Erm, they're written in a Java syntax but there isn't all the standard Java classes available. It's still running in a virtual machine, albeit a register instead of stack based one. It may be more optimal for a mobile device but it's still like writing in VB or some other easy option for coding.
Still nowhere near as efficient as coding in C++, C or Objective C then compiling to a native executable.
Coding on Android has none of the advantages of Java (apart from some familiarity of the syntax) and most of the disadvantages too.
ARM chips use a quarter of the power compared to the Atom chips.
ARM core designs can be licenced and integrated into SOC (system on a chip).
With Atom you need the Atom chip plus a northbridge chip, with ARM you can use a single chip. More space in a mobile device means more space for batteries.
The problem with ChromeOS is it is trying to solve a problem them doesn't exist. Why upload data into the cloud if you don't need to share it or have access to it on the move? You don't want to need to upload all your data to the cloud before you can do anything with it.
Cloud computing makes sense for people who want to rent computer processing power on an adhoc basis to solve computational problems.
Computing needs to gradually move to new technologies, it rarely makes huge leaps. ChromeOS would be better being a full Linux desktop for now with cloud services instead of being fully cloud based.
My biggest problem is not the masses of CGI, it is the insistence of directors or photography directors that the camera has to fly around all over the place.
I would much rather have nice composed shots, nice panning shots. I don't want millions of different angles and machine gun edits (lots of edits per second).
The people doing the satellite phones should just stick up some cell phone masts in signal black spots and offer to rent service to all the other networks.
Well they can't say "it has exchange support" since it's pitched as a consumer device. So that's a big fail when all the other players offer it and Microsoft don't.
We needed a fundamental human right that says access to public information on the web should be accessible by anyone using any device.
As for Flash and Silverlight, they hinder development of the web by providing an easy way to do things or a way to do things not possible by DHTML/Javascript.
Or save your money and get something decent like a Firewire external audio interface. I have a nice 12 in/out one that does 24-bit 192Khz. Obviously I'm not using that for general purpose stuff. You then have your PC and sound device well apart and isolated.
If you're really serious about using analogue outputs (really, why bother?) and want the best quality then you would be using balanced in/out.
Just because you don't have the imagination to see what something is useful for doesn't mean that others won't.
There are plenty of people who don't have an iPhone or smartphone. There are people who are too dumb or technophobic to use a full blown desktop OS. People have bought them for their elderly relatives since it's a computer that can't be easy broken.
There are quite a lot of very useful applications for musicians. TouchOSC for instance can be used as a mixer controller for Logic Audio, so you can mix music with it, using sliders on a touch screen is a lot easier than using a mouse. There's music sequencers which are a lot more usable on a big screen compared to an iPhone.
Not if you need to fill out big electronic forms. This is where the big screen iPad comes in handy for business. Electronic forms and data entry on the move. A phone would just be a bit small and cumbersome.
A big tablet means more space for batteries, hence why the iPad can last a working day when a phone would be dead after half a day.
When you go to an ATM machine to withdraw cash you don't expect to see a full keyboard and mouse, you don't expect to have to double click "Withdraw Cash.exe" and then enter your details.
Every situation has a different interface design paradigm and this is what Microsoft and others always forget. They try to use their existing software and do the bare minimum of work and talk about providing lots of features.
A tablet forgoes all the complexity and clutter of desktop OSes. Everything about a desktop OS is stuck in the 80s and 90s, file manager, command line, having lots of windows open.
Mobile devices have shown that the future of computing needs to be different.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, they're written in a Java syntax but there isn't all the standard Java classes available. It's still running in a virtual machine, albeit a register instead of stack based one. It may be more optimal for a mobile device but it's still like writing in VB or some other easy option for coding.
Still nowhere near as efficient as coding in C++, C or Objective C then compiling to a native executable.
Coding on Android has none of the advantages of Java (apart from some familiarity of the syntax) and most of the disadvantages too.
Dongles for AutoCAD and other ludicrously expensive software have been around since the very early 1990s. I remember seeing them in about 1992.
That's a whole three years before I got on the Internet and seven years before Napster and Metallica starting off the whole backlash.
ARM is a RISC design. It's easier to emulate CISC on a RISC than RISC on a CISC.
ARM chips use a quarter of the power compared to the Atom chips.
ARM core designs can be licenced and integrated into SOC (system on a chip).
With Atom you need the Atom chip plus a northbridge chip, with ARM you can use a single chip. More space in a mobile device means more space for batteries.
Why port it to ARM and talk about it if there's no clear strategy or reason for doing so?
It's odd that Intel are trying to get people off ARM and onto Atom (low power x86) while Microsoft are thinking of moving people from Intel to ARM.
Doh. I mean Android wasn't developed by Google :)
Android is also built up of open source which Microsoft's products contain very little of.
Hardly. It's not native code, it's a Java knock off and it wasn't developed by Microsoft.
Win32 applications compile to native code, Win32 was developed by Microsoft.
I think they should be dealing with angry kurds instead of Angry Birds.
I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.
The problem with ChromeOS is it is trying to solve a problem them doesn't exist. Why upload data into the cloud if you don't need to share it or have access to it on the move?
You don't want to need to upload all your data to the cloud before you can do anything with it.
Cloud computing makes sense for people who want to rent computer processing power on an adhoc basis to solve computational problems.
Computing needs to gradually move to new technologies, it rarely makes huge leaps. ChromeOS would be better being a full Linux desktop for now with cloud services instead of being fully cloud based.
My biggest problem is not the masses of CGI, it is the insistence of directors or photography directors that the camera has to fly around all over the place.
I would much rather have nice composed shots, nice panning shots. I don't want millions of different angles and machine gun edits (lots of edits per second).
So many films seem the same due to the above.
The people doing the satellite phones should just stick up some cell phone masts in signal black spots and offer to rent service to all the other networks.
If you give access or information about APIs that this information can leak out and be used for the wrong purposes.
The military should buy something that does what they want, not buy a consumer product then try to get the manufacturer to change it for them.
No, it's an admission that most people buy laptop computers to access the Internet, play music and films.
Computer ownership accelerated when the Internet became popular. Hence it is the "killer application" for most users.
Well they can't say "it has exchange support" since it's pitched as a consumer device. So that's a big fail when all the other players offer it and Microsoft don't.
We needed a fundamental human right that says access to public information on the web should be accessible by anyone using any device.
As for Flash and Silverlight, they hinder development of the web by providing an easy way to do things or a way to do things not possible by DHTML/Javascript.
Unless they serve it from a ROM based source there's always the chance of the server getting hacked and the content altered or defaced.
It's almost considered to be equivalent to wire-tapping. Intercepting someone's communications.
In the end the EU gave the UK government a big slap for letting it happen:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/30/eu_phorm/
Or save your money and get something decent like a Firewire external audio interface. I have a nice 12 in/out one that does 24-bit 192Khz. Obviously I'm not using that for general purpose stuff. You then have your PC and sound device well apart and isolated.
If you're really serious about using analogue outputs (really, why bother?) and want the best quality then you would be using balanced in/out.
But will it find Bin Laden?
Of course even if they did find him it wouldn't stop the terrorism.
Maybe David Blaine will have one next time he stands outside in a block of ice?
Just because you don't have the imagination to see what something is useful for doesn't mean that others won't.
There are plenty of people who don't have an iPhone or smartphone. There are people who are too dumb or technophobic to use a full blown desktop OS. People have bought them for their elderly relatives since it's a computer that can't be easy broken.
There are quite a lot of very useful applications for musicians. TouchOSC for instance can be used as a mixer controller for Logic Audio, so you can mix music with it, using sliders on a touch screen is a lot easier than using a mouse. There's music sequencers which are a lot more usable on a big screen compared to an iPhone.
Not if you need to fill out big electronic forms. This is where the big screen iPad comes in handy for business. Electronic forms and data entry on the move. A phone would just be a bit small and cumbersome.
A big tablet means more space for batteries, hence why the iPad can last a working day when a phone would be dead after half a day.
When you go to an ATM machine to withdraw cash you don't expect to see a full keyboard and mouse, you don't expect to have to double click "Withdraw Cash.exe" and then enter your details.
Every situation has a different interface design paradigm and this is what Microsoft and others always forget. They try to use their existing software and do the bare minimum of work and talk about providing lots of features.
A tablet forgoes all the complexity and clutter of desktop OSes. Everything about a desktop OS is stuck in the 80s and 90s, file manager, command line, having lots of windows open.
Mobile devices have shown that the future of computing needs to be different.
Probably the Red Hat one, after all they probably know more about which values and settings to tune up than anyone.
They probably have a lot more of these, but it's a competitive business and they'll keep them secret to have an advantage over the competition.