After all since it's based on name, it can't even conceivably help any real-world user application when operating as intended. It can only inflate the benchmark numbers.
Wrong. Drivers can and do detect the names of real applications, and configure their support accordingly. Control pad drivers can be set up to detect a certain application name being run, and set up button mappings to suit. Many graphics drivers have in the past had profiles shipped to iron out pathological cases in real world apps. You can even manually set certain parameters based on what application is being run in current drivers.
It's just that it can't pro-actively do this. You have to rely on support from the manufacturer (or create your own if possible), to get the best - or even half-decent - performance when new applications are released.
I used to work for a video card manufacturer and game and video developers often did totally retarded things which just happened to work on the cards they developed on but made the software run like crap on ours. We routinely had to implement workarounds for individual games to make them run properly on our cards.
This wouldn't happen to be a manufacturer that used some 'unusual' rendering methods?
Similarly, the issue here is not Intel punting processing to the CPU when the GPU is overloaded, but the fact that they do so by detecting the name of the benchmark rather than by monitoring the GPU loading and dynamically switching between hardware and software so that it would work on any application. General optimisation is fine, workarounds for retarded developers are fine, but special optimisations for benchmarks which don't affect real applications is getting pretty close to the line.
You would also need to monitor the CPU, and only switch when it isn't overloaded, but the GPU is.
The real question is, who cares if a manufacturer detects whether a certain application is running, and reconfigures it's support to provide the best experience for that application? If I'm playing a game, I just want the best experience that my hardware can provide.
That's the problem with benchmarks - you can't ever take one application, no matter how representative it is supposed to be, as the gospel for system differences. The real world across a variety of applications will almost inevitably be different.
So who watches the CCTV footage? Who archives the recordings? Who maintains the equipment? I think there are serious questions to be answered there, but ultimately, there is no fundamental reason why those people can't be held accountable for their actions - and we need to ensure that they are.
Sure, an officer merely observing something isn't going to cause a big uproar. But the actions of any officer might. There are enough cases of police corruption, racial abuse - and perjury.
CCTV isn't a solution by itself, but it can be part of effective, responsible policing. There needs to be accountability, there needs to be a balance with enough officers on the street as well. But it does play a role in preventing crime from occurring in the first place, solving crime, and providing evidence when cases do go to court.
Sure, if you go on a strict - same spec, same dimensions, same weight, etc. - comparison, then the Apple's aren't badly priced in relation to Windows PCs.
But with Windows, you have a choice. You decide what features are important to you, what you compromise to get a better deal.
If I want a workhorse laptop, where portability really is secondary, I can get much better machines for far less in the Windows world. Often, to get the one or two features I really care about with Apple, it means buying the most expensive machines they do, with a bunch of stuff I don't care about.
Although I admire the design of Apple equipment, for the most part I have no need for it or desire to pay a premium because of it.
(The one exception is the standard MacBook, which makes a fantastic machine where portability is a primary concern.)
The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days. For the most part they run with a backlight of constant brightness - so there is no energy saving with a black screen.
Only if the LCD detects a dark screen, and adaptively lowers the backlight, will there be any energy saving.
What do you run inside a virtual machine - an OS!!
What do you run the virtual machine on - an OS!!
So, any application now has to withstand two OSes, not just one. Isolation can be an important part of virtualization, but it's about isolating applications from each other, not from the OS.
A little bit oblique there, but look at the example set by Parallels on MacOS X - it is entirely practical to run a complete virtual machine inside an OS, and have seamless access to the applications within.
Maybe it isn't possible to make a BeOS out of Windows, but that simply doesn't matter. An OS should be built from the ground up to learn all the lessons of the past, and implement all the advanced features required, with backwards compatibility entirely handled by virtual machine trickery.
Vista would have been so much less of a pig's ear if they had ditched the half-baked, broken, attempt to remain compatible with XP, et al, and left running old applications to a virtual machine running a complete XP environment (a la Parallels).
I disagree - I thought Flushed Away was probably the best animated film in the last year. And this is coming from a complete Pixar fan, who also happens to be a motor racing nut. All of which might actually be my biggest problem with Cars - I just had way too high hopes for it (yes, I liked it - just not enough).
Yet again, European powers are getting pushy with things that nobody cares about (nobody wanted a version of Windows without Media Player, and nobody really wants the kernel open to third parties).
Why can't they concentrate on things that really do matter, like the disgraceful licensing restrictions and treatment of legitimate customers.
Getting kids to program has far deeper issues than availability of languages. Yes, it's helpful if a language comes with the machine / OS, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't - you can easily download one if you have the desire.
The real issue is to give kids a reason to program. The first machine I ever owned was a ZX81. I didn't have any storage devices, so everything I ever got the machine to do was from entering program listings from magazines. Even as I moved on to machines like the Vic20 and C64, there were still magazines that gave lots of 'simple' programs for you to play with, and books with simple games (and the games that you could buy weren't so advanced that they made the ones that you took from magazines seem trivially simple and boring).
Without ever consciously deciding to learn programming, I had picked it up simply from my interest in getting bits of electronics to do cool and (seemingly for the time) unusual things.
And that's what is missing now. Where is the impetus for someone to choose to program? Deliver a simple programming language with the OS, and people will most likely not even know it's there, or ignore it even if it is.
When the PS2 launched in the UK, Sony operated a centralised pre-order scheme - you would still pre-order with your chosen retailer, but they had forms issued by Sony, one form for every allocated console. So, if you got a form, you knew you would get a console. You also got a few little extras from Sony.
Having gone through the debacle of the Xbox 360 launch - and in particular the poor ability of certain (major online, name begins with A) retailers to issue on a first-come, first-served basis - makes you appreciate what Sony did with the PS2. Furthermore, it would be possible to have Sony validate each pre-order only allowing one console per household. It's not entirely foolproof, but would be more effective in reducing eBayers [than taking £150 deposits]
Changing OS to avoid security worries is an easy answer, but ultimately one that may prove fruitless. Yes, there are some residual issues with Windows, that other systems improve on, but they can ALL be affected by security issues.
Rather than just think about switching OS, you really need to think about the overall system design. For example, why can't you run AntiVirus software? I can see why it might cause a problem for recording, but then recording should be done on at least a separate partition, if not an entirely different disk, and you can exclude the area you record on to from virus scanning. You would also want to rely mostly on the 'on-access' scanning, and if scheduled scans would be needed or desired, there could (should) be redundant systems that rotate active use, so that the scan can complete without affecting 'live' system resources.
As I said, security (and reliability) problems can occur on ANY platform - you need to incorporate defensive planning and/or isolation to your systems, not just pretend that they won't exist by switching OS.
Troll is possibly a little unkind, but it is simply not true that 'if Windows worked properly, you wouldn't need anti-virus / spyware'.
You can't permanently stop virus software from doing bad things without also disabling useful operations (we still need to be able to delete files, send emails, format disks, etc.). The Unix/MacOS X model of explicitly authorising certain operations is certainly an improvement, and cuts down on virus activity. It's also coming to Vista, which is a good thing. But it CAN'T stop virus software completely - all you need is to give a reason to the user to authorise the operation. Given the amount of malware that spreads because people want to look at some porn, or think they are installing some useful software, it should be expected that some people would still authorise the activities of malware despite the best protection that the OS can put in place.
Raising the barrier to malware is helpful, but as long as it isn't prohibitive to develop malware (ie. look at the expense of developing on a Mac), and there are enough rewards (the target audience is large enough to authorise the operation regardless of barriers), then malware will exist. If MacOS X had a 90%+ market share, then you could guarantee that malware would exist and be effective on that platform, despite the protection offered by the OS.
So anti-malware software is still required - the only way you can be sure is to specifically recognise the malware, and ensure that users don't inadvertently allow it to run. Although it is true that if(/when) the OS has adequate guards - such as explicit authorisation - then all that should be needed is a scan of the executable code at the point authorisation is requred, and not the infestation of memory resident processes that we have today.
Pretty incredible that they've managed to miss just about every important game. Sure, having Halo, etc. working may be a popular move, but it's only temporary - Halo 3, PGR 3, Ghost Recon 3, DOA4, etc. are all due for X360 sequels anyway.
What about the important Xbox exclusives - Jet Set Radio, Outrun 2, Panzer Dragoon, etc. - games that aren't likely to make an appearance on the X360 (at least any time soon)?
OK, the different architectures make things difficult, but in that case, why not put Xbox compatability into Vista, and/or Media Center (if your PC is fast enough)? Making an x86 Windows box run Xbox games is far less of a technical challenge, and the hardware is more than up to the job now. It's not as nice a solution as proper X360 compatability, but it would be a good selling point and of benefit to many people.
I don't know - when companies like Linn make similar products (and they have been for 4 years), then there is a good chance that something like this will be sold to people who have no idea what Linux is. Although the majority may well have heard of it.
But an important distinction: just because people know what Linux is, doesn't mean that any of them choose to use it. Even if they wanted to, there are still many problems with configuration, etc. that they don't or can't.
Until someone provides an X server that always boots (in to a fallback mode where necessary), configuration GUIs for everything, GUI software installers / uninstallers (and by that, discretely packaged stuff, not package manager behemoths), etc. - the only way Linux will be used by the masses is in these closed systems with simplistic, focused interfaces where no-one even need care that Linux is running the show.
I think you have to accept that in some cases, the product they are imitating wasn't done all that well, or their prefered implementation is that much closer to the OS, or may be affected by long term strategy (think Intel switch), that it may have seemed an easier alternative to just implement from scratch.
I certainly accept that by blocking adverts you are not fulfilling your responsibilities as a user of a site.
But the contract thing takes it a little too far. Basically, I have no idea what a site is going to try and push on to me until I visit the site. I don't get a chance to agree to flash banners, pop-ups, etc.
So if someone wants to whine and moan about adverts being blocked, it's THEIR responsibility to warn you / give you a chance to accept or not. And if they don't - well, shouldn't I get to sue them for usurping my computer / browser / user experience without my prior agreement?
Isn't that part of the contract that I have with a website in allowing them to send data to my machine?
Availability is given by separate 'nodes' - where each node can fail or be taken down without affecting the availability of other nodes.
Clearly, each node has to have at least one CPU - hence multiple CPUs (multiple nodes) leading to increased availability.
Whilst you might refer to each node as a distinct machine (and then promote per-machine licensing), I was avoiding such a distinction, as it all depends on system design. It's entirely feasible to have processing cards that are not distinct machines in their own right, but can fail, be hot swapped, etc. without affecting the other processors.
Because size isn't the only metric for a database implementation. It probably isn't the most important either.
Availability and performance are at least as important - particularly for big corporate types. Availability is in part given by multiple CPUs. Performance can also be addressed by multiple CPUs - particularly where large memory caches are allocated.
And ultimately that is why people choose Oracle - not to create gigantic databases, but for high-performing, high-availability, centralised processing databases.
Let's start with a fairly obvious question... if I purchase advertising space in a newspaper, and then misuse a trademark in the advert, who is liable - the newspaper, or me?
And trademarks only apply in certain circumstances - ie. within certain contexts. Microsoft trademarks the word 'Windows' in the computing arena, but you certainly couldn't claim trademark infringement for a double glazing firm using 'windows' in it's advertising.
Google operates in a global arena, and covers every topic, industry, etc. under the sun. Even if there was a case for Google to block the misuse of trademarks as adwords (which might make sense for them to do as a service to their clients anyway), surely it is the responsiblity of those placing the ads to not infringe on others trademarks (both as adwords, and in the content of the ads themselves)?
OK, I'll admit I haven't tried the iPod mini yet, but I do have a recent iPod, and before that had one of the earlier 20gig models.
Yes, the newer iPods are curvier and sexier because of it, but the ergonomics of the touch buttons is TERRIBLE. The original iPod - with 'hard' buttons arranged around the wheel is a LOT more user-friendly... specifically, you actually get some tactile feedback as to whether you have pressed a button, or not...
With the touch controls, it is FAR too easy to either fail to press a button, press a button when you don't intend to, or even double-press accidentally.
Why can't we have an iPod with sexy curves and tactile buttons?
Slashdot Mirror
After all since it's based on name, it can't even conceivably help any real-world user application when operating as intended. It can only inflate the benchmark numbers.
Wrong. Drivers can and do detect the names of real applications, and configure their support accordingly. Control pad drivers can be set up to detect a certain application name being run, and set up button mappings to suit. Many graphics drivers have in the past had profiles shipped to iron out pathological cases in real world apps. You can even manually set certain parameters based on what application is being run in current drivers.
It's just that it can't pro-actively do this. You have to rely on support from the manufacturer (or create your own if possible), to get the best - or even half-decent - performance when new applications are released.
I used to work for a video card manufacturer and game and video developers often did totally retarded things which just happened to work on the cards they developed on but made the software run like crap on ours. We routinely had to implement workarounds for individual games to make them run properly on our cards.
This wouldn't happen to be a manufacturer that used some 'unusual' rendering methods?
Similarly, the issue here is not Intel punting processing to the CPU when the GPU is overloaded, but the fact that they do so by detecting the name of the benchmark rather than by monitoring the GPU loading and dynamically switching between hardware and software so that it would work on any application. General optimisation is fine, workarounds for retarded developers are fine, but special optimisations for benchmarks which don't affect real applications is getting pretty close to the line.
You would also need to monitor the CPU, and only switch when it isn't overloaded, but the GPU is.
The real question is, who cares if a manufacturer detects whether a certain application is running, and reconfigures it's support to provide the best experience for that application? If I'm playing a game, I just want the best experience that my hardware can provide.
That's the problem with benchmarks - you can't ever take one application, no matter how representative it is supposed to be, as the gospel for system differences. The real world across a variety of applications will almost inevitably be different.
So who watches the CCTV footage? Who archives the recordings? Who maintains the equipment? I think there are serious questions to be answered there, but ultimately, there is no fundamental reason why those people can't be held accountable for their actions - and we need to ensure that they are.
Sure, an officer merely observing something isn't going to cause a big uproar. But the actions of any officer might. There are enough cases of police corruption, racial abuse - and perjury.
CCTV isn't a solution by itself, but it can be part of effective, responsible policing. There needs to be accountability, there needs to be a balance with enough officers on the street as well. But it does play a role in preventing crime from occurring in the first place, solving crime, and providing evidence when cases do go to court.
Sure, if you go on a strict - same spec, same dimensions, same weight, etc. - comparison, then the Apple's aren't badly priced in relation to Windows PCs.
But with Windows, you have a choice. You decide what features are important to you, what you compromise to get a better deal.
If I want a workhorse laptop, where portability really is secondary, I can get much better machines for far less in the Windows world. Often, to get the one or two features I really care about with Apple, it means buying the most expensive machines they do, with a bunch of stuff I don't care about.
Although I admire the design of Apple equipment, for the most part I have no need for it or desire to pay a premium because of it.
(The one exception is the standard MacBook, which makes a fantastic machine where portability is a primary concern.)
The vast majority of people run LCD monitors these days. For the most part they run with a backlight of constant brightness - so there is no energy saving with a black screen.
Only if the LCD detects a dark screen, and adaptively lowers the backlight, will there be any energy saving.
What do you run inside a virtual machine - an OS!!
What do you run the virtual machine on - an OS!!
So, any application now has to withstand two OSes, not just one. Isolation can be an important part of virtualization, but it's about isolating applications from each other, not from the OS.
30hz is the minimum needed to fool the human mind - that's why America has NTSC and 100 channels broadcasting nothing but "infommercials"
A little bit oblique there, but look at the example set by Parallels on MacOS X - it is entirely practical to run a complete virtual machine inside an OS, and have seamless access to the applications within.
Maybe it isn't possible to make a BeOS out of Windows, but that simply doesn't matter. An OS should be built from the ground up to learn all the lessons of the past, and implement all the advanced features required, with backwards compatibility entirely handled by virtual machine trickery.
Vista would have been so much less of a pig's ear if they had ditched the half-baked, broken, attempt to remain compatible with XP, et al, and left running old applications to a virtual machine running a complete XP environment (a la Parallels).
I disagree - I thought Flushed Away was probably the best animated film in the last year. And this is coming from a complete Pixar fan, who also happens to be a motor racing nut. All of which might actually be my biggest problem with Cars - I just had way too high hopes for it (yes, I liked it - just not enough).
Yet again, European powers are getting pushy with things that nobody cares about (nobody wanted a version of Windows without Media Player, and nobody really wants the kernel open to third parties).
Why can't they concentrate on things that really do matter, like the disgraceful licensing restrictions and treatment of legitimate customers.
Getting kids to program has far deeper issues than availability of languages. Yes, it's helpful if a language comes with the machine / OS, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't - you can easily download one if you have the desire.
The real issue is to give kids a reason to program. The first machine I ever owned was a ZX81. I didn't have any storage devices, so everything I ever got the machine to do was from entering program listings from magazines. Even as I moved on to machines like the Vic20 and C64, there were still magazines that gave lots of 'simple' programs for you to play with, and books with simple games (and the games that you could buy weren't so advanced that they made the ones that you took from magazines seem trivially simple and boring).
Without ever consciously deciding to learn programming, I had picked it up simply from my interest in getting bits of electronics to do cool and (seemingly for the time) unusual things.
And that's what is missing now. Where is the impetus for someone to choose to program? Deliver a simple programming language with the OS, and people will most likely not even know it's there, or ignore it even if it is.
When the PS2 launched in the UK, Sony operated a centralised pre-order scheme - you would still pre-order with your chosen retailer, but they had forms issued by Sony, one form for every allocated console. So, if you got a form, you knew you would get a console. You also got a few little extras from Sony.
Having gone through the debacle of the Xbox 360 launch - and in particular the poor ability of certain (major online, name begins with A) retailers to issue on a first-come, first-served basis - makes you appreciate what Sony did with the PS2. Furthermore, it would be possible to have Sony validate each pre-order only allowing one console per household. It's not entirely foolproof, but would be more effective in reducing eBayers [than taking £150 deposits]
Changing OS to avoid security worries is an easy answer, but ultimately one that may prove fruitless. Yes, there are some residual issues with Windows, that other systems improve on, but they can ALL be affected by security issues.
Rather than just think about switching OS, you really need to think about the overall system design. For example, why can't you run AntiVirus software? I can see why it might cause a problem for recording, but then recording should be done on at least a separate partition, if not an entirely different disk, and you can exclude the area you record on to from virus scanning. You would also want to rely mostly on the 'on-access' scanning, and if scheduled scans would be needed or desired, there could (should) be redundant systems that rotate active use, so that the scan can complete without affecting 'live' system resources.
As I said, security (and reliability) problems can occur on ANY platform - you need to incorporate defensive planning and/or isolation to your systems, not just pretend that they won't exist by switching OS.
Troll is possibly a little unkind, but it is simply not true that 'if Windows worked properly, you wouldn't need anti-virus / spyware'.
You can't permanently stop virus software from doing bad things without also disabling useful operations (we still need to be able to delete files, send emails, format disks, etc.). The Unix/MacOS X model of explicitly authorising certain operations is certainly an improvement, and cuts down on virus activity. It's also coming to Vista, which is a good thing. But it CAN'T stop virus software completely - all you need is to give a reason to the user to authorise the operation. Given the amount of malware that spreads because people want to look at some porn, or think they are installing some useful software, it should be expected that some people would still authorise the activities of malware despite the best protection that the OS can put in place.
Raising the barrier to malware is helpful, but as long as it isn't prohibitive to develop malware (ie. look at the expense of developing on a Mac), and there are enough rewards (the target audience is large enough to authorise the operation regardless of barriers), then malware will exist. If MacOS X had a 90%+ market share, then you could guarantee that malware would exist and be effective on that platform, despite the protection offered by the OS.
So anti-malware software is still required - the only way you can be sure is to specifically recognise the malware, and ensure that users don't inadvertently allow it to run. Although it is true that if(/when) the OS has adequate guards - such as explicit authorisation - then all that should be needed is a scan of the executable code at the point authorisation is requred, and not the infestation of memory resident processes that we have today.
Pretty incredible that they've managed to miss just about every important game. Sure, having Halo, etc. working may be a popular move, but it's only temporary - Halo 3, PGR 3, Ghost Recon 3, DOA4, etc. are all due for X360 sequels anyway.
What about the important Xbox exclusives - Jet Set Radio, Outrun 2, Panzer Dragoon, etc. - games that aren't likely to make an appearance on the X360 (at least any time soon)?
OK, the different architectures make things difficult, but in that case, why not put Xbox compatability into Vista, and/or Media Center (if your PC is fast enough)? Making an x86 Windows box run Xbox games is far less of a technical challenge, and the hardware is more than up to the job now. It's not as nice a solution as proper X360 compatability, but it would be a good selling point and of benefit to many people.
you'll be taking croc...
And does this mean that drug users looking to avoid infection will be shooting up with croc cocaine?
I don't know - when companies like Linn make similar products (and they have been for 4 years), then there is a good chance that something like this will be sold to people who have no idea what Linux is. Although the majority may well have heard of it.
But an important distinction: just because people know what Linux is, doesn't mean that any of them choose to use it. Even if they wanted to, there are still many problems with configuration, etc. that they don't or can't.
Until someone provides an X server that always boots (in to a fallback mode where necessary), configuration GUIs for everything, GUI software installers / uninstallers (and by that, discretely packaged stuff, not package manager behemoths), etc. - the only way Linux will be used by the masses is in these closed systems with simplistic, focused interfaces where no-one even need care that Linux is running the show.
Not always... they bought iTunes for instance.
I think you have to accept that in some cases, the product they are imitating wasn't done all that well, or their prefered implementation is that much closer to the OS, or may be affected by long term strategy (think Intel switch), that it may have seemed an easier alternative to just implement from scratch.
I certainly accept that by blocking adverts you are not fulfilling your responsibilities as a user of a site.
But the contract thing takes it a little too far. Basically, I have no idea what a site is going to try and push on to me until I visit the site. I don't get a chance to agree to flash banners, pop-ups, etc.
So if someone wants to whine and moan about adverts being blocked, it's THEIR responsibility to warn you / give you a chance to accept or not. And if they don't - well, shouldn't I get to sue them for usurping my computer / browser / user experience without my prior agreement?
Isn't that part of the contract that I have with a website in allowing them to send data to my machine?
Does that mean Steve Jobs is the only one that doesn't?
Sorry, I wasn't clear in what I meant.
Availability is given by separate 'nodes' - where each node can fail or be taken down without affecting the availability of other nodes.
Clearly, each node has to have at least one CPU - hence multiple CPUs (multiple nodes) leading to increased availability.
Whilst you might refer to each node as a distinct machine (and then promote per-machine licensing), I was avoiding such a distinction, as it all depends on system design. It's entirely feasible to have processing cards that are not distinct machines in their own right, but can fail, be hot swapped, etc. without affecting the other processors.
Because size isn't the only metric for a database implementation. It probably isn't the most important either.
Availability and performance are at least as important - particularly for big corporate types. Availability is in part given by multiple CPUs. Performance can also be addressed by multiple CPUs - particularly where large memory caches are allocated.
And ultimately that is why people choose Oracle - not to create gigantic databases, but for high-performing, high-availability, centralised processing databases.
Let's start with a fairly obvious question... if I purchase advertising space in a newspaper, and then misuse a trademark in the advert, who is liable - the newspaper, or me?
And trademarks only apply in certain circumstances - ie. within certain contexts. Microsoft trademarks the word 'Windows' in the computing arena, but you certainly couldn't claim trademark infringement for a double glazing firm using 'windows' in it's advertising.
Google operates in a global arena, and covers every topic, industry, etc. under the sun. Even if there was a case for Google to block the misuse of trademarks as adwords (which might make sense for them to do as a service to their clients anyway), surely it is the responsiblity of those placing the ads to not infringe on others trademarks (both as adwords, and in the content of the ads themselves)?
Looks more like the ultimate Nintendo commode to me.
OK, I'll admit I haven't tried the iPod mini yet, but I do have a recent iPod, and before that had one of the earlier 20gig models.
Yes, the newer iPods are curvier and sexier because of it, but the ergonomics of the touch buttons is TERRIBLE. The original iPod - with 'hard' buttons arranged around the wheel is a LOT more user-friendly... specifically, you actually get some tactile feedback as to whether you have pressed a button, or not...
With the touch controls, it is FAR too easy to either fail to press a button, press a button when you don't intend to, or even double-press accidentally.
Why can't we have an iPod with sexy curves and tactile buttons?