But can we be sure that it's not just the view that we see through slashdot-glasses?
Everyone I know, tech user or otherwise, who's seen Window 8 says 'WTF were they thinking?' or words to that effect.
Sure, companies continue to buy Window 8 PCs, wipe them, and install Windows 7, but they're already thinking about what to do when Windows 7 goes out of support.
From what I remember, OS/2 was technically superior, but required more expensive hardware and came with no bundled apps. Did it even have a text editor?
This is dangerous, as corporate entities honestly do not give a poop about PEOPLE, THE ENVIRONMENT, THE PLANET, or anything other than the so-called "bottom-line".
And you think governments care about anything other than money, power and getting re-elected?
How touchingly naive.
BTW, SpaceX launched their upgraded Falcon 9 for the first time this morning. They don't seem to have said yet whether the first stage recovery test worked.
I did get used to it, and now I find I like it...With the extensions.gnome.org set of extensions, I find that I can customize it to my liking, and get back some of the old things I like, while keeping a lot of the new.
So you, you know, 'got used to it', by rewriting it with extensions.
FWIW, I am sticking with GNOME3, and I am guessing I am not the only one.
So, what do you when you're put in front of someone else's Gnome 3 machine, which doesn't have your magic 'makes it not suck' extensions installed?
Or when the next release breaks all your extensions?
I heard Gnome 4 will just be a black screen, because non-black pixels confuse users. Gnome 4.1 may include an option to select the color for the screen.
As others have mentioned, there are a ton of embedded systems which use Java as the control interface and load unsigned or self-signed applets to do so. Block them, and we'll be forced to stick with an old version of Java.
That sounds like a much more reasonable price. Where'd I go wrong? GP suggested taking just a step or two back from the top-of-the-line, so instead of picking a $1000 CPU, I picked a $570 one.
I think my i7 was around $280, so that's $300 saved already. Looks like I was wrong aboui it being the second fastest, it's the second-fastest quad-core i7, I hadn't realised Intel had six-core i7s at that time, thought it was only Xeons.
Sorry, I do not have the time to educate you here on the word "contiguous" in context to OS memory management. Also, I preambled my comment re: memory access not instructions.
Maybe you should spend more time reading than 'educating'. My post was specifically about memory usage, and 'contiguous' is irrelevant to software, because the MMU makes it look contiguous. All Windows gives a 32-bit app is 2GB of RAM, unless the app and every single DLL it loads has the 4GB-aware flag (good luck with that).
Many, many 32-bit Windows apps are hammering hard against that 2GB barrier right now.
Nah, forget it. As a computer software nerd, but not a PC building nerd, I'll just go with a 27" iMac for $1999. Granted only an i5 CPU and 8 GB, but comes with a great OS and a gorgeous 27" monitor. (BTO with i7, 16GB and 256GB SSD bumps the price to $2599.) It has a GTX 775M instead of GTX 660 - no idea which is faster. At least I know all the components will work together, and they're properly supported by the OS.
I built a new games machine last year. That had the second-fastest i7 at the time, 32GB of RAM, the GTX660 GPU you mentioned, a 200GB-ish SSD, 3TB hard drive and a few other bells and whistles. Even including $100 for Windows, it only cost $1500.
So that had better be a really, really gorgeous monitor.
Meanwhile, in the real world, most people's primary reason for buying a faster CPU is... to play games on Windows.
If AMD suck at gaming on Windows, they want to know that.
Now, if a site is only using games as a benchmark, yes, that's a problem. But Toms Hardware, at least, usually covers a range of different types of applicaiton benchmarks, for the minority who aren't looking at the CPU as something to run games on.
Today, I do not see any apps in general use that need or require access to memory beyond a contiguous block of data beyond 4GB (frankly far far less).
Then you're not looking very hard. There are plenty of games that fall over as soon as you install enough mods that you go over 2GB (the maximum amount of RAM the majority of 32-bit apps are allowed to access in Windows). There are also games which install crappy versions of textures in 32-bit mode because they would otherwise hit the 2GB limit.
PAE is a disgusting kludge. There is simply no reason not to run 64-bit apps on a 64-bit x86 OS... unless you're stuck with a proprietary antique like Windows.
They can't because people are still on Windows, which heavily depends on bitmaps. If you increase the screen resolution that much it screws up lots of existing applications to the point of being unusable.
Ah, I still remember the good old days when telling Windows you had anything but a 72dpi monitor would cause most of the applications to render incorrectly.
AMD is not ARM. ARM is ARM. Anyone can buy an ARM license and start releasing ARM chips. AMD are producing ARM chips because they can't compete with Intel in the x86 market.
Nothing stops Intel releasing ARM chips, as they have in the past, except the margins would probably be awful compared to their x86 lineup.
This is a horrible idea, let's start with how credit worked in the old days. You got a house loan or car loan by paying 1/3 the cost up front. You also paid off your credit on terms that were much shorter than today's terms. I don't know about you, but outside the rich or someone that has been saving for many years that is simply no longer feasible in today's society. Simply put, only the rich could afford to get credit if we adopted the old standards.
And how is that bad?
Just imagine how cheap houses would be if banks weren't giving million-dollar mortgages to anything with a pulse.
Credit does not make you rich. It just allows people with less forethought to outbid you in restricted markets so you can no longer afford to buy the things you could otherwise have bought.
Slashdot Mirror
Gasoline vehicles burn ALL the TIME. You see it in every movie you watch nowadays.
And after they catch fire, they EXPLODE!
But can we be sure that it's not just the view that we see through slashdot-glasses?
Everyone I know, tech user or otherwise, who's seen Window 8 says 'WTF were they thinking?' or words to that effect.
Sure, companies continue to buy Window 8 PCs, wipe them, and install Windows 7, but they're already thinking about what to do when Windows 7 goes out of support.
From what I remember, OS/2 was technically superior, but required more expensive hardware and came with no bundled apps. Did it even have a text editor?
Who is questioning the future of Microsoft?
Most of the tech industry?
I certainly have a hard time seeing why anyone will care about Microsoft in ten years. Maybe even five, if they keep producing crap like Window 8.
Maybe Google will buy them, just for grins.
This is dangerous, as corporate entities honestly do not give a poop about PEOPLE, THE ENVIRONMENT, THE PLANET, or anything other than the so-called "bottom-line".
And you think governments care about anything other than money, power and getting re-elected?
How touchingly naive.
BTW, SpaceX launched their upgraded Falcon 9 for the first time this morning. They don't seem to have said yet whether the first stage recovery test worked.
I've only seen the first of the 'new' Star Trek movies, but the only thing I noticed him bring in was explosions.
This looks cool, but once the wow factor wears off, will anyone want to use this interface for any length of time?
No, but Microsoft will require you to keep the camera on at all times, so the NSA can hook into your telescreen whenever they want to spy on you.
GNOME3 works for me, and I am not the only one who likes it.
GNOME3 doesn't work for you, or you wouldn't have to rewrite it to make it usable.
I did get used to it, and now I find I like it...With the extensions.gnome.org set of extensions, I find that I can customize it to my liking, and get back some of the old things I like, while keeping a lot of the new.
So you, you know, 'got used to it', by rewriting it with extensions.
FWIW, I am sticking with GNOME3, and I am guessing I am not the only one.
So, what do you when you're put in front of someone else's Gnome 3 machine, which doesn't have your magic 'makes it not suck' extensions installed?
Or when the next release breaks all your extensions?
I heard Gnome 4 will just be a black screen, because non-black pixels confuse users. Gnome 4.1 may include an option to select the color for the screen.
Because the Xorg developers say that the code base is rotten and that this is the right thing to do.
Aren't the X.org developers the ones writing Wayland?
You'd think that no-one would trust developers who say 'this software we developed is awful, but the next version will be the best thing evah!'
Oh, hang on, that's been Microsoft's strategy with every Windows release in the last twenty years.
Because RHEL7 is going to use it as the default desktop environment, and Red Hat is the biggest paying contributor to Gnome.
So you think the people who paid for Gnome 3 so Linux admins could have a tablet interface on their servers are going to maintain YAGUI?
This gives the powers that be the capability to shut off any java applet they do not like for any reason what so ever?
What? Letting users decide what programs should run on their computers, rather than 'the powers that be'? That's such 20th century thinking.
Do those embedded systems run the latest 1.7.0.40 Oracle Java? Because if they don't, it shouldn't matter.
The browser will be running the latest version of Java, and that's where the decision will be made about whether it's allowed to run.
As others have mentioned, there are a ton of embedded systems which use Java as the control interface and load unsigned or self-signed applets to do so. Block them, and we'll be forced to stick with an old version of Java.
That sounds like a much more reasonable price. Where'd I go wrong? GP suggested taking just a step or two back from the top-of-the-line, so instead of picking a $1000 CPU, I picked a $570 one.
I think my i7 was around $280, so that's $300 saved already. Looks like I was wrong aboui it being the second fastest, it's the second-fastest quad-core i7, I hadn't realised Intel had six-core i7s at that time, thought it was only Xeons.
Did they use TCP/IP over neutrinos?
Sorry, I do not have the time to educate you here on the word "contiguous" in context to OS memory management. Also, I preambled my comment re: memory access not instructions.
Maybe you should spend more time reading than 'educating'. My post was specifically about memory usage, and 'contiguous' is irrelevant to software, because the MMU makes it look contiguous. All Windows gives a 32-bit app is 2GB of RAM, unless the app and every single DLL it loads has the 4GB-aware flag (good luck with that).
Many, many 32-bit Windows apps are hammering hard against that 2GB barrier right now.
Nah, forget it. As a computer software nerd, but not a PC building nerd, I'll just go with a 27" iMac for $1999. Granted only an i5 CPU and 8 GB, but comes with a great OS and a gorgeous 27" monitor. (BTO with i7, 16GB and 256GB SSD bumps the price to $2599.) It has a GTX 775M instead of GTX 660 - no idea which is faster. At least I know all the components will work together, and they're properly supported by the OS.
I built a new games machine last year. That had the second-fastest i7 at the time, 32GB of RAM, the GTX660 GPU you mentioned, a 200GB-ish SSD, 3TB hard drive and a few other bells and whistles. Even including $100 for Windows, it only cost $1500.
So that had better be a really, really gorgeous monitor.
Meanwhile, in the real world, most people's primary reason for buying a faster CPU is... to play games on Windows.
If AMD suck at gaming on Windows, they want to know that.
Now, if a site is only using games as a benchmark, yes, that's a problem. But Toms Hardware, at least, usually covers a range of different types of applicaiton benchmarks, for the minority who aren't looking at the CPU as something to run games on.
Today, I do not see any apps in general use that need or require access to memory beyond a contiguous block of data beyond 4GB (frankly far far less).
Then you're not looking very hard. There are plenty of games that fall over as soon as you install enough mods that you go over 2GB (the maximum amount of RAM the majority of 32-bit apps are allowed to access in Windows). There are also games which install crappy versions of textures in 32-bit mode because they would otherwise hit the 2GB limit.
PAE is a disgusting kludge. There is simply no reason not to run 64-bit apps on a 64-bit x86 OS... unless you're stuck with a proprietary antique like Windows.
They can't because people are still on Windows, which heavily depends on bitmaps. If you increase the screen resolution that much it screws up lots of existing applications to the point of being unusable.
Ah, I still remember the good old days when telling Windows you had anything but a 72dpi monitor would cause most of the applications to render incorrectly.
AMD is not ARM. ARM is ARM. Anyone can buy an ARM license and start releasing ARM chips. AMD are producing ARM chips because they can't compete with Intel in the x86 market.
Nothing stops Intel releasing ARM chips, as they have in the past, except the margins would probably be awful compared to their x86 lineup.
You don't really think that all those 16-bit Windows apps statically linked in every Windows library, do you?
This is a horrible idea, let's start with how credit worked in the old days. You got a house loan or car loan by paying 1/3 the cost up front. You also paid off your credit on terms that were much shorter than today's terms. I don't know about you, but outside the rich or someone that has been saving for many years that is simply no longer feasible in today's society. Simply put, only the rich could afford to get credit if we adopted the old standards.
And how is that bad?
Just imagine how cheap houses would be if banks weren't giving million-dollar mortgages to anything with a pulse.
Credit does not make you rich. It just allows people with less forethought to outbid you in restricted markets so you can no longer afford to buy the things you could otherwise have bought.