"Well if you want to get into semantics, then what's being done about the Apple monopoly on music players?"
75% (more or less) is not a monopoly.
"but what point I was trying to make is with the OS X Operating System, Apple has a complete stranglehold on their software and where it can be used"
And with the Wii and it's OS, Nintendo has created a complete stranglehold where their OS can be used.
"Even MS is not allowed to dictate what hardware can and can't be used with their software"
OK, try running the Xbox-OS on something else besides an Xbox. ANd the situation with WIndows is different, because Microsofts business is OS'es (among other things), not the computers that run it, whereas Apple is in the computer-business, the OS is simply an addition to the computer. Their business-models are diametrically opposed in many ways.
"so why would we let Apple do this"
Why not? Do yiou think that you and everyone else is entitled to OS X on any piece of hardware they want?
What makes you think that Apple is somehow required to adopt MS's business-strategy of selling OS'es to anyone who wants them, or that the MS-way is the only correct way? Apple sells the computer and the OS as a coherent whole, and the OS is not supposed to be used outside their computer. We had same thing with SGI-workstations (IRIX), AmigaOS and Amigas and so forth.
"We're talking about running said OS on any compatible piece of hardware that you want, not cracking it or using it for illegal purposes."
Is there something magical in the iPhone-hardware? I don't think so. It uses the same ARM-processors everyone else is using as well. So what's the difference?
"not cracking it or using it for illegal purposes."
Well, there are reports that Psystar has cracked OS X in order to make automatic updates work for example.
Your entire argument is basically that "since OS X is available at retail, you should be able to do whatever you want with it!". I mean, that's the difference between OS X and the iPhone-OS.
Yes, they did pull it, and I don't really understand why. And no, he's not whining about that, but he is whining about the fact that it was available at the store, and that 8 people bought it.
"You are comparing apples and oranges. Mac OSX is sitting on store shelves (in the few places that actually sell apple software) but they are discriminatory in who they allow to run it."
So, if some piece of software is available in computer-stores, it means that you should be allowed to do anything you want with it? So if some store sells a Linux-distribution, some company could buy a copy of it, and use it any way they want, even if it means breaking the license (GPL)? Would that be acceptable? If not, then why breaking the EULA of OS X suddenly is acceptable?
"What you are referring to with the Samsung and Apple thing is a technology patent, completely different situation. But thanks for playing, tell him what his consolation prize is..."
No, I'm referring to the OS that runs in the iPhone, not some singular feature of that OS (the multitouch-OS). Apple created it, and they are discriminating when deciding who can't and can't use that OS. And according to you, that's wrong.
"For certain values of rapid. They gain a few percentage points a year, which means they're only 20 years from dominance!"
Considering their market-share, the increases they have made are pretty darn good. If they get "few percentage-points a year", it means that their market-share is increasing by about 50% every year. If their share was 5% and they got 2-3 percentage-points more, it would be significant.
It takes time to dislodge an entrenched player in the market. Hell, AMD didn't manage to do that to Intel, even though AMD had a superior product (Athlon, and then Athlon64/Opteron), and they started with a bigger share than Apple did (Apple started from about 5%, AMD started from (IIRC) about 12-15%).
Um, it was actually the developer of the app that sold the "I am rich"-app, the sale just took place in Apple's store. ANd what should Apple have done? Pulled the app from the store? Why exactly? If they did that, you would be whining here how "Apple is abusing their power by dictating to developers what apps tey can and can not sell!".
And yes, Apple has the capability to disable apps. But they will not take advantage of that capability easily. It wiould be stupid for them to do so. And how do you know that if the app you bought gets disabled for some reason, you will not receive a refund? Citation please.
"Just because Apple makes their own OS shouldn't allow them the right to squash anyone who wants to license Apple's OS and sell their own hardware."
Sure they could. Or do you think that Samsung (for example) should be able to walk over to Apple and say "We would really like to use that Multitouch-OS of yours in our phone. So hand it over!", and Apple would be forced to oblige them?
"magsafe has always stuck me as a bit of a half baked idea, how often is the power cord really the only thing hanging out of your laptop?"
Powercord is usually the only thing that is going to the floor. Sure, I have an external display and few USB-devices hooked up to this machine as we speak. But no-ne can trip on those cables, since the cables remains on the desk. Only cable that reaches the floor is the power-cable.
Sure, I might be able to damage the machine if I grabbed the display-cable and yanked hard, but I couldn't really do that accidentally. Tripping on the powercord is something that could be done by accident.
"I'm the opposite, I find the lack of a hdd led on the macbook rather annoying. when something is taking quite a bit of time with no decent progress indication I find it very reasuring to have an indication that there is disk activity. Hard drive noise used to fulfill this requirement but modern laptop drives are too quiet."
I have never really had any need for the HD-light. If I really, REALLY need to find out that whether the HD is doing something, I could always put my ear to the machine and listen to the HD. But I have never had any reason to do that.
Not really. If something that is not supposed to creack and flex creacks and flexes, then it feels "cheap".
"Unless your laptop's primary function is to rub it against yourself, I don't see how it "feels" as a major feature."
When I type on the laptops keyboard, the machine constantly rubs against my hands...
"Also, I don't recall, are standard Macbooks made of aluminum as well?"
Nope. But then again, I was comparing MBP to a comparable HP.
"Discussed above."
You might feel that size weight is not important when it comes to laptops, but I will respectfully disagree.
"This depends on your peripherals. I don't tend to use firewire."
Maybe that's because your computer does not have good support in that area? My MBP has FW800-port, and my external HD happens to support FW800.
"So, for you, prettiness is a major feature. For me it is not."
No, it's not a "major feature". It just happens that I prefer pretty things over ugly things, everything else being equal. Maybe I'm strange in that way.
"If I may be blunt: perhaps the reason they do not appear is because nearly all of them are completely irrelevant to the actual functionality of the laptop."
No, they are not "irrelevant". Is it irrelevant that on one laptop you can comfortably use the machine in low-light conditions, whereas you can't with the other? Is it "irrelevant" that one PORTABLE computer is more portable than the other? And so forth.
"They might be features you like, but they hardly justify the harsh premium I would have to pay. To me it isn't worth it."
But there is no real premium. The price of the HP and the MBP was within 200e or so. And before you jump on that "harsh premium" of under 200e, there were some tangible specs that came along with that "premium", like bigger HD on the MBP (160GB on the MBP, 120GB (or was it 80GB?) on the HP and N-spec WiFI (HP had G-spec). So the actual price-difference between the two machines is something like 100e or so, maybe even less. And for that money I got a machine that is smaller, lighter and has genuinely useful features (backlit keyboard, FW800, better design (or, "prettier" as you put it), Magsafe etc...
"Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases."
Even a "small" difference in weight is a huge difference in the long run.
"Such as the pretty case? I'm sure you have good examples, so please share them so that I might consider them."
As it happens, I used simultaneously two different laptops, one my MacBook Pro at home, the other my company-issued HP-laptop. Specwise there was no huge difference between the two, but in actual usage, the difference was huge.
- HP felt cheaper and flimsy, MBP felt sturdy and solid
- MBP had a backlit keyboard which made typing in low-light conditions easy and great. HP had nothing like that. Also the keyboard on the MBP was better than on the HP.
- MBP is made of aluminum, HP was made from plastic. The metal simply feels better during use.
- MBP was considerably thinner, and therefore easier to carry. It was also lighter than the HP.
- MBP had FW800-port, which was (and is) very useful when using it with my external HD's.
- The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.
- Then there's the overall design. MBP had smooth and clean lines, HP was jagged, full of stickers, unclean surfaces etc. HP was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me Some people might not care. But then again, some people prefer Ladas....
Those are all qualities that do not appear in the comparisons where people proclaim "But you can get X MHz more on the PC than on the Mac for the same amount of money!".
And I only listed qualities that I used, there are others that I had no need for, but are still present. Like the optical audiojacks in the MBP.
So, weight is a non-issue on a device that is meant to be carried with you? O.... K....
The problem with the Mac vs. PC-comparison is that 98% of them rely on paper-specs. People stare at the specs and the price and then determine the "winner". What they utterly fail to understand is that there are more to computers than mere specs.
It's like choosing your car by comparing their specs in Excel.
"They have their own little market which worships them and which Apple accordingly serves and they don't see much action outside of it."
Their market-share has been going up for quite some time already. And the iPod/iPhone certainly caters to people outside Mac-users as well. But then again, your comment applies to just about any other company as well. Microsoft has 90+% market-share in the desktop, but you don't see much action outside it. If they did, then they would have even bigger share. But they don't.... Circular reasoning.
"Where and how much? Certainly not to the level of other companies and I've never taken advantage of any of their offerings."
They contribute to GCC quite a bit. They also practically own CUPS and employ it's head-developer. WebKit has been a trendemous boost to KHTML. QuickTime streaming Server is open source...
"The "great" part is again subjective, Imagine that since I don't like using Apples I wont much enjoy programming for them either. Also every other major OS maker offers the API to their platform free of cost too."
But it's a question how good those API's are.
"You could also do the same thing with say The Windows Mobile platform "
Maybe you could, but they (MS, handset-maker etc.) haven't done it, so it's all academical. Compared to iPhone, installation of apps in just about any other handset/PDA is a chore, and the barrier to install new apps is very high.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! You guys have gasoline that costs a bit over 1 buck per liter. We have gasoline that costs about 1.4 EUROS per liter, and we are doing fine.
What a bunch of fucking crybabies. "Gasoline is too expensive!". Boo-frigging-hoo!
"If Microsoft wanted.NET to be Windows-only, why have this dialogue with the Mono developers at all?"
Well, why do we need Mono at all? If MS wants.Net to be cross-platform, why don't they port it to other systems? Why do we need a separate project (Mono) for that?
How about changing the gravitational constant of the universe, therefore making the asteroid lighter and easier to move? And don't you start telling me how "changing the gravitational constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities." or some other crap like that!
"You say that as if this is some magical, never-seen-before new technology in KDE4"
No, it's not really new in KDE4, since that technology existed in KDE since KDE2.
"Gnome has Bonobo"
Which practically is not used ANYWHERE. Kontact is merely a collection of separate apps (Kmail etc.) embedded together with Kparts. Is there anythins similar in Gnome? you can embed Konsole in to Konqueror, thanks to Kparts. How about Gnome? Filemanagement in Dolhin and Konqueror is just a filemanagement Kpart that can be used in either app. How about Gnome?
So can we really say that "Gnome has similar technology" if that technology is not used anywhere? Yes, Gnome has Bonobo, but it's not used at all. KDE has Kparts, and unlike bonobo, it's actually extensively used across the desktop.
"and now D-bus"
Um, Dbus is an interprocess communications protocol, similar to DCOP in KDE (which has been replaced by Dbus in KDE4). And, BTW, DCOP preceded Dbus by a quite a margin.
"That's what I'm curious about. Having 2 cores is enough for most consumers, one for the OS and background tasks and one for the application you're using. And that's overkill for most users."
But with dozens (if not more) cores, individual tasks are (or rather, should be) broken up more.
So you talk about having "one core for the OS". Well, the OS could be doing system-wide spellchecking, so that task could get one core dedicated to it. the search-tool could be indexing the HD and creating semantic connections between files and people, so that task gets a dedicated core. And so forth. And I didn't even mention "generic house-keeping".
As to the app I'm using.... suppose it's a app to manage my photo-libraary. One core is busy creating previews for my images, another core is busy indexing the photos, third core is busy adjusting the exposure, since I'm editing one of the pictures.
Or what if I'm playing a game? One core could be handling the physics, anoter might be handling the sound (each channel could have a dedicated core), another core could be setting up the graphics, preparing to push them to the GPU, another could be handling the AI (hell, individual AI-elements in the game could get an individual core!)...
That's already a bunch of cores being used right there.
Yes, we had it back when laptops were very expensive and had a fraction of the performance they have today. But as I guessed, you couldn't name any real need that requires a laptop with 20-hour battery-life.
So what exactly are you doing with your computer that requires something like 20-hour (the longevity you mentioned in your earlier post) battery-life? Last time I checked, there's 24 hours in a day, and we sleep roughly 8 of those hours. That leaves you 16 hours of potential computer-use a day. And none of us spend every single waking moment sitting on an untethered computer. If you do, then your problem is not laptop-batteries, but your lifestyle.
"Shit, even "portable" TELEPHONES are starting to need charging every day. That's pathetic."
I charge my phone every day. When I go to sleep, I plug it in. I unplug it when I wake up. Yes, I can see why that is such a big pain in the ass....
The reason why Stalin and the commies were "atheists" was because they saw the Orthodox Church as a potential adversary to their rule. After all, the church was quite close to the Tsar, and deep down, Russians were a religious people. And if their religious leader had told them that their political leaders are godless heathens, things could have gotten ugly for the commies. But when Germany invaded USSR, Staling went to a mass and prayed.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well if you want to get into semantics, then what's being done about the Apple monopoly on music players?"
75% (more or less) is not a monopoly.
"but what point I was trying to make is with the OS X Operating System, Apple has a complete stranglehold on their software and where it can be used"
And with the Wii and it's OS, Nintendo has created a complete stranglehold where their OS can be used.
"Even MS is not allowed to dictate what hardware can and can't be used with their software"
OK, try running the Xbox-OS on something else besides an Xbox. ANd the situation with WIndows is different, because Microsofts business is OS'es (among other things), not the computers that run it, whereas Apple is in the computer-business, the OS is simply an addition to the computer. Their business-models are diametrically opposed in many ways.
"so why would we let Apple do this"
Why not? Do yiou think that you and everyone else is entitled to OS X on any piece of hardware they want?
What makes you think that Apple is somehow required to adopt MS's business-strategy of selling OS'es to anyone who wants them, or that the MS-way is the only correct way? Apple sells the computer and the OS as a coherent whole, and the OS is not supposed to be used outside their computer. We had same thing with SGI-workstations (IRIX), AmigaOS and Amigas and so forth.
MS has about 95% market-share, Apple has about 5% market-share. Yes, MS is a monopoly, Apple is not.
IS this REALLY that hard to understand?
"We're talking about running said OS on any compatible piece of hardware that you want, not cracking it or using it for illegal purposes."
Is there something magical in the iPhone-hardware? I don't think so. It uses the same ARM-processors everyone else is using as well. So what's the difference?
"not cracking it or using it for illegal purposes."
Well, there are reports that Psystar has cracked OS X in order to make automatic updates work for example.
Your entire argument is basically that "since OS X is available at retail, you should be able to do whatever you want with it!". I mean, that's the difference between OS X and the iPhone-OS.
That's crappy logic.
"No, I'm referring to the OS that runs in the iPhone, not some singular feature of that OS (the multitouch-OS)"
That should obviously be "The multitouch-UI"...
"Apple created it, and they are discriminating when deciding who can't and can't"
And that should be "can and can't". never post 10 minutes after waking up....
Yes, they did pull it, and I don't really understand why. And no, he's not whining about that, but he is whining about the fact that it was available at the store, and that 8 people bought it.
"You are comparing apples and oranges. Mac OSX is sitting on store shelves (in the few places that actually sell apple software) but they are discriminatory in who they allow to run it."
So, if some piece of software is available in computer-stores, it means that you should be allowed to do anything you want with it? So if some store sells a Linux-distribution, some company could buy a copy of it, and use it any way they want, even if it means breaking the license (GPL)? Would that be acceptable? If not, then why breaking the EULA of OS X suddenly is acceptable?
"What you are referring to with the Samsung and Apple thing is a technology patent, completely different situation. But thanks for playing, tell him what his consolation prize is..."
No, I'm referring to the OS that runs in the iPhone, not some singular feature of that OS (the multitouch-OS). Apple created it, and they are discriminating when deciding who can't and can't use that OS. And according to you, that's wrong.
"For certain values of rapid. They gain a few percentage points a year, which means they're only 20 years from dominance!"
Considering their market-share, the increases they have made are pretty darn good. If they get "few percentage-points a year", it means that their market-share is increasing by about 50% every year. If their share was 5% and they got 2-3 percentage-points more, it would be significant.
It takes time to dislodge an entrenched player in the market. Hell, AMD didn't manage to do that to Intel, even though AMD had a superior product (Athlon, and then Athlon64/Opteron), and they started with a bigger share than Apple did (Apple started from about 5%, AMD started from (IIRC) about 12-15%).
Um, it was actually the developer of the app that sold the "I am rich"-app, the sale just took place in Apple's store. ANd what should Apple have done? Pulled the app from the store? Why exactly? If they did that, you would be whining here how "Apple is abusing their power by dictating to developers what apps tey can and can not sell!".
And yes, Apple has the capability to disable apps. But they will not take advantage of that capability easily. It wiould be stupid for them to do so. And how do you know that if the app you bought gets disabled for some reason, you will not receive a refund? Citation please.
"Most probably know nothing about PalmOS or WindowsCE"
I have been using smartphones for years and I know practically nothing of PalmOS or WindowsCE.
No, I don't own an iPhone.
"Just because Apple makes their own OS shouldn't allow them the right to squash anyone who wants to license Apple's OS and sell their own hardware."
Sure they could. Or do you think that Samsung (for example) should be able to walk over to Apple and say "We would really like to use that Multitouch-OS of yours in our phone. So hand it over!", and Apple would be forced to oblige them?
Some strange logic you have there....
"magsafe has always stuck me as a bit of a half baked idea, how often is the power cord really the only thing hanging out of your laptop?"
Powercord is usually the only thing that is going to the floor. Sure, I have an external display and few USB-devices hooked up to this machine as we speak. But no-ne can trip on those cables, since the cables remains on the desk. Only cable that reaches the floor is the power-cable.
Sure, I might be able to damage the machine if I grabbed the display-cable and yanked hard, but I couldn't really do that accidentally. Tripping on the powercord is something that could be done by accident.
"I'm the opposite, I find the lack of a hdd led on the macbook rather annoying. when something is taking quite a bit of time with no decent progress indication I find it very reasuring to have an indication that there is disk activity. Hard drive noise used to fulfill this requirement but modern laptop drives are too quiet."
I have never really had any need for the HD-light. If I really, REALLY need to find out that whether the HD is doing something, I could always put my ear to the machine and listen to the HD. But I have never had any reason to do that.
"How things "feel" is subjective."
Not really. If something that is not supposed to creack and flex creacks and flexes, then it feels "cheap".
"Unless your laptop's primary function is to rub it against yourself, I don't see how it "feels" as a major feature."
When I type on the laptops keyboard, the machine constantly rubs against my hands...
"Also, I don't recall, are standard Macbooks made of aluminum as well?"
Nope. But then again, I was comparing MBP to a comparable HP.
"Discussed above."
You might feel that size weight is not important when it comes to laptops, but I will respectfully disagree.
"This depends on your peripherals. I don't tend to use firewire."
Maybe that's because your computer does not have good support in that area? My MBP has FW800-port, and my external HD happens to support FW800.
"So, for you, prettiness is a major feature. For me it is not."
No, it's not a "major feature". It just happens that I prefer pretty things over ugly things, everything else being equal. Maybe I'm strange in that way.
"If I may be blunt: perhaps the reason they do not appear is because nearly all of them are completely irrelevant to the actual functionality of the laptop."
No, they are not "irrelevant". Is it irrelevant that on one laptop you can comfortably use the machine in low-light conditions, whereas you can't with the other? Is it "irrelevant" that one PORTABLE computer is more portable than the other? And so forth.
"They might be features you like, but they hardly justify the harsh premium I would have to pay. To me it isn't worth it."
But there is no real premium. The price of the HP and the MBP was within 200e or so. And before you jump on that "harsh premium" of under 200e, there were some tangible specs that came along with that "premium", like bigger HD on the MBP (160GB on the MBP, 120GB (or was it 80GB?) on the HP and N-spec WiFI (HP had G-spec). So the actual price-difference between the two machines is something like 100e or so, maybe even less. And for that money I got a machine that is smaller, lighter and has genuinely useful features (backlit keyboard, FW800, better design (or, "prettier" as you put it), Magsafe etc...
"harsh premium" indeed...
"Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases."
Even a "small" difference in weight is a huge difference in the long run.
"Such as the pretty case? I'm sure you have good examples, so please share them so that I might consider them."
As it happens, I used simultaneously two different laptops, one my MacBook Pro at home, the other my company-issued HP-laptop. Specwise there was no huge difference between the two, but in actual usage, the difference was huge.
- HP felt cheaper and flimsy, MBP felt sturdy and solid
- MBP had a backlit keyboard which made typing in low-light conditions easy and great. HP had nothing like that. Also the keyboard on the MBP was better than on the HP.
- MBP is made of aluminum, HP was made from plastic. The metal simply feels better during use.
- MBP was considerably thinner, and therefore easier to carry. It was also lighter than the HP.
- MBP had FW800-port, which was (and is) very useful when using it with my external HD's.
- The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.
- Then there's the overall design. MBP had smooth and clean lines, HP was jagged, full of stickers, unclean surfaces etc. HP was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me Some people might not care. But then again, some people prefer Ladas....
Those are all qualities that do not appear in the comparisons where people proclaim "But you can get X MHz more on the PC than on the Mac for the same amount of money!".
And I only listed qualities that I used, there are others that I had no need for, but are still present. Like the optical audiojacks in the MBP.
"Weight is a non-issue in most laptops, sorry."
So, weight is a non-issue on a device that is meant to be carried with you? O.... K....
The problem with the Mac vs. PC-comparison is that 98% of them rely on paper-specs. People stare at the specs and the price and then determine the "winner". What they utterly fail to understand is that there are more to computers than mere specs.
It's like choosing your car by comparing their specs in Excel.
"They have their own little market which worships them and which Apple accordingly serves and they don't see much action outside of it."
Their market-share has been going up for quite some time already. And the iPod/iPhone certainly caters to people outside Mac-users as well. But then again, your comment applies to just about any other company as well. Microsoft has 90+% market-share in the desktop, but you don't see much action outside it. If they did, then they would have even bigger share. But they don't.... Circular reasoning.
"Where and how much? Certainly not to the level of other companies and I've never taken advantage of any of their offerings."
They contribute to GCC quite a bit. They also practically own CUPS and employ it's head-developer. WebKit has been a trendemous boost to KHTML. QuickTime streaming Server is open source...
"The "great" part is again subjective, Imagine that since I don't like using Apples I wont much enjoy programming for them either. Also every other major OS maker offers the API to their platform free of cost too."
But it's a question how good those API's are.
"You could also do the same thing with say The Windows Mobile platform "
Maybe you could, but they (MS, handset-maker etc.) haven't done it, so it's all academical. Compared to iPhone, installation of apps in just about any other handset/PDA is a chore, and the barrier to install new apps is very high.
"We have an oppressive tax on gasoline"
Bwahahahahahahahahaha! You guys have gasoline that costs a bit over 1 buck per liter. We have gasoline that costs about 1.4 EUROS per liter, and we are doing fine.
What a bunch of fucking crybabies. "Gasoline is too expensive!". Boo-frigging-hoo!
"If Microsoft wanted .NET to be Windows-only, why have this dialogue with the Mono developers at all?"
Well, why do we need Mono at all? If MS wants .Net to be cross-platform, why don't they port it to other systems? Why do we need a separate project (Mono) for that?
How about changing the gravitational constant of the universe, therefore making the asteroid lighter and easier to move? And don't you start telling me how "changing the gravitational constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities." or some other crap like that!
"You say that as if this is some magical, never-seen-before new technology in KDE4"
No, it's not really new in KDE4, since that technology existed in KDE since KDE2.
"Gnome has Bonobo"
Which practically is not used ANYWHERE. Kontact is merely a collection of separate apps (Kmail etc.) embedded together with Kparts. Is there anythins similar in Gnome? you can embed Konsole in to Konqueror, thanks to Kparts. How about Gnome? Filemanagement in Dolhin and Konqueror is just a filemanagement Kpart that can be used in either app. How about Gnome?
So can we really say that "Gnome has similar technology" if that technology is not used anywhere? Yes, Gnome has Bonobo, but it's not used at all. KDE has Kparts, and unlike bonobo, it's actually extensively used across the desktop.
"and now D-bus"
Um, Dbus is an interprocess communications protocol, similar to DCOP in KDE (which has been replaced by Dbus in KDE4). And, BTW, DCOP preceded Dbus by a quite a margin.
"That's what I'm curious about. Having 2 cores is enough for most consumers, one for the OS and background tasks and one for the application you're using. And that's overkill for most users."
But with dozens (if not more) cores, individual tasks are (or rather, should be) broken up more.
So you talk about having "one core for the OS". Well, the OS could be doing system-wide spellchecking, so that task could get one core dedicated to it. the search-tool could be indexing the HD and creating semantic connections between files and people, so that task gets a dedicated core. And so forth. And I didn't even mention "generic house-keeping".
As to the app I'm using.... suppose it's a app to manage my photo-libraary. One core is busy creating previews for my images, another core is busy indexing the photos, third core is busy adjusting the exposure, since I'm editing one of the pictures.
Or what if I'm playing a game? One core could be handling the physics, anoter might be handling the sound (each channel could have a dedicated core), another core could be setting up the graphics, preparing to push them to the GPU, another could be handling the AI (hell, individual AI-elements in the game could get an individual core!)...
That's already a bunch of cores being used right there.
"You'll find people complaining how heavy their Les Paul Custom is yet still play it for the sustain the extra weight provides."
Nigel Tufnel: The sustain, listen to it.
Marty DiBergi: I don't hear anything.
Nigel Tufnel: Well you would though, if it were playing.
Yes, we had it back when laptops were very expensive and had a fraction of the performance they have today. But as I guessed, you couldn't name any real need that requires a laptop with 20-hour battery-life.
Nano also consumes a lot more power, so the two CPU's are not really comparable. While Atom consumes about 1-4w, Nano consumes about 20w
"I'm saying seven hours is far from enough."
So what exactly are you doing with your computer that requires something like 20-hour (the longevity you mentioned in your earlier post) battery-life? Last time I checked, there's 24 hours in a day, and we sleep roughly 8 of those hours. That leaves you 16 hours of potential computer-use a day. And none of us spend every single waking moment sitting on an untethered computer. If you do, then your problem is not laptop-batteries, but your lifestyle.
"Shit, even "portable" TELEPHONES are starting to need charging every day. That's pathetic."
I charge my phone every day. When I go to sleep, I plug it in. I unplug it when I wake up. Yes, I can see why that is such a big pain in the ass....
The reason why Stalin and the commies were "atheists" was because they saw the Orthodox Church as a potential adversary to their rule. After all, the church was quite close to the Tsar, and deep down, Russians were a religious people. And if their religious leader had told them that their political leaders are godless heathens, things could have gotten ugly for the commies. But when Germany invaded USSR, Staling went to a mass and prayed.