That's totally off-topic - what the hell have the antitrust cases got to do with browser PEFORMANCE? That was never an argument they used. Cite your sources please. They merely said it was part of the operating system - not that the fact that it was part of the operating system would make it a much faster browser.
How the hell do you run windows on the iPhone? I now strongly suspect your lying. You realise this entire topic is about phones and not desktop computers??? You're not making sense.
Not unless you're the hardware manufacturer and can digitally sign the custom build so the phone is happy to boot it. Or I guess, you could produce your own hardware from scratch which doesn't require signed code. Neither is handy for consumers.
If HTC (or any hardware manufacturer) let you install completely bespoke firmware images on your phone, then they'd have no control over what code you ran on the phone. You could accidentally or intentionally create firmware images which crashed or disrupted the phone networks they were connected to. The network operators would then be very quick to block all Android phones and the handset makers wouldn't be able to sell them anymore - Androids name would turn to mud. I'm pretty sure the firmware images have to be signed by the hardware manufacturer or all hell would break loose.
If you produce a custom build, how will you sign the custom firmware image so that your phone runs it? Or are you going to produce your own hardware to run it on as well?
Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought I read that even though the OS was open, the handset would only run firmware images that had been digitally signed by the handset maker. The OS is open so the handset makers can play with it - not the users.
> maybe they're still using an older version of Windows for which IE 7 isn't available, say Win2K or even NT4
Again, what's your point? These are two OBSOLETE operating systems from 8-10 years ago which are no longer supported even by Microsoft themselves.
> given the unfortunate bomb that is Vista
The majority of people have no problem with Vista now that it's been service packed. The vast majority of the original negative press surrounding Vista was to do with a few teething troubles which have now been solved in SP1. Unfortunately, by the time it was released, most people had got a bad impression of it and therefore don't even want to try it. Personally I use it daily as a software developer and don't have any problems with it. I can't find any bugs and it's never crashed - not even once.
Why the hell would I waste time exploring Ruby and Python when I work for a company who's business *IS* ASP.NET?.NET is hard enough to keep on top of on it's own, without trying to keep on top of evolutions on all the other platforms. It would be a total waste of my time. It would be as useful to me as exploring what's new in the world of agricultural harvesting machinery.
> why the heck should a company spend the time and money to "update" them to IE 7?
What, apart from the obvious?!
IE 6 is about 7-8 years old and is CRAP. If you're happy to continue using that browser so that your intranet works, then feel free, but don't complain on here when you can't use the rest of the Internet when web developers stop supporting IE6 (as many have already done).
> like making money for *us* instead of for MS.
How, exactly does updating your intranet site so it works on IE7 (you know that FREE browser that comes with Windows) make money for MS? You don't need to pay MS to do it.
> Any decent website developer should have heard of them
I've been a web developer for 10 years and I've never heard of them. Why should I have done if I've not used Ruby on Rails? What else have they done for example, in the ASP.NET world? Probably nothing.
> So, why, why, why did they move away from Firefox and reinvent the wheel, instead? > I saw no features that couldn't have been done as a Firefox Add-On.
Well then you should have read the feature list! There are plenty. Most of the features I really like about Chrome, certainly can't be added using a lowly javascript Add-On. How can you provide a much faster Javascript engine by using an XPI add-on? How could you have implemented each tab as it's own process? You can't.
> If you really want to save mileage, turn the car off when coasting.
Just in case anyone doesn't realise, this is a VERY VERY STUPID idea that only IDIOTS should try.
You will most likely activate the steering lock which may be difficult to unlock without turning the wheel towards somewhere you don't want to go. You will have no power steering, no servo assisted brakes (read this as "no brakes" unless you're Arnie or have no intention of stopping in the next half-mile), no airbags or seatbelt pretensioners or any other safety features. The fuel saving by turning your engine off is also either negligable or zero - a modern car uses NO petrol at all (zero!) when coasting down hill and instead simply uses the car's own momentum to push the engine round until you next hit the accellerator/gas pedal.
Contrary to what the parent says, idling while stationary uses far more fuel than coasting downhill. You can save FAR more fuel by stopping your engine at lights and in stationary traffic than you ever could by turning off your engine while going downhill. You're also far less likely to kill yourself and others and you won't go to jail for wreckless driving as you would if you turned the car off while in motion. The new BMW "EfficientDynamics" cars stop the engine when stationary and restart the engine as soon as you hit the clutch pedal in order to conserve fuel.
> At a cruising speed of 85mph, I get 26mpg. at 80mph, I got 24mpg.
It's comments like this which us Europeans wonder if there's any point in us trying to be green, when Americans are still driving cars which only do 24mpg. For every one of us in Europe that buys a car which will do 50 or 60mpg, there's always going to be some American buying an tank which only achieves the low twenties.
Why do I even bother?!
(yes, I realise European gallons versus US gallons are differnet and I have taken this into account and it's still appauling)
What a stupid idea. That means you can only safely use your car in daylight hours on very short journeys. Even a fully charged battery won't last long enough to run your car electrics and headlights for more than a few hours before they start seriously dimming. You'd also have to put a spare battery in, in case you flatten the one that's used to start the engine and power the electrics.
No.. the article refers to 12V or 24V charger for a laptop, not 110V or 240V mains electricity. It also only needs to handle it for a few seconds, so overheating is not a problem. The cables won't need to be any fatter than normal mains cable.
50A at 12V is nothing. A car starter motor is usually at least double this and on a diesel engine it can be 200A quite easily. We're not talking 50A at 240V here.
> Biodiesel is about the only fuel which really can be produced from crops/tanks of sludge.
It's also the only fuel which fools idiots into thinking they're being eco-friendly when they don't realise that millions of acres of rainforest (carbon negative!) are being destroyed to grow crops for biofuels. Thankfully most countries have figured this out now and don't promote biofuels anymore, but the countries with the highest rates of Eco-Naievity still seem to think it's a good idea (eg the USA).
If you want to play a game on a laptop, that instantly means you need a very high end machine. High end laptops are a total rip-off. They're approximately three times the price of their desktop equivalent. They're also sealed devices which are not upgradable (VERY BAD if you're a gamer, because that means your incredibly expensive machine will now only be useful for about a year). You can't upgrade the CPU or even upgrade the graphics card. Even the a very high end gaming laptop is well off the performance of even a fairly average gaming desktop at less than half the price.
I presume the only reason the poster requested a laptop is for portability. I would suggest that even a compact portable desktop machine is a much better buy. Yes, it's not going to be battery powered, but it will be FAR cheaper, quicker and more upgradable than any laptop.
Do you know how S L O W your computer would be if every single driver on your system had to be fully sandboxed and run it's own tiny fireproof box?
The problem here is not with the architecture OS, but with the fact that Apple do not properly TEST their software before releasing it. They're so paranoid about people stealing their ideas that they prefer to ask Steve to test it on *both* his computers and then release the software to their 20 gazillion users 10 minutes later when he says it's OK. The iPhone firmware is another very good example of this. Really basic things like calling people, and typing, simply do not work! (yes, I do have an iPhone 3G and have experienced both of these widely known problems).
Slashdot Mirror
That's totally off-topic - what the hell have the antitrust cases got to do with browser PEFORMANCE? That was never an argument they used. Cite your sources please. They merely said it was part of the operating system - not that the fact that it was part of the operating system would make it a much faster browser.
Clearly you know nothing about asymmetric key cryptography. It cannot be cracked or spoofed. If it could, nobody would be using it would they.
How the hell do you run windows on the iPhone? I now strongly suspect your lying. You realise this entire topic is about phones and not desktop computers??? You're not making sense.
> If the network was so unstable, people would be crashing it for fun out of their own garages.
How? With what tools?
> why would HTC care what software a customer runs on their purchased hardware?
The same reason Apple cares. They have an image to uphold. I think you've answered your own question.
No.
Not unless you're the hardware manufacturer and can digitally sign the custom build so the phone is happy to boot it. Or I guess, you could produce your own hardware from scratch which doesn't require signed code. Neither is handy for consumers.
If HTC (or any hardware manufacturer) let you install completely bespoke firmware images on your phone, then they'd have no control over what code you ran on the phone. You could accidentally or intentionally create firmware images which crashed or disrupted the phone networks they were connected to. The network operators would then be very quick to block all Android phones and the handset makers wouldn't be able to sell them anymore - Androids name would turn to mud. I'm pretty sure the firmware images have to be signed by the hardware manufacturer or all hell would break loose.
If you produce a custom build, how will you sign the custom firmware image so that your phone runs it?
Or are you going to produce your own hardware to run it on as well?
Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought I read that even though the OS was open, the handset would only run firmware images that had been digitally signed by the handset maker. The OS is open so the handset makers can play with it - not the users.
> The USA has 300 million people (5 times the UK population), which changes the dynamics somewhat.
China has 1.3 billion people and an even higher level of surveillance. What's your point?
> maybe they're still using an older version of Windows for which IE 7 isn't available, say Win2K or even NT4
Again, what's your point? These are two OBSOLETE operating systems from 8-10 years ago which are no longer supported even by Microsoft themselves.
> given the unfortunate bomb that is Vista
The majority of people have no problem with Vista now that it's been service packed. The vast majority of the original negative press surrounding Vista was to do with a few teething troubles which have now been solved in SP1. Unfortunately, by the time it was released, most people had got a bad impression of it and therefore don't even want to try it. Personally I use it daily as a software developer and don't have any problems with it. I can't find any bugs and it's never crashed - not even once.
Why the hell would I waste time exploring Ruby and Python when I work for a company who's business *IS* ASP.NET? .NET is hard enough to keep on top of on it's own, without trying to keep on top of evolutions on all the other platforms. It would be a total waste of my time. It would be as useful to me as exploring what's new in the world of agricultural harvesting machinery.
> why the heck should a company spend the time and money to "update" them to IE 7?
What, apart from the obvious?!
IE 6 is about 7-8 years old and is CRAP. If you're happy to continue using that browser so that your intranet works, then feel free, but don't complain on here when you can't use the rest of the Internet when web developers stop supporting IE6 (as many have already done).
> like making money for *us* instead of for MS.
How, exactly does updating your intranet site so it works on IE7 (you know that FREE browser that comes with Windows) make money for MS? You don't need to pay MS to do it.
> Any decent website developer should have heard of them
I've been a web developer for 10 years and I've never heard of them. Why should I have done if I've not used Ruby on Rails? What else have they done for example, in the ASP.NET world? Probably nothing.
> Many sites work well only with IE6.
Yes, but you shouldn't use those sites as it means they're totally obsolete and haven't been updated in the last two years since IE7 was released.
> So, why, why, why did they move away from Firefox and reinvent the wheel, instead?
> I saw no features that couldn't have been done as a Firefox Add-On.
Well then you should have read the feature list! There are plenty. Most of the features I really like about Chrome, certainly can't be added using a lowly javascript Add-On. How can you provide a much faster Javascript engine by using an XPI add-on? How could you have implemented each tab as it's own process? You can't.
> If you really want to save mileage, turn the car off when coasting.
Just in case anyone doesn't realise, this is a VERY VERY STUPID idea that only IDIOTS should try.
You will most likely activate the steering lock which may be difficult to unlock without turning the wheel towards somewhere you don't want to go. You will have no power steering, no servo assisted brakes (read this as "no brakes" unless you're Arnie or have no intention of stopping in the next half-mile), no airbags or seatbelt pretensioners or any other safety features. The fuel saving by turning your engine off is also either negligable or zero - a modern car uses NO petrol at all (zero!) when coasting down hill and instead simply uses the car's own momentum to push the engine round until you next hit the accellerator/gas pedal.
Contrary to what the parent says, idling while stationary uses far more fuel than coasting downhill. You can save FAR more fuel by stopping your engine at lights and in stationary traffic than you ever could by turning off your engine while going downhill. You're also far less likely to kill yourself and others and you won't go to jail for wreckless driving as you would if you turned the car off while in motion. The new BMW "EfficientDynamics" cars stop the engine when stationary and restart the engine as soon as you hit the clutch pedal in order to conserve fuel.
ContentHelmNoodle?! WTF?
The next thing we'll be serving our pages with ParkingBrakeTurboAubergines.
> At a cruising speed of 85mph, I get 26mpg. at 80mph, I got 24mpg.
It's comments like this which us Europeans wonder if there's any point in us trying to be green, when Americans are still driving cars which only do 24mpg. For every one of us in Europe that buys a car which will do 50 or 60mpg, there's always going to be some American buying an tank which only achieves the low twenties.
Why do I even bother?!
(yes, I realise European gallons versus US gallons are differnet and I have taken this into account and it's still appauling)
What a stupid idea. That means you can only safely use your car in daylight hours on very short journeys. Even a fully charged battery won't last long enough to run your car electrics and headlights for more than a few hours before they start seriously dimming. You'd also have to put a spare battery in, in case you flatten the one that's used to start the engine and power the electrics.
No.. the article refers to 12V or 24V charger for a laptop, not 110V or 240V mains electricity. It also only needs to handle it for a few seconds, so overheating is not a problem. The cables won't need to be any fatter than normal mains cable.
50A at 12V is nothing. A car starter motor is usually at least double this and on a diesel engine it can be 200A quite easily. We're not talking 50A at 240V here.
They should have called the first one the "Wi". That way the successors would be more easily namable:
Wi ...
Wii
Wiii
Wiv
Wv
Wvi
> Biodiesel is about the only fuel which really can be produced from crops/tanks of sludge.
It's also the only fuel which fools idiots into thinking they're being eco-friendly when they don't realise that millions of acres of rainforest (carbon negative!) are being destroyed to grow crops for biofuels. Thankfully most countries have figured this out now and don't promote biofuels anymore, but the countries with the highest rates of Eco-Naievity still seem to think it's a good idea (eg the USA).
Laptops are a STUPID idea for games.
If you want to play a game on a laptop, that instantly means you need a very high end machine. High end laptops are a total rip-off. They're approximately three times the price of their desktop equivalent. They're also sealed devices which are not upgradable (VERY BAD if you're a gamer, because that means your incredibly expensive machine will now only be useful for about a year). You can't upgrade the CPU or even upgrade the graphics card. Even the a very high end gaming laptop is well off the performance of even a fairly average gaming desktop at less than half the price.
I presume the only reason the poster requested a laptop is for portability. I would suggest that even a compact portable desktop machine is a much better buy. Yes, it's not going to be battery powered, but it will be FAR cheaper, quicker and more upgradable than any laptop.
Do you know how S L O W your computer would be if every single driver on your system had to be fully sandboxed and run it's own tiny fireproof box?
The problem here is not with the architecture OS, but with the fact that Apple do not properly TEST their software before releasing it. They're so paranoid about people stealing their ideas that they prefer to ask Steve to test it on *both* his computers and then release the software to their 20 gazillion users 10 minutes later when he says it's OK. The iPhone firmware is another very good example of this. Really basic things like calling people, and typing, simply do not work! (yes, I do have an iPhone 3G and have experienced both of these widely known problems).
> And when you are looking at the upper half of the screen, only the upper half is on.
God that would be so annoying! - I'm human and I have this little thing called "peripheral vision".
I'd rather carry round a suitcase of extra batteries than have the behaviour you're describing :)