I would not go so far to call it malware, but I don't install them anymore and even uninstalled it from one computer simply because the search bars built into most browsers nowadays makes them unnecessary and and a bit redundant. And that is from a former fan of the Google Toolbar.
Microsoft essentially *told* Intel that they will only support *one* 64-bit CPU and that will be the AMD instruction set. Intel had no choice but to incorporate AMD's instruction set into their processors
Really? The reason Itanium support was scaled back over time was I think because it was a low-volume niche market, not that MS wasn't willing to support two 64-bit architectures.
It simply took many years to migrate Windows from 32-bit code to 64-bit clean code.
Well, I read that most of the work was done in the year 2000, then in 2001 they released Itanium Windows XP. From there, porting to AMD64 was as simple as developing a AMD64 compiler, kernel and WOW64 and a few other things.
Yes, and well, part of it was that the i915 chipset was before the Longhorn reset. To be more precise, they created two tiers, a "Basic" tier and a "Premium" tier for Aero-supporting hardware.
Re:Well I consider myself lucky and blessed then..
on
Employee Monitoring
·
· Score: 1
BTW, I was recently thinking of a system that makes the entire work time like Google's 20% time, where engineers can basically freely do anything they want, including working on any project, with little monitoring (maybe even make contributions to projects anonymous). It would be an interesting experiment to collect statistics on, though I am not sure if it will work in the real world.
Then again, any public corporation is beholden to make each quarter look better than the last, and money is not only the first priority, but #2, #3 and often #4 as well. Protecting consumer privacy is pretty low on that list.
I know, there is a push by people like Roger Martin to move away from shareholder value and the quarterly earnings game, and I (and Google too!) support it.
And funny thing is, the GPL allow a written offer to physically distribute the source code to qualify as compliance. In fact, it is required if the object code is distributed physically too, as for example GPL code inside a flash ROM inside a physical device. (Yep, exactly what you think it is.)
check your facts - the atom Z530 which they use does have VT-x
Thank you, I was just going to say the same thing. In fact, the Z-series is the only Atoms with VT I can think of. On the other hand, it does not support 64-bit.
Yea, it was one of several OSes that was supposed to run on hardware confirming to the PReP/CHRP hardware standard that was created as part of the attempt to push PowerPC processor-based computers as an better alternative to IBM PC compatibles based on x86 processors. The Advanced Computing Environment's Advanced RISC Computing (ARC) standard was a similar standard created for a similar purpose, but for the MIPS processor instead of PowerPC.
Still, this would have been trivial to fix and I'd have just done that and screw the GPLv2. I mean, this stuff is unlikely to go into something like the Linux kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
I would not go so far to call it malware, but I don't install them anymore and even uninstalled it from one computer simply because the search bars built into most browsers nowadays makes them unnecessary and and a bit redundant. And that is from a former fan of the Google Toolbar.
"Content filter vendors have decided to block all Google SSL traffic"
As an example, anyone remember Con Kolivas of Linux kernel fame?
I think part of it is the emphasis on benchmarks. User responsiveness is not that easy to measure.
Microsoft essentially *told* Intel that they will only support *one* 64-bit CPU and that will be the AMD instruction set. Intel had no choice but to incorporate AMD's instruction set into their processors
Really? The reason Itanium support was scaled back over time was I think because it was a low-volume niche market, not that MS wasn't willing to support two 64-bit architectures.
It simply took many years to migrate Windows from 32-bit code to 64-bit clean code.
Well, I read that most of the work was done in the year 2000, then in 2001 they released Itanium Windows XP. From there, porting to AMD64 was as simple as developing a AMD64 compiler, kernel and WOW64 and a few other things.
Yes, and well, part of it was that the i915 chipset was before the Longhorn reset. To be more precise, they created two tiers, a "Basic" tier and a "Premium" tier for Aero-supporting hardware.
BTW, I was recently thinking of a system that makes the entire work time like Google's 20% time, where engineers can basically freely do anything they want, including working on any project, with little monitoring (maybe even make contributions to projects anonymous). It would be an interesting experiment to collect statistics on, though I am not sure if it will work in the real world.
Then again, any public corporation is beholden to make each quarter look better than the last, and money is not only the first priority, but #2, #3 and often #4 as well. Protecting consumer privacy is pretty low on that list.
I know, there is a push by people like Roger Martin to move away from shareholder value and the quarterly earnings game, and I (and Google too!) support it.
In fact, it is required if the object code is distributed physically too, as for example GPL code inside a flash ROM inside a physical device.
In GPLv2, that is. I forgot to mention that GPLv3 removes that requirement.
And funny thing is, the GPL allow a written offer to physically distribute the source code to qualify as compliance. In fact, it is required if the object code is distributed physically too, as for example GPL code inside a flash ROM inside a physical device. (Yep, exactly what you think it is.)
I use my real name almost everywhere, including here, and that as a 16 years old in school, partly because the problems with it needs to be fixed.
The original patent filing date looks like 1997 though, so is that prior art
No, I don't think so.
Yea, the horror of patent continuations!
Well, seems that PlanetAll was launched November 16, 1996 according to this, while the original patent application dates back to November 2, 1997.
Ars has an article: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/why-the-13-macbook-pro-didnt-get-a-core-i5-upgrade.ars
Actually I read that it did, but still was quite immature.
As for 64-bit, they may well have gotten custom Z530s that can do 64-bit - make a large enough order, and Intel will do custom stuff.
Eg. Intel doing VT-capable versions of CPUs normally not supporting VT for Apple.
Especially when virtual memory did not exist 46 years ago.
check your facts - the atom Z530 which they use does have VT-x
Thank you, I was just going to say the same thing. In fact, the Z-series is the only Atoms with VT I can think of. On the other hand, it does not support 64-bit.
And 10.10 is four months away from release.
Part of it is because of cutting costs in order to maximizing shareholder value, which is fundamentally flawed in more than one way, as I said before.
I would not go that far, especially because avoiding it is as easy as a reformat.
Yea, it was one of several OSes that was supposed to run on hardware confirming to the PReP/CHRP hardware standard that was created as part of the attempt to push PowerPC processor-based computers as an better alternative to IBM PC compatibles based on x86 processors. The Advanced Computing Environment's Advanced RISC Computing (ARC) standard was a similar standard created for a similar purpose, but for the MIPS processor instead of PowerPC.
Still, this would have been trivial to fix and I'd have just done that and screw the GPLv2. I mean, this stuff is unlikely to go into something like the Linux kernel.
The twist was that ours terminated "any" rights and not just rights to the patents, which made our license GPLv3 and GPLv2 incompatible.
Oops, I at first thought it was GPLv3 compatible because I didn't notice that distinction when I first read it.