail, but the key thing is the object model. This is the built in system that allows access to:
Inter-process communication, session management, form and query string values, cookies, timeouts, and many more things. Hopefully you will be used to CGI.pm handling all these things for you, but as you'll see there are some things that ASP does that even CGI.pm doesn't do (and probably shouldn't)
Client-side perl has been available for a long time. But it's only available using a certain browser:
The folks at ActiveState have also developed something they call PerlScript, which is an ActiveX scripting engine for Perl. This means you can use Perl as your scripting language with any application on Windows that supports ActiveX scripting, such as Internet Explorer, Active Server Pages files, and the Windows Scripting Host. Not too shabby, eh?
The reason they require a license for your OS (and the GPL would do fine if all you're installing is Linux) is that they do not choose to encourage or facilitate OS piracy. That Dell wants to play ethically is a good thing.
But, what's really funny is knowing the history of Michael Dell who started selling "grey market" PC compatibles from his UT Austin dorm room. (I worked for an Austin-area computer retailer in the 1980's.) Anyone familiar with the Dell story would enjoy the irony of Dell's up-to-date policy.
When you're rich, it doesn't hurt to play by the rules. When you poor and play by the rules: that's character.
AC writes: One Mickey Mouse organization deserves another...
Disney, a Mickey Mouse organization, is famously successful. I imagine many companies would consider it the highest compliment to be considered on par with Disney.
Aside from snide comments and puns, that NASA is teaming with commercial entities for projects only bodes well for the future and growth of the space efforts. When there's profit driving development, things go fast.
the government of Bedrock would order the shoe company divided into a shoe company and a sock company
I had the exact same thought. And the impact would be that shoe sales and sock sales would never need be competitive, rather they could be complimentary. Which means that MICROS~1's best buddy would be MICROS~2. You sell socks, we'll sell shoes. Great.
If the government's plan is adopted by the court, my MSFT stock should recover. Maybe I could buy that house...
Fortune has an excellent article from economist N. Gregory Mankiw about "The Sensible Way to Dismember Microsoft". Excerpt:
There is, however, a simpler solution--both in Bedrock and in Seattle. In our parable, the government could get rid of the monopoly by revoking the inventor's patent and letting anyone start a shoe company. The analogous real-world remedy is to make Microsoft release the source code for Windows. If Windows were in the public domain (as Linux is), new companies could offer their own improved versions. Microsoft would lose the profits from its past innovations--a penalty for its past sins. The company would remain intact, however, and could revise its version of Windows without restriction. Bill Gates would keep his highly touted "right to innovate."
Read the article to understand his "Flintstone shoe company" analogy.
What do you think? Would an open sourced Microsoft lead to real competition in the Microsoft market (which must exist if it is truly a monopoly)?
No kidding, I had the initial rush of "Yeah!" until I noticed the "I" versus "1".
I would go into serious debt to have a Wireless T1 that would allow me to roam free from office -- even home office free (free as in "set" or "unshackled"). I'd just travel around, working here and there, mixing business with pleasure....
But, a calculator with wireless connectivity tools has to be A Good Thing (TM), too. I would imagine that wireless connectivity devices will become more and more ubiquitous (and cheap). I think these stories are great.
(the previous paragraph was on topic, unlike the leading paragraphs.).
According to Open Source main proponent, ESR, Open Source is a superior engineering model than Closed Source and hence Open Source Software should be more reliable and stable than most Closed Source Software. This means that Open Source Software should need less support than Closed Source software.
Let's examine your argument: better engineering means better stability and reliability. Better reliability and stability means less support.
Oops! Assumption that support needs are due to un-reliability or un-stability. Not necessarily true. Many support issues relate to: planning, installation, operation and maintenance of stable, reliable systems. This is the nature of complex, full-featured operating systems and applications.
Sure, a web browser doesn't need a maonthly support contract (or, shouldn't), but a web server might. Why? Is the web server a piece of junk? No! The web server is complex, with thousands of configuration options and optimizations. Add a dynamic and growing work load and there may be a need for expert tweaking to keep up with your business's success.
The point is, complex yet reliable systems may need support not due to engineering shortcomings but due to the inherent flexibility of quality software.
If "one size fits all" you can be sure that "no size fits anyone well". A tailored suit is more expensive and needs much more customization (especially for dynamically expanding clients) but the engineering is doubtlessly the best.
The concept of owner's rights is the foundation of the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Movement: the creator of a published work decides the distribution constraints for that work.
If you overturn copyright then there is no way to constrain your software using the GPL. The GPL puts constraints on the use and propagation of software which is enforceable only under the concept of copyright, which is based on ownership rights.
Don't you see? The Open Source Movement depends on copyright law to enforce the GPL!
So, why on earth would anyone think Linus, Perens, Raymond, et al, would be on the music piracy side of the argument?
While I could not care less about Metallica music (I don't know any of their songs) I have to agree with their position. How can you (who pirate their music) enjoy their work while stiffing them on what's due them? "Render unto" Lars "what is due" Lars. Personally, I'd have a pit in my stomach listening to pirated music -- but, then, I have a conscience...
As much as I despise Click^2 and their self-serving "Privacy Board" (which is reminiscent of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth"), I cannot shake the sense that the angst against it is a bit mis-directed.
Here's why: no one visit's DoubleClick directly; websites we visit create the links to DoubleClick. Who's to blame for the invasion of privacy? The websites we traverse. DoubleClick is only fulfulling others' desire to invade our privacy.
If no websites linked to DoubleClick it would become irrelevant. So; why do websites purposefully enter into agreements with DoubleClick when DoubleClick is so hated? Simple: website owners want your information, or, are willing to act as DoubleClick agents (DoubleCrossers?) to gather your personal information.
As long as DoubleClick itself is catching the heat, no problem. But as soon as attention is diverted to the real culprits -- those sites that link to DoubleClick -- then their may be real trouble in the data-gathering business.
I propose a change in tactic: make it painfully uncomfortable for web sites to link to DoubleClick. Complain, politely, but firmly and often against using DoubleClick (or similar info-gatherers) on their sites.
DoubleClick is not the source of the problem; attack the source.
Slashdot Mirror
You're exactly right. Successful Marketing is key to sales.
Although I wasn't stressing the marketing aspects in my (badly misspelled) post, for Transmeta to be successful as a company marketing (actually, sales) is key.
But, in this regard I think we've been confident of Transmeta for a long time: what other chip-startup has generated the buzz and excitement and anticipation over a x86 compatible chip (that may or may not be cheaper than Intel's own chips)? Name the current crop of x86 compatible chip manufacturers. "AMD, uh...". Now name the x86 chip manufactures whose every move is reported by even mainstream media with baited breath. Hmmmm....I can only think of one.
That Transmeta has a marketing edge is indisputable. Whether that will translate into sales is.
But I know I'll be rushing out to handle (and buy?) the first products available...
Oh, BTW, VHS vs Beta wasn't a matter of Marketing Prowness. Sony marketed Beta to the hilt. But VHS was an open standard that was good enough for the market's needs and cheap enough to distract the market from the better (and more expensive) Beta. In this regard, Transmeta may be on the right track, too. Why? Because they are targeting the industry standard x86 platform instead of some brand-new proprietary but technically superior and award-winning instruction set (think: Alpha). Transmeta won't even release the VLIW codes for direct manipulation (because they don't want to distract people from thinking their chip is in the x86 market). Of course, Crusoe may not be cheaper, but they are at least going for the largest market segment.
With Hype, Goodwill (they hired Linus), and technological promise on their side, I'm sure Intel, AMD and uh.... the others are worried.
Don't misunderstand, I am a fan of Torvalds.
It's just that Transmeta is not Linus' idea, it's his employer.
The fact that this article details the vision (and results of the working-out of that vision) rather than hyping it's Most Famous Employee(SM), is a Good Thing(TM).
Go Transmeta! (And, go Linus!).
An excellent suggestion. Most road shows have hardened experts (ad cases) for transporting sensitive electronic gear that needs to be setup quicker than it is broken down.
If you're into Lan Parties, spend a few nights with a travelling band and adopt their procedures. (No one can wrap cable as efficient as a good roadie).
here.
I love Google!
GPS-pin-pointed ad near Bally's:
GPS-pin-pointed ad near Starbucks:
There's a lot of potential there...I liked my Apple II+ a lot, but got bored of AppleTrek and Lemonade Stand, so I started reading the Apple Basic book and loved it!. I made a Christmas card in Basic and ... that was it. I was hooked.
Then, in High School, we had a SWTPc Uni-Flex multiuser computer donated to our school. It was great!
Many of my best friends were made in the computer room before, during and after school.
When I started thinking about a job, it was not hard to decide what path to take...
Wow. I left off a zero. Make that 16000 feet.
I've been looking for a home in the Long Beach, CA area (why? I don't know...). After the birth of my child last October I long for things like a yard, a pleasant street, a den, a ... you understand. Things that an apartment just don't provide (here, anyway). So, I contact my friendly real-estate agent and arrange for a meeting.
First question: what are your needs in a home. First answer: we must be within 1600 feet of the local phone company switch.
Blew him away.
I explained: since ADSL came into my home I refuse to live without some kind of fast Internet connection at home. This connection allows me to work from home as if I was in the office (plus a few security hurdles, of course). This allows me to enjoy my son (oh, and my wife) much more than if I had to travel Highway 22 every morning to get to work.
The Internet has become a crucial part of my family's life: in a healthy way (well, except all the time I spend on Slashdot).
So, am I surprised there are stories about Internet-ready homes? Nope.
If you know of a good deal in the $230k to $260k range in decent parts of ADSL-capable Long Beach send me a note.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought he worked for Netscape. I just figured he was firmly ensconced in the Netscape camp. Good catch, though; I'm glad that's clarified.
I agree that cross-broswer and cross-platform compatibility (at least in elegantly degraded modes) is crucial to a successful public Internet publication/application. But, don't forget there are occasions to use Internet technologies in the context of a controlled envirnoment. Think of an extended Intranet. On an Intranet, usually within an organization, the tools can be dictated: to use this Intranet you must use XXXX Browser on XXXX OS.
For a distributed internation organization, using a APN over the Internet enables cheap networking. Add web browser applications in place of legacy charater-mode application and you have a robust, cheap client-server architecture to deploy corporate applications. On such a system, the employer can dictate the OS and browser to be used.
It is such a dual-setting that I'm working in. We have a publically accessible web application (browser/OS nuetral) and a VPN-deployed application for an extended Intranet (on which we specify IE 5.01 and Windows 98).
So, I don't know about bulls, but maybe this explains is why human males have those "useless" things...
Yep. That's right. Client-side perl using Internet Explorer. Since 1997.
But, what's really funny is knowing the history of Michael Dell who started selling "grey market" PC compatibles from his UT Austin dorm room. (I worked for an Austin-area computer retailer in the 1980's.) Anyone familiar with the Dell story would enjoy the irony of Dell's up-to-date policy.
When you're rich, it doesn't hurt to play by the rules. When you poor and play by the rules: that's character.
My family has already suffered like that when the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia. Doesn't scare me.
Disney, a Mickey Mouse organization, is famously successful. I imagine many companies would consider it the highest compliment to be considered on par with Disney.
Aside from snide comments and puns, that NASA is teaming with commercial entities for projects only bodes well for the future and growth of the space efforts. When there's profit driving development, things go fast.
I had the exact same thought. And the impact would be that shoe sales and sock sales would never need be competitive, rather they could be complimentary. Which means that MICROS~1's best buddy would be MICROS~2. You sell socks, we'll sell shoes. Great.
If the government's plan is adopted by the court, my MSFT stock should recover. Maybe I could buy that house...
What do you think? Would an open sourced Microsoft lead to real competition in the Microsoft market (which must exist if it is truly a monopoly)?
<A href="sdlkjfsdf"></A>
Clever.
No kidding, I had the initial rush of "Yeah!" until I noticed the "I" versus "1".
I would go into serious debt to have a Wireless T1 that would allow me to roam free from office -- even home office free (free as in "set" or "unshackled"). I'd just travel around, working here and there, mixing business with pleasure....
But, a calculator with wireless connectivity tools has to be A Good Thing (TM), too. I would imagine that wireless connectivity devices will become more and more ubiquitous (and cheap). I think these stories are great.
(the previous paragraph was on topic, unlike the leading paragraphs.).
Let's examine your argument: better engineering means better stability and reliability. Better reliability and stability means less support.
Oops! Assumption that support needs are due to un-reliability or un-stability. Not necessarily true. Many support issues relate to: planning, installation, operation and maintenance of stable, reliable systems. This is the nature of complex, full-featured operating systems and applications.
Sure, a web browser doesn't need a maonthly support contract (or, shouldn't), but a web server might. Why? Is the web server a piece of junk? No! The web server is complex, with thousands of configuration options and optimizations. Add a dynamic and growing work load and there may be a need for expert tweaking to keep up with your business's success.
The point is, complex yet reliable systems may need support not due to engineering shortcomings but due to the inherent flexibility of quality software.
If "one size fits all" you can be sure that "no size fits anyone well". A tailored suit is more expensive and needs much more customization (especially for dynamically expanding clients) but the engineering is doubtlessly the best.
If you overturn copyright then there is no way to constrain your software using the GPL. The GPL puts constraints on the use and propagation of software which is enforceable only under the concept of copyright, which is based on ownership rights.
Don't you see? The Open Source Movement depends on copyright law to enforce the GPL!
So, why on earth would anyone think Linus, Perens, Raymond, et al, would be on the music piracy side of the argument?
While I could not care less about Metallica music (I don't know any of their songs) I have to agree with their position. How can you (who pirate their music) enjoy their work while stiffing them on what's due them? "Render unto" Lars "what is due" Lars. Personally, I'd have a pit in my stomach listening to pirated music -- but, then, I have a conscience...
then their may be real trouble
Sorry Ms. Peacock (my English grammar teacher), I promise I'll have more coffee before attempting to write...
Here's why: no one visit's DoubleClick directly; websites we visit create the links to DoubleClick. Who's to blame for the invasion of privacy? The websites we traverse. DoubleClick is only fulfulling others' desire to invade our privacy.
If no websites linked to DoubleClick it would become irrelevant. So; why do websites purposefully enter into agreements with DoubleClick when DoubleClick is so hated? Simple: website owners want your information, or, are willing to act as DoubleClick agents (DoubleCrossers?) to gather your personal information.
As long as DoubleClick itself is catching the heat, no problem. But as soon as attention is diverted to the real culprits -- those sites that link to DoubleClick -- then their may be real trouble in the data-gathering business.
I propose a change in tactic: make it painfully uncomfortable for web sites to link to DoubleClick. Complain, politely, but firmly and often against using DoubleClick (or similar info-gatherers) on their sites.
DoubleClick is not the source of the problem; attack the source.