My point is, it'll go to the highest bidder meaning that it will not benifit you or me at all, unless you're a huge communications conglomerate stock holder.
I guess it all depends on how you define "benefit".
There will be no benefit from the money received from the "highest bidder"?
And the "highest bidder" will provide no benefit for you, me or anyone else?
Exactly what would be beneficial to you? Does it have to put money in your pocket to be beneficial?
And as for, "Emergency service so that can handle more than one crisis at a time? Ever heard of IP switching radios that are now on the market?", I'll let you argue with the head of the NYC Fire Department. IIRC he's the one who told Congress they didn't have sufficient bandwidth.
What's going to happen when they open the spectrum up?
Well, hopefully some of it will go back to the domain of emergency services (fire, police, medical). In many metropolitan areas emergency services have been bandwidth starved for years. Many are not happy with congress essentially giving away bandwidth that was originally supposed to be for them. There was a lot of discussion about it in reports by the 9/11 commision and there were also several congressional hearings dealing both with 9/11 and the switch to DTV in which people from IT and emergency services testified on how limited communications bandwidth hampers even day-to-day services.
I think its mostly that the PC market (Apple) doesn't have the potential to give the same ROI as the big iron or game consoles -the requirements and dynamic are very different.
Especially looking at the game consoles, its a different dynamic. For the PS3, IBM needs to produce a processor that meets requirements A,B and C. In general those requirements won't change for the life of the PS3. IOW, as the years go by, the processor will be cheaper and cheaper to make.
In contrast, for the PC market, nobody's going to be happy with a processor 5 years from now that's essentially the same speed as the one being sold today. That means continuously pushing the envelope, which means continously spending money on R&D. That's a lot of money spent on chips without the volume of the game systems and without the high margins of the servers.
Nobody was saying IBM couldn't do it. The question is did they want to do it for the money they would make?
Is this true? It sounds like total lunacy to me (of course I'm a Mac head so...)
Let me see if I've got this. In order to use the latest-and-greatest in drive technology, one must have installed the oldest-and-most-outdated hardware?
There is something seriously wrong in PC land if this is true, but I guess that's what happens when supporting legacy tech is more important than using better tech.
There's the cost of supporting it on the MB. There's the cost of the OS still having to support it.
There's a reason MS and PC manufacturers keep trying to kill off old tech -it gets harder and harder to incorporate it with the newer tech. There's a lot of QC time and effort spent supporting that £5.00 floppy drive. Who knows, if they didn't have to support floppies (and other old tech), Longhorn might be out now.
Back when the first Macs came out without a floppy drive, I (jokingly) made a prediction that 10 years from now (then) PC users will still be relying on floppy disks and parallel ports. Its sounding less and less funny these days.
"But if you never use it, then it will never wear out."
I'm not so sure about that. Have you tried out a floppy drive that hasn't been used for a long time? Not using them seemed to kill mine. Keep in mind that even when not used, your fan is pulling dirt across those heads continuously. That seems to be what kills more flopyy drives than too much use.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like 95% of the time a floppy is needed on a PC, its needed to boot the PC in an emergency, or add a driver. I don't know how many PCs out there will boot from an external USB floppy.
However it is still within my rights to point out my opinion on the state of MS's software. The fact there are other offerings in no way changes the fact that MS's offering has taken a disconcerting turn, especially for those who did use it and may be unaware of the change.
I'm assuming since you (probably) aren't continously downloading and installing software it wouldn't be much of a problem. But I've also seen "idle" processes eat a lot of resources on occasion (like MS Word with just a new, empty document open).
It used to be that PC OEMs bundled and preinstalled software for specific target markets. Everything from hard drive utilities to web browsers.
Then MS said, "Thou shalt not bundle, or thou shalt lose sweet licensing deals."
After a few years the government said they couldn't do that.
Then MS said, "Thou shalt not interfere with our copyright and alter the the way Windows looks or acts when first booted." (Translation: No Netscape icon on the desktop, even if they do pay you to bundle it).
As I was saying, the ability for PC manufacturers to compete/differentiate based on added software died a long time ago. Otherwise, you think some PC OEM wouldn't have gone in and changed things (turned off unneeded services, turned on firewall) and advertised it as being more secure for home users than their competitor?
That's what I keep wondering. Longhorn is sounding more and more like a point release -why is it taking so long? Are these features really that hard to implement, or are there some nasty, low level bugs/incompatibilities/gotchas that MS just can't get around? IOW is the Windows base code so hosed it can't be economically upgraded?
Of course I kept wondering why XP SP2 took so long. Its biggest features were rolling up all the security updates and changing default settings. The testing should already be done -why did it take so long?
The 128K-byte Macintosh with one single-sided drive is not a powerful machine. You can do useful work with it, and the user interface beats all other cold. But for the same price or less you could go out and buy, for example, a Compaq with 256K bytes of RAM and two 360K-byte disk drives.
IOW, yeah its great and does all kinds of cool stuff like making life easier for the user, but for less money I could buy a PC with more stuff...
Every review ever written about the Mac seems to end in the same way. Now we know where it all started.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is, it'll go to the highest bidder meaning that it will not benifit you or me at all, unless you're a huge communications conglomerate stock holder.
I guess it all depends on how you define "benefit".
There will be no benefit from the money received from the "highest bidder"?
And the "highest bidder" will provide no benefit for you, me or anyone else?
Exactly what would be beneficial to you? Does it have to put money in your pocket to be beneficial?
And as for, "Emergency service so that can handle more than one crisis at a time? Ever heard of IP switching radios that are now on the market?", I'll let you argue with the head of the NYC Fire Department. IIRC he's the one who told Congress they didn't have sufficient bandwidth.
They do have redundant sensors.
...mission scrubbed.
But if one of them fails, you don't have redundancy, thus safety is at risk...
IOW redundancy is there to help you return safely. Its not what you use to get off the ground.
IOOW if you know your backup parachute doesn't work, you don't just jump anyway.
Now how does that benifit me at all?
Emergency services (fire, police, ambulance) now have the bandwidth to handle more than one crisis at a time.
You really can get a strong cell phone signal anywhere you're standing.
Gigabit wireless networking.
More Home Shopping Network channels.
There are all kinds of good (and evil) possibilities.
What's going to happen when they open the spectrum up?
Well, hopefully some of it will go back to the domain of emergency services (fire, police, medical). In many metropolitan areas emergency services have been bandwidth starved for years. Many are not happy with congress essentially giving away bandwidth that was originally supposed to be for them. There was a lot of discussion about it in reports by the 9/11 commision and there were also several congressional hearings dealing both with 9/11 and the switch to DTV in which people from IT and emergency services testified on how limited communications bandwidth hampers even day-to-day services.
Because its not about cost of media/delivery. Its about perceived (or even actual) quality.
People will pay more for better quality.
Especially after the switch to metric went so smoothly...
I think its mostly that the PC market (Apple) doesn't have the potential to give the same ROI as the big iron or game consoles -the requirements and dynamic are very different.
Especially looking at the game consoles, its a different dynamic. For the PS3, IBM needs to produce a processor that meets requirements A,B and C. In general those requirements won't change for the life of the PS3. IOW, as the years go by, the processor will be cheaper and cheaper to make.
In contrast, for the PC market, nobody's going to be happy with a processor 5 years from now that's essentially the same speed as the one being sold today. That means continuously pushing the envelope, which means continously spending money on R&D. That's a lot of money spent on chips without the volume of the game systems and without the high margins of the servers.
Nobody was saying IBM couldn't do it. The question is did they want to do it for the money they would make?
Is this true? It sounds like total lunacy to me (of course I'm a Mac head so...)
Let me see if I've got this. In order to use the latest-and-greatest in drive technology, one must have installed the oldest-and-most-outdated hardware?
There is something seriously wrong in PC land if this is true, but I guess that's what happens when supporting legacy tech is more important than using better tech.
But the cost of the drive isn't the only cost.
There's the cost of supporting it on the MB. There's the cost of the OS still having to support it.
There's a reason MS and PC manufacturers keep trying to kill off old tech -it gets harder and harder to incorporate it with the newer tech. There's a lot of QC time and effort spent supporting that £5.00 floppy drive. Who knows, if they didn't have to support floppies (and other old tech), Longhorn might be out now.
Back when the first Macs came out without a floppy drive, I (jokingly) made a prediction that 10 years from now (then) PC users will still be relying on floppy disks and parallel ports. Its sounding less and less funny these days.
"But if you never use it, then it will never wear out."
I'm not so sure about that. Have you tried out a floppy drive that hasn't been used for a long time? Not using them seemed to kill mine. Keep in mind that even when not used, your fan is pulling dirt across those heads continuously. That seems to be what kills more flopyy drives than too much use.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like 95% of the time a floppy is needed on a PC, its needed to boot the PC in an emergency, or add a driver. I don't know how many PCs out there will boot from an external USB floppy.
That may be so.
However it is still within my rights to point out my opinion on the state of MS's software. The fact there are other offerings in no way changes the fact that MS's offering has taken a disconcerting turn, especially for those who did use it and may be unaware of the change.
Sadly, it would be more like an OB-Gyn supplying leaky condoms.
And you left out a very important business (not tech reason).
Apple knew investors were going to have a tough time with the switch. Which would make investors less skittish, a partnership with Intel, or AMD?
Apple can always switch to AMD once the "big" transition is done.
Just curious, how does that affect performance?
I'm assuming since you (probably) aren't continously downloading and installing software it wouldn't be much of a problem. But I've also seen "idle" processes eat a lot of resources on occasion (like MS Word with just a new, empty document open).
So you're saying MS ran out of other ways to slow down the faster processors AMD and Intel have coming out?
And couldn't come up with better ways to make Windows crash?
I don't believe you!
Problem is, PC manufacturers lost this war.
It used to be that PC OEMs bundled and preinstalled software for specific target markets. Everything from hard drive utilities to web browsers.
Then MS said, "Thou shalt not bundle, or thou shalt lose sweet licensing deals."
After a few years the government said they couldn't do that.
Then MS said, "Thou shalt not interfere with our copyright and alter the the way Windows looks or acts when first booted." (Translation: No Netscape icon on the desktop, even if they do pay you to bundle it).
As I was saying, the ability for PC manufacturers to compete/differentiate based on added software died a long time ago. Otherwise, you think some PC OEM wouldn't have gone in and changed things (turned off unneeded services, turned on firewall) and advertised it as being more secure for home users than their competitor?
I was wondering about that.
Seems like the correct answer is, use sunscreen, take vitamins/eat right.
But it sounds like you're saying the vitamin supplements don't seem to do the job as well as the "natural" way of doing it.
I see it as less of a problem these days.
There used to be a time though when apps were very picky about the monitor needing to be in B/W, 16 or 256 color mode to run correctly -or at all.
Not being a codewarrior, I have to ask..
Is this being accelerated by the GPU, or is it being done by the CPU?
That's the difference, if I'm reading things right (which I may not be).
But then why isn't Longhorn out yet?
That's what I keep wondering. Longhorn is sounding more and more like a point release -why is it taking so long? Are these features really that hard to implement, or are there some nasty, low level bugs/incompatibilities/gotchas that MS just can't get around? IOW is the Windows base code so hosed it can't be economically upgraded?
Of course I kept wondering why XP SP2 took so long. Its biggest features were rolling up all the security updates and changing default settings. The testing should already be done -why did it take so long?
Seems the less MS does, the longer it takes.
The charges, ..., carry a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
At least he wasn't busted with pirated music. That carries a real penalty.
I really liked the summary,
The 128K-byte Macintosh with one single-sided drive is not a powerful machine. You can do useful work with it, and the user interface beats all other cold. But for the same price or less you could go out and buy, for example, a Compaq with 256K bytes of RAM and two 360K-byte disk drives.
IOW, yeah its great and does all kinds of cool stuff like making life easier for the user, but for less money I could buy a PC with more stuff...
Every review ever written about the Mac seems to end in the same way. Now we know where it all started.
Same way they do on everything from carrots to tomatoes. We've got asparagus growing in our garden that I just can't get to stop!
But for some reason, people still pay money for it at the grocery store.
It's a breakdown in all levels of news accuracy since the destruction of the old network news organizations
I agree with most of what you've written, but I wouldn't give the "old network news organizations" too much credit.