The UI is a maybe but it could be tweaked and frankly it really does need to be tweaked even for smart phones. The Android US is really lacking compared to WebOS and the iPhone IMHO. BTW I have an Android phone. Chrome perform batter? The OS or the applications? The applications sure will not since they are webapps. Dalvik could be improved to use JIT and cached code. My guess is you will see that sooner rather than later. Also Android does allow you to use native code for parts of our app if needed.
The thing is your hung up on Android. You could put in WebOS Or iPhone OS or even a new Linux that is optimized for these devices and for ease of maintenance like Android.
The point of Chrome OS is that you only use Web apps! So no native apps. Cloud syncing? Android already does that. I good option mind you. BTW so does WebOS. All your Apps? I don't know about that. I want the apps on my phone to work in a different way than my apps on my desktop.
Gee so Chrome OS is for kids? What about parental controls? And doesn't that seem like a tiny market to you? Sure does to me so I just don't see the advantage. Here you go. Put a password on the Android Market Place. Now your kids can not install anything. Just as safe as Chrome OS and still more flexible.
It wasn't just them Small businesses wanted them because now they could own a "real" computer. Apple computers where for kids at home to play games on. The flip side was we sold a lot of Kaypros to a nearby research center. Several of the folks there bought Osborne luggables and where buying moitors and cables to make them usable. They had a tiny screen. Once they saw the Kaypro which had a much bigger screen they where sold. Then we had the Airforce bases that kept us in business with all the Zenith repairs and purchases. Just to show how bad the PC really was. The Air Force standardized on the Z-100. The Z-100 cost about the same as a PC but... It had both an 8088 or was it an 8086? and an 8085. It could run CP/M and Z-DOS which was a version of MS-DOS. It also had much better graphics than the PC and used the S-100 bus. Oh and had a MUCH better keyboard. I think it only sold well to the military. We didn't move a lot of Zeniths until the 151, 158, 138, and so on came out and where PC compatible.
The 68k was a much better CPU. You never had to deal with segments! It had a flat memory model from the start. Something Intel wouldn't have until the 386 came along many years later. x86 and MS DOS Was a terrible standard that held back software development for years. The X86 is slowly fixing a lot of it's issues but always at a cost. We finally got a flat address space with the 386 and then we finally got more registers when AMD gave use the X86-64 extensions. Just because it works doesn't mean that it wasn't a long and painful road to get here. And frankly It could have been a much better road.
So tell me. Why is an OS that you can only use web applications on better than one that you can use web applications on and native apps on? Any increase in ease of use over say an Android or WebOS smartphone would be marginal at best. A lack of native apps and local storage would mean that the user really would need to pay for an mobile data plan in addition to the cost of their cell phone which is not cheap. Roaming data charges overseas are very expensive... I see no advantage in these limitations do you?
We have them. They are called Android, WebOS, and iPhone phones. And now the iPad.
Plus it is just a terrible idea that is crippled from the start. Lets take two device. 1. Chrome OS and 2. Android.
From the end user point of view what can Chrome do that Android can not? I am sure that the Web Apps that run on Chrome OS will work just as well on the Android browser. Unless Google cripples Android which I do not see. So the Android smartbook can run all the apps that Chrome OS will So 1 point for each Chrome and Android. What about all the Android apps that are available on the market place? Well Chrome will not run them but Android will. So 1 point for Android and zero for Chrome OS.
Now from a developers point of view. If they want to make a web app do they target Chrome OS or Android? Well no need to choose. Both work just fine. So here is a tie. Now suppose the developer doesn't want to run a server? He just wants to write an app. Chrome OS is out of luck but Android is just fine. Plus one for android. Suppose the developer wants to sell the app and not depend on advertising? Well the develper could offer subscriptions on line but it is so much easier to just sell the app. another for android.
Suppose the developer wants the app to only work on a lan that doesn't have an internet connection? You may be able to do something with Gears but again an app is just a clean simple solution.
A browser only OS is a limited OS. Any gains in ease of use will be very limited compared to what we have already gotten with smart phones.
Chrome OS is a case of philosophy over functionality and to be honest IMHO greed. Google thinks it can make more money off of ads than it has off of apps IMHO.
No not be the strict definition of RISC. That is to be expected since the 6502 predates the term RISC. But as you posted it was very RISC like in design and feel.
Actually it was the x86 that had a multipexed buss that caused a performance hit compared to the Z80. If the program would fit in the 64k address space of the Z80 odds are very good that an 8Mhz Z80 would clean the 4.77 Mhz 8088s clock.
Z80 had register pairs. You could combine to eight bit registers into one 16 bit one. Also you are talking about CPUs that had no FPUs anyway. The 8088 just wasn't that big of an improvement over the Z80 and some people would say except for that added memory space it wasn't an improvement at all. Frankly some would say even the expanded memory space wasn't a real improvement over just bank switching! The whole 16 bit think was actually a lot of marketing hype. Also back then clock speed back then meant everything! CPUs in the micro world executed one instruction at a time, there was no cache, and if you where lucky memory worked at clock speed with no wait states! The X86 had no real tick of tick advantage over the Z80. Now the 6502 was a lot faster per clock than the Z80 and because it ran at a slower clock speed it never had any wait states. The 6502 was the first risk chip.
Yes I know it is a differential GPS but I was going to add some other features. It is for a DIY Drone idea I had. I was going to make a small ground base to aid in landing. I would feed in the differential data along with air pressure, temperature, wind speed, and direction. What I was wondering is was would a DIY differential system be of any use. Would they error that it was trying to correct for get out of sync and make it actually less accurate than just GPS.
I would put the base station at launch point in a field and the drone would know the best direction to try and land in. BTW this would be a light slow drone so that it will not hurt anyone if it smacks into them and would have a manual override system.
As to the VOR providing LAAS service I have to wonder just how expensive it would really be? 1. The VORs already have power. 2. The VORs are already at a known location. All you would have to do is add a GPS receiver and the equipment to add the data channel to the transmitter. The problem is how long would it take for pilots to add the special receivers to use the data channel. Since a lot of VORs are already near airports it seems like a good upgrade to the existing VOR system. Of course adding things like wind speed, direction, temperature, and altimeter settings to the data packets would be nice. An actual all digital upgrade would be even better but the costs for that would be very expensive.
Okay there is a difference or actually not one in this case. The Linux kernel is under the GPL. Both Linus and Joe knew that and have agreed to it from the start. So now Joe has some super memory manager code that he wants to put in the Kernel! He then wants to give the Kernel to people to use but not the Source! The Joes Kernel is now five times faster only used 16k of ram, and has passed every security test known to man! He isn't going to charge a dime to use it but he wants to keep the black magic voodoo he did to him self! RMS and FSF release the legal dogs from hell on Joe! Why? Because the GPL says that Joe is being evil. If you think that is far fetched here is one that happened. A programmer had signed an NDA for a very popular webcam chip. Because of that he couldn't release one small part of the code for the driver "the part that uncompressed the frame". He released all the rest of the code and made it loadable so it didn't have to be compiled into the kernel. It was pulled from the kernel and he got a large amount of "I think unwarranted" hate email. So it is the same thing. You must live with the licenses you work under. If you don't like you can leave. If you are too much a stickler for the license you can sometime tick off good people with really useful code.
"Not according to IBM and Intel. The added cost of a full 16bit bus, support chips and of course the CPU made it too expensive to consider." Which is why they where using it in the Display Writer. The 8088 at this time was pretty much a failure well if not a failure it was just sort of their. Even the 8086 was just sort of their with little interest. The present was the Z-80 for business and 6502 for home. The future was going to be the 68000, Z-8000, and 32032.
"Yes, I think they would have. No... I'm sorry, I should rephrase that. They HAD to as they were still under a consent decree with the government." Nope. IBM was under threat to be broken up. Frankly that threat really messed up the computer industry in a big way. The IBM mini-computer line was a real mess. IBM want to be sure that they could split it off with as a new company cleanly so they made sure it was very different from their big iron. The S32 was nothing like the 360 and it's replacement the S38 was nothing like the 360 or the S32. IBM then came out with the S36 for the S32 users to migrate too. From a customer point of view it was a terrible mess. If you started out with the S32 it was really painful to move to the S38. If you outgrew the S38 you had a super painful migration up to the 360-370 line. But nothing stopped IBM from making their own CPUs and OS's. IBM actually made a PC360 that had a custom 68000 that ran 360 code. So there was no legal reason that IBM couldn't have at least written it's own OS. The reason they didn't was that they thought it was just a test balloon.
PC clones where not down to 500 by then. I know I worked at computer store. I think the Sanyo 550 was close that but it wasn't really PC compatible. Also it isn't fair to compare the Amiga to a PC. It was much closer to an AT class machine. Here is a PC from around that time. The Z-148 it was priced around from $1899 to $2199. That was with one floppy and I think 256 k of ram. The Amiga 1000 that shipped at the same time cost around $1995 for one Floppy and 256k but they always would throw in the 512 and the second floppy. Both prices where for 1985 which is when both shipped.
I was talking about the Instruction Set Architecture when I used ISA. The ISA buss wasn't terrible for the time but they should have use the S-100 buss since it was a standard already. Of course IBM also reversed the gender on the serial port adapter from the standard and then used the serial port gender and a DB-25 connector for the parallel printer port instead of the standard Centronics printer port..
And had no dedicated arrow keys on the keyboard and a messed up keyboard layout.
The truth is that PC was thrown together out of spare parts and bits. IBM used the 8088 because they already used it in the Display writer! The PC was really at test balloon. IBM was seeing if people would buy a PC from them. If it sold then IBM was going to make their REAL PC! The PC sold too well and IBM was stuck with it. Think about it. Do you think IBM would have created the PC. The one that would become that standard and use. 1. An Intel CPU. 2. An Operating System from Microsoft? I mean really? IBM? You think that IBM would create the standard PC that was so easy to clone that everybody and their dog could clone it? Even better clone it and make Intel and Microsoft rich and not pay IBM a dime? Really? The monster that was IBM at the time? Nope If IBM could do it all over again my bet is that the PC would have used an IBM CPU running a subset of the 360s ISA and an IBM OS. Then IBM would have made as much money from the clones as Microsoft and Intel combined. The PC was a terrible test system that was too big of hit to replace.
Not really. The 8088 in the PC was clocked at only 4.77 MHZ by that time multiple vendors where shipping Z-80s that where clocked at 6 or even 8 MHZ. The larger address space really didn't come in to play at that time since the PC ships standard with 16k and maxed out at 256k. Also 6502s at two to three Mhz where also available. I would also say that the it is arguable that the x86 ISA was better then the 6809. The 68000 was available at that time and frankly would have been fine at the HUGE price point that IBM introduced the PC. The Amiga and ST where every bit the match in performance for the much more expensive AT. The PC sold because of IBMs name. I was there and everybody thought IBM==computers. The PC was a TERRIBLE standard but one we got stuck with.
Yes they do. What I wonder is just how much a GPS signal really varies over time. I don't have access to a GPS system to play with but just how how quickly does a stationary GPS receiver say it is moving around? The reason I was wondering is just how effective would it be to get GPS receiver and place it at a fixed point and then connect it to a mobile GPS device with say a Zigbee radio link. It should be trivial to take the two locations and find the distance from one to the other. Since all the "errors" should be the same for both devices you should get a very accurate location of your mobile devices distance a direction from the fixed base.
Back to the WAAS and LAAS. One does wonder why they didn't add LAAS to every VOR station. Maybe on a sub carrier to the Morse signal.
It could be but lets be fair. WebOS has a better UI than Android. WebOS has Multitasking which even iPhoneOS only sort of kinda has.
The one area that WebOS really was weak in was the SDK. The whole "javascript+HTML" thing is very limiting. The new PDK will give you access to C and some real performance and hardware access.
From just a UI point of view WebOS is a better choice than both of those for a tablet. So maybe it will be a good alternative to both.
You know this desire to have a "Standard" really isn't a good thing. There was a lot of innovation and excitement when we had Apple, Atari, Commodore, Ti, Radioshack, and goodness knows how many others fighting it out.
When IBM came and "created" a standard the standard SUCKED. The 8088 was a terrible CPU with a terrible ISA. Systems like the Atari ST, and Amiga which where cheaper, more powerful, and offered features that MS-DOS wouldn't have for years could never compete. Do we really want to dismiss alternative this early in a new and important market like the mobile space? I mean lets be honest it would have been easy to say that the iPhone was going to be an also ran to WinCE/Mobile and PalmOS. I mean look how many devices and applications those OSs had!
Yes but you left out the other side. Adobe wants to keep making money selling Flash Tools. They do not want people to move off of Flash because they have control over Flash so they will always have the best tools for Flash development. Adobe will also keep updating the Flash player so you will need to spend big bucks to buy the latest development tools for Flash. Also Adobe can just kill support for any platform that it wishes at anytime. Even without killing they can lag bringing out an update to the Flash player for that platform like they have done to Linux and the Mac in the past. Not to mention the lack of a Linux Shockwave player. Also Adobe has failed to provide a good workable Mobile Flash solution. Flash-Lite sucks and Flash 10.1 for mobile is still not shipping "Beta==not shipping". So yes it really is all about money and control. The thing is it is about money and control ON BOTH SIDES!
You can? Maybe sort of but if you are going to develop for Windows you will have Windows and for Linux for Linux? But can you develop for the XBox 360 on Linux? Mac? Solaris? What about WindowsMobile and CE? "Wine doesn't count".
A. The notebook was not stolen. B. I do not think that believing the notebook is stolen is probably cause to start recording. To track and recover yes but since audio and video recording would not aid in the recovery activating such a feature without out a warrant would be very iffy at best. C. Yes there was a big freaking expectation of privacy.
"one of the biggest problems in our current form of government is a lack of involvement in and lack of importance placed on our democracy. " Technology can not fix that problem. 1. There is no lack of information. Really folks we have more information than we know what to do with. If anything we have a lack of good editing of information. 2. Technology doesn't solve social problems.
"The ability to spread information so quickly and so ubiquitously could definitely be a useful tool for this, methinks." The problem is the vast majority of people confuse "information" with "opinion". In some ways I fear that media explosion has made things worse not better. Right now you can find on TV and or the Web some "news" source that will spin the news exactly how you think it should be spun. Odds are you will be convinced that this is the "truth" and will be disgusted that the "mainstream" press refuses to publish the "truth". The problem is way to much of it is opinion and emotional manipulation. I honestly think that people should seek out the source of news that they feel is the most biased to the way that they think "within some limits of reason" and use that as their source of news. That way you will tend to question all the facts and throw out the opinion. Nope I actually feel the the explosion of blogs and other such sources of opinion disguised as information is a big negative in our society. It leads to polarization and uncompromising politics. Uncompromising politics is the very definition of partisan gridlock.
Jumping through hoops is having to turn on the repositories that have it and reading the legal warning. Not a big deal to you and eye but to some people it is. This is for "pre installed" Ubuntu systems so they can deliver it on the PC. If they put the free H.264 codec on the machine it would be a very dangerous thing for them to do legally.
It is not mindless fud but the simple truth. Hey NOBODY would like to see the end of software patents more than I would but they are currently the law. I am not going to bust a companies chops for trying to deliver a good Linux experience to end users and avoiding a massive law suite that could shut them down! So I suggest that you pull your head out of the sand and understand what the situation for what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The UI is a maybe but it could be tweaked and frankly it really does need to be tweaked even for smart phones. The Android US is really lacking compared to WebOS and the iPhone IMHO.
BTW I have an Android phone.
Chrome perform batter? The OS or the applications?
The applications sure will not since they are webapps.
Dalvik could be improved to use JIT and cached code.
My guess is you will see that sooner rather than later. Also Android does allow you to use native code for parts of our app if needed.
The thing is your hung up on Android.
You could put in WebOS
Or iPhone OS
or even a new Linux that is optimized for these devices and for ease of maintenance like Android.
The point of Chrome OS is that you only use Web apps! So no native apps.
Cloud syncing? Android already does that. I good option mind you. BTW so does WebOS.
All your Apps?
I don't know about that. I want the apps on my phone to work in a different way than my apps on my desktop.
Chrome OS with apps is Android.
Gee so Chrome OS is for kids?
What about parental controls?
And doesn't that seem like a tiny market to you? Sure does to me so I just don't see the advantage.
Here you go.
Put a password on the Android Market Place.
Now your kids can not install anything.
Just as safe as Chrome OS and still more flexible.
Chrome OS doesn't allow native apps.
That is the point.
It wasn't just them Small businesses wanted them because now they could own a "real" computer.
Apple computers where for kids at home to play games on.
The flip side was we sold a lot of Kaypros to a nearby research center. Several of the folks there bought Osborne luggables and where buying moitors and cables to make them usable. They had a tiny screen. Once they saw the Kaypro which had a much bigger screen they where sold.
Then we had the Airforce bases that kept us in business with all the Zenith repairs and purchases.
Just to show how bad the PC really was. The Air Force standardized on the Z-100. The Z-100 cost about the same as a PC but...
It had both an 8088 or was it an 8086? and an 8085. It could run CP/M and Z-DOS which was a version of MS-DOS.
It also had much better graphics than the PC and used the S-100 bus.
Oh and had a MUCH better keyboard.
I think it only sold well to the military. We didn't move a lot of Zeniths until the 151, 158, 138, and so on came out and where PC compatible.
The 68k was a much better CPU. You never had to deal with segments! It had a flat memory model from the start. Something Intel wouldn't have until the 386 came along many years later.
x86 and MS DOS Was a terrible standard that held back software development for years.
The X86 is slowly fixing a lot of it's issues but always at a cost. We finally got a flat address space with the 386 and then we finally got more registers when AMD gave use the X86-64 extensions.
Just because it works doesn't mean that it wasn't a long and painful road to get here.
And frankly It could have been a much better road.
So tell me.
Why is an OS that you can only use web applications on better than one that you can use web applications on and native apps on?
Any increase in ease of use over say an Android or WebOS smartphone would be marginal at best.
A lack of native apps and local storage would mean that the user really would need to pay for an mobile data plan in addition to the cost of their cell phone which is not cheap.
Roaming data charges overseas are very expensive...
I see no advantage in these limitations do you?
We have them.
They are called Android, WebOS, and iPhone phones. And now the iPad.
Plus it is just a terrible idea that is crippled from the start.
Lets take two device.
1. Chrome OS
and
2. Android.
From the end user point of view what can Chrome do that Android can not?
I am sure that the Web Apps that run on Chrome OS will work just as well on the Android browser. Unless Google cripples Android which I do not see.
So the Android smartbook can run all the apps that Chrome OS will
So 1 point for each Chrome and Android.
What about all the Android apps that are available on the market place? Well Chrome will not run them but Android will.
So 1 point for Android and zero for Chrome OS.
Now from a developers point of view.
If they want to make a web app do they target Chrome OS or Android? Well no need to choose. Both work just fine. So here is a tie.
Now suppose the developer doesn't want to run a server? He just wants to write an app. Chrome OS is out of luck but Android is just fine. Plus one for android.
Suppose the developer wants to sell the app and not depend on advertising? Well the develper could offer subscriptions on line but it is so much easier to just sell the app. another for android.
Suppose the developer wants the app to only work on a lan that doesn't have an internet connection? You may be able to do something with Gears but again an app is just a clean simple solution.
A browser only OS is a limited OS.
Any gains in ease of use will be very limited compared to what we have already gotten with smart phones.
Chrome OS is a case of philosophy over functionality and to be honest IMHO greed. Google thinks it can make more money off of ads than it has off of apps IMHO.
No not be the strict definition of RISC. That is to be expected since the 6502 predates the term RISC. But as you posted it was very RISC like in design and feel.
Actually it was the x86 that had a multipexed buss that caused a performance hit compared to the Z80.
If the program would fit in the 64k address space of the Z80 odds are very good that an 8Mhz Z80 would clean the 4.77 Mhz 8088s clock.
Z80 had register pairs. You could combine to eight bit registers into one 16 bit one.
Also you are talking about CPUs that had no FPUs anyway.
The 8088 just wasn't that big of an improvement over the Z80 and some people would say except for that added memory space it wasn't an improvement at all.
Frankly some would say even the expanded memory space wasn't a real improvement over just bank switching!
The whole 16 bit think was actually a lot of marketing hype. Also back then clock speed back then meant everything! CPUs in the micro world executed one instruction at a time, there was no cache, and if you where lucky memory worked at clock speed with no wait states!
The X86 had no real tick of tick advantage over the Z80.
Now the 6502 was a lot faster per clock than the Z80 and because it ran at a slower clock speed it never had any wait states.
The 6502 was the first risk chip.
Yes I know it is a differential GPS but I was going to add some other features. It is for a DIY Drone idea I had.
I was going to make a small ground base to aid in landing. I would feed in the differential data along with air pressure, temperature, wind speed, and direction. What I was wondering is was would a DIY differential system be of any use.
Would they error that it was trying to correct for get out of sync and make it actually less accurate than just GPS.
I would put the base station at launch point in a field and the drone would know the best direction to try and land in. BTW this would be a light slow drone so that it will not hurt anyone if it smacks into them and would have a manual override system.
As to the VOR providing LAAS service I have to wonder just how expensive it would really be?
1. The VORs already have power.
2. The VORs are already at a known location.
All you would have to do is add a GPS receiver and the equipment to add the data channel to the transmitter.
The problem is how long would it take for pilots to add the special receivers to use the data channel.
Since a lot of VORs are already near airports it seems like a good upgrade to the existing VOR system. Of course adding things like wind speed, direction, temperature, and altimeter settings to the data packets would be nice. An actual all digital upgrade would be even better but the costs for that would be very expensive.
Okay there is a difference or actually not one in this case.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL. Both Linus and Joe knew that and have agreed to it from the start.
So now Joe has some super memory manager code that he wants to put in the Kernel! He then wants to give the Kernel to people to use but not the Source! The Joes Kernel is now five times faster only used 16k of ram, and has passed every security test known to man! He isn't going to charge a dime to use it but he wants to keep the black magic voodoo he did to him self! RMS and FSF release the legal dogs from hell on Joe!
Why? Because the GPL says that Joe is being evil.
If you think that is far fetched here is one that happened.
A programmer had signed an NDA for a very popular webcam chip. Because of that he couldn't release one small part of the code for the driver "the part that uncompressed the frame". He released all the rest of the code and made it loadable so it didn't have to be compiled into the kernel. It was pulled from the kernel and he got a large amount of "I think unwarranted" hate email.
So it is the same thing. You must live with the licenses you work under. If you don't like you can leave.
If you are too much a stickler for the license you can sometime tick off good people with really useful code.
"Not according to IBM and Intel. The added cost of a full 16bit bus, support chips and of course the CPU made it too expensive to consider."
Which is why they where using it in the Display Writer. The 8088 at this time was pretty much a failure well if not a failure it was just sort of their. Even the 8086 was just sort of their with little interest. The present was the Z-80 for business and 6502 for home. The future was going to be the 68000, Z-8000, and 32032.
"Yes, I think they would have. No... I'm sorry, I should rephrase that. They HAD to as they were still under a consent decree with the government."
Nope. IBM was under threat to be broken up. Frankly that threat really messed up the computer industry in a big way. The IBM mini-computer line was a real mess. IBM want to be sure that they could split it off with as a new company cleanly so they made sure it was very different from their big iron.
The S32 was nothing like the 360 and it's replacement the S38 was nothing like the 360 or the S32. IBM then came out with the S36 for the S32 users to migrate too.
From a customer point of view it was a terrible mess. If you started out with the S32 it was really painful to move to the S38. If you outgrew the S38 you had a super painful migration up to the 360-370 line.
But nothing stopped IBM from making their own CPUs and OS's. IBM actually made a PC360 that had a custom 68000 that ran 360 code.
So there was no legal reason that IBM couldn't have at least written it's own OS. The reason they didn't was that they thought it was just a test balloon.
PC clones where not down to 500 by then. I know I worked at computer store. I think the Sanyo 550 was close that but it wasn't really PC compatible.
Also it isn't fair to compare the Amiga to a PC. It was much closer to an AT class machine.
Here is a PC from around that time. The Z-148 it was priced around from $1899 to $2199. That was with one floppy and I think 256 k of ram. The Amiga 1000 that shipped at the same time cost around $1995 for one Floppy and 256k but they always would throw in the 512 and the second floppy. Both prices where for 1985 which is when both shipped.
I was talking about the Instruction Set Architecture when I used ISA. The ISA buss wasn't terrible for the time but they should have use the S-100 buss since it was a standard already. Of course IBM also reversed the gender on the serial port adapter from the standard and then used the serial port gender and a DB-25 connector for the parallel printer port instead of the standard Centronics printer port..
And had no dedicated arrow keys on the keyboard and a messed up keyboard layout.
The truth is that PC was thrown together out of spare parts and bits. IBM used the 8088 because they already used it in the Display writer!
The PC was really at test balloon. IBM was seeing if people would buy a PC from them. If it sold then IBM was going to make their REAL PC!
The PC sold too well and IBM was stuck with it.
Think about it. Do you think IBM would have created the PC. The one that would become that standard and use.
1. An Intel CPU.
2. An Operating System from Microsoft?
I mean really? IBM?
You think that IBM would create the standard PC that was so easy to clone that everybody and their dog could clone it? Even better clone it and make Intel and Microsoft rich and not pay IBM a dime?
Really? The monster that was IBM at the time?
Nope If IBM could do it all over again my bet is that the PC would have used an IBM CPU running a subset of the 360s ISA and an IBM OS.
Then IBM would have made as much money from the clones as Microsoft and Intel combined.
The PC was a terrible test system that was too big of hit to replace.
Not really. The 8088 in the PC was clocked at only 4.77 MHZ by that time multiple vendors where shipping Z-80s that where clocked at 6 or even 8 MHZ. The larger address space really didn't come in to play at that time since the PC ships standard with 16k and maxed out at 256k. Also 6502s at two to three Mhz where also available.
I would also say that the it is arguable that the x86 ISA was better then the 6809.
The 68000 was available at that time and frankly would have been fine at the HUGE price point that IBM introduced the PC.
The Amiga and ST where every bit the match in performance for the much more expensive AT.
The PC sold because of IBMs name. I was there and everybody thought IBM==computers.
The PC was a TERRIBLE standard but one we got stuck with.
Yes they do. What I wonder is just how much a GPS signal really varies over time.
I don't have access to a GPS system to play with but just how how quickly does a stationary GPS receiver say it is moving around?
The reason I was wondering is just how effective would it be to get GPS receiver and place it at a fixed point and then connect it to a mobile GPS device with say a Zigbee radio link. It should be trivial to take the two locations and find the distance from one to the other. Since all the "errors" should be the same for both devices you should get a very accurate location of your mobile devices distance a direction from the fixed base.
Back to the WAAS and LAAS. One does wonder why they didn't add LAAS to every VOR station. Maybe on a sub carrier to the Morse signal.
Actually if one nuked it there would be no debris except of a lot of radiation.
It could be but lets be fair.
WebOS has a better UI than Android.
WebOS has Multitasking which even iPhoneOS only sort of kinda has.
The one area that WebOS really was weak in was the SDK. The whole "javascript+HTML" thing is very limiting. The new PDK will give you access to C and some real performance and hardware access.
From just a UI point of view WebOS is a better choice than both of those for a tablet.
So maybe it will be a good alternative to both.
You know this desire to have a "Standard" really isn't a good thing. There was a lot of innovation and excitement when we had Apple, Atari, Commodore, Ti, Radioshack, and goodness knows how many others fighting it out.
When IBM came and "created" a standard the standard SUCKED. The 8088 was a terrible CPU with a terrible ISA. Systems like the Atari ST, and Amiga which where cheaper, more powerful, and offered features that MS-DOS wouldn't have for years could never compete.
Do we really want to dismiss alternative this early in a new and important market like the mobile space?
I mean lets be honest it would have been easy to say that the iPhone was going to be an also ran to WinCE/Mobile and PalmOS. I mean look how many devices and applications those OSs had!
Yes but you left out the other side.
Adobe wants to keep making money selling Flash Tools. They do not want people to move off of Flash because they have control over Flash so they will always have the best tools for Flash development.
Adobe will also keep updating the Flash player so you will need to spend big bucks to buy the latest development tools for Flash.
Also Adobe can just kill support for any platform that it wishes at anytime. Even without killing they can lag bringing out an update to the Flash player for that platform like they have done to Linux and the Mac in the past. Not to mention the lack of a Linux Shockwave player.
Also Adobe has failed to provide a good workable Mobile Flash solution. Flash-Lite sucks and Flash 10.1 for mobile is still not shipping "Beta==not shipping".
So yes it really is all about money and control. The thing is it is about money and control ON BOTH SIDES!
You can?
Maybe sort of but if you are going to develop for Windows you will have Windows and for Linux for Linux?
But can you develop for the XBox 360 on Linux? Mac? Solaris?
What about WindowsMobile and CE? "Wine doesn't count".
A. The notebook was not stolen.
B. I do not think that believing the notebook is stolen is probably cause to start recording. To track and recover yes but since audio and video recording would not aid in the recovery activating such a feature without out a warrant would be very iffy at best.
C. Yes there was a big freaking expectation of privacy.
"one of the biggest problems in our current form of government is a lack of involvement in and lack of importance placed on our democracy. "
Technology can not fix that problem.
1. There is no lack of information. Really folks we have more information than we know what to do with. If anything we have a lack of good editing of information.
2. Technology doesn't solve social problems.
"The ability to spread information so quickly and so ubiquitously could definitely be a useful tool for this, methinks."
The problem is the vast majority of people confuse "information" with "opinion".
In some ways I fear that media explosion has made things worse not better.
Right now you can find on TV and or the Web some "news" source that will spin the news exactly how you think it should be spun. Odds are you will be convinced that this is the "truth" and will be disgusted that the "mainstream" press refuses to publish the "truth". The problem is way to much of it is opinion and emotional manipulation. I honestly think that people should seek out the source of news that they feel is the most biased to the way that they think "within some limits of reason" and use that as their source of news.
That way you will tend to question all the facts and throw out the opinion.
Nope I actually feel the the explosion of blogs and other such sources of opinion disguised as information is a big negative in our society. It leads to polarization and uncompromising politics. Uncompromising politics is the very definition of partisan gridlock.
Jumping through hoops is having to turn on the repositories that have it and reading the legal warning.
Not a big deal to you and eye but to some people it is.
This is for "pre installed" Ubuntu systems so they can deliver it on the PC.
If they put the free H.264 codec on the machine it would be a very dangerous thing for them to do legally.
It is not mindless fud but the simple truth.
Hey NOBODY would like to see the end of software patents more than I would but they are currently the law.
I am not going to bust a companies chops for trying to deliver a good Linux experience to end users and avoiding a massive law suite that could shut them down!
So I suggest that you pull your head out of the sand and understand what the situation for what it is.