You are assuming a game that was designed to be cross platform. In reality many of the games ported to PowerPC Macs were designed and written only for x86 Windows by their development team and porting to the Mac was done by a different team when the game is near completion or has already shipped.
"Knowledge of how the hardware operates", "Things like CPU instruction set options, memory alignment, etc.", are the business of compilers and their creators.
Perhaps, but they fail at it. Game developers often **have to** make up for the deficiencies of compilers.
Compilers optimize code much much better than humans do.
Perhaps the average programmer, but those specializing in assembly language routinely beat the compilers. Assembly is merely less common today because of (1) cost and (2) CPUs are so overpowered for nearly all tasks we can live with less efficient compiler generated code.
... the kernels (as Microsoft hired David Cutler to bring the VMS kernel with him to create Windows NT...
Wrong on two counts. Cutler had worked on VMS but he did not bring it with him. NT was written from scratch. Also, he was not brought on board to rewrite Windows, he was brought on board to rewrite OS/2. While IBM worked on 32-bit x86-specific OS/2 2, Microsoft would in parallel work on the CPU architecture portable OS/2 3, aka "NT OS/2". Microsoft and IBM "broke up" and NT OS/2 was renamed Windows NT.
Apple was definitely behind the power, performance curve," said Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst at Insight 64. The PowerPC processor that emerged from that earlier pairing changed that
PowerPC was pushed by the AIM alliance: Apple, IBM, Motorola. The latter two developed and produced chips. Apple had some input. The goal was an ISA that made it easy to emulate both m68k and i386.
No. The goal was twice the performance at half the price of the x86.
Now Intel's CISC based x86 was certainly more difficult to work with in terms of improving performance but Intel was not exactly lacking in resources, human or financial. Even if it took 10x to improves CISC compared to RISC, Intel had the 10x. Intel pulled off friggin miracles with x86 performance, not one expected them to reach the clock rates they did.
It turned out that in general PowerPC had a 20% performance advantage over an x86 at the same clock rate, getting twice as fast was only achieved in very specialized circumstances. However Intel was able to achieve higher clock rates than PowerPC and maintain a general performance lead.
With 10 year registrations available, there's no guarantee that former_group_members@example.com is much better than former_employee@example.com, especially in fast moving industries.
Stop thinking in terms of employees, that's the point of this exercise, the email addresses on the distribution list can include functional roles. company_web_site_manager@sony.com, senior_web_admins@sony.com, etc. Basically the slots in the corporate org chart come with an email address based on the function so you don't necessarily have to know who the person in that role is nowadays.
You're suggesting a tactical solution to a process issue. Better to have the responsible group track and update necessary renewals on a regular basis, instead of depending on notifications from external parties being received.
So your calendar server has a list of people rather than your email server, that's not much of a difference.
Whoosh. That only make it easier. It doesn't fix the process, which still requires tracking and making changes to make it effective.
Actually you might want to re-think who is having the woosh moment.:-) I never said it fixed the problem. I offered a practice that is an improvement, i.e. forwarding and multiple recipients, that reduces the opportunity for unread emails.
So, forward domain_registration@sony.com to former_employee@sony.com. Let us know how that works out for you.
That's why I wrote person or persons. Plus when someone is told they are now responsible for or involved in domain registration they go update the recipient list for the email address. There is no need to update some outsider's records. There is no need to get into the former employee's email. It really is an improvement over using employee emails directly.
]The real problem is that Sony couldn't be arsed to register the domain names using a working e-mail address that actually goes to the person at Sony who is responsible for such a thing.
Not quite, it should be a special purpose email like domain_registration@sony.com rather than an employee email. However the special purpose email should forward to those responsible, involved or overseeing the particular thing. The special purpose email should not be something that someone is supposed to log in to.
This is why you don't directly use employee email addresses for certain business activities. These activities get their own emails which forward to whoever the responsible person or persons are. Ex. domain_registration@sony.com. Note "forward to", these would not be standalone email addresses that someone has to log in to.
Not quite. MS started NT when Cutler came on board but kept working on OS/2 separately and didn't have any plans to support it long term at that point. He started NT from scratch with his own small group that looked down on those that were working on OS/2.
NT was originally a next generation OS/2 not a next generation Windows. IBM and Microsoft worked together on 16-bit OS/2 1.x. They decided to work separately in parallel on the 32-bit x86 specific OS/2 2.x (IBM) and on the cross platform portable OS/2 3.x, aka NT OS/2 (Microsoft). NT OS/2 was eventually rebranded as Windows NT. NT was a re-write, but it started as a re-write for OS/2.
Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did.
Oh so really true, and that is why consumers are inundated with power PC chips today...
Didn't you read the next line that I wrote? I inserted it above for reference.
Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.
Intel have been using microcode since the P5 in 1993.
Apple's first use of PowerPC was in 1994
Apple, IBM and Motorola began working together on the PowerPC in 1991 when PC's were using the 486.
The RISC core and micro ops that I referred to were introduced in the Pentium Pro (P6) in 1995, not the Pentium (P5).
The i* device revolution has been extremely annoying for enterprise IT since Apple has had almost zero understanding or interest in supporting us. Things like requiring plugging in an iphone to a PC to turn off the find my iphone feature with iOS 7 as an example (No I can't contact all 300 field users and ask them to mail me their iphone for a few days).
This was fixed a year or so ago with iOS 7, maybe earlier? iOS devices can be remotely configured and updated. Coincidentally I just watched a WWDC video that mentioned this, I'm pretty sure it was from last year's WWDC not the recent one.
Hmmm . . . but then again . . . didn't Apple and IBM try to collaborate on something called Taligent and Kaleida . . . ?
Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did. I suppose technically they did not. Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.
Most people looked at the RISC v CISC debate as one or the other, Intel thought they'd do both in one chip. CISC may be more expensive to work with but Intel certainly can afford to go the more expensive path.
Microsoft and OS/2. That didn't work out too well.
It worked out great for Microsoft. Microsoft NT began life as OS/2 NT, the portable cross-platform version of OS/2. As IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways OS/2 NT was renamed Windows NT.
Plumbing is already at the point where you can buy most of the stuff at your local plumbing/hardware store, and do it yourself. But most people can't be bothered. Same way that most people could easily change their own oil, or even make their own meals, but many people don't.
Plumping has been at that point for many decades. At least since the 1950s in the U.S, or whenever teflon tape was invented.:-)
This has nothing to do with USA citizens, this is about sovereignty of people and countries that are not USA in the first place. Swiss bank doesn't have to disclose ANYTHING to the USA regime about its account holders in Switzerland. Of-course current oppressive USA regime disagrees, apparently you are on the wrong side of the individual rights on this one as well.
The truth is not what you think it is. Swiss banks do in fact give up information on the accounts of US citizens to the US government. Its simply a matter of the Swiss banks wanting to continue to do business in the US.
The other poster is correct. Your presence in another country is in fact subject to that country's judicial decrees. If you wish to not comply then you need to remove your presence from the country. This does not nullify the original judicial decree, it merely renders it unenforcible unless your country wishes for it to be enforced.
"...any country you do business in you technically are subject to the laws of that country..."
No. You are subject to that country's law while you are in that country doing business. I don't think government A can ban a company based in country B from doing something in country C just because they also happen to do other business in country A!
In practice they actually do so. If the company fails to comply with country A then they are at risk from being barred from doing business in A. This is how the US government got the Swiss banks to give up info on US citizen's accounts.
Ask the economics professor who beat House Majority Leader Mitch Cantor in Virginia. The professor spent less than $100,000.
So you're saying a primary election costs approximately what a house does.
Your idea of what constitutes "large amounts of money" is seriously out of whack. Probably because elections have involved astronomical amounts of money for so long.
You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that votes are the true currency of politics. That money is secondary, it is merely a tool to persuade the indifferent. Expensive media campaigns do little to change the opinion of informed and motivated voters. The Virginia primary is an example, the winner spent $100,000. The loser spent $5,000,000 and the loser was an incumbent and a powerful party leader.
In other words if one wants to change politics then inform and motivate voters. If you want to maintain the status quo by focusing on the wrong thing then focus on money.
Why do you assume a doctor will be using this data?
Because the post I responded to said "And, physicians and regulators are already looking at ways to integrate that information into a broader plan of care.":-)
I honestly doubt physicians will base medical decisions on data from non-FDA approved devices. That is an enormous opening for the trial lawyers and their malpractice lawsuits.
And that is what would regulate the market in the meantime.
That is not how the trial lawyers work. They are not defacto regulators in most cases. The are far more often just parasites and are very much like the patent trolls, just using the legal system to extort money. They will sue doctors who did receive correct data from a device and who made a medically well informed decision. They will use the fact that the device is not FDA certified to sow FUD and confuse and mislead a jury who is clueless about medicine and devices. Every once in a while they will find a gullible jury and get a payday, and insurance companies/doctors will just give them money to go away even when their suits are baseless.
Sensors are probably regulated under some other set of rules - after all, you can buy glucosometers, blood pressure monitors, scales, and a pile of other medical devices at your local Wal-Mart.
The first consumer at-home glucose monitoring device (hardware and software) that I found on walmart's website is an FDA approved device according the the FDA's website.
Unfortunately, companies like Apple are developing services to aggregate health data from things like wifi BP cuffs, scales, activity trackers, pulse oximeters, etc. And, physicians and regulators are already looking at ways to integrate that information into a broader plan of care. So, regardless of it's novelty, it's going to be used for very real medical decisions. At the very least, there needs to be better education about the lack of oversight and the potential for wildly inaccurate data, and I don't get the feeling that's happening.
I honestly doubt physicians will base medical decisions on data from non-FDA approved devices. That is an enormous opening for the trial lawyers and their malpractice lawsuits.
Similarly I doubt Apple will be promoting its consumer oriented devices for use in patient care, well in the medical data acquisition and telemetry sense, as opposed to doctors accessing data/records via iPads. Apple will probably "prohibit" such use in its licensing agreement. Apple's pockets are way too deep and they would just make themselves a perfect target for trial lawyers if consumer grade devices were used in medical data acquisition.
Ultimately there will be mobile medical data acquisition and telemetry devices from traditional medical equipment vendors and it will be FDA approved.
Of course, maybe Apple will come out with an FDA approved model eventually, a non-consumer grade device ?
Slashdot Mirror
You are assuming a game that was designed to be cross platform. In reality many of the games ported to PowerPC Macs were designed and written only for x86 Windows by their development team and porting to the Mac was done by a different team when the game is near completion or has already shipped.
"Knowledge of how the hardware operates", "Things like CPU instruction set options, memory alignment, etc.", are the business of compilers and their creators.
Perhaps, but they fail at it. Game developers often **have to** make up for the deficiencies of compilers.
Compilers optimize code much much better than humans do.
Perhaps the average programmer, but those specializing in assembly language routinely beat the compilers. Assembly is merely less common today because of (1) cost and (2) CPUs are so overpowered for nearly all tasks we can live with less efficient compiler generated code.
Too bad the PowerPC machines *couldn't run the damn games* or the requisite MS Office suites for students and business people to use them.
They ran Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo and World of Warcraft.
... the kernels (as Microsoft hired David Cutler to bring the VMS kernel with him to create Windows NT ...
Wrong on two counts. Cutler had worked on VMS but he did not bring it with him. NT was written from scratch. Also, he was not brought on board to rewrite Windows, he was brought on board to rewrite OS/2. While IBM worked on 32-bit x86-specific OS/2 2, Microsoft would in parallel work on the CPU architecture portable OS/2 3, aka "NT OS/2". Microsoft and IBM "broke up" and NT OS/2 was renamed Windows NT.
Apple was definitely behind the power, performance curve," said Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst at Insight 64. The PowerPC processor that emerged from that earlier pairing changed that
PowerPC was pushed by the AIM alliance: Apple, IBM, Motorola. The latter two developed and produced chips. Apple had some input. The goal was an ISA that made it easy to emulate both m68k and i386.
No. The goal was twice the performance at half the price of the x86.
Now Intel's CISC based x86 was certainly more difficult to work with in terms of improving performance but Intel was not exactly lacking in resources, human or financial. Even if it took 10x to improves CISC compared to RISC, Intel had the 10x. Intel pulled off friggin miracles with x86 performance, not one expected them to reach the clock rates they did.
It turned out that in general PowerPC had a 20% performance advantage over an x86 at the same clock rate, getting twice as fast was only achieved in very specialized circumstances. However Intel was able to achieve higher clock rates than PowerPC and maintain a general performance lead.
With 10 year registrations available, there's no guarantee that former_group_members@example.com is much better than former_employee@example.com, especially in fast moving industries.
Stop thinking in terms of employees, that's the point of this exercise, the email addresses on the distribution list can include functional roles. company_web_site_manager@sony.com, senior_web_admins@sony.com, etc. Basically the slots in the corporate org chart come with an email address based on the function so you don't necessarily have to know who the person in that role is nowadays.
You're suggesting a tactical solution to a process issue. Better to have the responsible group track and update necessary renewals on a regular basis, instead of depending on notifications from external parties being received.
So your calendar server has a list of people rather than your email server, that's not much of a difference.
Whoosh. That only make it easier. It doesn't fix the process, which still requires tracking and making changes to make it effective.
Actually you might want to re-think who is having the woosh moment. :-) I never said it fixed the problem. I offered a practice that is an improvement, i.e. forwarding and multiple recipients, that reduces the opportunity for unread emails.
So, forward domain_registration@sony.com to former_employee@sony.com. Let us know how that works out for you.
That's why I wrote person or persons. Plus when someone is told they are now responsible for or involved in domain registration they go update the recipient list for the email address. There is no need to update some outsider's records. There is no need to get into the former employee's email. It really is an improvement over using employee emails directly.
]The real problem is that Sony couldn't be arsed to register the domain names using a working e-mail address that actually goes to the person at Sony who is responsible for such a thing.
Not quite, it should be a special purpose email like domain_registration@sony.com rather than an employee email. However the special purpose email should forward to those responsible, involved or overseeing the particular thing. The special purpose email should not be something that someone is supposed to log in to.
This is why you don't directly use employee email addresses for certain business activities. These activities get their own emails which forward to whoever the responsible person or persons are. Ex. domain_registration@sony.com. Note "forward to", these would not be standalone email addresses that someone has to log in to.
Millions of aging buggy whips do not have a great deal of importance to the modern auto market.
Those shiny new autos are also full of PowerPC chips. :-)
Not quite. MS started NT when Cutler came on board but kept working on OS/2 separately and didn't have any plans to support it long term at that point. He started NT from scratch with his own small group that looked down on those that were working on OS/2.
NT was originally a next generation OS/2 not a next generation Windows. IBM and Microsoft worked together on 16-bit OS/2 1.x. They decided to work separately in parallel on the 32-bit x86 specific OS/2 2.x (IBM) and on the cross platform portable OS/2 3.x, aka NT OS/2 (Microsoft). NT OS/2 was eventually rebranded as Windows NT. NT was a re-write, but it started as a re-write for OS/2.
Oh so really true, and that is why consumers are inundated with power PC chips today...
Are we counting Xbox 360s and Playstations?
Funny, I could swear that both Sony and Microsoft punted powerPC for AMD silicon.
That doesn't change the fact that there are in fact 83 million Xbox 360s and 80 million Playstation 3s in the hands of consumers.
Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did.
Oh so really true, and that is why consumers are inundated with power PC chips today...
Didn't you read the next line that I wrote? I inserted it above for reference.
Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.
Intel have been using microcode since the P5 in 1993. Apple's first use of PowerPC was in 1994
Apple, IBM and Motorola began working together on the PowerPC in 1991 when PC's were using the 486.
The RISC core and micro ops that I referred to were introduced in the Pentium Pro (P6) in 1995, not the Pentium (P5).
The i* device revolution has been extremely annoying for enterprise IT since Apple has had almost zero understanding or interest in supporting us. Things like requiring plugging in an iphone to a PC to turn off the find my iphone feature with iOS 7 as an example (No I can't contact all 300 field users and ask them to mail me their iphone for a few days).
This was fixed a year or so ago with iOS 7, maybe earlier? iOS devices can be remotely configured and updated. Coincidentally I just watched a WWDC video that mentioned this, I'm pretty sure it was from last year's WWDC not the recent one.
Hmmm . . . but then again . . . didn't Apple and IBM try to collaborate on something called Taligent and Kaleida . . . ?
Apple, IBM and Motorola partnered for the PowerPC CPU. It worked out. PowerPC ultimately lost to Intel but that wasn't so much a PowerPC failure as it was that Intel worked friggin miracles with the x86 architecture. No one ever imagined they could get x86 to the performance levels that they did. I suppose technically they did not. Intel actually went to RISC but its hidden in the core of the CPU and only the legacy x86 api is exposed. x86 instructions are translated to risc core micro operations and these microps are what actually executes.
Most people looked at the RISC v CISC debate as one or the other, Intel thought they'd do both in one chip. CISC may be more expensive to work with but Intel certainly can afford to go the more expensive path.
Microsoft and OS/2. That didn't work out too well.
It worked out great for Microsoft. Microsoft NT began life as OS/2 NT, the portable cross-platform version of OS/2. As IBM and Microsoft went their separate ways OS/2 NT was renamed Windows NT.
Plumbing is already at the point where you can buy most of the stuff at your local plumbing/hardware store, and do it yourself. But most people can't be bothered. Same way that most people could easily change their own oil, or even make their own meals, but many people don't.
Plumping has been at that point for many decades. At least since the 1950s in the U.S, or whenever teflon tape was invented. :-)
This has nothing to do with USA citizens, this is about sovereignty of people and countries that are not USA in the first place. Swiss bank doesn't have to disclose ANYTHING to the USA regime about its account holders in Switzerland. Of-course current oppressive USA regime disagrees, apparently you are on the wrong side of the individual rights on this one as well.
By the way, any sufficiently truthful statement is indistinguishable from 'flamebait'. In other words, TRUTH HURTS, doesn't it?
The truth is not what you think it is. Swiss banks do in fact give up information on the accounts of US citizens to the US government. Its simply a matter of the Swiss banks wanting to continue to do business in the US.
The other poster is correct. Your presence in another country is in fact subject to that country's judicial decrees. If you wish to not comply then you need to remove your presence from the country. This does not nullify the original judicial decree, it merely renders it unenforcible unless your country wishes for it to be enforced.
"...any country you do business in you technically are subject to the laws of that country..."
No. You are subject to that country's law while you are in that country doing business. I don't think government A can ban a company based in country B from doing something in country C just because they also happen to do other business in country A!
In practice they actually do so. If the company fails to comply with country A then they are at risk from being barred from doing business in A. This is how the US government got the Swiss banks to give up info on US citizen's accounts.
Ask the economics professor who beat House Majority Leader Mitch Cantor in Virginia. The professor spent less than $100,000.
So you're saying a primary election costs approximately what a house does.
Your idea of what constitutes "large amounts of money" is seriously out of whack. Probably because elections have involved astronomical amounts of money for so long.
You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that votes are the true currency of politics. That money is secondary, it is merely a tool to persuade the indifferent. Expensive media campaigns do little to change the opinion of informed and motivated voters. The Virginia primary is an example, the winner spent $100,000. The loser spent $5,000,000 and the loser was an incumbent and a powerful party leader.
In other words if one wants to change politics then inform and motivate voters. If you want to maintain the status quo by focusing on the wrong thing then focus on money.
Why do you assume a doctor will be using this data?
Because the post I responded to said "And, physicians and regulators are already looking at ways to integrate that information into a broader plan of care." :-)
And that is what would regulate the market in the meantime.
That is not how the trial lawyers work. They are not defacto regulators in most cases. The are far more often just parasites and are very much like the patent trolls, just using the legal system to extort money. They will sue doctors who did receive correct data from a device and who made a medically well informed decision. They will use the fact that the device is not FDA certified to sow FUD and confuse and mislead a jury who is clueless about medicine and devices. Every once in a while they will find a gullible jury and get a payday, and insurance companies/doctors will just give them money to go away even when their suits are baseless.
Sensors are probably regulated under some other set of rules - after all, you can buy glucosometers, blood pressure monitors, scales, and a pile of other medical devices at your local Wal-Mart.
The first consumer at-home glucose monitoring device (hardware and software) that I found on walmart's website is an FDA approved device according the the FDA's website.
Unfortunately, companies like Apple are developing services to aggregate health data from things like wifi BP cuffs, scales, activity trackers, pulse oximeters, etc. And, physicians and regulators are already looking at ways to integrate that information into a broader plan of care. So, regardless of it's novelty, it's going to be used for very real medical decisions. At the very least, there needs to be better education about the lack of oversight and the potential for wildly inaccurate data, and I don't get the feeling that's happening.
I honestly doubt physicians will base medical decisions on data from non-FDA approved devices. That is an enormous opening for the trial lawyers and their malpractice lawsuits.
Similarly I doubt Apple will be promoting its consumer oriented devices for use in patient care, well in the medical data acquisition and telemetry sense, as opposed to doctors accessing data/records via iPads. Apple will probably "prohibit" such use in its licensing agreement. Apple's pockets are way too deep and they would just make themselves a perfect target for trial lawyers if consumer grade devices were used in medical data acquisition.
Ultimately there will be mobile medical data acquisition and telemetry devices from traditional medical equipment vendors and it will be FDA approved.
Of course, maybe Apple will come out with an FDA approved model eventually, a non-consumer grade device ?