Who cares what it stands for. It's a retarded name, and hopefully it's just a codename. If they actually do use this ridiculus name, they're gonna have to highlight the letters so people know what Intel's smoking.
Doubtful. More likely Intel's trying to showcase Apple as what computers can be if they're running Intel technologies. Premier boot technologies, faster performace per watt, etc.
It's a pretty big win for Intel to get Apple on its side. Apple is widely known for leading the computer industry to new technologies, and pairing that with Intel's top-selling chip platform is a marketing bonanza. And it's sad; IBM gave it up for little or not cost.
I know it was a quick jab, but it was really Reuters who reported it incorrectly. One of their editors must have thought that "liquid" was unimportant, as the layman doesn't know the difference between a solid-state laser or a liquid laser. You could also say that LASER is an acronym, but editors also see the word used so ubiquitously, that it doesn't need the captials.
For how long? If you ask me, people's jump to conclusions about the risk of terrorism are the same people who would jump to conclusions about Jews, African Americans, or any other conclusion that was sponsored by the state.
Anti-Terrorism means Anti-freedom. The terrorists have won because we have allowed them to. We're all now so afraid of using public transport we have to install sensors and cameras, and so instead we drive our cars, harming the environment, and costing us a fortune due to the newly raised gas prices, which, one could argue, the money trail leads right back to the terrorists through OPEC. (Of course, this is highly speculative, and reactionary; it'd be nearly impossible to follow the money through OPEC)
At least they should have said what the cameras would be used for. "Hey, people. If you want the police to be able to catch criminals in subways, instead of us sticking officers down there, we're gonna stick a camera. While an officer might be able to catch the person right away, a camera will catch it all on film, where it'll be more useful to the prosecution, but not nessicarly help you right away.
"We know this is an inconvienience, but you are in a public place, and your expectation of privacy is little if any. We won't use this to spy on you, so you don't have to wear your tinfoil hats. But it'll be cheaper than sticking a bunch of cops down there. Thanks, that's all."
You feel the need for a mediocre standard, when a good standard could be created through just a bit of comprimise? Ignorance.
You see, even in this case, when it comes to not taking the standard (like in the DVD case), us consumers will have to pay for drives which reads both kinds of disks. Which means we have to fork out more money for those drives, and those companies manufacturing those drives lose profits, which make them raise prices even more.
Competition is great, but in the media world, standarization is a nessicary evil to insure data durability. Who wants to buy a drive they can't even use in two years? You might be quick to raise your hand, but as I recall, they still sell music on CDs, and I'm pretty sure personally movies will continue to sell on DVDs long after the HD generation drops. People like me who can't afford to jump to HD TVs, 40 dollar movies and oppressive DRM.
Getting back on point though, I think it's better to have a Good standard than no standard at all, as mediocre just doesn't do the job. Imagine if your car or your house had to follow mediocre standards...
No, I'd say AMD's marketing department's quite good.
AMD Marketing Guy: Dudes, I just came up with the easiest way yet to get our product in the light of everyone, everywhere, and it's not gonna cost a dime.
AMD Dudes: We're listening.
AMD Marketing Guy: Let's use the media. Throw a few lawsuits at Intel that we know won't stand a chance. Start issuing public challenges to the company, even though we know they won't listen to us. It'll work because the geeks everywhere will think it's wrong of Intel not to accept, or that they knew we were superior and that they didn't want to show weakness.
AMD's ticket out of their niche, geek product is simply to look like the Little Orphan Annie being oppressed by the big, evil Intel.
AMD's got the better product. Why don't they simply market the fuck out of it, and stop acting like bitches about their product? I just hate it because everyone knows their product is better, and instead of caring, they're only interested in beating Intel.
I want a company who's willing to sell me a processor, not a company who's all about the blood sport. That's really the reason I've been buying Apple for so long; they don't give a fuck, they just want to sell their products, and make their customers happy.
It's marketing that will work. Intel won't go through with the bout, and AMD will hold it over their heads for the next five years, and everyone on slashdot will troll about it.
Truthfully, AMD could do it, even without Intel's permission. Just go grab a chip off the shelf and let loose.
Lastly, parent's completely correct. There's no way they could settle on what software to use. Intel would argue Linux is made mostly by people with AMD hardware, whereas AMD will argue that Windows has been tailored to Intel for 10 years. Intel will argue that their compiler produces accurate x86 code, AMD will argue it's inconsistancies.
The only way I could see it happening is if they ran every single possible configuration of software and averaged the results, but I'm sure someone will point out some flaw in that even.
I don't see the Pentium M's as hitting any performance wall at all. In fact, if anything, I see them hitting a Watt wall, and being told by the senior execs that they won't release a Pentium M chip that puts out more than 30 Watts, period. Something tells me this is even the reason we haven't seen them in desktops.
As for performance per watt, the Pentium M is more superior than you want to claim. 27 Watts is hard for anything in the desktop world to compare to; the AMD64's are all up in the 50W range (max-out though, average out might be comparable to the Pentium M's max out), Intel's Prescotts max output's over the hundreds.
AMD put a shot across the bow for a dual-core race, and Intel declined it. It'd be funny to see Intel shoot a clock/watt race across AMD's bow, and wait for their decline. We know who's best in what realm, now we're waiting for a head to head race, Pentium 3 verses Athlon style.
Why would you say that? The way Hyperthreading was designed was to use all of the hardware possible, as long as possible. To do this, you need a deep pipeline so that each pipeline has time to break up the operation, and you also need lots, and lots, and lots of extra hardware in terms of ALUs, FPUs, and Load/Store units. This adds up to a huge silicon investment, and it's simply not there.
Secondly, these new cores are not Netburst cores, so Hyperthreading would have to be redesigned from the ground up to work with the previous P6-compatible cores.
Thirdly, they've had the go ahead to use Dual Core chips. Why do you need two simulated cores if you have two physical ones? Hyperthreading was a good idea, but it was just a hold-off for dual cores, and honestly, with very, very few pieces of software optimized for running dual cores, there's not a lot of enthusiasm to go that route from Intel.
It's really not about "learning a lesson", as you're pushing your articles on us. It's about moving to where the customers are. Right now, the customers are in long battery life, highly mobile computers. My guess is their server market really bottomed out when IBM came trucking through it again, this time with a chip that can really deliver what it promised. I'd wager another guess as far as to say some bargaining went between IBM and Intel not only for Apple, but for staying out of each others market segments. AMD is the real victor here though, since operating out of the horizion of both, and marketing toward the geek gets things done.
Um, no offense, but gtkPod is like trying to interface with a parallel port with a few bits of wire, some chewing gum, and a 9v battery. You have to be MacGuyver to get it right.
That being said, I have 3 iPods, a third gen, a fourth gen, and a fourth.five gen color, all 20GB. Only the third gen syncs with gtkPod without much error, and it's running an extinct version of the iPod firmware.
I tried interfacing with the newest one, and it completely destroyed the filesystem on the iPod. Don't ask me how, but my attempts to plug it into a Mac and a PC both failed, so I had to flip it over to iPod-harddrive mode, and format the bastard. Luckily I didn't lose anything, but it could have been catastrophic.
iTunes is really the best way to use an iPod. If you've got a problem with that, don't buy one. If you don't have a problem with that, like myself, and many I know, buy one, and be happy. And now that iTunes works with Linux, there's no reason not to use it.
Pfft. 5 MB of code turns into *at most* 100MB of game binary, and that's being way, way generous. I haven't compiled it yet myself, but I'm expecting around 20-50MB.
It's the textures and models and sound that drive up the cost of the diskspace with 3D games like Quake 3. Even with texture and sound compression, and some kind of model compression, these are still huge files, and the more compressed they are, the worse your game will perform having to do decompression on the fly. Why else do you think gamers need computers with a gig of ram and a 256 MB video card these days?
The biggest fall out of this is, of course, the PCI bus, which is (and always has been) pretty sensitive to bus speeds being right around 33MHz. I've had machines that wouldn't boot due to the PCI clock being at just over 36MHz, (as RAID cards tend to be PCI based;) which, following your metric, is barely half over the "safe" parameters.
It does kinda matter, but I don't care. If it won't work, I'll just ship it back and buy a new board from another manufacturer who doesn't like to tinker just to win on some bullshit benchmarks performed by a bunch of websites.
Besides, do they offer any proof it's happening to the ones shipped to consumers, or is this just the demo ones they send to reviewers?
I drive a 1974 Jeep. Runs like a champ, never have had a problem with it not starting on cue, and the only real problems with it are its gas guzzling nature, and it's exceptionally small fuel tank for that use.
That being said, the Space Transport System program has been a wild success, and the space shuttle is just as reliable as my jeep. The problem is where the shuttle is located on its launch vehichle, and how that launch vehicle is put together. Foam falls off the tank because they use foam to insulate the thing, where a little more cost could use electric warmers. SRBs blow up because their rubber seals aren't constructed properly. But the shuttle is still fine.
I think now, as we should have been doing years ago, we should be investigating Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles. The current orbiters would make great museum pieces (imagine being able to go inside a shuttle in a museum), and could drive up the resources used to build alternatives. The SRBs have proven themselves to be lean, mean, heavy lifting machines, and as they are so reusable, we should go on reusing them.
As for the European Union building a new shuttle, good for them. They've been needing shuttle-like versatility. Perhaps it'll help spark a renewal in space technologies, along with the privatization of space technology, here in America. Competition is great until it stagnates, and we've proven that one time and again in our time honored tradition here in America.
Why not use an encryptor where you don't know the passphrase: one where the key is generated via biometrics? I guess they could force you to give up your finger, but then again, scratch your finger or bite it and they don't have a chance in hell of decrypting.
There's this thing, called an "average" or a "mean", depending where you went to middle school. What we do is add up a bunch of things, then divide by the number we added.
In this case, we add up the size of a bunch of songs, then divide by precisely the number of songs there are, and we get a number. That number is roughly around 4MB for a typical set of MP3s. So typical, in fact, I wrote a small C/perl program to computer the averages on all of my hard disks, and none of them were off in either direction more than a half a megabyte from 4MB (but then again, I have a vast music selection, and I'm an eclectic listener, YMMV).
First of all, that third-to-last sentence was barely parsable, but I gotcha.
Secondly, PHP and Perl are like the C and C++ of the web world. They're the oldest and most trustworthy platforms available now, and now since PHP has joined the ranks of full object orientation, it can be a serious competitor to VB/.Net.
Too many websites, web applications, corporations, banks, etc. rely on PHP for it to just die. Ruby on Rails may be better, but it's very much a niche product, and it will take it a lot of time to gain momentum in the corporate world where competition in this particular market is FEARCE.
Lastly, I think people will stick with PHP out of familiarity of the programming model. PHP4 felt just like scriptable C except the lack of types, which, frankly, pissed me off at the beginning, but later turned out to feel just right. Ruby on the other hand, reminds me a lot of Scheme/Lisp or Smalltalk, and is kinda foreign and alien to less experienced programmers (but no more foreign than Object C and it's Smalltalk origins, which I have to admit I have fallen in love with over the past year).
Not to be overly pedantic, but the GPL was created for the soul purpose of the promotion of Free software; software without ownership, giving software freedom. The Open Source movement adopted the GPL as it was compatible with Free Software.
Whereas Free software only includes GPL'd software, Open software comprises all of the BSDs, and BSD-attached code.
Nah, my iBook with 256 was barely usable in my own opinion, but it also had far fewer features under Panther that I really like about Tiger.
I didn't really confirm the widget memory usage either.. my machine really doesn't use too terribly much to deal with Dashboard, but I guess YMMV. Secondly, as I have 1,256MB of ram, and as it wasn't very expensive in view of the cost of the entire platform, I don't really notice too much anymore when it comes to memory. My machine performs very well for most every day operations and the only time I ever get angry with it is getting up overnight to use it and finding my battery dead and waiting for it to reboot (granted it doesn't take long, but I hate rebooting laptops).
Hey, if you're so disappointed, I wouldn't mind taking it off your hands..;)
Or, perhaps, he's just pissed that his job, his American-based job, is being sent to India.
No offense to the Indians, but if they are just as capable as we are at doing our jobs, let them do their jobs in their country. Last I recall, their country isn't in the best of state...
Meanwhile unemployement here suffers due to us being out jobs, and well, there's really no solution for us. Companies just want to lower their bottom lines, and the best way to do that is fire employees and either pay a machine to do the work, or pay someone way, way less for it.
I'm not racist; I have many good friends who are Indian, Chinese, Slovic, and other races, and I have no problem with them being here in America working. My problem comes when the jobs here are being moved out of our country. We've almost reversed our position from the industrial revolution, when people would migrate here just to work. And we're losing our tech crown because nobody's willing to innovate because it costs too much. These are the things that piss us off, and it's not about racism. If you want to talk about hidden racism, go talk to one of the news *coughFOXcough* networks talking about the Middle East situtation.
Well, half a gig is what I'd call the bare minimum for an operating system like OS X anyways. People might cry foul, but Windows XP isn't really usable at under that notch either, as I can currently tell you, running Windows XP on a box with 192 megs of ram and crying every time I try to close winamp.
Widgets really aren't that big a harm, unless you install and use a hundred of them. Frankly, on my iBook, I use 3 widgets, and could live without 2 of them (the TV guide I won't give up).
Mail.app has never been that great, in my opinion, but I have a general problem with all mail utilities, so I'm not going to attest to anything here.
Tiger's still a kitten, in my opinion. A few service patches later I feel it'll start to come into its own, but right now, it's not the best. Keep in mind that Apple has this record of things not being exactly the best on release. It's a work in progress, and it's still better than it's competitors in my book.
No, I've experienced this too with a quite new iBook. Before Tiger I'd get battery life of just under 6 hours. Afterwards I'm lucky to get 5.
I believe it's correctly attributed to Spotlight, as every now and again, even when the machine is sitting plugged in and resting on my kitchen counter, I can hear it whirl it's harddisk as if it's indexing.
I would like a control panel applet to tune Spotlight, but I can wait. I already did my part in the deal (gave them an email and a submission on their website).
And for the trolls of the world, Apple's not perfect either. This is the first time this kind of tool has been included in an operating system, and it's something that will take quite a bit of time to tune and work out correctly. To be honest, in all of my works to do something similar, I've came out with the same results to a much lower quality, and any tool I've seen to do the same will probably harm my battery's life even more.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoopse, I hit submit before I realized it. V IIV is technically 53, even though three is usually expressed as III in Roman Numerals.
And VI IV is 64.
And V IIV is 57.
Who cares what it stands for. It's a retarded name, and hopefully it's just a codename. If they actually do use this ridiculus name, they're gonna have to highlight the letters so people know what Intel's smoking.
Doubtful. More likely Intel's trying to showcase Apple as what computers can be if they're running Intel technologies. Premier boot technologies, faster performace per watt, etc.
It's a pretty big win for Intel to get Apple on its side. Apple is widely known for leading the computer industry to new technologies, and pairing that with Intel's top-selling chip platform is a marketing bonanza. And it's sad; IBM gave it up for little or not cost.
I know it was a quick jab, but it was really Reuters who reported it incorrectly. One of their editors must have thought that "liquid" was unimportant, as the layman doesn't know the difference between a solid-state laser or a liquid laser. You could also say that LASER is an acronym, but editors also see the word used so ubiquitously, that it doesn't need the captials.
But eh.
For how long? If you ask me, people's jump to conclusions about the risk of terrorism are the same people who would jump to conclusions about Jews, African Americans, or any other conclusion that was sponsored by the state.
Anti-Terrorism means Anti-freedom. The terrorists have won because we have allowed them to. We're all now so afraid of using public transport we have to install sensors and cameras, and so instead we drive our cars, harming the environment, and costing us a fortune due to the newly raised gas prices, which, one could argue, the money trail leads right back to the terrorists through OPEC. (Of course, this is highly speculative, and reactionary; it'd be nearly impossible to follow the money through OPEC)
At least they should have said what the cameras would be used for. "Hey, people. If you want the police to be able to catch criminals in subways, instead of us sticking officers down there, we're gonna stick a camera. While an officer might be able to catch the person right away, a camera will catch it all on film, where it'll be more useful to the prosecution, but not nessicarly help you right away.
"We know this is an inconvienience, but you are in a public place, and your expectation of privacy is little if any. We won't use this to spy on you, so you don't have to wear your tinfoil hats. But it'll be cheaper than sticking a bunch of cops down there. Thanks, that's all."
You feel the need for a mediocre standard, when a good standard could be created through just a bit of comprimise? Ignorance.
You see, even in this case, when it comes to not taking the standard (like in the DVD case), us consumers will have to pay for drives which reads both kinds of disks. Which means we have to fork out more money for those drives, and those companies manufacturing those drives lose profits, which make them raise prices even more.
Competition is great, but in the media world, standarization is a nessicary evil to insure data durability. Who wants to buy a drive they can't even use in two years? You might be quick to raise your hand, but as I recall, they still sell music on CDs, and I'm pretty sure personally movies will continue to sell on DVDs long after the HD generation drops. People like me who can't afford to jump to HD TVs, 40 dollar movies and oppressive DRM.
Getting back on point though, I think it's better to have a Good standard than no standard at all, as mediocre just doesn't do the job. Imagine if your car or your house had to follow mediocre standards...
No, I'd say AMD's marketing department's quite good.
AMD Marketing Guy: Dudes, I just came up with the easiest way yet to get our product in the light of everyone, everywhere, and it's not gonna cost a dime.
AMD Dudes: We're listening.
AMD Marketing Guy: Let's use the media. Throw a few lawsuits at Intel that we know won't stand a chance. Start issuing public challenges to the company, even though we know they won't listen to us. It'll work because the geeks everywhere will think it's wrong of Intel not to accept, or that they knew we were superior and that they didn't want to show weakness.
AMD's ticket out of their niche, geek product is simply to look like the Little Orphan Annie being oppressed by the big, evil Intel.
AMD's got the better product. Why don't they simply market the fuck out of it, and stop acting like bitches about their product? I just hate it because everyone knows their product is better, and instead of caring, they're only interested in beating Intel.
I want a company who's willing to sell me a processor, not a company who's all about the blood sport. That's really the reason I've been buying Apple for so long; they don't give a fuck, they just want to sell their products, and make their customers happy.
It's marketing that will work. Intel won't go through with the bout, and AMD will hold it over their heads for the next five years, and everyone on slashdot will troll about it.
Truthfully, AMD could do it, even without Intel's permission. Just go grab a chip off the shelf and let loose.
Lastly, parent's completely correct. There's no way they could settle on what software to use. Intel would argue Linux is made mostly by people with AMD hardware, whereas AMD will argue that Windows has been tailored to Intel for 10 years. Intel will argue that their compiler produces accurate x86 code, AMD will argue it's inconsistancies.
The only way I could see it happening is if they ran every single possible configuration of software and averaged the results, but I'm sure someone will point out some flaw in that even.
I don't see the Pentium M's as hitting any performance wall at all. In fact, if anything, I see them hitting a Watt wall, and being told by the senior execs that they won't release a Pentium M chip that puts out more than 30 Watts, period. Something tells me this is even the reason we haven't seen them in desktops.
As for performance per watt, the Pentium M is more superior than you want to claim. 27 Watts is hard for anything in the desktop world to compare to; the AMD64's are all up in the 50W range (max-out though, average out might be comparable to the Pentium M's max out), Intel's Prescotts max output's over the hundreds.
AMD put a shot across the bow for a dual-core race, and Intel declined it. It'd be funny to see Intel shoot a clock/watt race across AMD's bow, and wait for their decline. We know who's best in what realm, now we're waiting for a head to head race, Pentium 3 verses Athlon style.
Why would you say that? The way Hyperthreading was designed was to use all of the hardware possible, as long as possible. To do this, you need a deep pipeline so that each pipeline has time to break up the operation, and you also need lots, and lots, and lots of extra hardware in terms of ALUs, FPUs, and Load/Store units. This adds up to a huge silicon investment, and it's simply not there.
Secondly, these new cores are not Netburst cores, so Hyperthreading would have to be redesigned from the ground up to work with the previous P6-compatible cores.
Thirdly, they've had the go ahead to use Dual Core chips. Why do you need two simulated cores if you have two physical ones? Hyperthreading was a good idea, but it was just a hold-off for dual cores, and honestly, with very, very few pieces of software optimized for running dual cores, there's not a lot of enthusiasm to go that route from Intel.
It's really not about "learning a lesson", as you're pushing your articles on us. It's about moving to where the customers are. Right now, the customers are in long battery life, highly mobile computers. My guess is their server market really bottomed out when IBM came trucking through it again, this time with a chip that can really deliver what it promised. I'd wager another guess as far as to say some bargaining went between IBM and Intel not only for Apple, but for staying out of each others market segments. AMD is the real victor here though, since operating out of the horizion of both, and marketing toward the geek gets things done.
If you ask me, it looks like that arm band that Leela always is wearing. Intel's set a new chip-durability record, a THOUSAND years!
Um, no offense, but gtkPod is like trying to interface with a parallel port with a few bits of wire, some chewing gum, and a 9v battery. You have to be MacGuyver to get it right.
That being said, I have 3 iPods, a third gen, a fourth gen, and a fourth.five gen color, all 20GB. Only the third gen syncs with gtkPod without much error, and it's running an extinct version of the iPod firmware.
I tried interfacing with the newest one, and it completely destroyed the filesystem on the iPod. Don't ask me how, but my attempts to plug it into a Mac and a PC both failed, so I had to flip it over to iPod-harddrive mode, and format the bastard. Luckily I didn't lose anything, but it could have been catastrophic.
iTunes is really the best way to use an iPod. If you've got a problem with that, don't buy one. If you don't have a problem with that, like myself, and many I know, buy one, and be happy. And now that iTunes works with Linux, there's no reason not to use it.
And hey, if you take a picture of it, the page will EXPLODE. Guess that'll deal with all of those spys...
Pfft. 5 MB of code turns into *at most* 100MB of game binary, and that's being way, way generous. I haven't compiled it yet myself, but I'm expecting around 20-50MB.
It's the textures and models and sound that drive up the cost of the diskspace with 3D games like Quake 3. Even with texture and sound compression, and some kind of model compression, these are still huge files, and the more compressed they are, the worse your game will perform having to do decompression on the fly. Why else do you think gamers need computers with a gig of ram and a 256 MB video card these days?
The biggest fall out of this is, of course, the PCI bus, which is (and always has been) pretty sensitive to bus speeds being right around 33MHz. I've had machines that wouldn't boot due to the PCI clock being at just over 36MHz, (as RAID cards tend to be PCI based ;) which, following your metric, is barely half over the "safe" parameters.
It does kinda matter, but I don't care. If it won't work, I'll just ship it back and buy a new board from another manufacturer who doesn't like to tinker just to win on some bullshit benchmarks performed by a bunch of websites.
Besides, do they offer any proof it's happening to the ones shipped to consumers, or is this just the demo ones they send to reviewers?
I dunno about you, but I'm firing up the compiler on my toaster just as soon as I get home.
I drive a 1974 Jeep. Runs like a champ, never have had a problem with it not starting on cue, and the only real problems with it are its gas guzzling nature, and it's exceptionally small fuel tank for that use.
That being said, the Space Transport System program has been a wild success, and the space shuttle is just as reliable as my jeep. The problem is where the shuttle is located on its launch vehichle, and how that launch vehicle is put together. Foam falls off the tank because they use foam to insulate the thing, where a little more cost could use electric warmers. SRBs blow up because their rubber seals aren't constructed properly. But the shuttle is still fine.
I think now, as we should have been doing years ago, we should be investigating Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles. The current orbiters would make great museum pieces (imagine being able to go inside a shuttle in a museum), and could drive up the resources used to build alternatives. The SRBs have proven themselves to be lean, mean, heavy lifting machines, and as they are so reusable, we should go on reusing them.
As for the European Union building a new shuttle, good for them. They've been needing shuttle-like versatility. Perhaps it'll help spark a renewal in space technologies, along with the privatization of space technology, here in America. Competition is great until it stagnates, and we've proven that one time and again in our time honored tradition here in America.
Why not use an encryptor where you don't know the passphrase: one where the key is generated via biometrics? I guess they could force you to give up your finger, but then again, scratch your finger or bite it and they don't have a chance in hell of decrypting.
There's this thing, called an "average" or a "mean", depending where you went to middle school. What we do is add up a bunch of things, then divide by the number we added.
In this case, we add up the size of a bunch of songs, then divide by precisely the number of songs there are, and we get a number. That number is roughly around 4MB for a typical set of MP3s. So typical, in fact, I wrote a small C/perl program to computer the averages on all of my hard disks, and none of them were off in either direction more than a half a megabyte from 4MB (but then again, I have a vast music selection, and I'm an eclectic listener, YMMV).
First of all, that third-to-last sentence was barely parsable, but I gotcha.
Secondly, PHP and Perl are like the C and C++ of the web world. They're the oldest and most trustworthy platforms available now, and now since PHP has joined the ranks of full object orientation, it can be a serious competitor to VB/.Net.
Too many websites, web applications, corporations, banks, etc. rely on PHP for it to just die. Ruby on Rails may be better, but it's very much a niche product, and it will take it a lot of time to gain momentum in the corporate world where competition in this particular market is FEARCE.
Lastly, I think people will stick with PHP out of familiarity of the programming model. PHP4 felt just like scriptable C except the lack of types, which, frankly, pissed me off at the beginning, but later turned out to feel just right. Ruby on the other hand, reminds me a lot of Scheme/Lisp or Smalltalk, and is kinda foreign and alien to less experienced programmers (but no more foreign than Object C and it's Smalltalk origins, which I have to admit I have fallen in love with over the past year).
Not to be overly pedantic, but the GPL was created for the soul purpose of the promotion of Free software; software without ownership, giving software freedom. The Open Source movement adopted the GPL as it was compatible with Free Software.
Whereas Free software only includes GPL'd software, Open software comprises all of the BSDs, and BSD-attached code.
Nah, my iBook with 256 was barely usable in my own opinion, but it also had far fewer features under Panther that I really like about Tiger.
;)
I didn't really confirm the widget memory usage either.. my machine really doesn't use too terribly much to deal with Dashboard, but I guess YMMV. Secondly, as I have 1,256MB of ram, and as it wasn't very expensive in view of the cost of the entire platform, I don't really notice too much anymore when it comes to memory. My machine performs very well for most every day operations and the only time I ever get angry with it is getting up overnight to use it and finding my battery dead and waiting for it to reboot (granted it doesn't take long, but I hate rebooting laptops).
Hey, if you're so disappointed, I wouldn't mind taking it off your hands..
Or, perhaps, he's just pissed that his job, his American-based job, is being sent to India.
No offense to the Indians, but if they are just as capable as we are at doing our jobs, let them do their jobs in their country. Last I recall, their country isn't in the best of state...
Meanwhile unemployement here suffers due to us being out jobs, and well, there's really no solution for us. Companies just want to lower their bottom lines, and the best way to do that is fire employees and either pay a machine to do the work, or pay someone way, way less for it.
I'm not racist; I have many good friends who are Indian, Chinese, Slovic, and other races, and I have no problem with them being here in America working. My problem comes when the jobs here are being moved out of our country. We've almost reversed our position from the industrial revolution, when people would migrate here just to work. And we're losing our tech crown because nobody's willing to innovate because it costs too much. These are the things that piss us off, and it's not about racism. If you want to talk about hidden racism, go talk to one of the news *coughFOXcough* networks talking about the Middle East situtation.
Well, half a gig is what I'd call the bare minimum for an operating system like OS X anyways. People might cry foul, but Windows XP isn't really usable at under that notch either, as I can currently tell you, running Windows XP on a box with 192 megs of ram and crying every time I try to close winamp.
Widgets really aren't that big a harm, unless you install and use a hundred of them. Frankly, on my iBook, I use 3 widgets, and could live without 2 of them (the TV guide I won't give up).
Mail.app has never been that great, in my opinion, but I have a general problem with all mail utilities, so I'm not going to attest to anything here.
Tiger's still a kitten, in my opinion. A few service patches later I feel it'll start to come into its own, but right now, it's not the best. Keep in mind that Apple has this record of things not being exactly the best on release. It's a work in progress, and it's still better than it's competitors in my book.
No, I've experienced this too with a quite new iBook. Before Tiger I'd get battery life of just under 6 hours. Afterwards I'm lucky to get 5.
I believe it's correctly attributed to Spotlight, as every now and again, even when the machine is sitting plugged in and resting on my kitchen counter, I can hear it whirl it's harddisk as if it's indexing.
I would like a control panel applet to tune Spotlight, but I can wait. I already did my part in the deal (gave them an email and a submission on their website).
And for the trolls of the world, Apple's not perfect either. This is the first time this kind of tool has been included in an operating system, and it's something that will take quite a bit of time to tune and work out correctly. To be honest, in all of my works to do something similar, I've came out with the same results to a much lower quality, and any tool I've seen to do the same will probably harm my battery's life even more.