Intel never hauled AMD to court for AM64. At the time, Intel was hoping to break clean of x86 by introducing the Itanium, while AMD took the tack of extending the x86 instruction set to 64-bit, something that Intel desperately wanted to avoid. In short, Intel tried to shut AMD out of the market the innovative, rather than the legal way: it just happened that VLIW, or EPIC, was such a bust that even Linux hated it, while AMD scored a coup in the market.
After that, Intel tried coming up w/ their own 64-bit extension to the x86, but Microsoft, which by then had already sunk effort into making 64-bit versions of Windows XP based on AMD, made it clear to Intel that they were not gonna support 2 different x86 instruction sets. This was similar to what Microsoft had done in the past, when they forced AMD, Cyrix, Centaur and Winchip to agree on multimedia extensions. Once Intel got this message, they realized that the only clean way of doing this was doing a cross licensing agreement w/ AMD. There are a couple of instructions in the Intel-64 instruction set that are a tad different from AMD64, but otherwise, they are identical.
At any rate, the biggest thing Intel demonstrated was that having sheer expertise at fabs and manufacturing capacity beat the crap out of any inherent architectural superiority any competitor might have: that's how they felled every RISC rival that they had. Like the Alpha & the PA-RISC was way superior to them, but once they could pack 2 or more cores in a package, along w/ the Windows NT kernel being the unified basis of all Windows OSs, it was easy to catch up w/ them from a stance of price points. Intel doesn't have to sue anybody to preserve x86: worst case, they could simply start manufacturing Snapdragons or A10s or whatever, and horn in on the action
Their cross-licensing agreement allowed Intel to use AM64 instructions, and AMD to use 32-bit x86 instructions. The 70s arrangement just involved the 80286, IIRC
At that time, upgrading from one Android version to another was completely in the hands of carriers, not the OS makers. It was only after Lollipop that upgradability was made easier, but here too, there are carrier limits. Like my Verizon Ellipsis 10 is still on Lollipop, although I could certainly use Marshmallow instead.
Also, I had a Lumia Ikon, and it took Verizon forever to authorize an upgrade just from Windows Phone 8.0 to 8.1. And 10 ain't even in the supported list.
Yeah, one thing I don't get. If they're not gonna develop newer versions of Skype for all those older OSs they listed above, why should anyone who still uses those OSs upgrade? In fact, they can't, even if they wanted to. One could urge them to upgrade the OSs, but that's not been possible for a lot of them. I had a Verizon Ellipsis 7, which was stuck on Kitkat, couldn't move to Lollipop. Any Windows RT tablet so far can't be upgraded to the new Windows 10 for ARM. Older iPads can't be upgraded beyond iOS 7, depending on their configuration. And so on.
Also, outside Windows, why would anyone use Skype? If one is an Android user, one could use Hangouts. If one is an iOS user, one could use iMessages or FaceTime. For desktop Linux, yeah, and I get that people can be screwed over, but anyone w/ a browser can again use Hangouts (assuming the Webcam works w/ Linux). Symbian & Blackberry, don't know. So what exactly would people be missing again if they don't Skype?
All the microsoft software, like Office, Edge, et al would have been recompiled. I'm sure the same would be true about FireFox and Chromium (if not Chrome), since those are FOSS. Question is whether those other titles that you listed will be recompiled, and whether Microsoft would allow them if they're not available via the app store.
In Windows 8, if one wanted to install Microsoft Office and went to the app store, it redirected them to the website and handled things from there. Microsoft could do the same for others like Adobe, Autocad, Blender, et al. Forget emulated: I'm curious to know what the performance of an ARM binary would be compared to Wintel. After all, ARM is the one RISC CPU that does not beat Intel in performance.
The issue w/ Windows RT was that applications could only be made available via the Windows Store, in order to avoid any confusion b/w an application bought for Windows 8 that wouldn't then install on RT. The general public is not familiar w/ ARM vs x86, which is why they did that. Here, if one tries to install a Wintel application on Windows 10 for ARM, it'll install, but then run emulated. And that performance is more likely to suck, given the history of better microprocessors before it trying the same thing - particularly DEC on the Alpha.
Instead, Microsoft should encourage vendors to cross compile for both x86 and ARM, so that any tablet/laptop can download the relevant binaries and go from there.
Reason being that win32 applications i.e. software written specifically for XP or Windows 7 - are what's widespread out there, not the stuff Microsoft allows into Windows Store. The reason Windows RT was a bust was that those tablets couldn't run Wintel apps, which are essentially win32. Which is why Microsoft started w/ that.
But Intel never had any problems w/ other CPUs like Alpha or MIPS trying to emulate x86, and those chips were far more powerful than ARM. It's bizarre that they'd object to this.
Between the fact that current ISA is actually AMD64 (which is x86 compatible, but not intel-designed) and the fact that many key patents should have expired by now, it's going to be interesting if intel has the legal bass to actually stop this from happening.
While that's true, what is being emulated is 32-bit x86, not (just) the 64-bit x64. And that is something Intel owns. Of course, if they've expired, that's another story.
But I see this move as Intel punching downwards. An ARM has no chance of doing a good job emulating x86. What might happen is that x86 software will be emulated on ARM, but then software writers - at least the ones whose software is popular on this platform - would port their software to be ARM native: it can still sleep in Microsoft's Windows Store. What would be different would be that they can then have a fair shot at running native.
Except that this would mean Microsoft having to provide win32 Visual Studio or other app dev tools for WARM for developers to port their legacy (read XP or Windows 7) applications to this. Even if Microsoft does that, will the devs be willing?
Meanwhile, she couldn't be bothered to fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place, with information and methods they already had available to them.
The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.
Aside from that, the fact that after 6 years as both Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, all of this just grew makes it clear that she's a pathetic choice to lead the UK. Except that Jeremy Corbin is another Bernie, and I hate the idea of Sadiq Khan becoming any more powerful than he already is. He is more of a Jihadist than even some of the specimens residing in Doha.
But that's not this story here. The president laid out an executive order, and the judges concerned stayed it. Which is why it's now in the Supreme Court. If what the judges did was unconstitutional, then they need to be impeached, otherwise there will be judicial anarchy, like it's been since these rogues took the law into their own hands.
Yeah, except that it makes Siri less effective in interpreting what you want based on history - unlike Alexa that remembers you forever. I do agree that privacy is important, which is ONE reason that I simply don't use any of those.
Not just that, when you type in a search, you KNOW that it's correct, as opposed to one of these AI agents that may or may not interpret your question accurately. Not to mention the mess it would make of a lot of accents. I've made it a point never to use Siri, Cortana or hey Google.
Personally, I'm more tired of the way the media covers EVERY SINGLE LITTLE LAST TWEET as if each one announces an Arab/Israeli Peace Deal. We get it, he doesn't fit the exacting perfect image every president before him portrayed. A few times, they got caught; like when bush called that reporter "a major league ass-hole", or when Obama said "What I was suggesting-you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith".
The only difference is that this president doesn't seem to care about trying to portray himself one way or the other. Say all you want about Trump, but one thing is for certain, he doesn't shy away from who he really is.
One of the things some supporters of his were complaining about was that they want him to tweet about the positive things he does, like the economy, or jobs and so on. Guess what: he does! Half his tweets are about the day's events: Going to Cincinnati to talk Obamacare, nominating Wray as FBI head, VA Accountability act (him urging the House to sign it), meeting w/ Congressional Republicans, Signing the ATC bill... And then there are his retweets from his officials - VP Pence, HHS Tom Price, Sean Spicer, and so on. That's not what makes the news, and hardly the stuff the public is talking about.
Yeah, there are people who don't like him tweeting about which Travel Ban should have been passed, or what Comey did or didn't say, or Sadiq Khan, or Qatar. I do agree that he should be on the same page as his officials: not undercutting their messages, or at least bringing them into the same page as him. Yeah, there are times when a good-cop, bad-cop exercise is needed, like in the case of Qatar. However, it is worth pointing out that those are not the only things he tweets about, and he's also right that if he left the messaging up to CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and even FNC (see Sheppard Smith, for example, and Lib talking heads such as Richard Fowler, Marie Harf, et al), he'd be nowhere. So he should continue to tweet, but also do what he can to ensure that his government sends a clear & consistent message (except when it shouldn't).
No, you're the clueless one. As AC noted, it was his handle before, and will remain so after he is president. While @POTUS will change hands, this one will remain his. Now, he uses @RealDonaldTrump b'cos he has more followers there than on @POTUS, but that doesn't make the former an official government account. Also, even @POTUS has the right to block anyone. People who want to petition him anything can email him, or go via congressmen who have a good rapport w/ him.
Not just that, it was his handle before he became president, and will remain so after. @POTUS was previously Obama's, and would pass on to his successor, but @RealDonaldTrump was, is and will remain his alone.
Sorry, that's not the way to petition the president. The way to do it would be to email him 'president@whitehouse.gov', and then hope he responds. Or go through officials, such as elected reps, or so on. On Twitter, he posts about events or his view of events that he wants people to pay attention to. That's not a place to tell him what you want him to do.
Yeah, one could send a postcard, or email him, or do something on change.org, or better yet, go via congressmen, senators or other people known to be close to him, to get a better chance of being heard. But if he tweets about Comey or Qatar, and you respond, 'You are a sellout to Comcast for getting rid of net neutrality', that's irrelevant, and enough of those, and he or Dan has every right to block you.
Now we are. For someone who's bombed Syria and forced NATO to take seriously its own defenses, it sure is something Putin would have hoped for.
Besides, this topic was on whether the president can block anyone from responding to his tweets. How Russia becomes relevant is something only Left wing whack jobs can produce
Slashdot Mirror
Intel never hauled AMD to court for AM64. At the time, Intel was hoping to break clean of x86 by introducing the Itanium, while AMD took the tack of extending the x86 instruction set to 64-bit, something that Intel desperately wanted to avoid. In short, Intel tried to shut AMD out of the market the innovative, rather than the legal way: it just happened that VLIW, or EPIC, was such a bust that even Linux hated it, while AMD scored a coup in the market.
After that, Intel tried coming up w/ their own 64-bit extension to the x86, but Microsoft, which by then had already sunk effort into making 64-bit versions of Windows XP based on AMD, made it clear to Intel that they were not gonna support 2 different x86 instruction sets. This was similar to what Microsoft had done in the past, when they forced AMD, Cyrix, Centaur and Winchip to agree on multimedia extensions. Once Intel got this message, they realized that the only clean way of doing this was doing a cross licensing agreement w/ AMD. There are a couple of instructions in the Intel-64 instruction set that are a tad different from AMD64, but otherwise, they are identical.
At any rate, the biggest thing Intel demonstrated was that having sheer expertise at fabs and manufacturing capacity beat the crap out of any inherent architectural superiority any competitor might have: that's how they felled every RISC rival that they had. Like the Alpha & the PA-RISC was way superior to them, but once they could pack 2 or more cores in a package, along w/ the Windows NT kernel being the unified basis of all Windows OSs, it was easy to catch up w/ them from a stance of price points. Intel doesn't have to sue anybody to preserve x86: worst case, they could simply start manufacturing Snapdragons or A10s or whatever, and horn in on the action
Their cross-licensing agreement allowed Intel to use AM64 instructions, and AMD to use 32-bit x86 instructions. The 70s arrangement just involved the 80286, IIRC
At that time, upgrading from one Android version to another was completely in the hands of carriers, not the OS makers. It was only after Lollipop that upgradability was made easier, but here too, there are carrier limits. Like my Verizon Ellipsis 10 is still on Lollipop, although I could certainly use Marshmallow instead.
Also, I had a Lumia Ikon, and it took Verizon forever to authorize an upgrade just from Windows Phone 8.0 to 8.1. And 10 ain't even in the supported list.
Yeah, one thing I don't get. If they're not gonna develop newer versions of Skype for all those older OSs they listed above, why should anyone who still uses those OSs upgrade? In fact, they can't, even if they wanted to. One could urge them to upgrade the OSs, but that's not been possible for a lot of them. I had a Verizon Ellipsis 7, which was stuck on Kitkat, couldn't move to Lollipop. Any Windows RT tablet so far can't be upgraded to the new Windows 10 for ARM. Older iPads can't be upgraded beyond iOS 7, depending on their configuration. And so on.
Also, outside Windows, why would anyone use Skype? If one is an Android user, one could use Hangouts. If one is an iOS user, one could use iMessages or FaceTime. For desktop Linux, yeah, and I get that people can be screwed over, but anyone w/ a browser can again use Hangouts (assuming the Webcam works w/ Linux). Symbian & Blackberry, don't know. So what exactly would people be missing again if they don't Skype?
Also, has anybody tried running Windows 10 IoT on Raspberry Pi? Or is that not out as yet?
All the microsoft software, like Office, Edge, et al would have been recompiled. I'm sure the same would be true about FireFox and Chromium (if not Chrome), since those are FOSS. Question is whether those other titles that you listed will be recompiled, and whether Microsoft would allow them if they're not available via the app store.
In Windows 8, if one wanted to install Microsoft Office and went to the app store, it redirected them to the website and handled things from there. Microsoft could do the same for others like Adobe, Autocad, Blender, et al. Forget emulated: I'm curious to know what the performance of an ARM binary would be compared to Wintel. After all, ARM is the one RISC CPU that does not beat Intel in performance.
The issue w/ Windows RT was that applications could only be made available via the Windows Store, in order to avoid any confusion b/w an application bought for Windows 8 that wouldn't then install on RT. The general public is not familiar w/ ARM vs x86, which is why they did that. Here, if one tries to install a Wintel application on Windows 10 for ARM, it'll install, but then run emulated. And that performance is more likely to suck, given the history of better microprocessors before it trying the same thing - particularly DEC on the Alpha.
Instead, Microsoft should encourage vendors to cross compile for both x86 and ARM, so that any tablet/laptop can download the relevant binaries and go from there.
Reason being that win32 applications i.e. software written specifically for XP or Windows 7 - are what's widespread out there, not the stuff Microsoft allows into Windows Store. The reason Windows RT was a bust was that those tablets couldn't run Wintel apps, which are essentially win32. Which is why Microsoft started w/ that.
But Intel never had any problems w/ other CPUs like Alpha or MIPS trying to emulate x86, and those chips were far more powerful than ARM. It's bizarre that they'd object to this.
DEC sold their semi business to Intel as a part of their lawsuit settlement, and that happened a while before Compaq acquired DEC
Between the fact that current ISA is actually AMD64 (which is x86 compatible, but not intel-designed) and the fact that many key patents should have expired by now, it's going to be interesting if intel has the legal bass to actually stop this from happening.
While that's true, what is being emulated is 32-bit x86, not (just) the 64-bit x64. And that is something Intel owns. Of course, if they've expired, that's another story.
But I see this move as Intel punching downwards. An ARM has no chance of doing a good job emulating x86. What might happen is that x86 software will be emulated on ARM, but then software writers - at least the ones whose software is popular on this platform - would port their software to be ARM native: it can still sleep in Microsoft's Windows Store. What would be different would be that they can then have a fair shot at running native.
Except that this would mean Microsoft having to provide win32 Visual Studio or other app dev tools for WARM for developers to port their legacy (read XP or Windows 7) applications to this. Even if Microsoft does that, will the devs be willing?
Meanwhile, she couldn't be bothered to fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place, with information and methods they already had available to them. The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.
Aside from that, the fact that after 6 years as both Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, all of this just grew makes it clear that she's a pathetic choice to lead the UK. Except that Jeremy Corbin is another Bernie, and I hate the idea of Sadiq Khan becoming any more powerful than he already is. He is more of a Jihadist than even some of the specimens residing in Doha.
But that's not this story here. The president laid out an executive order, and the judges concerned stayed it. Which is why it's now in the Supreme Court. If what the judges did was unconstitutional, then they need to be impeached, otherwise there will be judicial anarchy, like it's been since these rogues took the law into their own hands.
The executive may nominate them, but only the legislature can remove them. Just like a president can be impeached, so can judges.
For starters, I'd like to see Lowes try & sell their wares in India, and see how far they get
So only Elmew Fudd's privacy would be safe from Siwi
Yeah, except that it makes Siri less effective in interpreting what you want based on history - unlike Alexa that remembers you forever. I do agree that privacy is important, which is ONE reason that I simply don't use any of those.
Not just that, when you type in a search, you KNOW that it's correct, as opposed to one of these AI agents that may or may not interpret your question accurately. Not to mention the mess it would make of a lot of accents. I've made it a point never to use Siri, Cortana or hey Google.
Spicer treated it as a joke as well. Only he did a bad job delivering it by looking absolutely serious
Only the legistlature can check the Judiciary - not the executive. It's up to the Senate to impeach such rogue judges
Personally, I'm more tired of the way the media covers EVERY SINGLE LITTLE LAST TWEET as if each one announces an Arab/Israeli Peace Deal. We get it, he doesn't fit the exacting perfect image every president before him portrayed. A few times, they got caught; like when bush called that reporter "a major league ass-hole", or when Obama said "What I was suggesting-you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith".
The only difference is that this president doesn't seem to care about trying to portray himself one way or the other. Say all you want about Trump, but one thing is for certain, he doesn't shy away from who he really is.
One of the things some supporters of his were complaining about was that they want him to tweet about the positive things he does, like the economy, or jobs and so on. Guess what: he does! Half his tweets are about the day's events: Going to Cincinnati to talk Obamacare, nominating Wray as FBI head, VA Accountability act (him urging the House to sign it), meeting w/ Congressional Republicans, Signing the ATC bill... And then there are his retweets from his officials - VP Pence, HHS Tom Price, Sean Spicer, and so on. That's not what makes the news, and hardly the stuff the public is talking about.
Yeah, there are people who don't like him tweeting about which Travel Ban should have been passed, or what Comey did or didn't say, or Sadiq Khan, or Qatar. I do agree that he should be on the same page as his officials: not undercutting their messages, or at least bringing them into the same page as him. Yeah, there are times when a good-cop, bad-cop exercise is needed, like in the case of Qatar. However, it is worth pointing out that those are not the only things he tweets about, and he's also right that if he left the messaging up to CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and even FNC (see Sheppard Smith, for example, and Lib talking heads such as Richard Fowler, Marie Harf, et al), he'd be nowhere. So he should continue to tweet, but also do what he can to ensure that his government sends a clear & consistent message (except when it shouldn't).
Did you even read whose message you're responding to? I don't disagree w/ a word you said above, although you make it seem like I did.
No, you're the clueless one. As AC noted, it was his handle before, and will remain so after he is president. While @POTUS will change hands, this one will remain his. Now, he uses @RealDonaldTrump b'cos he has more followers there than on @POTUS, but that doesn't make the former an official government account. Also, even @POTUS has the right to block anyone. People who want to petition him anything can email him, or go via congressmen who have a good rapport w/ him.
Not just that, it was his handle before he became president, and will remain so after. @POTUS was previously Obama's, and would pass on to his successor, but @RealDonaldTrump was, is and will remain his alone.
Sorry, that's not the way to petition the president. The way to do it would be to email him 'president@whitehouse.gov', and then hope he responds. Or go through officials, such as elected reps, or so on. On Twitter, he posts about events or his view of events that he wants people to pay attention to. That's not a place to tell him what you want him to do.
Yeah, one could send a postcard, or email him, or do something on change.org, or better yet, go via congressmen, senators or other people known to be close to him, to get a better chance of being heard. But if he tweets about Comey or Qatar, and you respond, 'You are a sellout to Comcast for getting rid of net neutrality', that's irrelevant, and enough of those, and he or Dan has every right to block you.
Now we are. For someone who's bombed Syria and forced NATO to take seriously its own defenses, it sure is something Putin would have hoped for.
Besides, this topic was on whether the president can block anyone from responding to his tweets. How Russia becomes relevant is something only Left wing whack jobs can produce