The typical Slashdork user is not average. The average is Yahoo, Google, MSN, Amazon, etc
I can not agree than MSN should be considered typical. First, because IE is preconfigured to go to that site out of the box, it is going to get way more IE traffic than other sites.
Secondly, Very tech savvy web surfers may not frequent sites like Google in favor of Dogpile or other non-establishment sites that support their ideals.
Sure, for the Walmart-shopping, McDonals-eating, Suburb-living, American public, there is no question IE leads the race.
So my non-technical father calls me the other day to tell me all about this new Browser called Firefox that the tech support guy at AT&T (his dialup provider) told him would help with the popups he was fighting against.
This is the first time I have ever heard of a tech support person, save at AOL/Netscape, recommending an alternative web browser.
I bet I have reinstalled Windows 10 times in the past few years, and each time I update IE and download several other software packages over and over again.
And as far as actual web usage, those stats must be all over the place because some sites do a better job of cross browser compatibility than others and other sites, like Slashdot, appeal to a non-IE crowd while still others, like MSN, do not.
So this whole article should really just be a reminder to not believe everything someone else wants you to.
this site says that three ground stations in Alaska, California, and in the Pacific heard faint signals, suggesting the slight possibility that the craft is in a lower than expected orbit but may deploy it's solar sails in 4 days.
It appears the natural progression for a swoftware company would be:
(1) Allow windows app to run via emulation to gain new market at zero cost (2) Evaluate cost of porting to new platform (3) Port if the market for a ported app exists
This is why Mac's only get the best selling games ported over.
From the folks who make MS Office, Photoshop, Visio, Quicken, and Lotus Notes run on Linux, I see this as a sweet move for both them and the Apple community!
Mac Users Also Benefit
The impending architectural changes for Mac computers also bodes well for legions of Macintosh users who wish to run Windows applications even when no Mac version is available. By installing CrossOver Office on Intel-based Macs, many Windows-only applications, including Windows-based games, utilities, and business applications, will operate seamlessly and reliably.
Multiple Developer Options
Software companies and Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) who wish to license CrossOver technology can instantly gain an installation and support framework that will ensure native use on the Mac OS, with no re-writing of the application itself. In situations where a full license of CrossOver is not indicated, developers can also retain CodeWeavers to create custom Mac versions of their apps using portions of CrossOver.
I saw a story about Tom Cruise having watter squirted on him by some "journalnist" (but we better protect Bloggers from prosecution when they go public with trade secrets they knew were protected by NDA).
I just though the video was so bad, they knew no one would pay for it.
Still, I didn't watch it because it required Windows Media Player - which I refuse to install.
I don't know why people love comparing cars to computers so much. Mac users especailyl like to call Macs the BMW of Computers due to the small market share, high quality, and a heavy dose of style when compared to plane jane Dell (Chevy/Ford?) boxes.
Well I have an analogy for NeoOffice/J - It's the PT Cruiser of Software. Sure it's all new and shinny on the inside, but it's retro styling harkens back to Office98 or something. Lots of Grey and icons I certainly don't want to lick or drink.
Don't get me wrong, I like NeoOffice/J and have had it installed for several Beta release cycles now. But if they are gonna stay retro, I am gonna have to hold out for a Ford Mustang GT version, with retro racing stripes and an aqua GUI, before I leave the Chevy Camero that is MS Office for Mac in long term parking.
less than 12 months... probably early 2006 for Mac mini and portables.
Says who? Oh, says you? Well unless you are an Apple engineer looking for a career change, I will stick to what Steve Jobs SAID at the Keynote which was:
But starting next year we will begin introducing Macs with Intel processors in them and over time these transitions will again occur. So when we meet here again this next time next year, our plan is to be shipping Macs with Intel processors by then, and when we meet here again two years from now, our plan is that transition will be mostly complete. And we think it will be complete by the end of 2007. So this is a two-year transition.
So Apple plans to be shipping Intel Macs in 12 months. From the horse's mouth.
Take a look at these performance specs of the development boxes Apple is providing.
Keeping in mind this is all using Rosetta and not native builds, the performance is pretty bad...in line with a Virtual PC expectation.
Interestingly there is a link at the bottom of the page there is a link to a news story about the keynote runing on a quad-pentium Mac but the link is broken. (And the plot thickens!)
The powermacs are their professional towers. imacs and mac minis are aimed at non-power users.
It appears you are equating "professionals" with "power users". Um, this has not been my experience. I would consider a 13 year old hacker on an eMac more of a Power User than the dude who's been in graphics design for two decades on the Dual PowerMac on the other side of my office wall.
I just bought a new iMac on Saturday for the following reasons: (1) I needed to upgrade (2) The iMac line was just upgraded last month (3) PowerPC software will continue to be produced for years (4) The first Intel boxes from Apple will be 12 months from now (5) The first Intel boxed from Apple will not be iMacs (for a variety of reasons) (6) I would rather be the last to own the PowerPC iMac than the first to own the Intel one. (7) After using Macs for four years, I have never been disatisfied and don't see any reason I would be with the iMac G5
There is disputable evidence that points to Apple's interest in supporting more than 2 processors. Take for example image which depicts two screen captures of an Apple system utility. The top one is an other version which was replaced with the bottom image that depicts an N+1 approach to processor display rather than the previous versions 1 or 2.
Certainly not an open and shut case.
Other ramblings and rumors came in the form of a January 2005 4 processor Xserve for research institutions. This never materialized. Perhaps it was too costly. I believe that at the time Apple was having such a hard time securing G5 chips from IBM that they would rather build 4 iMacs than 1 Xserve.
Still, there were rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box. Were these the musings of a frantic fanbase or real facts? Impossible for me to say.
I would say that Apple is the only manufacturer I can think of that has regularly embraced the multiprocessor market. OS X is more adept than Windows at taking advantage of a second processor, delivering more bang for the same buck. So I would not discount the >2 processor option coming in future Macs.
It is interesting to me how there are so many Cellular Phone Providers. I mean, what are the real differences in Verizon, Att/Cingular, T-mobile, etc? OKay so Nextel has "push to talk" and Sprint is on CDMA not the GSM network but beyond those technological differences, The others just seem to be different rate plans to me. They even have 80% the same phones.
So I am glad Nokia and Apple are partnering because to me, there isn't a lot different between Nokia, Ericsson, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, Sanyo, LG, and the like either.
I just don't think any of them distinguish themselves the way other consumer electronics companies do. Dell is the low cost, quality box builder for corporations. Gateway was the friendly cow folk. Apple is stylish.
Cell phone makers NEED these partnerships for differentiation. I would have to look to see who the heck made my Sprint cell phone. Perhaps if someone made a phone I cared about, I would care who made it.
The first time they miss their numbers, they're going to bust - the momentum investors are going to run home to momma, and there will be a lot of small time players, and recently hired Google employees, getting screwed when their stock tanks.
Totally agreed, I just hope I'm there with a wad of cash when they do because I think GOOG is a good company to be long in - just not at 50+ PE and certainly not on the radar at 113!
What does trouble me is the "one trick pony" thing as you said. Google has all these great technologies outside of the search engine website - they offer for fee site serches and their own hardware blades for intranets and such. They have terrific terrestrial and iconic maps, Gmail, Desktop search, even their free photo application Picasso is a great Windows cousin of Apple's iPhoto that is so easy to use.
Yet why is capable Google incapable of creating more revenue streams? AdWords is great, but there has to be more to it.
The thing about Google is I don't feel like there is anything behind it. With Yahoo News, there is someone there behind the portal. With Google News, there is no portal, just a search engine with keywords.
Part of the basis of the infringement is that people who would eventually work for Apple, but didn't at the time, attended a trade show where this dude was exhibiting.
The implication is that they saw his app and were so entralled at his genious to organize music by Genere, then artist, and finally album, that they quit their jobs, convinced Apple to hire them, and then applied such unique cataloging skills to iTunes.
Here's an idea, let's look at the value of both companies:
Google's Stats show a Price Earnings ratio of almost 113 which means the stock is trading for 113 times the current earnings per share. This gives Google a Market Capitalization (value) of $79 Billion. Finally, the Earnings Per Share (litterally how much the company makes after expenses divided by the number of outstanding shares) is $2.53
Yahoo's Stats yield a sky high but more earthly PE of 57 (1/2 of Google's by coincidence) giving Yahoo a much lower Market Cap of $51 Billion on a paltry-by-comparison EPS of $0.64.
"So what?!? This is news for nerds!" you cry? Well consider that this means that though Yahoo has web properties like Yahoo Finanace (who gave up this info for free) and a public email system (Gmail still requires an invite to create an account) and the infamous Music Unlimited subscription service, investors are still willing to drive up and DOUBLE the price/earnings ratio of Google to Yahoo. Such high PE multiples as Google are commanded only by one thing - an overwhelmingly positive outlook on future earnings.
So We all know maps.google.com kicks tailfeather and Google AdWords are all over sites like/. but as you can see, Wallstreet shares our analysis that Google is innovating.
Google knows this too, and is rewarding that innovation.
Parity files use parity bits which are something that is understandable.
Let's make up our own parity scheme. How about every line of 4 numbers + 1 parity number, when added together, needs to have a remainder of 0 when divided by 10. Okay, here goes:
1234P Solution ----- -------- 14375 1 + 4 + 3 + 7 = 15
15 + 5 = 20
20 / 10 = remainder of 0
5 is the Parity number
79356 7 + 9 + 3 + 5 = 24
24 + 6 = 30
30 / 10 = remainder of 0
6 is the Parity number
So.par parity files just elaborate on this simple example to check and see if lines of 1's and 0's are in parity. if they aren't then it can sometimes error correct.
Assuming a binary number must be even in the decimal system (eg. convert to an 8 or 20 not 7 or 151), both vertically and horizontally, you can use the parity bits to figure out which bit is out of whack. Consider the code block:
12P ----- 1|101 2|001 P|110
Row 1 has the digits 1, 0 and a parity bit 1 so 1+0+1 = 2 = even = in parity
Row 2 has 0 + 0 + 1 = 1 = not in parity so we know the issue lies with row 2 (the parity rows are assumed to be reliable at least in this example)
now we turn to the columns and column 1 is 1 + 0 + 1 = 2 = parity but column 2 is 0 + 0 + 1 = 1 = no parity so the issue should be with bite 2, 2. switching it from a 0 to a 1 yeilds:
12P ----- 1|101 2|011 P|110
And I'll let you do the addition to see that now the whole table is in parity according to our simple requirements.
Obviously parity requirements can be much more complex but this is basically how they work.
Okay, I read the horrible Register article (I can't stand that site) and followed their link to the original pdf from Microsoft. (The press release mentioned by the Register was not linked to.)
In the pdf, they explain on page 10: The main advantage of using network coding for distributing large files is that the scheduling of the content propagation in the overlay network is much easier. Deciding on the correct block of information to transmit to another node is difficult without global information; the transmitted packet is useful to the receiving node, but, may not be useful to other downstream nodes. With network coding, each generated block is a combination of all the blocks available to the transmitter and thus, if any of them is useful downstream, then the generated block will also be useful.
Um, so if I have blocks AB and CD, I might send down the pipe block BC? Okay, I see how that helps someone who needs block AB because now they have half of it (B) but they still have to wait on the other half (A) to be sent. If they already had block CD and needed AB, then if I send them BC and later send them AD, then they have in effect had to download block CD twice because they got it once as block CD and again as subblocks BC and CD - am I missing something here?
The attempt to make the files more useful to downstream clients is noble, but while this may help when originally seeding the file from a single server, I would like to see what happens once there are 25 seeds. At that point, I presume the performance would be the same as Bit Torrent.
I guess someone in readman finally read the stories about Kazaa's spyware and said "Hey, we're the kings of viruses and spyware! we need in on this p2p thing!"
For $499 you get OS X and they throw in a cheap little computer to run it on. I would guess the Mac mini has about $200 worth of parts in it, so $300 is about the minimum you could expect them to sell a retail OS X Generic for.
As my little A + B + C formula points out, there are standard costs covered in C, Components that include the cost of the hardware, sales, support, etc. These are presumed to be about the same for PCs as Macs.
The thing about the Mac mini is that it has a large value associated with A, the industrial design. This would make the OS cost, B, lower because if C is $200 then B = (499 - 200) - A = 300 - Industrial Design costs
It doesn't matter though because what I am trying to point out is that the cost of OS X should not only be the OS X true cost, but the cost of industrial design, the "Apple Premium" if you will, that would be incurred if the user had bought a Mac.
With a little algebra, Apple can decide at what price point selling OS X for Dell-boxen is a good idea.
Since Apple has switched to generic PC hardware like AGP graphics cards and ATA drives, the processor change will leave only two significant differences betweena PC and a Mac: (A) Industrial hardware design (B) OS X
So if (C) is Components like ATA hard drives and AGP graphics that go in every PC or Mac, as well as overhead for sales, support, etc, the total cost of the Apple box is:
Mac Cost = A + B + C
Now currently, an OS X upgrade is $129 for an existing Mac user, so we can assume that B is somewhere north of $130. But if Apple priced OS X on a Dell as a $130 option, then the price of the Dell would be C + B (Components + OS X) which means the Apple would be overpriced by $A for its Industrial Design.
So Apple needs to price OS X for Dell at $E = A + B
I figure if a high end Dell cna be configured for about $400 less than a similar Mac, then $399 is a great price for an OS X + iLife + Xcode option for the Dell.
At $400 a pop, Apple will make a tidy profit on the notoriously love overhead software and really won't be canibalizing the Mac sales because they have effectively balanced the price so you have:
Cost of Mac = A + B + C Cost of Dell OS X = C + E where E = A + B = $399
About SCO
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com./
Thousands of resellers and developers. Millions of customers. Doesn't sound like the SCO I know...anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
The typical Slashdork user is not average. The average is Yahoo, Google, MSN, Amazon, etc
I can not agree than MSN should be considered typical. First, because IE is preconfigured to go to that site out of the box, it is going to get way more IE traffic than other sites.
Secondly, Very tech savvy web surfers may not frequent sites like Google in favor of Dogpile or other non-establishment sites that support their ideals.
Sure, for the Walmart-shopping, McDonals-eating, Suburb-living, American public, there is no question IE leads the race.
So my non-technical father calls me the other day to tell me all about this new Browser called Firefox that the tech support guy at AT&T (his dialup provider) told him would help with the popups he was fighting against.
This is the first time I have ever heard of a tech support person, save at AOL/Netscape, recommending an alternative web browser.
Aren't all market share numbers hyped?
I bet I have reinstalled Windows 10 times in the past few years, and each time I update IE and download several other software packages over and over again.
And as far as actual web usage, those stats must be all over the place because some sites do a better job of cross browser compatibility than others and other sites, like Slashdot, appeal to a non-IE crowd while still others, like MSN, do not.
So this whole article should really just be a reminder to not believe everything someone else wants you to.
this site says that three ground stations in Alaska, California, and in the Pacific heard faint signals, suggesting the slight possibility that the craft is in a lower than expected orbit but may deploy it's solar sails in 4 days.
It appears the natural progression for a swoftware company would be:
(1) Allow windows app to run via emulation to gain new market at zero cost
(2) Evaluate cost of porting to new platform
(3) Port if the market for a ported app exists
This is why Mac's only get the best selling games ported over.
From the folks who make MS Office, Photoshop, Visio, Quicken, and Lotus Notes run on Linux, I see this as a sweet move for both them and the Apple community!
Mac Users Also Benefit
The impending architectural changes for Mac computers also bodes well for legions of Macintosh users who wish to run Windows applications even when no Mac version is available. By installing CrossOver Office on Intel-based Macs, many Windows-only applications, including Windows-based games, utilities, and business applications, will operate seamlessly and reliably.
Multiple Developer Options
Software companies and Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) who wish to license CrossOver technology can instantly gain an installation and support framework that will ensure native use on the Mac OS, with no re-writing of the application itself. In situations where a full license of CrossOver is not indicated, developers can also retain CodeWeavers to create custom Mac versions of their apps using portions of CrossOver.
I saw a story about Tom Cruise having watter squirted on him by some "journalnist" (but we better protect Bloggers from prosecution when they go public with trade secrets they knew were protected by NDA).
I just though the video was so bad, they knew no one would pay for it.
Still, I didn't watch it because it required Windows Media Player - which I refuse to install.
I don't know why people love comparing cars to computers so much. Mac users especailyl like to call Macs the BMW of Computers due to the small market share, high quality, and a heavy dose of style when compared to plane jane Dell (Chevy/Ford?) boxes.
Well I have an analogy for NeoOffice/J - It's the PT Cruiser of Software. Sure it's all new and shinny on the inside, but it's retro styling harkens back to Office98 or something. Lots of Grey and icons I certainly don't want to lick or drink.
Don't get me wrong, I like NeoOffice/J and have had it installed for several Beta release cycles now. But if they are gonna stay retro, I am gonna have to hold out for a Ford Mustang GT version, with retro racing stripes and an aqua GUI, before I leave the Chevy Camero that is MS Office for Mac in long term parking.
Three Cheers for the NeoOffice team!
Says who? Oh, says you? Well unless you are an Apple engineer looking for a career change, I will stick to what Steve Jobs SAID at the Keynote which was:
So Apple plans to be shipping Intel Macs in 12 months. From the horse's mouth.
Take a look at these performance specs of the development boxes Apple is providing.
Keeping in mind this is all using Rosetta and not native builds, the performance is pretty bad...in line with a Virtual PC expectation.
Interestingly there is a link at the bottom of the page there is a link to a news story about the keynote runing on a quad-pentium Mac but the link is broken. (And the plot thickens!)
The powermacs are their professional towers. imacs and mac minis are aimed at non-power users.
It appears you are equating "professionals" with "power users". Um, this has not been my experience. I would consider a 13 year old hacker on an eMac more of a Power User than the dude who's been in graphics design for two decades on the Dual PowerMac on the other side of my office wall.
I just bought a new iMac on Saturday for the following reasons:
(1) I needed to upgrade
(2) The iMac line was just upgraded last month
(3) PowerPC software will continue to be produced for years
(4) The first Intel boxes from Apple will be 12 months from now
(5) The first Intel boxed from Apple will not be iMacs (for a variety of reasons)
(6) I would rather be the last to own the PowerPC iMac than the first to own the Intel one.
(7) After using Macs for four years, I have never been disatisfied and don't see any reason I would be with the iMac G5
Since we are discussing Wikis and research, how about discussing the use of Wikis for low budget or open source application documentation.
They would be well suited towards FAQs it seems, as well as general documentation.
Without constant moderation, are they destined to a slower but ultimately similar wikideath as the LA Times Wiki, or is there hope?
There is disputable evidence that points to Apple's interest in supporting more than 2 processors. Take for example image which depicts two screen captures of an Apple system utility. The top one is an other version which was replaced with the bottom image that depicts an N+1 approach to processor display rather than the previous versions 1 or 2.
Certainly not an open and shut case.
Other ramblings and rumors came in the form of a January 2005 4 processor Xserve for research institutions. This never materialized. Perhaps it was too costly. I believe that at the time Apple was having such a hard time securing G5 chips from IBM that they would rather build 4 iMacs than 1 Xserve.
Still, there were rumors that the keynote announcing the Intel deal, which included a demo on a PowerMac, was in fact powered by a quad-Pentium powered box. Were these the musings of a frantic fanbase or real facts? Impossible for me to say.
I would say that Apple is the only manufacturer I can think of that has regularly embraced the multiprocessor market. OS X is more adept than Windows at taking advantage of a second processor, delivering more bang for the same buck. So I would not discount the >2 processor option coming in future Macs.
It is interesting to me how there are so many Cellular Phone Providers. I mean, what are the real differences in Verizon, Att/Cingular, T-mobile, etc? OKay so Nextel has "push to talk" and Sprint is on CDMA not the GSM network but beyond those technological differences, The others just seem to be different rate plans to me. They even have 80% the same phones.
So I am glad Nokia and Apple are partnering because to me, there isn't a lot different between Nokia, Ericsson, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, Sanyo, LG, and the like either.
I just don't think any of them distinguish themselves the way other consumer electronics companies do. Dell is the low cost, quality box builder for corporations. Gateway was the friendly cow folk. Apple is stylish.
Cell phone makers NEED these partnerships for differentiation. I would have to look to see who the heck made my Sprint cell phone. Perhaps if someone made a phone I cared about, I would care who made it.
The first time they miss their numbers, they're going to bust - the momentum investors are going to run home to momma, and there will be a lot of small time players, and recently hired Google employees, getting screwed when their stock tanks.
Totally agreed, I just hope I'm there with a wad of cash when they do because I think GOOG is a good company to be long in - just not at 50+ PE and certainly not on the radar at 113!
What does trouble me is the "one trick pony" thing as you said. Google has all these great technologies outside of the search engine website - they offer for fee site serches and their own hardware blades for intranets and such. They have terrific terrestrial and iconic maps, Gmail, Desktop search, even their free photo application Picasso is a great Windows cousin of Apple's iPhoto that is so easy to use.
Yet why is capable Google incapable of creating more revenue streams? AdWords is great, but there has to be more to it.
The thing about Google is I don't feel like there is anything behind it. With Yahoo News, there is someone there behind the portal. With Google News, there is no portal, just a search engine with keywords.
Makes me wonder.
Part of the basis of the infringement is that people who would eventually work for Apple, but didn't at the time, attended a trade show where this dude was exhibiting.
The implication is that they saw his app and were so entralled at his genious to organize music by Genere, then artist, and finally album, that they quit their jobs, convinced Apple to hire them, and then applied such unique cataloging skills to iTunes.
Here's an idea, let's look at the value of both companies:
/. but as you can see, Wallstreet shares our analysis that Google is innovating.
Google's Stats show a Price Earnings ratio of almost 113 which means the stock is trading for 113 times the current earnings per share. This gives Google a Market Capitalization (value) of $79 Billion. Finally, the Earnings Per Share (litterally how much the company makes after expenses divided by the number of outstanding shares) is $2.53
Yahoo's Stats yield a sky high but more earthly PE of 57 (1/2 of Google's by coincidence) giving Yahoo a much lower Market Cap of $51 Billion on a paltry-by-comparison EPS of $0.64.
"So what?!? This is news for nerds!" you cry? Well consider that this means that though Yahoo has web properties like Yahoo Finanace (who gave up this info for free) and a public email system (Gmail still requires an invite to create an account) and the infamous Music Unlimited subscription service, investors are still willing to drive up and DOUBLE the price/earnings ratio of Google to Yahoo. Such high PE multiples as Google are commanded only by one thing - an overwhelmingly positive outlook on future earnings.
So We all know maps.google.com kicks tailfeather and Google AdWords are all over sites like
Google knows this too, and is rewarding that innovation.
Parity files use parity bits which are something that is understandable.
.par parity files just elaborate on this simple example to check and see if lines of 1's and 0's are in parity. if they aren't then it can sometimes error correct.
Let's make up our own parity scheme. How about every line of 4 numbers + 1 parity number, when added together, needs to have a remainder of 0 when divided by 10. Okay, here goes:
1234P Solution
----- --------
14375 1 + 4 + 3 + 7 = 15
15 + 5 = 20
20 / 10 = remainder of 0
5 is the Parity number
79356 7 + 9 + 3 + 5 = 24
24 + 6 = 30
30 / 10 = remainder of 0
6 is the Parity number
So
Assuming a binary number must be even in the decimal system (eg. convert to an 8 or 20 not 7 or 151), both vertically and horizontally, you can use the parity bits to figure out which bit is out of whack. Consider the code block:
12P
-----
1|101
2|001
P|110
Row 1 has the digits 1, 0 and a parity bit 1 so 1+0+1 = 2 = even = in parity
Row 2 has 0 + 0 + 1 = 1 = not in parity so we know the issue lies with row 2 (the parity rows are assumed to be reliable at least in this example)
now we turn to the columns and column 1 is 1 + 0 + 1 = 2 = parity but column 2 is 0 + 0 + 1 = 1 = no parity so the issue should be with bite 2, 2. switching it from a 0 to a 1 yeilds:
12P
-----
1|101
2|011
P|110
And I'll let you do the addition to see that now the whole table is in parity according to our simple requirements.
Obviously parity requirements can be much more complex but this is basically how they work.
Okay, I read the horrible Register article (I can't stand that site) and followed their link to the original pdf from Microsoft. (The press release mentioned by the Register was not linked to.)
In the pdf, they explain on page 10:
The main advantage of using network coding for distributing
large files is that the scheduling of the content propagation in
the overlay network is much easier. Deciding on the correct
block of information to transmit to another node is difficult
without global information; the transmitted packet is useful
to the receiving node, but, may not be useful to other downstream
nodes. With network coding, each generated block is a
combination of all the blocks available to the transmitter and
thus, if any of them is useful downstream, then the generated
block will also be useful.
Um, so if I have blocks AB and CD, I might send down the pipe block BC? Okay, I see how that helps someone who needs block AB because now they have half of it (B) but they still have to wait on the other half (A) to be sent. If they already had block CD and needed AB, then if I send them BC and later send them AD, then they have in effect had to download block CD twice because they got it once as block CD and again as subblocks BC and CD - am I missing something here?
The attempt to make the files more useful to downstream clients is noble, but while this may help when originally seeding the file from a single server, I would like to see what happens once there are 25 seeds. At that point, I presume the performance would be the same as Bit Torrent.
Your thoughts?
I guess someone in readman finally read the stories about Kazaa's spyware and said "Hey, we're the kings of viruses and spyware! we need in on this p2p thing!"
For $499 you get OS X and they throw in a cheap little computer to run it on. I would guess the Mac mini has about $200 worth of parts in it, so $300 is about the minimum you could expect them to sell a retail OS X Generic for.
As my little A + B + C formula points out, there are standard costs covered in C, Components that include the cost of the hardware, sales, support, etc. These are presumed to be about the same for PCs as Macs.
The thing about the Mac mini is that it has a large value associated with A, the industrial design. This would make the OS cost, B, lower because if C is $200 then B = (499 - 200) - A = 300 - Industrial Design costs
It doesn't matter though because what I am trying to point out is that the cost of OS X should not only be the OS X true cost, but the cost of industrial design, the "Apple Premium" if you will, that would be incurred if the user had bought a Mac.
Is this making any sense?
With a little algebra, Apple can decide at what price point selling OS X for Dell-boxen is a good idea.
Since Apple has switched to generic PC hardware like AGP graphics cards and ATA drives, the processor change will leave only two significant differences betweena PC and a Mac:
(A) Industrial hardware design
(B) OS X
So if (C) is Components like ATA hard drives and AGP graphics that go in every PC or Mac, as well as overhead for sales, support, etc, the total cost of the Apple box is:
Mac Cost = A + B + C
Now currently, an OS X upgrade is $129 for an existing Mac user, so we can assume that B is somewhere north of $130. But if Apple priced OS X on a Dell as a $130 option, then the price of the Dell would be C + B (Components + OS X) which means the Apple would be overpriced by $A for its Industrial Design.
So Apple needs to price OS X for Dell at $E = A + B
I figure if a high end Dell cna be configured for about $400 less than a similar Mac, then $399 is a great price for an OS X + iLife + Xcode option for the Dell.
At $400 a pop, Apple will make a tidy profit on the notoriously love overhead software and really won't be canibalizing the Mac sales because they have effectively balanced the price so you have:
Cost of Mac = A + B + C Cost of Dell OS X = C + E where E = A + B = $399
About SCO
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers to grow
their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide
network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services
provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers.
For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com./
Thousands of resellers and developers. Millions of customers. Doesn't sound like the SCO I know...anymore.
Aside from being able to make oh so clever MS jokes this post is pretty damn pointless.
If that's the best joke you've got, then it looks like you missed your window!