Big bulky connectors? When's the last time you looked at the back of a hard drive? 1990?
Standard connectors aren't exactly 'big and bulky' now.
I also question the necessity of a faster interconnect. Are drives really sustaining those kinds of speeds? A lot of the reviews seem to indicate that these drives aren't really all that. Regardless, even the full potential of current SATA interconnects are a vast improvement to spinny disks. Upgrades in storage capacity and improvements in cost per TB would be much more useful developments.
Let me fill up my current array hardware with SSD first without requiring a second mortgage on the house. Then tweak the underlying hardware.
Fondleslabs are nice and all but they still have meagre storage and probably should not be the drivers if new standards.
> There's an old saying in photography that the best camera to use is the one you have with you.
That's fine if all that is available to you is some ancient Dageurre camera.
However, the field isn't quite that limited.
I think you are wasting your breath about the DS. This fellow clearly doesn't care about the quality of the end result. An iPhone is a shitty camera and really only something to be used as a last resort if you care about having a camera at all.
The Apple approach to things really is about extreme compromises and just settling for less.
Calling Angry Birds innovative just makes you look stupid.
It's a fresh approach to an old idea. I am not sure I would exactly call it "innovative".
It's a good example how some nice design can help effectively recycle an ancient idea. Not quite "innovative".
It is what it's: a dressed up 2600 game. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some people just aren't going to pretend that Angry Birds is something that it is not.
No. He's probably just a casual observer that actually pays attention to Nintendo's target demographic.
Apple creates devices of convenience. For the being they remain clearly inferior to more specialized devices in just about every category you can consider. It's not at all clear that Apple is a complete replacement for any similar competing devices.
The problem with drinking the low profile cool aid en mass is that you tend to lose the easily maintainability that any dirt cheap PC offers.
Expandability and maintainability quickly escalates the size of the case. So expansion slots will be the first casualties when you shrink the machine.
OTOH, most people simply don't care about the "but it doesn't look like a Mac Mini" considerations. OTOH, those with a slight bit of a clue can take a machine otherwise destined for the dumpster and cheaply tweak it into something more suitable than a new overpriced low profile system.
Unless you live in San Francisco, the space issue just isn't that big of a deal. Elsewhere, small and cute may be interesting for about 5 minutes but you quickly get over it.
Your recommendation is excessively partisan nonsense but it encapsulates an important point.
These post PC devices simply don't support everything that even a mundane end user might want to do. In great Apple fashion, these devices ignore basic simple use cases like dealing with the aforementioned home movies. Even for "appliance" activities, these post PC devices fail miserably due to the limited manner in which they were designed.
PCs will continue to be useful for creating DIY appliances and supporting post PC appliances and doing basic things that post PC devices refuse to do or do poorly.
> So who would want the fuss and bother of a PC-sized > box when they can have a virtual slice of a huge server, > and connect to the horsepower using their smartphones?
All it will take is just one network outtage and people will get over that idea real quick.
No. Most people are infact totally indifferent to the idea of having a computer in a box next to their terminal devices.
It's only a very small and noisy minority that care about the box.
Both the network and wireless are snake oil being sold by the same small and noisy minority. Both are far less effective and reliable than their "more primitive" counterparts.
No. I think they mean some PC that is nothing more than a terminal despite having all of the potential of being self contained and in control of the end user.
This whole "post pc" nonsense allows them to get away with a level of vendor lock that no one would stand for in a PC.
A phone or tablet could be the ugly box in the corner if it weren't intentionally crippled.
Once the device has proper video and other IO ports it starts to look a lot like a low profile PC.
The concept of the "post-PC" is nothing more than a dressed up dumb terminal.
Oddly enough, PCs arose due to frustration associated with this very sort of paradigm. PCs arose because that model was locked down and inflexible and didn't really address end user needs....reminds me quite a lot of Apple really.
...and all of this "buy why can't it just install the plugin that the obscure Russian website asks for" is precisely why Windows is such a security mess and why you have to clean granny's machine for her.
Perhaps a relevant web search might have helped.
What happens when granny has a glitch in her web managed Internet router? Or wants to do something new and interesting?
If you can't be bothered to poke around a little or search Google then YOU ARE LOST regardless of OS. MacOS won't even help you.
Office software is not "specialized". It is the least specialized stuff possible. It's the dumbest sort of thing to fixate on.
As far as a platform to buy payware goes, MacOS is kind of pretty weak actually despite all of the protestations to the contrary. It's really hard to fight against the entrenched monopoly with a 20 year head start even if you are Google and Apple.
The fact that Macs could not compete against MS-DOS of all things should have made this point a bit more obvious.
So Google Docs can finally be a suitable drop in alternative for msoffice. Fine. Toss it on the pile with the rest. THAT objective was never really a problem.
Adding another screen to a PC boot sequence is not going to significantly "complicate matters".
The Elephant in the room here is proprietary license management. That's not something that is trivially glossed over for any business-like organization. It's something that has to be addressed directly and not just blissfully ignored as if you were some private citizen that pirates every piece of Window software you ever owned.
Slashdot Mirror
Your screed is only relevant if they are actually doing this whole "tying" thing.
Otherwise, it's all just a lot of hot air.
Web Search is the ultimate commodity free from vendor lock. It doesn't get much better than that in computing.
You don't even need to get to those kind of speeds to start treating your "storage" as bubble memory.
The SATA cable isn't the problem.
The SATA drive is the problem.
If only there were some other form factor out there that was small enough for a phone...
Paradoxically, tablets don't have enough storage for storage speeds of that magnitude to be terribly compelling.
SSDs are relatively puny and storage on tablets even more so.
You end up with a device capable of saturating a fiber connection being connected to 3G, or bluetooth, or USB.
It does seem to fit into the domain of systems a that are completely non-user-servicable.
So why does standardization even matter at that point?
Big bulky connectors? When's the last time you looked at the back of a hard drive? 1990?
Standard connectors aren't exactly 'big and bulky' now.
I also question the necessity of a faster interconnect. Are drives really sustaining those kinds of speeds? A lot of the reviews seem to indicate that these drives aren't really all that. Regardless, even the full potential of current SATA interconnects are a vast improvement to spinny disks. Upgrades in storage capacity and improvements in cost per TB would be much more useful developments.
Let me fill up my current array hardware with SSD first without requiring a second mortgage on the house. Then tweak the underlying hardware.
Fondleslabs are nice and all but they still have meagre storage and probably should not be the drivers if new standards.
> There's an old saying in photography that the best camera to use is the one you have with you.
That's fine if all that is available to you is some ancient Dageurre camera.
However, the field isn't quite that limited.
I think you are wasting your breath about the DS. This fellow clearly doesn't care about the quality of the end result. An iPhone is a shitty camera and really only something to be used as a last resort if you care about having a camera at all.
The Apple approach to things really is about extreme compromises and just settling for less.
...cause we all know that quantity is better than quality.
It's like all of the Apple fanboys were transformed into 80s era DOS users.
Calling Angry Birds innovative just makes you look stupid.
It's a fresh approach to an old idea. I am not sure I would exactly call it "innovative".
It's a good example how some nice design can help effectively recycle an ancient idea. Not quite "innovative".
It is what it's: a dressed up 2600 game. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some people just aren't going to pretend that Angry Birds is something that it is not.
No. He's probably just a casual observer that actually pays attention to Nintendo's target demographic.
Apple creates devices of convenience. For the being they remain clearly inferior to more specialized devices in just about every category you can consider. It's not at all clear that Apple is a complete replacement for any similar competing devices.
The problem with drinking the low profile cool aid en mass is that you tend to lose the easily maintainability that any dirt cheap PC offers.
Expandability and maintainability quickly escalates the size of the case. So expansion slots will be the first casualties when you shrink the machine.
OTOH, most people simply don't care about the "but it doesn't look like a Mac Mini" considerations. OTOH, those with a slight bit of a clue can take a machine otherwise destined for the dumpster and cheaply tweak it into something more suitable than a new overpriced low profile system.
Unless you live in San Francisco, the space issue just isn't that big of a deal. Elsewhere, small and cute may be interesting for about 5 minutes but you quickly get over it.
Your recommendation is excessively partisan nonsense but it encapsulates an important point.
These post PC devices simply don't support everything that even a mundane end user might want to do. In great Apple fashion, these devices ignore basic simple use cases like dealing with the aforementioned home movies. Even for "appliance" activities, these post PC devices fail miserably due to the limited manner in which they were designed.
PCs will continue to be useful for creating DIY appliances and supporting post PC appliances and doing basic things that post PC devices refuse to do or do poorly.
Nope.
Mac was just an obvious abbrevation of Macintosh, just like ST or Commie. Amiga really doesn't have a good abbreviation.
People on 2400 baud modems don't like to type so much or generate so much cruft in their forum messages.
PC is a brand name that got turned generic like kleenex or xerox and was originally applied to clones of that product.
An 80s Atari user would be insulted if you referred to their machine as a PC. A PC was seen as something inferior.
> So who would want the fuss and bother of a PC-sized
> box when they can have a virtual slice of a huge server,
> and connect to the horsepower using their smartphones?
All it will take is just one network outtage and people will get over that idea real quick.
No. Most people are infact totally indifferent to the idea of having a computer in a box next to their terminal devices.
It's only a very small and noisy minority that care about the box.
Both the network and wireless are snake oil being sold by the same small and noisy minority. Both are far less effective and reliable than their "more primitive" counterparts.
That sort of shenanigan would only last until the first online review.
No. I think they mean some PC that is nothing more than a terminal despite having all of the potential of being self contained and in control of the end user.
This whole "post pc" nonsense allows them to get away with a level of vendor lock that no one would stand for in a PC.
A phone or tablet could be the ugly box in the corner if it weren't intentionally crippled.
Once the device has proper video and other IO ports it starts to look a lot like a low profile PC.
The concept of the "post-PC" is nothing more than a dressed up dumb terminal.
Oddly enough, PCs arose due to frustration associated with this very sort of paradigm. PCs arose because that model was locked down and inflexible and didn't really address end user needs. ...reminds me quite a lot of Apple really.
Even a Firefox won't help you if your pilots are under trained.
Fish don't "fuck". They just swim by the eggs and ejaculate.
Although that just makes WC's remark sound even more gruesome.
No amount of groupthink with overcome the fact that Microsoft had a 20 year head start.
Apple is the shining example of a company that did everything in the non-Linux way and look how much that did for them?
Now they are pushing souped up ipods because they know they already lost the desktop battle.
The real question is to question the whole idea to begin with. Is it even really needed? What's really needed?
...and all of this "buy why can't it just install the plugin that the obscure Russian website asks for" is precisely why Windows is such a security mess and why you have to clean granny's machine for her.
Perhaps a relevant web search might have helped.
What happens when granny has a glitch in her web managed Internet router? Or wants to do something new and interesting?
If you can't be bothered to poke around a little or search Google then YOU ARE LOST regardless of OS. MacOS won't even help you.
Office software is not "specialized". It is the least specialized stuff possible. It's the dumbest sort of thing to fixate on.
As far as a platform to buy payware goes, MacOS is kind of pretty weak actually despite all of the protestations to the contrary. It's really hard to fight against the entrenched monopoly with a 20 year head start even if you are Google and Apple.
The fact that Macs could not compete against MS-DOS of all things should have made this point a bit more obvious.
So Google Docs can finally be a suitable drop in alternative for msoffice. Fine. Toss it on the pile with the rest. THAT objective was never really a problem.
Adding another screen to a PC boot sequence is not going to significantly "complicate matters".
The Elephant in the room here is proprietary license management. That's not something that is trivially glossed over for any business-like organization. It's something that has to be addressed directly and not just blissfully ignored as if you were some private citizen that pirates every piece of Window software you ever owned.