You're not your own special cornflake. Your brain works the same way as everyone else's.
Well actually no, there are tons of studies showing how different people's brains work differently. In what context are you saying everybody's brains work the same?
When you think this is about "dumbing down" you're being quite dumb about UI design yourself.
Can you elaborate? It seems like you're implying there is one way of doing things that is best for everybody and that anybody who doesn't accept that is just being obtuse, I could be wrong though.
I think you misunderstand - for most people, static content is far preferable. We dont want anything that moves unless we click on it, and probably not even then!
No, you misunderstand. There's a lot of middle ground between static content and bombastic, flamboyant advertising.
From what he has said it seems like this all fits right in to their Google Now strategy.
The problem is with the idea that "Google should be connecting the dots between financial transactions, health records, search history, GPS data, app usage, Gmail threads, IM conversations, and more." Which is a pretty contentious issue at the moment, granted many people simply don't care, some do and some are undecided... already they do some of this but suggesting they track every move you make and every thing you do in order to make suggestions about what you should do next is a little overboard and unless it is effectively just presenting advertisements (something users also despise) what is the point?
You do realize the ditched it because the developers all screamed "WEB APPS SUCK!!"
That likely was part of it but you're not going to tell me you actually believe the whole iOS App Store ecosystem was just a side-effect of "web apps suck" are you?
Apple has reinvented themselves before and when whatever train they're currently on runs out of steam they'll likely do it again. Back at the introduction of the Macintosh they were about saving users from conformity. Eventually they ended up getting so far in the hole their saving grace came from Microsoft and now it's the complete opposite, conformity and lack of choice is their game.
...and before anybody flies off the handle thinking this means I'm bagging out Apple no, I have an iPhone and I like it and don't feel a need to express individualism or personality through my choice of smartphone.
Well it's out of their profit and not their revenue so that'd be a $1588 speeding ticket, you wouldn't fight that if you thought you had a chance of winning?
The regulations are there to enforce providing a better service, if the resulting system is worse than the alternative - insofar as people choose the unregulated system - then those regulations have failed.
Remember: Sometimes allowing more people to play has benefits, even if they do take their bat and ball and go home at the end.
And this is what we see with Apple's OSX, sure they haven't released all the source code for the operating system but since many of its parts are built on permissive open source licenses rather than restrictive ones those parts can be used in the closed source operating system but also released as source for other people to use.
For example Safari is not open source but we sure get a lot of contributions to WebKit which is used in lots of places.
You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.
Right, what he should have said was "GPL-compatible" license.
There's nothing "viral" about the GPL which distinguishes it from any other form of licensing. The BSD license is "viral" in that any derived works still have to obey the copyright notice requirements. Closed source licenses are "viral" in the sense that if your work uses closed-source software, your derivative work is subject to the restrictions and limitations of the closed-source license.
There is a degree of difference there though. Yes the BSD license is equally "viral" but the implications and restrictions imposed are significantly less of an imposition than those of the GPL. The same applies to closed source software which is why closed source and BSD software can be sold in the Apple App Store but GPL software cannot.
The only real issue here is the GPLv3's patent license requirements.
Well that depends on if he wants to distribute this iOS program in the App Store.
An upstart breaking that system means going back to the bad days when taxis were unregulated.
Then that alone should already be enough incentive for people to use regulated taxis rather than Uber. If I end up with taxis refusing a fare for being too short or telling me they're going to take 30-45mins for pickup then of course I'm going to use Uber instead. The problem is taxis have a protected monopoly so there is no competition to worry about, you can say the regulations mean they can't discriminate on fares and that this will mean there are always enough taxis but the fact is that shit does happen and when you're on the street the ability to have an alternative is a good thing!
Wow, what's happened to this place? Someone says Linux is better than Windows and gets marked flamebait.
Probably because the "operating system X is better than operating system Y" kind of argument either with no context or on subjective grounds is flamebait.
I'd like to be able to use Linux. Unfortunately I need hardware support and a software library that has professional grade software, which are things that Linux will never be able to provide.
I wouldn't say that, there's no reason they couldn't be provided on Linux but really there is no reason for the hardware and software vendors to expend the effort to support it.
AMD has great notebooks chips (look at Carrizo) too, but nobody offers them, as in old "@HP we will give you our processors for free! No, thanks" times.
That's true but you have to remember the OEMs then suffer on volume discounts so it's a case of switching everything to AMD. Now of course they could just have a small subset of systems with AMD chips but it's not a matter of just switching CPUs, you also have to redesign and manufacture the tooling since you need to design a whole new motherboard (usually one of each different chassis too) which is often not economically viable if it is for a small run of systems especially if you're running on thin margins already. AMD also didn't have integrated graphics back then like Intel did so you needed to sort out a GPU too. This is why the Athlon XP-M was often an option in more highend systems with dedicated GPUs like the Clevo and Alienware (pre-Dell) systems.
So it's not quite as simplistic as you might think, the cost of CPUs is only one tiny part of it.
Who told you that? Maybe you should try firing up some thread monitors before you talk this bullshit. Most games of any complexity, and even many games of virtually none, are multithreaded. This was mostly true even before the advent of the Xbox 360, but after that just about every cross-platform game became multithreaded, with at least three threads. Since Microsoft and Sony have both gone to consoles with eight cores, multithreaded games are even more ubiquitous.
So no, you're full of crap right there.
Well there certainly are more threads in use, but the real question is what are they doing? The biggest bottleneck in games - as far as the CPU is concerned - is setting up your command lists and buffers. In current GPU APIs this is a sequential process and is inherently single-threaded. You can do multithreading to some degree (see DX11 multi-threading) but the actual access to the immediate context is single-threaded so you suffer the synchronization penalty anyway which is why DX11 single-threaded vs multi-threaded is such a mixed bag performance-wise.
DX12 and Vulkan aim to change that by reducing the responsibility of the driver and moving that responsibility to the application, this allows for a less sequential pipeline.
So you're somewhat right but the question isn't how many threads there are but what they are doing, also your suggestion of a thread monitor will often produce a bit of a red herring since it will also collect synchronization overhead. For example you can have it show one core maxed out and then 8 cores maxed out but the application doesn't run any faster, the reason is the same: the pipeline is inherently sequential so the usage you are seeing is just busy-wait, it's not actually doing anything though, sometimes this overhead is so large you see it actually making the multi-threaded version run slower.
Actually that's not true. Where exactly do you think the performance advantage of AMD's Mantle comes from? In fact the very reason for the creation of DirectX 12, Vulkan (built on Mantle) and Metal is because of the dependence on the CPU resource (mostly on one core) due to high-overhead sequential drivers. Once drivers support these new APIs and games are written with them we will see a decrease in games being so CPU-bound as this load can be spread over more cores but also can be done more efficiently as the driver doesn't need a one-size-fits-all solution or a custom patch for a particular game because this is implemented at the application level.
NB: And be careful if you're thinking of linking to articles about benchmarks, many of them have no understanding of these changes. For example PC World tells us all about how you can expect a phenomenal performance boost because you can do 30x the amount of draw calls in DX12. Though they don't realize that these draw calls they are measuring are at the application level and since the driver overhead is reduced the application burden is increased. Per frame it's around the same amount of calls on both APIs, it's just that in the older API it looks like there are fewer because most are made in the driver - which they can't measure - rather than the application.
this is backed up by Phoronix [phoronix.com] which shows that with GCC you "magically" get a 30%+ performance boost and their numbers match up almost perfectly with Tek Syndicate [youtube.com] who has the $140 FX8350 trading blows with Intel chips costing more than twice the price.
Synthetic benchmarks (and code compilation) are one thing but that doesn't translate particularly well to gaming because it is a completely different task.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not your own special cornflake. Your brain works the same way as everyone else's.
Well actually no, there are tons of studies showing how different people's brains work differently. In what context are you saying everybody's brains work the same?
When you think this is about "dumbing down" you're being quite dumb about UI design yourself.
Can you elaborate? It seems like you're implying there is one way of doing things that is best for everybody and that anybody who doesn't accept that is just being obtuse, I could be wrong though.
Adobe's UI are *amazing*.
You do realize when you make such statements, everyone instantly knows you don't use any Adobe UIs, right?
Or that your view on a subjective thing is different to somebody else's.
Oh great. IE8. That's some special lineage on which to base the identity of their new browser.
And I'm sure so many people are going to get hung up on that!
I think you misunderstand - for most people, static content is far preferable. We dont want anything that moves unless we click on it, and probably not even then!
No, you misunderstand. There's a lot of middle ground between static content and bombastic, flamboyant advertising.
From what he has said it seems like this all fits right in to their Google Now strategy.
The problem is with the idea that "Google should be connecting the dots between financial transactions, health records, search history, GPS data, app usage, Gmail threads, IM conversations, and more." Which is a pretty contentious issue at the moment, granted many people simply don't care, some do and some are undecided ... already they do some of this but suggesting they track every move you make and every thing you do in order to make suggestions about what you should do next is a little overboard and unless it is effectively just presenting advertisements (something users also despise) what is the point?
You do realize the ditched it because the developers all screamed "WEB APPS SUCK!!"
That likely was part of it but you're not going to tell me you actually believe the whole iOS App Store ecosystem was just a side-effect of "web apps suck" are you?
Apple has reinvented themselves before and when whatever train they're currently on runs out of steam they'll likely do it again. Back at the introduction of the Macintosh they were about saving users from conformity. Eventually they ended up getting so far in the hole their saving grace came from Microsoft and now it's the complete opposite, conformity and lack of choice is their game.
So I guess you still live in your basement? There is a world out there. And Macs have very low adoption (single digit) within corporations.
But he has anecdotal evidence!
LOL - you realize the the original iPhone allowed *only* HTML/JS apps?
you realize they they ditched that favor of the "app" model?
Maybe old people just enjoy silly arguments more.
Well it's out of their profit and not their revenue so that'd be a $1588 speeding ticket, you wouldn't fight that if you thought you had a chance of winning?
The regulations are there to enforce providing a better service, if the resulting system is worse than the alternative - insofar as people choose the unregulated system - then those regulations have failed.
Remember: Sometimes allowing more people to play has benefits, even if they do take their bat and ball and go home at the end.
And this is what we see with Apple's OSX, sure they haven't released all the source code for the operating system but since many of its parts are built on permissive open source licenses rather than restrictive ones those parts can be used in the closed source operating system but also released as source for other people to use.
For example Safari is not open source but we sure get a lot of contributions to WebKit which is used in lots of places.
It must be GPL-compatible, it must not be GPL.
Why not? Based on the listed licenses GPL should still be fine.
You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.
Right, what he should have said was "GPL-compatible" license.
There's nothing "viral" about the GPL which distinguishes it from any other form of licensing. The BSD license is "viral" in that any derived works still have to obey the copyright notice requirements. Closed source licenses are "viral" in the sense that if your work uses closed-source software, your derivative work is subject to the restrictions and limitations of the closed-source license.
There is a degree of difference there though. Yes the BSD license is equally "viral" but the implications and restrictions imposed are significantly less of an imposition than those of the GPL. The same applies to closed source software which is why closed source and BSD software can be sold in the Apple App Store but GPL software cannot.
The only real issue here is the GPLv3's patent license requirements.
Well that depends on if he wants to distribute this iOS program in the App Store.
An upstart breaking that system means going back to the bad days when taxis were unregulated.
Then that alone should already be enough incentive for people to use regulated taxis rather than Uber. If I end up with taxis refusing a fare for being too short or telling me they're going to take 30-45mins for pickup then of course I'm going to use Uber instead. The problem is taxis have a protected monopoly so there is no competition to worry about, you can say the regulations mean they can't discriminate on fares and that this will mean there are always enough taxis but the fact is that shit does happen and when you're on the street the ability to have an alternative is a good thing!
Wow, what's happened to this place? Someone says Linux is better than Windows and gets marked flamebait.
Probably because the "operating system X is better than operating system Y" kind of argument either with no context or on subjective grounds is flamebait.
Seriously though, why all the flat colored squares? Somebody needs taking out the back for a good talking to.
Clue: It's not "clean", it's dull and uninspiring.
And 10 years ago people said "why all the semi-transparent nonsense"? It's just gimmicky and pointless, like wobbly windows.
I'd like to be able to use Linux. Unfortunately I need hardware support and a software library that has professional grade software, which are things that Linux will never be able to provide.
I wouldn't say that, there's no reason they couldn't be provided on Linux but really there is no reason for the hardware and software vendors to expend the effort to support it.
AMD has great notebooks chips (look at Carrizo) too, but nobody offers them, as in old "@HP we will give you our processors for free! No, thanks" times.
That's true but you have to remember the OEMs then suffer on volume discounts so it's a case of switching everything to AMD. Now of course they could just have a small subset of systems with AMD chips but it's not a matter of just switching CPUs, you also have to redesign and manufacture the tooling since you need to design a whole new motherboard (usually one of each different chassis too) which is often not economically viable if it is for a small run of systems especially if you're running on thin margins already. AMD also didn't have integrated graphics back then like Intel did so you needed to sort out a GPU too. This is why the Athlon XP-M was often an option in more highend systems with dedicated GPUs like the Clevo and Alienware (pre-Dell) systems.
So it's not quite as simplistic as you might think, the cost of CPUs is only one tiny part of it.
Who told you that? Maybe you should try firing up some thread monitors before you talk this bullshit. Most games of any complexity, and even many games of virtually none, are multithreaded. This was mostly true even before the advent of the Xbox 360, but after that just about every cross-platform game became multithreaded, with at least three threads. Since Microsoft and Sony have both gone to consoles with eight cores, multithreaded games are even more ubiquitous.
So no, you're full of crap right there.
Well there certainly are more threads in use, but the real question is what are they doing? The biggest bottleneck in games - as far as the CPU is concerned - is setting up your command lists and buffers. In current GPU APIs this is a sequential process and is inherently single-threaded. You can do multithreading to some degree (see DX11 multi-threading) but the actual access to the immediate context is single-threaded so you suffer the synchronization penalty anyway which is why DX11 single-threaded vs multi-threaded is such a mixed bag performance-wise.
DX12 and Vulkan aim to change that by reducing the responsibility of the driver and moving that responsibility to the application, this allows for a less sequential pipeline.
So you're somewhat right but the question isn't how many threads there are but what they are doing, also your suggestion of a thread monitor will often produce a bit of a red herring since it will also collect synchronization overhead. For example you can have it show one core maxed out and then 8 cores maxed out but the application doesn't run any faster, the reason is the same: the pipeline is inherently sequential so the usage you are seeing is just busy-wait, it's not actually doing anything though, sometimes this overhead is so large you see it actually making the multi-threaded version run slower.
since games haven't been CPU bound in years
Actually that's not true. Where exactly do you think the performance advantage of AMD's Mantle comes from? In fact the very reason for the creation of DirectX 12, Vulkan (built on Mantle) and Metal is because of the dependence on the CPU resource (mostly on one core) due to high-overhead sequential drivers. Once drivers support these new APIs and games are written with them we will see a decrease in games being so CPU-bound as this load can be spread over more cores but also can be done more efficiently as the driver doesn't need a one-size-fits-all solution or a custom patch for a particular game because this is implemented at the application level.
NB: And be careful if you're thinking of linking to articles about benchmarks, many of them have no understanding of these changes. For example PC World tells us all about how you can expect a phenomenal performance boost because you can do 30x the amount of draw calls in DX12. Though they don't realize that these draw calls they are measuring are at the application level and since the driver overhead is reduced the application burden is increased. Per frame it's around the same amount of calls on both APIs, it's just that in the older API it looks like there are fewer because most are made in the driver - which they can't measure - rather than the application.
this is backed up by Phoronix [phoronix.com] which shows that with GCC you "magically" get a 30%+ performance boost and their numbers match up almost perfectly with Tek Syndicate [youtube.com] who has the $140 FX8350 trading blows with Intel chips costing more than twice the price.
Synthetic benchmarks (and code compilation) are one thing but that doesn't translate particularly well to gaming because it is a completely different task.
Then you're using the force touch feature, even if you don't click.
Given that use case, would it be any different to doing that on a trackpad that doesn't have Force Touch?
Don't you use it every time you click on the trackpad?
I don't even click the touchpad
The humor was obviously going to be too subtle for some people.