You seem confused as to the topic. I repeat. OSX is not iOS. iOS doesn't have flash, nor flashback, nor any need for anti-virus. Anti-virus could only check for know malware, and known malware is removed by Apple anyway.
They considered and rejected the 68000 option. The Atari ST and Commodore Amiga were already dominating the market. A 68000-based Acorn system would have no advantages over those while being "late to the game". They figured that they basically needed to leapfrog the 16-bit systems in order to survive.
Whilst that sounds reasonable it's not historically possible as a motivation. They started developing the ARM in 1983, so that's when they decided what they were going to use for the BBC Micro successor. And the Atari ST and Amiga didn't come out till 2 years later - mid 1985.
The Archimedes came out in 1987, so of course it's success was compromised by the ST and Amiga. But had Acorn used an already existing chip in the 68000 series, they could have beaten the ST and Amiga to market with a computer released in 1984.
So, whilst ARM has been phenomenally successful in it's own right, and for Acorn's spin off company, the decision to develop it may have been what killed Acorn itself.
The 6502 was long in the tooth even in those days (dating back at least to the Commodore Pet ca. 1976). RISC was flavour of the month in those days, so they set out to create their own RISC based architecture for the next generation of BBC Micro (the Archimedes).
It was still an odd decision to design their own CPU for the successor to the BBC Micro. A more obvious and less risky move would have been to use a 68000 series CPU as a successor to the 6502.
I think it's because there were so many Cambridge academics at Acorn. They made a RISC processor because it was an interesting project which was then at the cutting edge of computer science.
Well, I think it's fair to say that the ARM was designed for use in a new computer which turned out to be the Archimedes. It was available first as second processor for the BBC Micro, but that was really just a step in development, not it's original goal.
Creating the ARM simply as a second processor wouldn't have been economically viable. Few people/organisations bought second processors.
Bear in mind that "the article" is published by The Telegraph, which is the UKs chief mouthpiece for the right-wing establishment. Kind of like Fox-News, but not quite as bad.
So left's not confuse what it says with actual facts. They might be the facts, they might not. But The Telegraph is not a reliable source, so we don't know.
His intentions might be interesting as tittle-tattle. What's important is whether the leaks have done good. And as they've brought facts about the duplicity and crimes of a number of governments into the public domain, it's undoubtably good - unless you are a politician with something to hide.
This is a smartphone app. How many smartphone users don't have internet? Must be pretty small. And as to bandwidth, text messages are so tiny, they will be essentially free, even for those with a significant per MB charge for internet.
But clearly your message isn't really about that. You just want to push an alternate messaging app.
PS: I'm waiting for Kontalk to become usable before recommending it as the alternative to WhatsApp.
An alternate messaging app that by your own admission is unusable, so you can't push it yet.
This is so typical of the open source religion. Cheerleading for unworkable software, with bogus arguments, simply because it's open source "kosher". And for what? To save $1 a year!
So what will make Kontalk usable? A disparate group of amateur coders actually coming up with software that works? No, that's easy. The hard part with social networks is getting users. e.g Still waiting for anyone to ask me whether I'm on "Diaspora". Hell I haven't even heard it mentioned in the past year or so.
When I say no software, of course I mean very little. Too little to make it a sensible purchase.
It's a shame. But Sinclair fumbled the launch as I recall, and by the time you could actually get one, the excitement had subsided. Then there were problems with the microdrives. And the problem that it was priced above the BBC Micro level rather then the Spectrum level, and so it didn't appeal to Sinclair's existing customers.
BBC Micro users such as as I might have bought one, but we needed reassurance given the cheap and nasty Sinclair reputation. And that reassurance (in the form of software availability, and hardware reliability) never came.
In the end I got my 68000 series processor replacement for the BBC Micro in the form of an Atari ST. But that was maybe 3 years later.
They must man up and admit their mistakes, but as 8.1 shows. they haven't.
On the contrary, finally pushing Ballmer out was their admission that it had all gone wrong. 8.1 is just mitigation, their new direction will be decided by the new CEO, and as he's only be in place for 3 weeks, it's way too early to expect to see it publicly yet.
Don't get me wrong. MS is fucked. But it's not that they don't know it.
The iPad 1 came with 256MB of RAM. Current iPads have 1GB or RAM.
Desktop OSs can still work on older machines, because they use the HD as virtual RAM when real RAM runs out. Mobile OSs, including iOS don't have virtual ram, as thrashing flash memory is destructive. So if the real RAM available is not big enough to support the OS usage, and the usage of a single current app, then it's incompatible.
A few years ago Apple made the mistake of releasing an iOS version and allowing it on the 3GS. But because of the 3GS limited hardware it ran like a dog. And they were roundly criticised for doing it. It was indeed a mistake. And it would be a mistake to release an OS update that turned iPad 1 performance into a dog.
If the iPad 1 was capable running iOS 7 adequately, then it would be available for it. But it's not. That's the reason for it's unavailability, not some political position of opposing legacy use.
The last line contains one F. See, it's not so easy, is it?
The vast majority of people will count 3 Fs in the text at the first attempt. Yet there are 6 Fs.
And nobody bother claiming they got 6 Fs first time. Your bragging, true or false, won't change the point that understanding a language doesn't mean one can parse it perfectly every time.
It's not so surprising that NT has a lot in common with WMS given that they had the same lead developer. New products always stand on the shoulders of earlier products, especially when they come from the same mind.
But NT certainly isn't a copy of VMS to the extent that say Linux is a copy of Unix. And Linus doesn't have the excuse that he created Unix.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem confused as to the topic. I repeat. OSX is not iOS. iOS doesn't have flash, nor flashback, nor any need for anti-virus. Anti-virus could only check for know malware, and known malware is removed by Apple anyway.
it has viruses in flash too.
That would be quite difficult as flash isn't supported on iOS.
You'll need an anti-virus, anti-malware and anti everything to protect your so called inpenetrable OS.
Dream on.
They considered and rejected the 68000 option. The Atari ST and Commodore Amiga were already dominating the market. A 68000-based Acorn system would have no advantages over those while being "late to the game". They figured that they basically needed to leapfrog the 16-bit systems in order to survive.
Whilst that sounds reasonable it's not historically possible as a motivation. They started developing the ARM in 1983, so that's when they decided what they were going to use for the BBC Micro successor. And the Atari ST and Amiga didn't come out till 2 years later - mid 1985.
The Archimedes came out in 1987, so of course it's success was compromised by the ST and Amiga. But had Acorn used an already existing chip in the 68000 series, they could have beaten the ST and Amiga to market with a computer released in 1984.
So, whilst ARM has been phenomenally successful in it's own right, and for Acorn's spin off company, the decision to develop it may have been what killed Acorn itself.
Right, there's a range of licenses at a range of prices. But surely they are all available to all, including the architectural license.
The 6502 was long in the tooth even in those days (dating back at least to the Commodore Pet ca. 1976).
RISC was flavour of the month in those days, so they set out to create their own RISC based architecture for the next generation of BBC Micro (the Archimedes).
It was still an odd decision to design their own CPU for the successor to the BBC Micro. A more obvious and less risky move would have been to use a 68000 series CPU as a successor to the 6502.
I think it's because there were so many Cambridge academics at Acorn. They made a RISC processor because it was an interesting project which was then at the cutting edge of computer science.
Anyone who wants an ARM license can have one. Just pay the subscription and the royalties. It's open to all. (FRAND)
Well, I think it's fair to say that the ARM was designed for use in a new computer which turned out to be the Archimedes. It was available first as second processor for the BBC Micro, but that was really just a step in development, not it's original goal.
Creating the ARM simply as a second processor wouldn't have been economically viable. Few people/organisations bought second processors.
And some of Intel's fabs are manufacturing ARM chips. Intel doesn't have to lose for ARM to win.
Bear in mind that "the article" is published by The Telegraph, which is the UKs chief mouthpiece for the right-wing establishment. Kind of like Fox-News, but not quite as bad.
So left's not confuse what it says with actual facts. They might be the facts, they might not. But The Telegraph is not a reliable source, so we don't know.
His intentions might be interesting as tittle-tattle. What's important is whether the leaks have done good. And as they've brought facts about the duplicity and crimes of a number of governments into the public domain, it's undoubtably good - unless you are a politician with something to hide.
Assange Left Wing? Never struck me that way. He seems agnostic on left/right. His politics are libertarian.
This is a smartphone app. How many smartphone users don't have internet? Must be pretty small. And as to bandwidth, text messages are so tiny, they will be essentially free, even for those with a significant per MB charge for internet.
But clearly your message isn't really about that. You just want to push an alternate messaging app.
PS: I'm waiting for Kontalk to become usable before recommending it as the alternative to WhatsApp.
An alternate messaging app that by your own admission is unusable, so you can't push it yet.
This is so typical of the open source religion. Cheerleading for unworkable software, with bogus arguments, simply because it's open source "kosher". And for what? To save $1 a year!
So what will make Kontalk usable? A disparate group of amateur coders actually coming up with software that works? No, that's easy. The hard part with social networks is getting users. e.g Still waiting for anyone to ask me whether I'm on "Diaspora". Hell I haven't even heard it mentioned in the past year or so.
That's nothing, I recall the charge per SMS used to be 25p. At 128 bytes per SMS, that's £2048 per MB.
Of course SMS is cheaper these days, but still, the extent of the rip-off back then was staggering.
When I say no software, of course I mean very little. Too little to make it a sensible purchase.
It's a shame. But Sinclair fumbled the launch as I recall, and by the time you could actually get one, the excitement had subsided. Then there were problems with the microdrives. And the problem that it was priced above the BBC Micro level rather then the Spectrum level, and so it didn't appeal to Sinclair's existing customers.
BBC Micro users such as as I might have bought one, but we needed reassurance given the cheap and nasty Sinclair reputation. And that reassurance (in the form of software availability, and hardware reliability) never came.
In the end I got my 68000 series processor replacement for the BBC Micro in the form of an Atari ST. But that was maybe 3 years later.
There was never any software for the QL.
No reason to build it for the same reason no on bought it when it came out. No software.
If you like, yes. Because that usage would be certain to have people looking closely to see what the fuck is going on.
Watch as the dinosaurs refuse to evolve.
They must man up and admit their mistakes, but as 8.1 shows. they haven't.
On the contrary, finally pushing Ballmer out was their admission that it had all gone wrong. 8.1 is just mitigation, their new direction will be decided by the new CEO, and as he's only be in place for 3 weeks, it's way too early to expect to see it publicly yet.
Don't get me wrong. MS is fucked. But it's not that they don't know it.
THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS
There is no F.
So you got it wrong again. Here's a clue. What's the second letter of "OF"?
I rest my case.
The iPad 1 came with 256MB of RAM. Current iPads have 1GB or RAM.
Desktop OSs can still work on older machines, because they use the HD as virtual RAM when real RAM runs out. Mobile OSs, including iOS don't have virtual ram, as thrashing flash memory is destructive. So if the real RAM available is not big enough to support the OS usage, and the usage of a single current app, then it's incompatible.
A few years ago Apple made the mistake of releasing an iOS version and allowing it on the 3GS. But because of the 3GS limited hardware it ran like a dog. And they were roundly criticised for doing it. It was indeed a mistake. And it would be a mistake to release an OS update that turned iPad 1 performance into a dog.
If the iPad 1 was capable running iOS 7 adequately, then it would be available for it. But it's not. That's the reason for it's unavailability, not some political position of opposing legacy use.
"Their solution was to change to an API that they knew could be consistent."
Of course. Rolling your own SSL stack is so much more efficient a use of engineers time than backporting patches.
Non-sequiteur. Back-porting patches does not stabilise the OpenSSL API between versions.
The last line contains one F. See, it's not so easy, is it?
The vast majority of people will count 3 Fs in the text at the first attempt. Yet there are 6 Fs.
And nobody bother claiming they got 6 Fs first time. Your bragging, true or false, won't change the point that understanding a language doesn't mean one can parse it perfectly every time.
It's not so surprising that NT has a lot in common with WMS given that they had the same lead developer. New products always stand on the shoulders of earlier products, especially when they come from the same mind.
But NT certainly isn't a copy of VMS to the extent that say Linux is a copy of Unix. And Linus doesn't have the excuse that he created Unix.
OK, so we're saying nearly the same thing. Only I wouldn't accept your first example either.