Because the retina is increasing the costs beyond the lower end's price point. You are excluding the value of retina. Essentially the macbook is the air retina. Same thing that happened with the pro line. A thinner more expensive design for retina. So Apple in keeping with their general marketing philosophy has lines that look like:
good = air better = macbook best = pro
Apple can't give you a retina display on an air because it is too expensive. If you want to pay more and don't care about thin and light as much they offer the pro which is quite reasonable at 13".
It is a good comparison. Big issue is the battery life on the XPS 13 is less than the air. It is also a bit thicker. I think the comparison is better to the Air which has the better CPU and similar dimensions. I don't buy into Apple's obsession with thin and light but the new macbook certainly delivers on thin and light.
There weren't a large number of people who liked people pre iPod as demonstrated by the collapse in marketshare and how those people allowed Apple to be pushed into ever narrower niches. Apple still makes high end specialized box somewhat exists in the pro line but those machines aren't general purpose enough for everyone. Which is pretty much where they sat a 2 decades ago, though I can imagine you were inside then and outside now given that they are specialized.
GP is being rude. That being said... Apple's consumer line are not designed for flexibility and more designed to be used in a particular way. Their pro line is more flexible. The 13" macbook pro and the 12" macbook are hard to compare but are about the same price at the low end (the pro has many more upgrades available).
Two months ago I bought groceries. Now they are all eaten and thus worthless. Wegmen's may have your number but they don't have mine. I won't make that mistake again.
Software is a consumable, though a long term one. Software is a series of instructions designed to run on the hardware of the time not some fixed feature. Apple gave you years after they moved away from PPC to migrate your software as their guided their ecosystem. The consumable nature of software is why unlike land but like a car you can take depreciation on it.
No it wasn't. IBM for Z-Series and I-Series was involved in secure boot technology long before Intel and Microsoft were even part of it. Linux by the early 2000s had lots of secure boot advocates. As soon as Microsoft seriously planned to introduce secure boot they started working with Linux vendors like RedHat, Suse, HP... to make sure it would work with Linux.
Why not save the paranoia and instead complain when people are actually doping something bad to you?
You are making a different point. The claim originally was about not trusting Intel. Your claim is about the fact that you need specialized hardware to flash the CPU which is true. As far as wanting to install your own BIOS just buy one with Boot Guard not enabled if you want to install your own BIOS. Who are you are guarding against as a consumer?
I understand. Coreboot depends on Intel Boot Guard. Intel Boot Guard gives whoever first buys the CPU a one time key, along with other features. I'm not sure what there is to not trust about that scheme.
Sure the NUC is, but the point of the article seems to be the next generation of Intel processors.
If he actually meant the NUC the core of the NUC is a kit for OEM's to create prototypes for embedded systems and hobbyists to do the same. The BIOS by default is Intel Visual BIOS which is designed for configuration even of things like fan speeds and clocking. And of course that BIOS can be blown away and replaced easily by design. So I'm not sure how that makes the problem of ignorance any better.
These are CPUs there is no BIOS. Also a great deal of what you list above isn't Intel. Maybe you might want to know more about what you are objecting to.
BTW, what happened to E17? I remember Enlightenment being the darling-child of WMs in the Linux community. Is it nowadays to difficult to configure and/or install?
There is an OS called Tizen, Enlightenment Foundation Libraries are the core of it. Enlightenment still exists is getting better but its been moving away from just a cool window manager to a full on GUI for its OS.
I'm not sure I'd accuse Apple of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". That's not really their model at all. For one thing they are disinterested in monopoly.
Well said, excellent comment. Just a correction. CR LF (Windows), LF (Unix) and CR (Macintosh) so there are still 3. Also 0x00 is still used for lots of mainframe data for end of line though that gets a bit more tricky since the underlying concept of file doesn't map as well.
Microsoft did a lot of great engineering under Gates and Ballmer as well. In terms of softening their competitive streak that happens to many companies as they move up market. IBM for example is far less proprietary now than they used to be.
I don't know that's true. Gecko is open source as well. I'd say Webkit is likely dominant because Google picked it as an alternative to Firefox and Google's programmers plus Apple's programmers worked cooperatively for years. That pairing could have happened on a closed source project under a licensing agreement as per many other projects jointly developed.
The other thing I think that helped Webkit is that Webkit was designed from the ground up to be useful for other applications to build small custom browsers like one sees in many mobile apps.
Yes I can. That's the sort of stuff they did say 20 years ago. They were advocates of both standards and individual experimentation. So for example they liked Flash being cross platform but wanted Active-X for when developers wanted platform specific features.
10 years ago their goal was to retard progress on the web.
I'm not sure it is such a long time at all. How much does the complexity of computer systems increase every 5 years? How far is something Google's engine from being an autonomous, self improving analysis system far smarter than a human? As for self replicating code is what is self replicating not the AI. The same way that cultures break themselves into individual brains and replicate partial copies of the culture into new brains.
As you decrease unnecessary color those colors that exist become much more visible from far away (i.e. at small sizes). Think about a match sized fire in a completely dark room or a single drop of red paint on a giant white wall. Decreasing distracting information increases the information density you can absorb.
I haven't seen an increase in screen sizes over the last few years. Moreover screen sizes as people migrate to smaller form factors like tablet style laptops are quite likely to go down not up. And you add in things like 2-3 pixels repeated a 5-10x across the screen x 1/2 dozen of these type of wastes and you are in the 100 pixels of waste. That can be something like 15% wasted space.
There are people who don't understand basic economics and I'd assume their opinion could be easily changed in a bipartisan way. Our system is generally effective in dealing with ignorance and educating when it is united.
Not going to happen. The functionality that the new designs allow for is what is driving the aesthetic. When there are practical concerns driving an aesthetic the switch is generally at least semi-permanent.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the retina is increasing the costs beyond the lower end's price point. You are excluding the value of retina. Essentially the macbook is the air retina. Same thing that happened with the pro line. A thinner more expensive design for retina. So Apple in keeping with their general marketing philosophy has lines that look like:
good = air
better = macbook
best = pro
Apple can't give you a retina display on an air because it is too expensive. If you want to pay more and don't care about thin and light as much they offer the pro which is quite reasonable at 13".
It is a good comparison. Big issue is the battery life on the XPS 13 is less than the air. It is also a bit thicker. I think the comparison is better to the Air which has the better CPU and similar dimensions. I don't buy into Apple's obsession with thin and light but the new macbook certainly delivers on thin and light.
There weren't a large number of people who liked people pre iPod as demonstrated by the collapse in marketshare and how those people allowed Apple to be pushed into ever narrower niches. Apple still makes high end specialized box somewhat exists in the pro line but those machines aren't general purpose enough for everyone. Which is pretty much where they sat a 2 decades ago, though I can imagine you were inside then and outside now given that they are specialized.
GP is being rude. That being said... Apple's consumer line are not designed for flexibility and more designed to be used in a particular way. Their pro line is more flexible. The 13" macbook pro and the 12" macbook are hard to compare but are about the same price at the low end (the pro has many more upgrades available).
Two months ago I bought groceries. Now they are all eaten and thus worthless. Wegmen's may have your number but they don't have mine. I won't make that mistake again.
Software is a consumable, though a long term one. Software is a series of instructions designed to run on the hardware of the time not some fixed feature. Apple gave you years after they moved away from PPC to migrate your software as their guided their ecosystem. The consumable nature of software is why unlike land but like a car you can take depreciation on it.
No it wasn't. IBM for Z-Series and I-Series was involved in secure boot technology long before Intel and Microsoft were even part of it. Linux by the early 2000s had lots of secure boot advocates. As soon as Microsoft seriously planned to introduce secure boot they started working with Linux vendors like RedHat, Suse, HP... to make sure it would work with Linux.
Why not save the paranoia and instead complain when people are actually doping something bad to you?
You are making a different point. The claim originally was about not trusting Intel. Your claim is about the fact that you need specialized hardware to flash the CPU which is true. As far as wanting to install your own BIOS just buy one with Boot Guard not enabled if you want to install your own BIOS. Who are you are guarding against as a consumer?
I understand. Coreboot depends on Intel Boot Guard. Intel Boot Guard gives whoever first buys the CPU a one time key, along with other features. I'm not sure what there is to not trust about that scheme.
Sure the NUC is, but the point of the article seems to be the next generation of Intel processors.
If he actually meant the NUC the core of the NUC is a kit for OEM's to create prototypes for embedded systems and hobbyists to do the same. The BIOS by default is Intel Visual BIOS which is designed for configuration even of things like fan speeds and clocking. And of course that BIOS can be blown away and replaced easily by design. So I'm not sure how that makes the problem of ignorance any better.
These are CPUs there is no BIOS. Also a great deal of what you list above isn't Intel. Maybe you might want to know more about what you are objecting to.
There is an OS called Tizen, Enlightenment Foundation Libraries are the core of it. Enlightenment still exists is getting better but its been moving away from just a cool window manager to a full on GUI for its OS.
I think this comment is silly but LXDE merged with Razor-Qt and is now creating the lightweight desktop based on Qt. This is pretty good coverage:
Heavy Qt = KDE
Heavy GTK+ = Gnome
Light Qt = LXDE
Light GTK+ = XFCE
I'm not sure I'd accuse Apple of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". That's not really their model at all. For one thing they are disinterested in monopoly.
Well said, excellent comment. Just a correction. CR LF (Windows), LF (Unix) and CR (Macintosh) so there are still 3. Also 0x00 is still used for lots of mainframe data for end of line though that gets a bit more tricky since the underlying concept of file doesn't map as well.
As CRLF was most common on teletypes.
Microsoft did a lot of great engineering under Gates and Ballmer as well. In terms of softening their competitive streak that happens to many companies as they move up market. IBM for example is far less proprietary now than they used to be.
I don't know that's true. Gecko is open source as well. I'd say Webkit is likely dominant because Google picked it as an alternative to Firefox and Google's programmers plus Apple's programmers worked cooperatively for years. That pairing could have happened on a closed source project under a licensing agreement as per many other projects jointly developed.
The other thing I think that helped Webkit is that Webkit was designed from the ground up to be useful for other applications to build small custom browsers like one sees in many mobile apps.
Yes I can. That's the sort of stuff they did say 20 years ago. They were advocates of both standards and individual experimentation. So for example they liked Flash being cross platform but wanted Active-X for when developers wanted platform specific features.
10 years ago their goal was to retard progress on the web.
I'm not sure it is such a long time at all. How much does the complexity of computer systems increase every 5 years? How far is something Google's engine from being an autonomous, self improving analysis system far smarter than a human? As for self replicating code is what is self replicating not the AI. The same way that cultures break themselves into individual brains and replicate partial copies of the culture into new brains.
Your years are way off. Windows 3.1 laptops all had hard drives. The portables with just dual floppy are mid 80s.
Yes the group that voted the 2nd time. That's who we have statistics on.
As you decrease unnecessary color those colors that exist become much more visible from far away (i.e. at small sizes). Think about a match sized fire in a completely dark room or a single drop of red paint on a giant white wall. Decreasing distracting information increases the information density you can absorb.
I haven't seen an increase in screen sizes over the last few years. Moreover screen sizes as people migrate to smaller form factors like tablet style laptops are quite likely to go down not up. And you add in things like 2-3 pixels repeated a 5-10x across the screen x 1/2 dozen of these type of wastes and you are in the 100 pixels of waste. That can be something like 15% wasted space.
There are people who don't understand basic economics and I'd assume their opinion could be easily changed in a bipartisan way. Our system is generally effective in dealing with ignorance and educating when it is united.
Not going to happen. The functionality that the new designs allow for is what is driving the aesthetic. When there are practical concerns driving an aesthetic the switch is generally at least semi-permanent.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.