"DEC Alpha chips were introduced in 1992 and were 64-bit. SPARC went 64-bit in 1995. MIPS went 64-bit in 1991. PA-RISC in 1996."
And how many did you see, across the board, in consumer grade "Bob Everyman" systems?
"How is this early?"
Because Intel was basically telling people (rightly) that they really didn't need 64-bit on consumer workstations and laptops for another 10-15 years. AMD said "we've got it and we're releasing it". The adoption of the x64 stuff by Intel only reinforces this.
"Also, Intel introduced the Itanium, a pure 64-bit chip in 2001."
Which SUCKS for general computing use, and requires ridiculously complex "intelligent" compilers to eke decent performance out of your code.
"They had a strange i860 chip in the late 80s that was 64-bit."
Misconception. The data buses were 64-bits wide. And the FPU register depth was 64-bit (however, today's FPU have registers 80-bit deep by comparison).
"I've been running 64-bit linux for about 10 years plus or minus 6 months."
When did this become about dicksizing?
"To me, I find the x86_64 stuff to be a hack and late to the game."
As has been said about just about EVERY x86 development for most of the last 30 years. However, there's a reason why x86 is still the dominant platform extant. Underneath all the hacks and kludges and other cruft, the basic platform is stable, completely documented, and TIME TESTED. As such, the development community is orders of magnitude larger than any other. And, as a byproduct, the user community, who only cares about getting their hands on their personal favorite app, is several more orders of magnitude larger still compared to the user space of every other platform extant COMBINED.
Yes, inertia may NOT be the best reason for holding on to a platform. However, as long as the platform does what's required of it, what's the legitimate bitch?
"Frankly I expected better from someone with a 4 digit ID."
You mean, you're disappointed because my POV doesn't move in lock-step with YOUR OWN sense of greater enlightenment?
Sorry.
Do I understand the military need the consortium that is developing it for? SURE!
Do I understand why the EU would want to rescue it? SURE!
"Anyway, it has fuck all to do with spite"
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe, if you repeat it often enough, you'll believe it.
"Whether you like it or not, the EU is gradually unifying into what will become a direct competitor to the US for world resources."
VERY gradually. If the EU's big players don't tear it apart due to self-interest.
"Oh, you don't think the EU would ever go to war against the US?"
Not if they actually want to survive as a functional government body.
And that's not a threat. That's FACT.
The whole rats-nest of treaties, alliances, etc would rip it apart. Sure, certain powers WITHIN the EU can get beligerent. But I severely doubt that the EU as a whole is going to try to go on the warpath against the US in the foreseeable future.
Note: This does not mean it could NEVER happen. It's just REALLY unlikely.
And, as has been pointed out, Russia, China, and others will likely be competing for oil resources more fiercely than the EU will.
This is what happens when you dive into a program like this motivated by little more than spite.
Emotions wax and wane. If you project is based off little more than the sentiment of "Fscking Americans...", so too will the ability of the project to function.
Is a re-implementation of a GPS-like system a laudable goal? SURE!
Is the "Fscking Americans..." sentiment a good basis for such a goal? NO EFFING WAY!
And, if the simple goal of having a product like this outside of American control remains the primary goal, it's just doomed to fail. All you'll do is spur the people working on the GPS system to out-innovate you and out-compete you.
"Gailileo offers X resolution"
"GPS offers variable resolutions up to 3X+1, is time-tested and stable, has thousands of apps in-place already, yadda yadda, oh and did we mention yadda? Oh, and our licensing terms will cost you less than half what any competitors can offer you. Do the math..."
If I'm paying for an on-demand show *I* am financing my show.
I accept that on broadcast television, which is provided to me for free, I have to "pay" with the inconvenience of ads.
I accept that on cable channels, which I pay to access, I still have to put up with ads. I'm not happy about it, but I know that my $50/month doesn't finance 50-odd channels AND the service provider. But, if the ads get too obnoxious, I turn the fucking thing off.
However, if I'm paying premium pricing for an on-demand show, I'll be damned if I'm STILL going to put up with ads.
Apple took a very warm chip that operated at very low clock speeds (comparatively) and made it somewhat competitive with PC offerings.
They could PROBABLY try something like that with an AMD chip. However, I seriously doubt that it's going to happen. And, as I've said elsewhere, it'd simply push both Apple and AMD further into the margins.
Actually, at this point, buying AMD would net them a HIGHER speed processor than Intel. HOWEVER, the performance and power consuption, comparative to the Core2, would be less.
I stand in awe of the judge's intellect and testicular fortitude for actually laying this down on the DVDCCA.
But let's see how long it lasts before the DVDCCA chucks a shitload (more than a load, less than an assload) of money at someone and this decision is reversed.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't fuck with success.
YES, Microschlock has a habit of doing this anyhoo (look at the clusterfuck that is Office 2007 interface).
Uhm...
Uhm...
My lawyer says my comment is NO COMMENT.
"If Americans had to pay for the use of the roads"
Considering that those roads are paid for with our taxes already, we DO pay for the use of the roads.
"That is a gross exaggeration."
No. I think it spells out the problem quite nicely. Plus, your definition of "pretty good" and mine can vary by quite a bit.
Yeah. And the reason Microsoft dumped these platform ports is because they were SO successful.
Yes. Eventually.
"DEC Alpha chips were introduced in 1992 and were 64-bit. SPARC went 64-bit in 1995. MIPS went 64-bit in 1991. PA-RISC in 1996."
And how many did you see, across the board, in consumer grade "Bob Everyman" systems?
"How is this early?"
Because Intel was basically telling people (rightly) that they really didn't need 64-bit on consumer workstations and laptops for another 10-15 years. AMD said "we've got it and we're releasing it". The adoption of the x64 stuff by Intel only reinforces this.
"Also, Intel introduced the Itanium, a pure 64-bit chip in 2001."
Which SUCKS for general computing use, and requires ridiculously complex "intelligent" compilers to eke decent performance out of your code.
"They had a strange i860 chip in the late 80s that was 64-bit."
Misconception. The data buses were 64-bits wide. And the FPU register depth was 64-bit (however, today's FPU have registers 80-bit deep by comparison).
"I've been running 64-bit linux for about 10 years plus or minus 6 months."
When did this become about dicksizing?
"To me, I find the x86_64 stuff to be a hack and late to the game."
As has been said about just about EVERY x86 development for most of the last 30 years. However, there's a reason why x86 is still the dominant platform extant. Underneath all the hacks and kludges and other cruft, the basic platform is stable, completely documented, and TIME TESTED. As such, the development community is orders of magnitude larger than any other. And, as a byproduct, the user community, who only cares about getting their hands on their personal favorite app, is several more orders of magnitude larger still compared to the user space of every other platform extant COMBINED.
Yes, inertia may NOT be the best reason for holding on to a platform. However, as long as the platform does what's required of it, what's the legitimate bitch?
That's like saying "To avoid being attacked by treants, I'm going to hide in this running chipper-shredder."
=)
RELATIVE "safety"? Maybe. Most of these people sorta-know Windows. So it's perceived as "safer". Even though it really isn't.
Just send a preemptive pink slip strike in on all the prospective employees.
Damn Gorn!
Or was it the crazy dude from the antimatter universe with the space ship?
Maybe it was those two ditzy rocker dudes in the telephone booth...
Yep.
1: Reply as an anonymous coward.
2: Don't justify your "reasoning" and expect results.
3: ?!?!?
4: Profit!
"Frankly I expected better from someone with a 4 digit ID."
You mean, you're disappointed because my POV doesn't move in lock-step with YOUR OWN sense of greater enlightenment?
Sorry.
Do I understand the military need the consortium that is developing it for? SURE!
Do I understand why the EU would want to rescue it? SURE!
"Anyway, it has fuck all to do with spite"
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe, if you repeat it often enough, you'll believe it.
"Whether you like it or not, the EU is gradually unifying into what will become a direct competitor to the US for world resources."
VERY gradually. If the EU's big players don't tear it apart due to self-interest.
"Oh, you don't think the EU would ever go to war against the US?"
Not if they actually want to survive as a functional government body.
And that's not a threat. That's FACT.
The whole rats-nest of treaties, alliances, etc would rip it apart. Sure, certain powers WITHIN the EU can get beligerent. But I severely doubt that the EU as a whole is going to try to go on the warpath against the US in the foreseeable future.
Note: This does not mean it could NEVER happen. It's just REALLY unlikely.
And, as has been pointed out, Russia, China, and others will likely be competing for oil resources more fiercely than the EU will.
I, however, see a large difference between quickie "vacations" to the moon and an ongoing service like GPS/Galileo.
"This is a different analogy than the one in your parent post."
No. It's not. If you think it is, you misunderstood (which isn't my fault).
"However, if you leave your drapes open in your living room, people can see into your living room,"
Problem. You don't have to do anything to see into an uncurtained window.
You DO, however, have to do some minimal discovery on a computer system
This is what happens when you dive into a program like this motivated by little more than spite.
Emotions wax and wane. If you project is based off little more than the sentiment of "Fscking Americans...", so too will the ability of the project to function.
Is a re-implementation of a GPS-like system a laudable goal? SURE!
Is the "Fscking Americans..." sentiment a good basis for such a goal? NO EFFING WAY!
And, if the simple goal of having a product like this outside of American control remains the primary goal, it's just doomed to fail. All you'll do is spur the people working on the GPS system to out-innovate you and out-compete you.
"Gailileo offers X resolution"
"GPS offers variable resolutions up to 3X+1, is time-tested and stable, has thousands of apps in-place already, yadda yadda, oh and did we mention yadda? Oh, and our licensing terms will cost you less than half what any competitors can offer you. Do the math..."
<Lex:> WRONG!
If I'm paying for an on-demand show *I* am financing my show.
I accept that on broadcast television, which is provided to me for free, I have to "pay" with the inconvenience of ads.
I accept that on cable channels, which I pay to access, I still have to put up with ads. I'm not happy about it, but I know that my $50/month doesn't finance 50-odd channels AND the service provider. But, if the ads get too obnoxious, I turn the fucking thing off.
However, if I'm paying premium pricing for an on-demand show, I'll be damned if I'm STILL going to put up with ads.
Actually, no I'm not.
"I'm not taking the time/trouble to secure [X]."
SEE! He's INVITING US IN! HE'S ALLOWING US TO DO THIS!
NO. Simply because he hasn't explicitly secured something doesn't mean he's allowing you in or inviting you to use said resource.
The concept is the same for both.
Pleading "special circumstances" is bullshit.
Kinda like running an defaulted Wifi AP gives users no reasonable expectation of privacy?
Yet people get busted for "stealing wifi".
Charged Vacuum Emboitment?
Yeah. Second Life is a parallel universe (full of hopelessly mal-adjusted people who can't deal with their first life).
But SHEESH!
Okay, as you said, you took this for a troll.
It's not.
Apple took a very warm chip that operated at very low clock speeds (comparatively) and made it somewhat competitive with PC offerings.
They could PROBABLY try something like that with an AMD chip. However, I seriously doubt that it's going to happen. And, as I've said elsewhere, it'd simply push both Apple and AMD further into the margins.
Actually, at this point, buying AMD would net them a HIGHER speed processor than Intel. HOWEVER, the performance and power consuption, comparative to the Core2, would be less.
"If Apple owned AMD, the Apple would be stuck with slower hotter AMD chips!"
And how would this be any different from the G5?
Yeah. A great way to FURTHER marginalize both Apple and AMD.
There's a REASON Apple finally moved towards x86. Economy of scale.
Dividing up into their own proprietary processor land again would simply be a rocket-propelled leap BACKWARDS.
Also, let's be honest here. At this time, Intel has the superior offerings with it's Core2 line of chips.
Oh. Wait. Never mind.
I stand in awe of the judge's intellect and testicular fortitude for actually laying this down on the DVDCCA.
But let's see how long it lasts before the DVDCCA chucks a shitload (more than a load, less than an assload) of money at someone and this decision is reversed.
Everything takes longer and costs more.