Won't run shit is interesting. With Windows forking into an ARM and x86 (or AMD64/IA64 whatever want to call it) versions, the writing may be on the wall for Intel. If one of the ARM guys can produce chips that will do the 150-200 dollar price bracket as well as Intel chips can on windows this becomes a whole other ball game.
I'm not sure where anywhere near there yet. But with Qualcomm feasting on the remains of AMD, Samsung producing millions of parts a year and a few others with them it's entirely possible that within the next 10 years ARM will be a major competitor to x86. Which is why MS is forking - it's going to confuse the hell out of consumers and is, from an end user perspective a terrible idea to go out and buy a Windows RT anything on friday (windows 8 launch day) but MS plans to support their ugly bastard for a long time, so who knows. And in 3 or 4 years when we see Windows 9 roll around we may have enough software that has been compiled and for and runs on both that your 'won't run shit' assertion would no longer apply.
pixels per inch, aside from the bizarre unit of measure is something they can understand, in plane switching no (nor is in plane switching in particular some magic technology that makes it better, there are tradeoffs between different types of Panels).
The problem with 'retina display' speaking to my mom or uncle, to use your phrase, is that they have a visceral reaction to it that may not actually be realistic. It's not a retina display, they didn't rip the retina out of something, it's not perfectly designed to match a human retina, nor is it implanted in your retina. That makes potential future products where the term retina display might make technical sense harder to pitch. Lets say you were in the business of making imaging systems for diagnostic purposes, say retina imaging, well fuck you, because your product has to come up with some other name because apple has a high pixel density display that just stole your name. This buy the way happed to a few internetPhone products that conflicted with the apple brand.
The core problem with marketing and what you're arguing is that you think it's a good idea to try and convey meaning without substance, that is quite dangerous. It is no more and no less than dishonest misdirection and obfuscation of what exactly you do have to sell.
No one is ever really supply constrained for long periods of time. On anything that isn't on the periodic table and on earth anyway. You can artificially constrain supply, for marketing purposes or because of voluntary stupidity.
Samsung must figure they can sell the parts to themselves or someone else for more money, a couple of days ago I figured (in a comment on/.) that they were trying to keep their parts and products businesses separate to not lose Apple as a cash cow, but they obviously had other ideas. The Samsung guys aren't going to throw away a million units in sales for the fun of it, and I'm sure if apple wanted to order 10 million units they'd find a way to come to some agreement, but neither party seems all that committed to the LCD panels relationship anyway.
You do realize I was referring to an 8+ years old mobile chipset-integrated GPU, right? Even many dedicated cards from that era won't run Aero...
not relevant that it is 8 years old.
Seriously. I've got two machines that are from 2003 that both worth reasonably well with decent GPU's in them.
I have both here (a Radeon HD6670 in a desktop and an Intel HD3000 in a laptop, to be exact), as well as a laptop with the 4500MHD and another older desktop with an HD5450... none of them show ANY performance difference whatsoever when putting out HD video. Even Youtube 1080p is accelerated perfectly on the multiple generations old 4500MHD.
Interesting, because I see a significant difference between my AMD with 3200 and an Intel with an HD 3000... and AMD wins hands down. Then again, I'm running windows8 on that laptop now. I didn't benchmark it before 'upgrading'.
Let's see... the ability to *maybe* try a game that I might want to play some day, or two to three times as much battery life with the same battery capacity? Sounds like a no-brainer to me... and sub-50W desktop systems? Thank you Intel!
sure. If battery life matters to you more than performance intel has a huge leg up. I never said it didn't. AMD is grasping at straws, they should at least grasp at sensible ones. If you're happy with a laptop with 3 hours of battery life, or don't care about battery life, AMD has a compelling offering say in a desktop in the 150-250 dollar price bracket (bit more on laptops), much beyond that and you're better off with an intel part and a dedicated GPU.
You're not making a lot of sense. Any old processor "supports full SSD speeds"... if you're talking about certain boards/chipsets being limited to, say, SATA or SATA II, then yes, some SSDs may not be utilized to their full extent, in that you may not reach the advertized sequential read/write speeds - but the important part that makes your system seem more snappy is still there: Reduced access times.
Ok, you can't put a nehalem processor on a motherboard that supports full SATAIII speeds, if you want to be precise about it. The marvel controllers that claim to support it are on a single pcix lane so cap out in practice around 450 MB/s and don't work worth shit half the time (as in half the time the machine won't detect a drive on the controller etc., and thats on all of our test machines). Dollar for dollar new AMD parts are about equivalent to nehalem parts, because that's where they line up in performance. In that segment AMD processors at least support a full speed SSD at the same time.
As for Windows 8 being faster (or "behaving better") on AMD parts: Do you have anything to back up that claim with?
the aforementioned windows 8 laptop and our testing lab.
Please don't confuse my statement to be something that it isn't. If you're buying cheap AMD has a competitive offering to intel, even if they haven't really pitched it well, if you want good you don't want AMD and haven't for the last 4 or 5 years at least.
I have an Intel 945 something or other Pentium M based notebook that runs Windows 7 just fine with Aero turned off.
I think you contradicted your own argument. You would (to reiterate my own words) likely notice aero being turned on a lot more than you would notice a 10% faster CPU.
The only place you're going to see a difference is in games or other similarly graphics-heavy applications.
Youtube 1080p and Blu-Ray (rips), the GPU is more than fast enough.
Again, the difference between an Intel HD graphics whatever and a Radeon 6000 series integrated chips are actually noticeable on these applications...
1. kids who can't afford proper graphics cards
or anyone who decides they want to try and particular game before spending a couple of hundred bucks on hardware to play it properly. I make games for a living and Intel graphics cards have been fucking the PC gaming industry for years.
Now if you'd replaced GPU with SSD in your post, I might be more inclined to agree with you...
SSD is a more complicated argument. The Core 2 (nehalem) processors, that are i5's i7's etc. don't support full SSD speeds, but are much older, the newer Sandy Bridge do, but an i3 sandy bridge or ivy bridge is usually more expensive than a comparable amd system, but not by much etc. etc. And the Intel parts have much better battery life. If you have a nehalem or older board and want cheap - AMD makes a compelling product, but if you have a little bit more money to spend the waters are muddied considerably, and both platforms support SSD's at full speed these days.
Also, Windows 8, much as I hate it, uses GPU acceleration by default (which does actually make it pretty snappy, which is about the only good thing you can say about it). And that behaves better on AMD than Intel parts.
Also, linux is about 1.5% of the market for desktops, so I don't see that as a huge market shaper.
Even if you want something like a full speed SATAIII setup (which you will definitely notice on linux) it's cheaper to get an AMD system that can do that than an Intel one.
I disagree, it stopped getting worse when we stopped seeing much benefit to marginally faster CPU's, and when the main market shifted from geeks willing to pay 5 grand for a computer to grandmothers looking to check e-mail for 300.
But sure, competition is good, and the idea of having just Intel in the x86 business is not appealing.
ATI was making SoC's as infineon, those have become adreno as part of snapdragon. In the course of acquiring ATI and then divesting the SoC business they kinda went through the whole process quickly.
A major portion of Qualcomm is quite literally old AMD, because they bought it, and they've positioned themselves to be not the new AMD, just the new owners of anything AMD ever had worth paying for.
In AMD's defence - CPU speed doesn't actually matter that much. This is one of those odd quirks of where we are in the software - hardware cycles. A good GPU will likely have *much* more impact on your noticeable computer performance than a 10% faster CPU. It's really bad form to release a brand new CPU that is actually slower than your old one (clock for clock, in absolute terms, etc.) and the tech press pounced on them for it. But AMD *could* have and should have made the argument probably correctly that you're better off with an AMD Fusion product than an Intel i5 with on chip piece of shit HD graphics 3000 from intel. Granted intel has improved a lot now that they've given up on Larrabee but their HD graphics chips are still horrible compared to what AMD (ATI) can bring to the table.
I will point out that it was AMD's ARM SoC lineup (which they Acquired from ATI) that Qualcomm is actually doing this with, because Qualcomm bought the whole ARM SoC business from AMD where they were leading the competition. So sure, they aren't doing anything the other guys aren't but they were at the forefront with SoC when they still had the ARM business.
Re:What is Samsung licensing the competing CPUs fo
on
Is Qualcomm the New AMD?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Samsung has to run its parts and products business independently, otherwise their parts business would lose Apple as a customer, and loathe as anyone is to admit it, Apple is a customer you'd rather not lose.
We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market.
Strictly speaking you don't have that now. The best AMD offering is barely at the mid range of an Intel lineup. But that is, believe it or not quite secondary to the story.
AMD bought ATI, that was probably good from a technical sense, but they went from having no money to having 5 billion dollars less than no money. So they sold their ARM business to Qualcomm. Who, if you frequent job boards for these things, are either actually at old AMD/ATI facilities, or they are right next to them, including ATI headquarters.
Qualcomm have money, they have marketshare, and AMD is worth nothing, oh, and they've had tremendous success buying AMD's arm business. See what I'm getting at? AMD is in deep trouble, but someone has the foresight to be very well positioned to pick up all of the pieces...
See now that AMD doesn't own globalfoundries they're free to do business with other customers, like Broadcomm, Qualcomm and a few others use them a major supplier, Qualcomm avoids anti trust issues buying from them, they can probably scavenge the remnants of the x86 licence for a pittance if they want it, and if not they can just pull in all of the staff worth having.
We may see two high end processors, one ARM and one x86. That's probably bad for the market as a whole, but with windows and their 90% marketshare forking windows 8 to be both that's certainly a direction the industry can move in.
In the same way invading Iraq wasn't self defence. You can call it a defence department, you can make up all the shit you want about being for 'deterrence', or weapons of mass destruction or the like. But that doesn't make it defence.
The Zimmerman/Martin thing is harder to figure out, it's possible the KID was acting in self defence, thinking some joker was following him and took pre-emptive action and got himself shot (hence the wounds on zimmermans head) it's possible he was a bad kid trying to assault someone, it's possible zimmerman is just a nutter allowed to own a gun and finally decided now was his chance. Honestly, I have no fucking clue. It's he said vs the dead guy + whatever physical evidence they have. That's not a strong case for anything. That doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't decide this was his chance to be a vigilante hero - but that's hard to prove, and it's harder to know what the dead guy was thinking, given that he's well, dead, but the burden of proof either way is going to be tough, because Zimmerman, even if he was the most honest person in the world, doesn't know what Martin thought he was up to.
And of course, to go back to my military analogy. How is Iran wanting nuclear weapons not self defence? This is the problem, when you let people carry guns everyone who might get into a dangerous situation has to assume the other guy might have a gun and might use it, and then your country starts to look a lot like tribal pakistan or Yeman.
This isn't like 10-15 years ago, when you were severely limited. Today, you can play games, on a PS 1,2,3, xbox, wii, phone, tablet, TV etc. PC gaming, just isn't as important as it once was.
That's gibberish. There are lots of choices of books so you don't need to read the one you want? Games aren't just swappable with any other game. If the kid wants to play WoW or league of legends the best way to do that is on a decent window machine, final fantasy 7 on the PS1 just isn't a substitute. Great game. But not the same thing.
Except... this is china. The scale of corruption in ANY third world country boggles the mind. China is not particularly surprising - because this is what happens there. In America your CEO is getting a 25% raise this year, where you'd be lucky to get anything. And ceo pay is 200x the median worker pay (up from 26 in 1970), in china CEO pay is probably 25x worker pay, but they collect bribes - which by the way go in part to pay bribes up the chain to senior government officials, of 175x worker pay or more. That's just how the game is played.
Corruption pervades the third world, and second world, that is, in large part, what holds them back. The blatant dishonesty (accepting bribes at all) and covert dishonesty (in hiding how much money you have) impedes everything done in those countries, because to even get a train ticket in china you've probably had to bribe your way to either your job or onto the train, or both.
Other than for you know... all of those corporations including google that do just that on a regular basis?
Hell that was Apple's ENTIRE history is taking every penny in profit and holding onto it and never paying it out to shareholders, and just reinvesting in the company, whatever accounting you want to call that, it's acquiring various assets. They got to the point of holding 100 billion dollars in assets that had nothing to do with apple so it was time to send some of that off to investors, but every company is constantly trying to decide between investing in growth in themselves or giving money back to shareholders to invest on their own.
Being tied to them doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. The Russians have as much of a vested interest as everyone else in spying on their friends and enemies, and while the roles may be reversed from NATO the russians are almost certainly spying on the Syrians and Iranians as much if not more than we are: The russians want to be sure they'll get paid.
Sure, it would be nice if there was a magical operating system not easily exploited by intelligence agencies or computers of any sort tied to any dubious government. But that ain't the world we live in. Who are our choices exactly, Linux, which has major contributors in Redhat, Intel, Novell IBM etc. Linux Contributors (note link talks a lot about MS which is not all that important). As though they don't have ties to potentially hostile governments notably the US (hell IBM supplied equipment the Nazi's used to catalog who they were mass murdering), and Window and Mac OSX both of whom are controlled by Americans, in the US, with ties to the US government, including meetings with senior government officials (Obama dinner with Various Silicon Valley CEO's ). There's not a lot of cause to trust any of them to actually be on 'your' side, especially if you aren't in the US.
Frankly I don't trust any of them particularly. I grant the advantages of open source linux to the process but you need qualified people to review contributions and if that process was perfect there would need to be a lot less patching.
No, the summary correctly explains that this is a disaster waiting to happen for support. Windows has been Windows for the last 30 years because they've reasonably well managed compatibility from one version to the next, and usually several versions beyond that. Microsoft money doesn't work anymore, but I have stuff from the late 90's that works fine on regular windows 8.
Windows RT is a different animal entirely, and I hope it's not intended as a serious product but just as a bone being thrown to the ARM guys in case that really becomes a future necessity, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like they really are forking windows with the hope that new programs will support both. I certainly know I'm not supporting windows RT with anything I'm working on though, but who knows, maybe the big guys at EA and Activision will.
With Windows 8, and Windows RT and surface microsoft has picked fights with their biggest supporters, developers, consumers and manufacturers, in that order. This is bad all ways around. The app store risks limiting the open platform nature of Windows, Windows RT is going to confuse everyone who isn't on/. on a daily basis, and Surface is making all of the hardware partners wonder if microsoft is more competitor than ally. All of this could go very badly for everyone, although the hardware partners needed a good kick in the pants 10 years ago. And I haven't even gotten into the clusterfuck that is the design of windows 8.
Slashdot Mirror
ARM makes money whoever licenses their stuff. If Intel pays for it, they are only better off.
AFAIK intel has had a dormant ARM licence for years.
Right, I confused the Itanium instruction set with whatever intel brands its 64 bit ISA.
Duplicate comment because multiple people corrected the same thing in my post...
Right, I confused the Itanium instruction set with whatever intel brands its 64 bit ISA.
And Qualcomm, and Globalfoundries. And I think a few more beyond that too.
Won't run shit is interesting. With Windows forking into an ARM and x86 (or AMD64/IA64 whatever want to call it) versions, the writing may be on the wall for Intel. If one of the ARM guys can produce chips that will do the 150-200 dollar price bracket as well as Intel chips can on windows this becomes a whole other ball game.
I'm not sure where anywhere near there yet. But with Qualcomm feasting on the remains of AMD, Samsung producing millions of parts a year and a few others with them it's entirely possible that within the next 10 years ARM will be a major competitor to x86. Which is why MS is forking - it's going to confuse the hell out of consumers and is, from an end user perspective a terrible idea to go out and buy a Windows RT anything on friday (windows 8 launch day) but MS plans to support their ugly bastard for a long time, so who knows. And in 3 or 4 years when we see Windows 9 roll around we may have enough software that has been compiled and for and runs on both that your 'won't run shit' assertion would no longer apply.
pixels per inch, aside from the bizarre unit of measure is something they can understand, in plane switching no (nor is in plane switching in particular some magic technology that makes it better, there are tradeoffs between different types of Panels).
The problem with 'retina display' speaking to my mom or uncle, to use your phrase, is that they have a visceral reaction to it that may not actually be realistic. It's not a retina display, they didn't rip the retina out of something, it's not perfectly designed to match a human retina, nor is it implanted in your retina. That makes potential future products where the term retina display might make technical sense harder to pitch. Lets say you were in the business of making imaging systems for diagnostic purposes, say retina imaging, well fuck you, because your product has to come up with some other name because apple has a high pixel density display that just stole your name. This buy the way happed to a few internetPhone products that conflicted with the apple brand.
The core problem with marketing and what you're arguing is that you think it's a good idea to try and convey meaning without substance, that is quite dangerous. It is no more and no less than dishonest misdirection and obfuscation of what exactly you do have to sell.
No one is ever really supply constrained for long periods of time. On anything that isn't on the periodic table and on earth anyway. You can artificially constrain supply, for marketing purposes or because of voluntary stupidity.
Samsung must figure they can sell the parts to themselves or someone else for more money, a couple of days ago I figured (in a comment on /.) that they were trying to keep their parts and products businesses separate to not lose Apple as a cash cow, but they obviously had other ideas. The Samsung guys aren't going to throw away a million units in sales for the fun of it, and I'm sure if apple wanted to order 10 million units they'd find a way to come to some agreement, but neither party seems all that committed to the LCD panels relationship anyway.
... one of MANY bullshit marketing terms...
come to think of it, that applies to virtually all marketing terms.
You do realize I was referring to an 8+ years old mobile chipset-integrated GPU, right? Even many dedicated cards from that era won't run Aero...
not relevant that it is 8 years old.
Seriously. I've got two machines that are from 2003 that both worth reasonably well with decent GPU's in them.
I have both here (a Radeon HD6670 in a desktop and an Intel HD3000 in a laptop, to be exact), as well as a laptop with the 4500MHD and another older desktop with an HD5450... none of them show ANY performance difference whatsoever when putting out HD video. Even Youtube 1080p is accelerated perfectly on the multiple generations old 4500MHD.
Interesting, because I see a significant difference between my AMD with 3200 and an Intel with an HD 3000... and AMD wins hands down. Then again, I'm running windows8 on that laptop now. I didn't benchmark it before 'upgrading'.
Let's see... the ability to *maybe* try a game that I might want to play some day, or two to three times as much battery life with the same battery capacity? Sounds like a no-brainer to me... and sub-50W desktop systems? Thank you Intel!
sure. If battery life matters to you more than performance intel has a huge leg up. I never said it didn't. AMD is grasping at straws, they should at least grasp at sensible ones. If you're happy with a laptop with 3 hours of battery life, or don't care about battery life, AMD has a compelling offering say in a desktop in the 150-250 dollar price bracket (bit more on laptops), much beyond that and you're better off with an intel part and a dedicated GPU.
You're not making a lot of sense. Any old processor "supports full SSD speeds"... if you're talking about certain boards/chipsets being limited to, say, SATA or SATA II, then yes, some SSDs may not be utilized to their full extent, in that you may not reach the advertized sequential read/write speeds - but the important part that makes your system seem more snappy is still there: Reduced access times.
Ok, you can't put a nehalem processor on a motherboard that supports full SATAIII speeds, if you want to be precise about it. The marvel controllers that claim to support it are on a single pcix lane so cap out in practice around 450 MB/s and don't work worth shit half the time (as in half the time the machine won't detect a drive on the controller etc., and thats on all of our test machines). Dollar for dollar new AMD parts are about equivalent to nehalem parts, because that's where they line up in performance. In that segment AMD processors at least support a full speed SSD at the same time.
As for Windows 8 being faster (or "behaving better") on AMD parts: Do you have anything to back up that claim with?
the aforementioned windows 8 laptop and our testing lab.
Please don't confuse my statement to be something that it isn't. If you're buying cheap AMD has a competitive offering to intel, even if they haven't really pitched it well, if you want good you don't want AMD and haven't for the last 4 or 5 years at least.
Samsungs parts business wants to stay in business. And apple is one of their biggest customers for foundry and screen parts.
I have an Intel 945 something or other Pentium M based notebook that runs Windows 7 just fine with Aero turned off.
I think you contradicted your own argument. You would (to reiterate my own words) likely notice aero being turned on a lot more than you would notice a 10% faster CPU.
The only place you're going to see a difference is in games or other similarly graphics-heavy applications.
Youtube 1080p and Blu-Ray (rips), the GPU is more than fast enough.
Again, the difference between an Intel HD graphics whatever and a Radeon 6000 series integrated chips are actually noticeable on these applications...
1. kids who can't afford proper graphics cards
or anyone who decides they want to try and particular game before spending a couple of hundred bucks on hardware to play it properly. I make games for a living and Intel graphics cards have been fucking the PC gaming industry for years.
Now if you'd replaced GPU with SSD in your post, I might be more inclined to agree with you...
SSD is a more complicated argument. The Core 2 (nehalem) processors, that are i5's i7's etc. don't support full SSD speeds, but are much older, the newer Sandy Bridge do, but an i3 sandy bridge or ivy bridge is usually more expensive than a comparable amd system, but not by much etc. etc. And the Intel parts have much better battery life. If you have a nehalem or older board and want cheap - AMD makes a compelling product, but if you have a little bit more money to spend the waters are muddied considerably, and both platforms support SSD's at full speed these days.
Also, Windows 8, much as I hate it, uses GPU acceleration by default (which does actually make it pretty snappy, which is about the only good thing you can say about it). And that behaves better on AMD than Intel parts.
GPU acceleration is a lot more than just games.
Also, linux is about 1.5% of the market for desktops, so I don't see that as a huge market shaper.
Even if you want something like a full speed SATAIII setup (which you will definitely notice on linux) it's cheaper to get an AMD system that can do that than an Intel one.
I disagree, it stopped getting worse when we stopped seeing much benefit to marginally faster CPU's, and when the main market shifted from geeks willing to pay 5 grand for a computer to grandmothers looking to check e-mail for 300.
But sure, competition is good, and the idea of having just Intel in the x86 business is not appealing.
ATI was making SoC's as infineon, those have become adreno as part of snapdragon. In the course of acquiring ATI and then divesting the SoC business they kinda went through the whole process quickly.
In this case that would probably be incorrect.
A major portion of Qualcomm is quite literally old AMD, because they bought it, and they've positioned themselves to be not the new AMD, just the new owners of anything AMD ever had worth paying for.
They did, it was Adreno. They ran out of money due to the ATI acquisition before mobile really took off.
Had they been able to hang onto everything they sold to Qualcomm they'd be doing much better right now.
In AMD's defence - CPU speed doesn't actually matter that much. This is one of those odd quirks of where we are in the software - hardware cycles. A good GPU will likely have *much* more impact on your noticeable computer performance than a 10% faster CPU. It's really bad form to release a brand new CPU that is actually slower than your old one (clock for clock, in absolute terms, etc.) and the tech press pounced on them for it. But AMD *could* have and should have made the argument probably correctly that you're better off with an AMD Fusion product than an Intel i5 with on chip piece of shit HD graphics 3000 from intel. Granted intel has improved a lot now that they've given up on Larrabee but their HD graphics chips are still horrible compared to what AMD (ATI) can bring to the table.
I will point out that it was AMD's ARM SoC lineup (which they Acquired from ATI) that Qualcomm is actually doing this with, because Qualcomm bought the whole ARM SoC business from AMD where they were leading the competition. So sure, they aren't doing anything the other guys aren't but they were at the forefront with SoC when they still had the ARM business.
Samsung has to run its parts and products business independently, otherwise their parts business would lose Apple as a customer, and loathe as anyone is to admit it, Apple is a customer you'd rather not lose.
We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market.
Strictly speaking you don't have that now. The best AMD offering is barely at the mid range of an Intel lineup. But that is, believe it or not quite secondary to the story.
AMD bought ATI, that was probably good from a technical sense, but they went from having no money to having 5 billion dollars less than no money. So they sold their ARM business to Qualcomm. Who, if you frequent job boards for these things, are either actually at old AMD/ATI facilities, or they are right next to them, including ATI headquarters.
Qualcomm have money, they have marketshare, and AMD is worth nothing, oh, and they've had tremendous success buying AMD's arm business. See what I'm getting at? AMD is in deep trouble, but someone has the foresight to be very well positioned to pick up all of the pieces...
See now that AMD doesn't own globalfoundries they're free to do business with other customers, like Broadcomm, Qualcomm and a few others use them a major supplier, Qualcomm avoids anti trust issues buying from them, they can probably scavenge the remnants of the x86 licence for a pittance if they want it, and if not they can just pull in all of the staff worth having.
We may see two high end processors, one ARM and one x86. That's probably bad for the market as a whole, but with windows and their 90% marketshare forking windows 8 to be both that's certainly a direction the industry can move in.
In the same way invading Iraq wasn't self defence. You can call it a defence department, you can make up all the shit you want about being for 'deterrence', or weapons of mass destruction or the like. But that doesn't make it defence.
The Zimmerman/Martin thing is harder to figure out, it's possible the KID was acting in self defence, thinking some joker was following him and took pre-emptive action and got himself shot (hence the wounds on zimmermans head) it's possible he was a bad kid trying to assault someone, it's possible zimmerman is just a nutter allowed to own a gun and finally decided now was his chance. Honestly, I have no fucking clue. It's he said vs the dead guy + whatever physical evidence they have. That's not a strong case for anything. That doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't decide this was his chance to be a vigilante hero - but that's hard to prove, and it's harder to know what the dead guy was thinking, given that he's well, dead, but the burden of proof either way is going to be tough, because Zimmerman, even if he was the most honest person in the world, doesn't know what Martin thought he was up to.
And of course, to go back to my military analogy. How is Iran wanting nuclear weapons not self defence? This is the problem, when you let people carry guns everyone who might get into a dangerous situation has to assume the other guy might have a gun and might use it, and then your country starts to look a lot like tribal pakistan or Yeman.
This isn't like 10-15 years ago, when you were severely limited. Today, you can play games, on a PS 1,2,3, xbox, wii, phone, tablet, TV etc. PC gaming, just isn't as important as it once was.
That's gibberish. There are lots of choices of books so you don't need to read the one you want? Games aren't just swappable with any other game. If the kid wants to play WoW or league of legends the best way to do that is on a decent window machine, final fantasy 7 on the PS1 just isn't a substitute. Great game. But not the same thing.
Except... this is china. The scale of corruption in ANY third world country boggles the mind. China is not particularly surprising - because this is what happens there. In America your CEO is getting a 25% raise this year, where you'd be lucky to get anything. And ceo pay is 200x the median worker pay (up from 26 in 1970), in china CEO pay is probably 25x worker pay, but they collect bribes - which by the way go in part to pay bribes up the chain to senior government officials, of 175x worker pay or more. That's just how the game is played.
Corruption pervades the third world, and second world, that is, in large part, what holds them back. The blatant dishonesty (accepting bribes at all) and covert dishonesty (in hiding how much money you have) impedes everything done in those countries, because to even get a train ticket in china you've probably had to bribe your way to either your job or onto the train, or both.
Other than for you know... all of those corporations including google that do just that on a regular basis?
Hell that was Apple's ENTIRE history is taking every penny in profit and holding onto it and never paying it out to shareholders, and just reinvesting in the company, whatever accounting you want to call that, it's acquiring various assets. They got to the point of holding 100 billion dollars in assets that had nothing to do with apple so it was time to send some of that off to investors, but every company is constantly trying to decide between investing in growth in themselves or giving money back to shareholders to invest on their own.
Being tied to them doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. The Russians have as much of a vested interest as everyone else in spying on their friends and enemies, and while the roles may be reversed from NATO the russians are almost certainly spying on the Syrians and Iranians as much if not more than we are: The russians want to be sure they'll get paid.
Sure, it would be nice if there was a magical operating system not easily exploited by intelligence agencies or computers of any sort tied to any dubious government. But that ain't the world we live in. Who are our choices exactly, Linux, which has major contributors in Redhat, Intel, Novell IBM etc. Linux Contributors (note link talks a lot about MS which is not all that important). As though they don't have ties to potentially hostile governments notably the US (hell IBM supplied equipment the Nazi's used to catalog who they were mass murdering), and Window and Mac OSX both of whom are controlled by Americans, in the US, with ties to the US government, including meetings with senior government officials (Obama dinner with Various Silicon Valley CEO's ). There's not a lot of cause to trust any of them to actually be on 'your' side, especially if you aren't in the US.
Frankly I don't trust any of them particularly. I grant the advantages of open source linux to the process but you need qualified people to review contributions and if that process was perfect there would need to be a lot less patching.
No, the summary correctly explains that this is a disaster waiting to happen for support. Windows has been Windows for the last 30 years because they've reasonably well managed compatibility from one version to the next, and usually several versions beyond that. Microsoft money doesn't work anymore, but I have stuff from the late 90's that works fine on regular windows 8.
Windows RT is a different animal entirely, and I hope it's not intended as a serious product but just as a bone being thrown to the ARM guys in case that really becomes a future necessity, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like they really are forking windows with the hope that new programs will support both. I certainly know I'm not supporting windows RT with anything I'm working on though, but who knows, maybe the big guys at EA and Activision will.
With Windows 8, and Windows RT and surface microsoft has picked fights with their biggest supporters, developers, consumers and manufacturers, in that order. This is bad all ways around. The app store risks limiting the open platform nature of Windows, Windows RT is going to confuse everyone who isn't on /. on a daily basis, and Surface is making all of the hardware partners wonder if microsoft is more competitor than ally. All of this could go very badly for everyone, although the hardware partners needed a good kick in the pants 10 years ago. And I haven't even gotten into the clusterfuck that is the design of windows 8.