I'm not talking about artificially boosting requirements I'm talking about allowing requirements to go up as demands go up. Of the 3 aspects of longhorn the one that boosts requirements without getting new functionality is the new interface, aero.
I don't think that it is really true. I think Lua could evolve to be as strong in applications programming as Python but they choose to fill different niches and so the languages evolved along different paths.
Lua uses automatic coercion in all instances which makes programs faster to write and harder to maintain. Python has a very well defined OO structure. Lua doesn't have the huge libraries of functionality Python does Lua's lack of high performance arrays Lua's lack of unicode is a big problem for applications programming
I've worked on systems with that "stupid idea". It is fantastic. Microsoft knows how to implement it, desktops and laptops of the mid 2000s were easily fast enough to support it and it would have been a huge upgrade.
Incidentally it is not vaperware. Many of the technologies are now bundled in with SQL Server. The partially implemented version shipped many years ago
Lua is specifically designed to be an easy embeddedable scripting language when one needs a light scripting language but not a full featured programming language. Luas are way way easier.
i thought *users* had no business writing device drivers?
My non programmer wife wrote a custom device driver in AppleScript, not even knowing what a device driver is. Those sorts of languages can be amazing empowering to end users, and yes there are reasons that end users might want a custom device driver if it is easy enough to accomplish. Though this makes more sense for OSX than NetBSD, I doubt there are many if any non programmers who use NetBSD.
I had to write a custom device driver for Windows once to get something more like a Unix ethernet driver i.e. bypass some normally quite excellent parts of the Windows networking stack. I was doing software not hardware so I guess I'd consider myself an end user. And that was a pain in the ass.
Apple isn't going to default on payments. They are far far too big for that. And frankly they wouldn't want to damage their reputation.
As for suing Samsung more, I think it is going to get harder. Android and iOS are forking,
As far as suing Google... I'm not sure they would want to do that. Remember Google bought Motorola for the patents. Motorola invented a lot lot of phone technology that Apple uses. They have already lost several lawsuits regarding violations and the dispute is over price.
I understand that. They already are a huge PC making company. They are moving up the value chain. But that's very different from getting out of selling PCs.
OK, you got me. How did Microsoft push down the cost of PCs?
Not pushing up requirements and keeping licensing costs low. For example the original goals for Longhorn were:
a) Built in security system (palladium) for video control and manipulation. b) A database filesystem like you have on minicomputers c) A new GUI making use of faster video.
That is to say hardware capable of running a database server, while doing video manipulation and on a day to day basis using animated 3D effects (i.e. expensive video cards). On (a) and (b) they dropped these. On (c) they released Vista in a way that worked with much lower end machines and made 3D graphics support optional. Had they not done that Longhorn / Vista machines would have cost quite a bit more than XP machines and prices would not have come down.
Take that example times 10 others and that's how Microsoft drove down prices.
Dell never had unique products. What Dell had was a unique process for building products that allowed them to offer customized systems at commodity prices. They were a technology leader in how their computers were assembled not what was in them.
I agree that HP moved from a technology company to a services company. I don't think any particular technology can save them, they are too big. Technologies now exist to help them sell services. But I can see lots of areas where HP could be very very successful in selling services.
Dell's restructuring strategy is private. For the last 10 years or so they've been trying to move up the value chain but still be selling systems. I don't know what their current private strategy is.
Touchscreen. And more expensive than touchscreen a hinge to move from laptop to tablet form. Generally a far better touchpad. And I suspect input is going to get more versatile more cool and more expensive during 2013.
In the USA, much larger. Custom PCs are rare. Most consumer PCs are bought mail order from the big manufacturers or store bough mass manufactured models.
Well first off Dell has been selling Unix options for over 2 decades, they used to OEM SCO to have their own Dell Unix. Off and on they have offered Unix desktops. In any case, there are companies that sell Linux notebooks and desktops. If this were a truly big seller you would expect to see them doing more volume.
As far as tech support Dell and HP both offer better tech support as a paid option. Dell in particular had 3 consumer tiers and let consumers pick.
Finally on great hardware, consumers for Windows machines have consistently picked worse cheap hardware. Dell and Compaq (part of HP) both used to be premium brands.
Create technology X and sue = not a troll (Apple, IBM, Microsoft) Buy technology X, make technology X and sue = not a troll (example CA or HP) Buy patents for technology X don't make it and still sue = troll
Up until 2011 Microsoft's strategy was to drive up PC marketshare but controlling the low end. Microsoft was very worried about initiatives like Sun/Oracle's Java Desktop to use thiner client distributed software and lower end machines. Their strategy was to push the price of PCs down low enough so that there weren't meaningful cost saving is just using server based architectures and local program execution was the norm. This is the same reason they focused so heavily on getting control of web technologies and tying them to Internet Explorer / Windows.
With the success of open Web Standards the move towards server based services is happening. This has required a strategy change. Windows 8 systems to work well require more expensive hardware. Microsoft is reintroducing margin back into the business and driving the cost of hardware up. They are willing now to sacrifice the low end so that the total experience on rich clients is much much better than on thinner architectures. Dell and HP sell mainly to corporations. Corporations are still years away from migrating to real Windows 8 hardware as a norm. I think this is short sighted on Dell/HP's part because in 5 years there is likely to be margin in the business. They've now gone through most of the lean years and just as the market is going to go back to being high profit they are exiting.
Once other companies get the experience in making powerful multi paradigm machines it will be hard for these companies to reenter the market. That being said I think Dell isn't existing the PC market, rather I think they going private so they can undergo a restructuring without having to provide regular public scrutiny.
SCO wasn't trying to compete when they launched the lawsuit. Their entire basis for the suit was that Linux had effectively rendered the IP of SCO worthless.
That's Samsung's claim. No such product existed, which is what we were talking about. But even if we were just talking about this weird patent I'd still say Samsung has the much tougher argument:
a) The scrolling mechanism is equivalent to a finger b) The inner document scrolling (frame) is the same as the entire thing c) This patent means what Samsung claims it means.
For example AOL's people will get called and if they dispute Samsung's interpretation game over. Samsung can't claim it is AOL's patent if AOL denies it.
I addressed worldwide as well, "In terms of worldwide share Apple has been steadily over 20% of smartphones. They never held that prior to 2012.". It is very simply if Apple is gaining share in group X than Apple's sales are growing faster than the industry as a whole in group X.So for example in the Europe Apple going from 20.3% Dec 2011 to 21.2% Dec 2012 is growing faster. Similarly in Brazil going from 0.4% to 1% is gaining.
As far as Android having a larger share in the USA... There is no question that Android was growing much faster than Apple through late 2009, 2010, 2011 and early 2012. That process has stopped and reversed, Android is losing share in the USA. As far as Comscore go ahead and look at the series. Remember that Comscore measure installed base not sales so it is a lagging indicator. But what you'll see is that Android started to peak and is slowly gaining share while Apple's share started to skyrocket. That's the effect of the iPhone 4 on Verizon and then the huge surge in 4S sales. The 5 has repeated that process.
Android had a huge surge in the USA, it stopped. The quarter to quarter fluctuations don't end up mattering that much on things like installed base. They don't even matter that much on sales.
The iPhone 5 contracts all came before Samsung's move to start raising prices on Apple in retaliation for the suits. At the time those contracts were signed Samsung's parts division was pissed at the handset division because selling parts to Apple was far more profitable than making Galaxy phones. These contracts already being in place is why for example Samsung is doing the fabrication on the iPhone 5 CPU. There clearly was some migration away but it is the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6... where we are really going to start seeing iPhones with light dependencies on Samsung.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about artificially boosting requirements I'm talking about allowing requirements to go up as demands go up. Of the 3 aspects of longhorn the one that boosts requirements without getting new functionality is the new interface, aero.
I don't think that it is really true. I think Lua could evolve to be as strong in applications programming as Python but they choose to fill different niches and so the languages evolved along different paths.
Lua uses automatic coercion in all instances which makes programs faster to write and harder to maintain.
Python has a very well defined OO structure.
Lua doesn't have the huge libraries of functionality Python does
Lua's lack of high performance arrays
Lua's lack of unicode is a big problem for applications programming
I've worked on systems with that "stupid idea". It is fantastic. Microsoft knows how to implement it, desktops and laptops of the mid 2000s were easily fast enough to support it and it would have been a huge upgrade.
Incidentally it is not vaperware. Many of the technologies are now bundled in with SQL Server. The partially implemented version shipped many years ago
That's what I meant. Rewriting the NetBSD kernel in Lua would be the analogy to having BASIC in the CPU.
No. Read http://www.google.com/search?q=transcription+foot+pedal&tbm=isch
Why LUA? Why not implement BASIC while you're at it?
You meant that sarcastically but you do realize in the CP/M and early PC days BASICs were implemented in hardware!
Lua is specifically designed to be an easy embeddedable scripting language when one needs a light scripting language but not a full featured programming language. Luas are way way easier.
i thought *users* had no business writing device drivers?
My non programmer wife wrote a custom device driver in AppleScript, not even knowing what a device driver is. Those sorts of languages can be amazing empowering to end users, and yes there are reasons that end users might want a custom device driver if it is easy enough to accomplish. Though this makes more sense for OSX than NetBSD, I doubt there are many if any non programmers who use NetBSD.
I had to write a custom device driver for Windows once to get something more like a Unix ethernet driver i.e. bypass some normally quite excellent parts of the Windows networking stack. I was doing software not hardware so I guess I'd consider myself an end user. And that was a pain in the ass.
Apple isn't going to default on payments. They are far far too big for that. And frankly they wouldn't want to damage their reputation.
As for suing Samsung more, I think it is going to get harder. Android and iOS are forking,
As far as suing Google... I'm not sure they would want to do that. Remember Google bought Motorola for the patents. Motorola invented a lot lot of phone technology that Apple uses. They have already lost several lawsuits regarding violations and the dispute is over price.
I understand that. They already are a huge PC making company. They are moving up the value chain. But that's very different from getting out of selling PCs.
Too many pronouns in your question, I'm not following. Is who falling in what market due to which issue?
OK, you got me. How did Microsoft push down the cost of PCs?
Not pushing up requirements and keeping licensing costs low. For example the original goals for Longhorn were:
a) Built in security system (palladium) for video control and manipulation.
b) A database filesystem like you have on minicomputers
c) A new GUI making use of faster video.
That is to say hardware capable of running a database server, while doing video manipulation and on a day to day basis using animated 3D effects (i.e. expensive video cards). On (a) and (b) they dropped these. On (c) they released Vista in a way that worked with much lower end machines and made 3D graphics support optional. Had they not done that Longhorn / Vista machines would have cost quite a bit more than XP machines and prices would not have come down.
Take that example times 10 others and that's how Microsoft drove down prices.
Dell never had unique products. What Dell had was a unique process for building products that allowed them to offer customized systems at commodity prices. They were a technology leader in how their computers were assembled not what was in them.
I agree that HP moved from a technology company to a services company. I don't think any particular technology can save them, they are too big. Technologies now exist to help them sell services. But I can see lots of areas where HP could be very very successful in selling services.
Dell's restructuring strategy is private. For the last 10 years or so they've been trying to move up the value chain but still be selling systems. I don't know what their current private strategy is.
Michael Dell invented a whole new method of manufacturing. He's still alive and he's the one taking it private.
HP has moved away from its engineering roots, no question. But yes it does a lot of R&D.
Touchscreen. And more expensive than touchscreen a hinge to move from laptop to tablet form. Generally a far better touchpad. And I suspect input is going to get more versatile more cool and more expensive during 2013.
In the USA, much larger. Custom PCs are rare. Most consumer PCs are bought mail order from the big manufacturers or store bough mass manufactured models.
Well first off Dell has been selling Unix options for over 2 decades, they used to OEM SCO to have their own Dell Unix. Off and on they have offered Unix desktops. In any case, there are companies that sell Linux notebooks and desktops. If this were a truly big seller you would expect to see them doing more volume.
As far as tech support Dell and HP both offer better tech support as a paid option. Dell in particular had 3 consumer tiers and let consumers pick.
Finally on great hardware, consumers for Windows machines have consistently picked worse cheap hardware. Dell and Compaq (part of HP) both used to be premium brands.
I think we disagree:
Create technology X and sue = not a troll (Apple, IBM, Microsoft)
Buy technology X, make technology X and sue = not a troll (example CA or HP)
Buy patents for technology X don't make it and still sue = troll
Up until 2011 Microsoft's strategy was to drive up PC marketshare but controlling the low end. Microsoft was very worried about initiatives like Sun/Oracle's Java Desktop to use thiner client distributed software and lower end machines. Their strategy was to push the price of PCs down low enough so that there weren't meaningful cost saving is just using server based architectures and local program execution was the norm. This is the same reason they focused so heavily on getting control of web technologies and tying them to Internet Explorer / Windows.
With the success of open Web Standards the move towards server based services is happening. This has required a strategy change. Windows 8 systems to work well require more expensive hardware. Microsoft is reintroducing margin back into the business and driving the cost of hardware up. They are willing now to sacrifice the low end so that the total experience on rich clients is much much better than on thinner architectures. Dell and HP sell mainly to corporations. Corporations are still years away from migrating to real Windows 8 hardware as a norm. I think this is short sighted on Dell/HP's part because in 5 years there is likely to be margin in the business. They've now gone through most of the lean years and just as the market is going to go back to being high profit they are exiting.
Once other companies get the experience in making powerful multi paradigm machines it will be hard for these companies to reenter the market. That being said I think Dell isn't existing the PC market, rather I think they going private so they can undergo a restructuring without having to provide regular public scrutiny.
SCO wasn't trying to compete when they launched the lawsuit. Their entire basis for the suit was that Linux had effectively rendered the IP of SCO worthless.
That's Samsung's claim. No such product existed, which is what we were talking about. But even if we were just talking about this weird patent I'd still say Samsung has the much tougher argument:
a) The scrolling mechanism is equivalent to a finger
b) The inner document scrolling (frame) is the same as the entire thing
c) This patent means what Samsung claims it means.
For example AOL's people will get called and if they dispute Samsung's interpretation game over. Samsung can't claim it is AOL's patent if AOL denies it.
I addressed worldwide as well, "In terms of worldwide share Apple has been steadily over 20% of smartphones. They never held that prior to 2012.". It is very simply if Apple is gaining share in group X than Apple's sales are growing faster than the industry as a whole in group X.So for example in the Europe Apple going from 20.3% Dec 2011 to 21.2% Dec 2012 is growing faster. Similarly in Brazil going from 0.4% to 1% is gaining.
As far as Android having a larger share in the USA... There is no question that Android was growing much faster than Apple through late 2009, 2010, 2011 and early 2012. That process has stopped and reversed, Android is losing share in the USA. As far as Comscore go ahead and look at the series. Remember that Comscore measure installed base not sales so it is a lagging indicator. But what you'll see is that Android started to peak and is slowly gaining share while Apple's share started to skyrocket. That's the effect of the iPhone 4 on Verizon and then the huge surge in 4S sales. The 5 has repeated that process.
Android had a huge surge in the USA, it stopped. The quarter to quarter fluctuations don't end up mattering that much on things like installed base. They don't even matter that much on sales.
You can see that by looking at Postpay on the 3 carriers that have iPhone:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/50363cf324ac8e905e7df861/t/50fefbf1e4b097710589158f/1358887923230/Screen%20Shot%202013-01-22%20at%208.43.43%20PM.png?format=1500w
Read the article. That's more of a technical rejection.
In any case your claim was you could find me a 2006 browser that had it.
The iPhone 5 contracts all came before Samsung's move to start raising prices on Apple in retaliation for the suits. At the time those contracts were signed Samsung's parts division was pissed at the handset division because selling parts to Apple was far more profitable than making Galaxy phones. These contracts already being in place is why for example Samsung is doing the fabrication on the iPhone 5 CPU. There clearly was some migration away but it is the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6... where we are really going to start seeing iPhones with light dependencies on Samsung.