I didn't say that they weren't interested in the Atom platform, just the netbooks that they are stuck in. Why does Intel limit the size and features that a netbook can have? Because they don't want to sacrifice the market for the more profitable chips. Why haven't they released a faster (yes, I know the current generation is like 10% faster) netbook chip? We're 18 months from the launch of the first chip and we haven't seen progress anywhere near what Moore's law would predict.
Microsoft and Intel have been very uninterested in netbooks since they don't have the same market share as full size laptops. That's why the third generation of Atom chips aren't really any faster than the first generation and why the version of Windows 7 that gets stuck on a netbook is so limited you can't even change the background.
But other companies, without a large amount of profit coming from fullsize laptops, will jump at the chance to increase their bottom line. Ubuntu and ARM for example, have nothing to lose by offering netbook products, since they don't have any real marketshare in the laptop market.
AMD has been suspiciously quiet the last couple of years. I'm waiting to see if they might come out with an "Atom-killer". And don't forget Via. They already have a competent netbook chip.
There's definitely a market demand for low cost netbooks, so Intel and Microsoft can continue ignore this segment and risk that their competitors will take it away, or they can get in the game themselves. I think we'll see a real change in the netbook market maybe not this year, but early in 2011 as more and more alternatives to Atom and Windows 7 become available.
When you can pick up 4GB of RAM memory for a song, why not load the whole OS into memory? As long as you don't suffer a system crash, you can unload it back to disk when you're done.
Amtrak has the problem that it leases the use of many of the rails it uses. As a result, passenger trains have to yield to the trains of the owners of the rail - usually slow, long freight trains. Even worse, the freight trains aren't a fixed schedule, so Amtrak can't schedule around the delays.
One fix would be to install new (standard speed0 rails alongside the existing ones. It would be fairly cheap (as compared to high speed rail) and would allow Amtrak to travel at high speeds for more of their routes.
Of course, even better would be a nationwide network of high speed rail, but I don't believe that there's enough pressure from airline-fed-up consumers and environmentalists yet to encourage the politicians to do anything.
Well, the Wikipedia page that is the first result of that search puts the iPhone in third behind the Symbian and Palm OS's. Of course, this is only a measure of operating system popularity, but it sure makes the iPhone look not-so-popular.
That's not how Apple works. They don't stick the best technology in something; they make very good technology do amazing things. Very few of their products are fully decked out - iPod shuffle doesn't have controls, the Air only has 1 USB port, etc.
But each product does amazing things with what it has.
The next iPhone won't be some amalgamation of every cool technology out there, but rather a careful selection of a few choice technologies that will work together.
There are zero replies and the story is already tagged with "youreboned". That's the truth. If your higher ups won't front the money for proper test equipment and expect you to roll out production-ready equipment on the first go, then you really are boned. Of course, you can mitigate this by simple pen-and-paper analysis. What should each piece of equipment do? Are the products we've selected appropriate for the roles we're going to put them in? These sorts of questions can find a lot of bugs without any sort of testing. If you think, "what would I do if it was the 1980's?" then you'll be fine.
It's possible if you control the hardware as well. Imagine if DVDs were only playable on DVD players; that is, computer DVD drives didn't exist. Now imagine that those hardware DVD players are secure against tampering; say a stick of dynamite explodes in your face if you try to open it. Would you still expect that the DVD encryption would have been hacked?
The problem with DRM as it stands is that they try and control the software without controlling the hardware, but things like TPM could make unbreakable (or far less breakable) DRM a reality.
Since when is FOSS mutually exclusive with DRM? You can use FOSS to sell software, make money, create DRM, and write Windows programs. These aren't activities we normally think of when it comes to FOSS, but they are generally allowed.
I use it because I can code up relatively fast, relatively secure dynamic websites in a very short amount of time. I can install it on a webserver in seconds and it integrates beautifully with Apache and MySQL. Maybe there is a better solution out there, but PHP has always done what I need it to and I've never had a problem with it. It's never given me a reason to look elsewhere.
What I don't understand is all of the PHP-haters out there. Really, who cares if it is "the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl"? Isn't the proper measure of a tool if it does what you need it to and not who else uses it?
I recall some 2D isometric viewpoint adventure games in the late 80's / early 90's being advertised as "3D".
It is routine today to refer to games like Bioshock as being a "3D game", while something like Super Mario Bros for the Wii as being a "2D game".
For now, calling stereoscopic vision "3D" is fine, since there is nothing else to compare it to. Someday, if someone figures out how to make "true" 3D, then our standards will change and we'll be more precise in what we call stereoscopic displays.
Even if it consumes only a small amount of hard disk space and a small amount of memory, multiply that by a 100 or so and you realize that installing every feature simply because you can is not a good idea. And you say it must be "stable", but you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of code that has never had a bugfix. More code is more opportunity for system stability bugs and security bugs.
Oh really? I'm just going with what I read on another forum. I thought Compiz was the thing that makes my desktop a rotating cube, but if its not, then I stand corrected.
While we're on the subject, I'm curious to know how well Linux supports three monitor setups. I'm thinking of setting up three monitors on two graphics cards with KDE4. Does anyone have experience with this setup? How well does Compiz work for you? (I've heard anecdotal stories that Compiz can't cross video cards.) Is this something that SaX (or another GUI tool) setup, or will I be hand-editing configuration files?
Slashdot Mirror
I take it she's on Clear?
How does she like it?
Bandwidth up and down? Ping times? Reliability?
I've been looking to break free from the AT&T and Comcast duopoly and Clear's Wimax sounds just about right.
I didn't say that they weren't interested in the Atom platform, just the netbooks that they are stuck in. Why does Intel limit the size and features that a netbook can have? Because they don't want to sacrifice the market for the more profitable chips. Why haven't they released a faster (yes, I know the current generation is like 10% faster) netbook chip? We're 18 months from the launch of the first chip and we haven't seen progress anywhere near what Moore's law would predict.
Oh really? Show me the netbook that comes with Win 7 Ultimate on it.
Wow. You missed the points I was trying to make.
1. Selling Core 2 Duo laptops with Windows 7 Professional is profitable for Microsoft and Intel.
2. Selling Atom netbooks with Windows XP is not as profitable.
So, as a result of 1 & 2:
3. It's not surprising that Microsoft and Intel haven't put much effort into the netbook platform.
And as a result of 3:
4. The lack of development of the netbook platform will give other companies the room they need to innovate and bring new products to market.
None of it was a "typical rah-rah-Linux Microsoft Sucks" post, even if I knew what that means.
Microsoft and Intel have been very uninterested in netbooks since they don't have the same market share as full size laptops. That's why the third generation of Atom chips aren't really any faster than the first generation and why the version of Windows 7 that gets stuck on a netbook is so limited you can't even change the background.
But other companies, without a large amount of profit coming from fullsize laptops, will jump at the chance to increase their bottom line. Ubuntu and ARM for example, have nothing to lose by offering netbook products, since they don't have any real marketshare in the laptop market.
AMD has been suspiciously quiet the last couple of years. I'm waiting to see if they might come out with an "Atom-killer". And don't forget Via. They already have a competent netbook chip.
There's definitely a market demand for low cost netbooks, so Intel and Microsoft can continue ignore this segment and risk that their competitors will take it away, or they can get in the game themselves. I think we'll see a real change in the netbook market maybe not this year, but early in 2011 as more and more alternatives to Atom and Windows 7 become available.
When you can pick up 4GB of RAM memory for a song, why not load the whole OS into memory? As long as you don't suffer a system crash, you can unload it back to disk when you're done.
Exactly. The poster tells us what the x- and y- axes are, but not what the graph looks like. Is it linear? What are the scales?
I got the point, but come on, this is /. You should know better than to make half a math reference.
Amtrak has the problem that it leases the use of many of the rails it uses. As a result, passenger trains have to yield to the trains of the owners of the rail - usually slow, long freight trains. Even worse, the freight trains aren't a fixed schedule, so Amtrak can't schedule around the delays.
One fix would be to install new (standard speed0 rails alongside the existing ones. It would be fairly cheap (as compared to high speed rail) and would allow Amtrak to travel at high speeds for more of their routes.
Of course, even better would be a nationwide network of high speed rail, but I don't believe that there's enough pressure from airline-fed-up consumers and environmentalists yet to encourage the politicians to do anything.
Well, the Wikipedia page that is the first result of that search puts the iPhone in third behind the Symbian and Palm OS's. Of course, this is only a measure of operating system popularity, but it sure makes the iPhone look not-so-popular.
That's not how Apple works. They don't stick the best technology in something; they make very good technology do amazing things. Very few of their products are fully decked out - iPod shuffle doesn't have controls, the Air only has 1 USB port, etc.
But each product does amazing things with what it has.
The next iPhone won't be some amalgamation of every cool technology out there, but rather a careful selection of a few choice technologies that will work together.
Oddly enough, the "bazillion-pixel camera" still takes crappy, "cell phone"-quality pictures.
and take two paracetamol before you go to bed.
That's two Tylenol to us Yankees.
Lithium fires cannot be put out with regular fire extinguishers. The real danger is an unabated fire in the cargo hold, where no one can get to it.
Troll? Why was I moderated "troll"? Funny, sure. Unfunny, maybe. But troll. My feelings are hurt.
Can I get one in time for Christmas??
There are zero replies and the story is already tagged with "youreboned". That's the truth. If your higher ups won't front the money for proper test equipment and expect you to roll out production-ready equipment on the first go, then you really are boned. Of course, you can mitigate this by simple pen-and-paper analysis. What should each piece of equipment do? Are the products we've selected appropriate for the roles we're going to put them in? These sorts of questions can find a lot of bugs without any sort of testing. If you think, "what would I do if it was the 1980's?" then you'll be fine.
It's possible if you control the hardware as well. Imagine if DVDs were only playable on DVD players; that is, computer DVD drives didn't exist. Now imagine that those hardware DVD players are secure against tampering; say a stick of dynamite explodes in your face if you try to open it. Would you still expect that the DVD encryption would have been hacked?
The problem with DRM as it stands is that they try and control the software without controlling the hardware, but things like TPM could make unbreakable (or far less breakable) DRM a reality.
Since when is FOSS mutually exclusive with DRM? You can use FOSS to sell software, make money, create DRM, and write Windows programs. These aren't activities we normally think of when it comes to FOSS, but they are generally allowed.
Godwin's Law FTW!
I use it because I can code up relatively fast, relatively secure dynamic websites in a very short amount of time. I can install it on a webserver in seconds and it integrates beautifully with Apache and MySQL. Maybe there is a better solution out there, but PHP has always done what I need it to and I've never had a problem with it. It's never given me a reason to look elsewhere.
What I don't understand is all of the PHP-haters out there. Really, who cares if it is "the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl"? Isn't the proper measure of a tool if it does what you need it to and not who else uses it?
I recall some 2D isometric viewpoint adventure games in the late 80's / early 90's being advertised as "3D".
It is routine today to refer to games like Bioshock as being a "3D game", while something like Super Mario Bros for the Wii as being a "2D game".
For now, calling stereoscopic vision "3D" is fine, since there is nothing else to compare it to. Someday, if someone figures out how to make "true" 3D, then our standards will change and we'll be more precise in what we call stereoscopic displays.
Even if it consumes only a small amount of hard disk space and a small amount of memory, multiply that by a 100 or so and you realize that installing every feature simply because you can is not a good idea. And you say it must be "stable", but you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of code that has never had a bugfix. More code is more opportunity for system stability bugs and security bugs.
Oh really? I'm just going with what I read on another forum. I thought Compiz was the thing that makes my desktop a rotating cube, but if its not, then I stand corrected.
While we're on the subject, I'm curious to know how well Linux supports three monitor setups. I'm thinking of setting up three monitors on two graphics cards with KDE4. Does anyone have experience with this setup? How well does Compiz work for you? (I've heard anecdotal stories that Compiz can't cross video cards.) Is this something that SaX (or another GUI tool) setup, or will I be hand-editing configuration files?
Or x is undefined (as in infinity) is also a solution.