Except Apple has never claimed anything like that. The FBI claimed that. Apple can grant access to user's iCloud account given a warrant; however, the problem is that data on the phone is encrypted using device level keys that Apple does not have access nor ability to get.
In the San Bernandino case, the FBI wanted data off the phone. So Apple advised that they should allow the iPhone to automatically sync up and backup tothe iCloud account. Instead the FBI instructed the police to reset the password which then locked Apple and the FBI out of the phone's data.
That might lead to wrong conclusions as the data is not realtime and incomplete. Take for example Swiss Air Flight 111. The ultimate cause of the crash as a fire caused by the IFE system. The pilots radioed to ATC that there was an "odor" in the cockpit and they attempted to locate the source while being diverted to land.
To this day, some conspiracy theorists believe that a thermite bomb was the "real" cause because a person with no airplane accident experience has promoted it.
AMD was within shouting distance of intel's power efficiency for high-performance mobile processors at the time
Describe "shouting distance". For most laptops, AMD's chips were inferior to Intel offerings at the time. These days the difference is not as much but back in 2005 when Apple made the decision for their 2006 models, it was more noticeable.
Intel was killing them on the low end;
My point was that Intel was killing AMD on power efficiency on mobile which was something that Apple (like many manufacturers including Dell) wanted.
GEODE was more power efficient than early Atoms, but it didn't scale.
And Apple didn't care about either GEODE or Atom.
However, while Apple has often used not-quite-the-latest processors in their mobile devices, they have never gone for the budget option.
For Intel MacBooks at the time
MacBook1,1: May 2006, Intel Core Duo T2400/T2500: Released Jan 2006
MacBook2,1: Nov 2006, Intel Core 2 Duo (T5600/T7200): Oct, Aug 2006
MacBook2,1: May 2007, Intel Core 2 Duo (T7200/T7400): Aug, Aug 2006
MacBook3,1: Nov 2007, Intel Core 2 Duo (T7300/T7500): May 2007
It appears that Apple at the time were using the latest processors from Intel for the MacBook line when they made the transition. Even if you look at the MacBook 2,1 models released in May 2007, Apple was still using the fastest Socket M processors Intel produced. Sure Apple could have used the T5500 launched by Intel in Spring 2007 but it was slower than then T7400 Intel released 9 months earlier.
So I have this silver hammer that has worked nicely for years. Then my post office raised the first class stamp rate and declared that my hammers won't work anymore.
32 bit applications will still work on existing legacy Macs? If you don't update your OS to then you're fine to us 32 bit applications. You won't get any updates or patches though after 10.13.4.
This is arbitrary and pernicious. There is no good reason that Apple doesn't offer backward compatibility.
Read up on 64 bit models. This is the same model that Unix and Linux uses. LP64 does not guarantee backwards compatibility. Since OS X is based on Unix, the reason isn't arbitrary and pernicious.
They have the computing power in all of their devices. They have the expertise. There is a lot of very useful software that is not going to get upgraded because the developers don't exist anymore.
If the developers don't exist anymore how can the software get upgraded in any case? If there is a bug, if there is a security issue, it will never be fixed. Essentially you're asking Apple to support software that a 3rd party developer has stopped supporting.
By doing this Apple forces people to not upgrade their hardware which means lost sales to Apple.
My understanding is that the last 32 bit Intel hardware that Apple made was sold in 2006. Well if people want to hold onto their hardware because some piece of software won't work, that's their right but I would think some people would start to look for alternatives.
Telling resource starved people and organizations, "you shouldn't have done or expected that", is unhelpful and just piling on. And yes, there is a definite pattern of behavior with Apple, abandoning legacy tech and expecting their users to upgrade.
Well hardware wise, you're talking about hardware that Apple hasn't made in 12 years (2006 or so). Second, it's not as if this transition is a surprise to any IT department. 32 bit Unix and Linux servers are also being phased out. Yes there are probably legacy applications that can't be replaced but it's not like this problem is only reserved for Apple.
That depends on how old your hardware is and if it hasn't been updated in a decade or so. Linux will be ending 32 bit support in the next few years and many enterprises have already made the transition to 64 bit. The day Apple stops supporting 32 bit doesn't mean existing legacy Apple apps stop working. It means newer applications have to be 64 bit.
The fact that parties like apple like to race forward and break compatability for their own benefit does not mean it benefits anyone else. In fact, it makes them unreliable and depending on them ought to count as irresponsible.
If by Apple you also mean all of Unix (which OS X is based) practically then yes, Unix, BSD, and Linux operating systems broke compatibility with their transition to 64 bit. The end of 32 bit Linux is approaching as well.
Yes but Windows uses a completely different 64 bit model as Macs and all of Unix so this is not surprising as Windows chose to maintain backwards compatibility over forward compatibility.
They didn't do that so as not to interfere with their relationship with Intel. Intel didn't have a 64 bit product ready when they were designing the machines that got the 32 bit processor. And just look how well that's turned out! Apple could have gone amd64, and wound up looking like the geniuses that they so often claim to be
One of the main reasons Apple went with Intel wasn't so much because of x86 vs PPC debate but that of practical supply demands on the laptop CPU side and power efficiency. IBM did not and was not going to invest in a lot of R&D for Apple to have newer and newer PPC chips every year especially laptop versions as Apple did not represent a big customer to IBM in terms of CPUs. At the time, Apple's laptops lagged heavily in terms of power and performance compared to their own desktops because of the CPU. Going with AMD meant that Apple would be in the same scenario for a few years as AMD's laptop CPUs were inferior to Intel at the time especially when it came to power efficiency. Assuredly Apple would have liked to go with the best of both worlds but if they had to pick only one supplier, Intel was the better choice.
Despite all the brainwashing from Microsoft and Intel, it is possible to run 64-bit apps with a 32-bit kernel on a properly-designed CPU architecture. Preferably one that has a 32-bit mode worth using
The problem is with MS and how they chose to deal with 64 bit transitions. Their model LLP64 defines "long" as 32 bit and "long long" as 64 bit. So in your app on a 32 bit kernel, "long long" isn't recognized as a data type. In the Unix and OS X LPT 64 model, 32 bit "long" is redefined as 64 bit "long" so a recompile is needed. With LLP64 backwards compatibility in ensured but not forward compatibility. The reverse is said of LP64.
The summary says clearly: "This figure does not include Apple's third-party suppliers or manufacturers." But let's suppose Apple did manufacture their hardware. Could they? Given Apple's billions in cash and the fact that Apple predominant use of power would their massive data centers, I'd think that they could be 100% renewable.
Your premise is based on the notion that children only watch content made exclusively for them. For example you can be sure The Disney Channel is being watched by children. What about generic content like puppies and kitten videos?
Being 100% renewable does not mean that every Apple Store is powered by a solar farm, of course. Apple contributes to the power grid in even absolute amounts to what it uses. Unlike some other companies, it does not buy up REC in open market transactions to offset its dirty energy consumption skew the figures. Jackson explains
So Apple produces as much or more energy than it uses.
So we've established you didn't read what I said. Now you ask another question which I also answered.
No we've established you poorly understand what it takes to develop software. You've failed to answer a basic question: How do you emulate a 64-bit x86 chip on a 32 bit ARM processor? Because that's one major obstacle of the many obstacles that you proposed.
I cited an emphasis on emulating older programs first due to any hardware issues.
Bahahahaha. This is what you said
here people will say "imcompatible hardware" to which I can respond with "emulation" to which they'll respond with "it will be slow" to which I can respond with "the phones are so much more powerful than older windows computers that even with inefficiency they can emulate all sorts of old windows programs"
In other words, you didn't cite anything but you think you solved the problem by mentioning"emulation". You could have easily said "magic will solve the problem" as it seems you don't understand the basic premise of emulation is contingent on faster and newer hardware trying to emulate older and slower hardware. It does not happen in reverse which is required for smart phones to emulate desktops as again you are requiring slower mobile chips to emulate faster desktop/laptop CPUs.
This was all made clear in my first post which you didn't read.
Again no. You are purposely vague when asked specific questions none of which you've answered. I would guess it's probably because you don't have the technical understanding to answer.
In the future, make a good faith effort to read what someone said before you presume to comment. You didn't do that and that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I will not comment further to you in this thread. Next time ACTUALLY read what someone says before you comment.
Again you failed to answer a single question. Again you've shown an inability to understand technical details. When confronted with your lack of understanding, you again and again repeat the false mantra that I didn't read it. What you wrote lacks any understanding of details. You could at any time answer the single question of how you propose that a 32 ARM bit processor will emulate a 64-bit x86 chip that is faster than it. Don't have an answer: That's what I thought.
The group isn't saying that YouTube is intentionally targeting children. The group is saying that like all videos, YouTube collects data and targets ads towards content regardless if the content is more geared towards children or adults. Unless YouTube screens every single video for content, it would be hard to know if a video is indeed for children. Some creators like The Disney Channel will definitely be creating content for children but for others it's not clear. The second part which is more nuanced is that YouTube requires a minimum age of 13 for the site, but that requires a user account to know whether the user is at least 13. Many people don't bother signing into accounts to use YouTube so YouTube will never know.
YouTube requires users be at least 13 years old when joining the site, and makes clear its ad policies that it bars collecting data from children under 13. The CCFC complaint, however, notes that this age requirement only applies to users creating an account. Signed out, users of any age can watch videos (thus, potentially have their data collected) without any age check. As Golin tells Gizmodo, the FTC will ultimately decide whether to fine YouTube and, crucially, for how much.
Er? You expect an ARM 32-bit processor with a smartphone OS to emulate possibly a 64-bit x86 chip with a 64-bit OS. You expect a mobile phone GPU like Andreno to emulate an Nvidia or AMD desktop GPU? You expect a smart phone with less than resolution than desktop or laptop to emulate a desktop or even laptop display?
play devil's advocate please with your positions so I don't have to point out the obvious.
The obvious is that putting Windows on a phone wasn't remote feasible from a hardware standpoint alone. The obvious is that UI is unsuitable to run most Windows programs. The obvious is that ever changing APIs make any emulation difficult. Rather it seems obvious that you may not know what you are talking about. You might have asked that your smart phone should fly you to the moon while calculating the ultimate questions of life.
The problem for MS was it was way behind on smartphone development like it was behind in MP3 players. It entered that MP3s as even Apple was leaving for smartphones. Any smartphone by MS was going to be years behind Apple and Android. The situation would have been crazier if MS attempted to make the phones compatible with Windows as the OP wanted. I can't count the number of.NET libraries I've had to install to get things in Windows to work. Imagine having to install them on a phone.
Where did you address the fact that the mobile and desktops use different (and ever changing architectures and APIs) such that using Windows programs on a phone is not very feasible today much less when MS started their smartphones years ago? When did you address that smartphones have smaller screens and resolutions than desktops have traditionally had in years? That's not even addressing other simple things like diskspace where Windows 7 requires a minimum of 16GB and Excel 2010 alone requires 3GB not including any addons or patches.
No, I'm well aware of the issue. You just weren't listening. There is nothing you complained about that wasn't actually addressed previously. You were too busy constructing a strawman to actually hear the argument.
I wrote this but you failed to address it:
For example, it's impressive if you run Photoshop on a phone. But with a tiny screen how effective can someone be at using Photoshop. Then there's the other problem with UI. Fine controls with photoshop at a minimum require a keyboard and mouse, but many pros use pressure sensitive pens and Wacom pads . . . If we narrow our software only to type that people generally use and not specialty software like drawing, then how good could Excel and Word be on a phone. Entering in formulas would be a pain in Excel without a major change to UI. But that version of Excel would not be the same version as the Windows version.
I also wrote:
That does not take into account advances that have dramatically changed architecture that necessitate deprecating APIs at the OS level. For example, Windows Mobile 6 -> Windows Phone 7 -> Windows Phone 8. Is there any phone that you can run the same mobile software on all three Windows phone platforms? No. Each OS version requires new versions and adherence to new standards and APIs.
These are practical concerns and reasons as to why phones do not run Windows. You've failed to address them and some of them are outright common sense. For example, a phone generally uses an ARM processor which is entirely different in capability and specification to an x86 chip that runs Windows. A phone cannot support the resolutions that Windows supported 5 or 10 years ago. Instead you cry "strawman" without even addressing practical concerns.
As to strawman you clearly said: "As to what should and shouldn't be run, I'll be the judge of that thanks." Those are your words, not mine.
Here's what I'm read from the article. The fund founded (not run by George Soros but his son) has approved trading in cryptocurrency.
The Soros Fund Management venture internally approved the trading of virtual coins in the past few months. So far, no actual “big trades” have has been made, but that situation will come to change very soon.
As for Rockefeller, this was the relevant passage:
Also, Venrock — a venture capital firm founded by descendants of famed capitalist John D. Rockefeller — announced it was partnering with a cryptocurrency investment firm based in Brooklyn.
The article makes clear that the fund not run by Soros himself has only approved trading not that it has traded in cryptocurrency. It doesn't necessarily say that the fund will invest in cryptocurrency as an asset; the fund could be shorting them. As for Venrock, there are no details on what and how much investment is being made. It could be a small amount.
As to what should and shouldn't be run, I'll be the judge of that thanks.
So what you're saying you should be able to dictate to developers like MS, Adobe, and any independent ones what they should make because you are the judge of things? Hey if you want to port all the Windows programs you like onto your phone, you can get a mobile developer license. But telling companies that they have to develop according to your needs and not what makes them the most money is a little egotistical.
As a customer, if MS had made an effort to offer this as a feature on their phones, I would have bought one instead... I am not alone in this matter.
If "Windows compatibility" was an actual selling feature of phones, you'd think MS would jump on that. After all they were behind Android and Apple in smart phones. Why didn't they do that? It wasn't practical. No one wants it. Even now it's not a big selling point for Windows tablets. Sure you can use the same programs on Surface tablets as desktops. How are they selling? Behind Android and Apple ones.
I'm a customer. It is what I want. Business 101 would suggest that you simply not argue that point since your objective as a business is to get me to give you money. So... enough.
No Business 101 says you make practical products to what the majority of customers want. No one really wanted MS phones to run Windows. First of which was it wasn't practical given the limitations of the devices. Second of which, it wasn't practical given the UI limitations of devices. But I guess engineering and design have no place in your business.
There are billions on the planet that have software needs. Let's take one small group: artists. For Photoshop and Illustrator, most need pens and Wacom tablets. They need large screens and lots of pixels. This is not practical on a phone. Yet there is a need for some of the functionality. That's why Adobe makes versions for phones that have a subset of functionality of a Windows or OS X version.
As to your windows mobile 6~8... I'm talking about making it compatible with Windows DESKTOP versions 95~Windows 10
You do know that over time software changes and things may not work in all versions of Windows much less all versions of phones that have used different processors. Take for example SMB to share files has changed over the years. A current Windows 10 server that implements SHA-512 security will not work on a Windows 95 machine because I doubt MS has updated Win95 to use SHA-512.
But on top of that you want to ensure that phones are compatible with changing specifications of Windows desktop versions despite the fact that the OS in phones has changed dramatically over the last 10 years much less 30+ years for Windows. The differences between WM6 compared to WP10 kernels alone is such a large disparity that emulation is difficult between mobile OSes much less emulating desktop CPUs and OS.
And here you might ask "why the fixation on the old stuff instead of the latest stuff?.. Because the old stuff ran on computers with less ram and CPU power than what you find in many modern smart phones.
They also ran on different CPU processors (x86 vs ARM) and different kernels. The kernel reason alone is why no programs survived the WM6 -> WP7 transition..
So you can pack literally every pixel on the screen without any trouble.
You can run 4K resolution on XP, 5K on Windows 7. It hasn't been until the latest and greatest smart phones that 4K is even possible. So how you propose to fit a 4K screen on smaller display than 4K? Because then the vast number of phones will not be able to show what Windows can show. This has been historically true.
To this people will then say "why would anyone want to run old windows software on a phone"... well, a lot of that software is actually really impressive. Furthermore, it expands the liberary of programs that can be run on the phone beyond what the android and iOS has which would make Microsoft competitive with android for a lot of things that they otherwise can't be due to a lack of software.
The problem isn't that some software can be run on a phone. The problem is that some software shouldn't be run on a phone. For example, it's impressive if you run Photoshop on a phone. But with a tiny screen how effective can someone be at using Photoshop. Then there's the other problem with UI. Fine controls with photoshop at a minimum require a keyboard and mouse, but many pros use pressure sensitive pens and Wacom pads.
If we narrow our software only to type that people generally use and not specialty software like drawing, then how good could Excel and Word be on a phone. Entering in formulas would be a pain in Excel without a major change to UI. But that version of Excel would not be the same version as the Windows version.
And it gets better because there's nothing to stop people from writing new software that is compatible with that older archetecture. And you could ask why anyone would do that, but the easy answer is that there are a lot of people that know how to program programs for that but not for whatever new language your phones are using.
That does not take into account advances that have dramatically changed architecture that necessitate deprecating APIs at the OS level. For example, Windows Mobile 6 -> Windows Phone 7 -> Windows Phone 8. Is there any phone that you can run the same mobile software on all three Windows phone platforms? No. Each OS version requires new versions and adherence to new standards and APIs. A WP8 app will not run on a WM6 machine. You have to at a minimum recode/recompile for each platform even if all you might be doing is displaying "Hello World"
Yes because every industry does things like reduce pollution or increase safety without a mandate. Every power plant I know was actively looking to reduce pollution. Car manufacturers were fighting with each other to have the lowest emissions. I mean look at Volkswagen and how low their diesel cars emit.
Also stop picking on poor little Apple and their lack of choices in power generation. I mean they only have billions in cash and can't possibly afford to buy any power plant they wanted. So little choice Apple has. . . [/sarcasm]
Slashdot Mirror
Except Apple has never claimed anything like that. The FBI claimed that. Apple can grant access to user's iCloud account given a warrant; however, the problem is that data on the phone is encrypted using device level keys that Apple does not have access nor ability to get.
In the San Bernandino case, the FBI wanted data off the phone. So Apple advised that they should allow the iPhone to automatically sync up and backup tothe iCloud account. Instead the FBI instructed the police to reset the password which then locked Apple and the FBI out of the phone's data.
I prefer realtime, incremental data
That might lead to wrong conclusions as the data is not realtime and incomplete. Take for example Swiss Air Flight 111. The ultimate cause of the crash as a fire caused by the IFE system. The pilots radioed to ATC that there was an "odor" in the cockpit and they attempted to locate the source while being diverted to land.
To this day, some conspiracy theorists believe that a thermite bomb was the "real" cause because a person with no airplane accident experience has promoted it.
AMD was within shouting distance of intel's power efficiency for high-performance mobile processors at the time
Describe "shouting distance". For most laptops, AMD's chips were inferior to Intel offerings at the time. These days the difference is not as much but back in 2005 when Apple made the decision for their 2006 models, it was more noticeable.
Intel was killing them on the low end;
My point was that Intel was killing AMD on power efficiency on mobile which was something that Apple (like many manufacturers including Dell) wanted.
GEODE was more power efficient than early Atoms, but it didn't scale.
And Apple didn't care about either GEODE or Atom.
However, while Apple has often used not-quite-the-latest processors in their mobile devices, they have never gone for the budget option.
For Intel MacBooks at the time
MacBook1,1: May 2006, Intel Core Duo T2400/T2500: Released Jan 2006
MacBook2,1: Nov 2006, Intel Core 2 Duo (T5600/T7200): Oct, Aug 2006
MacBook2,1: May 2007, Intel Core 2 Duo (T7200/T7400): Aug, Aug 2006
MacBook3,1: Nov 2007, Intel Core 2 Duo (T7300/T7500): May 2007
It appears that Apple at the time were using the latest processors from Intel for the MacBook line when they made the transition. Even if you look at the MacBook 2,1 models released in May 2007, Apple was still using the fastest Socket M processors Intel produced. Sure Apple could have used the T5500 launched by Intel in Spring 2007 but it was slower than then T7400 Intel released 9 months earlier.
Yes, in fact to show those bastards I'm going to pull m@$FON(
JF45(Nf12&*(
[CONNECTION LOST]
So I have this silver hammer that has worked nicely for years. Then my post office raised the first class stamp rate and declared that my hammers won't work anymore.
32 bit applications will still work on existing legacy Macs? If you don't update your OS to then you're fine to us 32 bit applications. You won't get any updates or patches though after 10.13.4.
This is arbitrary and pernicious. There is no good reason that Apple doesn't offer backward compatibility.
Read up on 64 bit models. This is the same model that Unix and Linux uses. LP64 does not guarantee backwards compatibility. Since OS X is based on Unix, the reason isn't arbitrary and pernicious.
They have the computing power in all of their devices. They have the expertise. There is a lot of very useful software that is not going to get upgraded because the developers don't exist anymore.
If the developers don't exist anymore how can the software get upgraded in any case? If there is a bug, if there is a security issue, it will never be fixed. Essentially you're asking Apple to support software that a 3rd party developer has stopped supporting.
By doing this Apple forces people to not upgrade their hardware which means lost sales to Apple.
My understanding is that the last 32 bit Intel hardware that Apple made was sold in 2006. Well if people want to hold onto their hardware because some piece of software won't work, that's their right but I would think some people would start to look for alternatives.
Telling resource starved people and organizations, "you shouldn't have done or expected that", is unhelpful and just piling on. And yes, there is a definite pattern of behavior with Apple, abandoning legacy tech and expecting their users to upgrade.
Well hardware wise, you're talking about hardware that Apple hasn't made in 12 years (2006 or so). Second, it's not as if this transition is a surprise to any IT department. 32 bit Unix and Linux servers are also being phased out. Yes there are probably legacy applications that can't be replaced but it's not like this problem is only reserved for Apple.
That depends on how old your hardware is and if it hasn't been updated in a decade or so. Linux will be ending 32 bit support in the next few years and many enterprises have already made the transition to 64 bit. The day Apple stops supporting 32 bit doesn't mean existing legacy Apple apps stop working. It means newer applications have to be 64 bit.
The fact that parties like apple like to race forward and break compatability for their own benefit does not mean it benefits anyone else. In fact, it makes them unreliable and depending on them ought to count as irresponsible.
If by Apple you also mean all of Unix (which OS X is based) practically then yes, Unix, BSD, and Linux operating systems broke compatibility with their transition to 64 bit. The end of 32 bit Linux is approaching as well.
Yes but Windows uses a completely different 64 bit model as Macs and all of Unix so this is not surprising as Windows chose to maintain backwards compatibility over forward compatibility.
They didn't do that so as not to interfere with their relationship with Intel. Intel didn't have a 64 bit product ready when they were designing the machines that got the 32 bit processor. And just look how well that's turned out! Apple could have gone amd64, and wound up looking like the geniuses that they so often claim to be
One of the main reasons Apple went with Intel wasn't so much because of x86 vs PPC debate but that of practical supply demands on the laptop CPU side and power efficiency. IBM did not and was not going to invest in a lot of R&D for Apple to have newer and newer PPC chips every year especially laptop versions as Apple did not represent a big customer to IBM in terms of CPUs. At the time, Apple's laptops lagged heavily in terms of power and performance compared to their own desktops because of the CPU. Going with AMD meant that Apple would be in the same scenario for a few years as AMD's laptop CPUs were inferior to Intel at the time especially when it came to power efficiency. Assuredly Apple would have liked to go with the best of both worlds but if they had to pick only one supplier, Intel was the better choice.
Despite all the brainwashing from Microsoft and Intel, it is possible to run 64-bit apps with a 32-bit kernel on a properly-designed CPU architecture. Preferably one that has a 32-bit mode worth using
The problem is with MS and how they chose to deal with 64 bit transitions. Their model LLP64 defines "long" as 32 bit and "long long" as 64 bit. So in your app on a 32 bit kernel, "long long" isn't recognized as a data type. In the Unix and OS X LPT 64 model, 32 bit "long" is redefined as 64 bit "long" so a recompile is needed. With LLP64 backwards compatibility in ensured but not forward compatibility. The reverse is said of LP64.
The summary says clearly: "This figure does not include Apple's third-party suppliers or manufacturers." But let's suppose Apple did manufacture their hardware. Could they? Given Apple's billions in cash and the fact that Apple predominant use of power would their massive data centers, I'd think that they could be 100% renewable.
Your premise is based on the notion that children only watch content made exclusively for them. For example you can be sure The Disney Channel is being watched by children. What about generic content like puppies and kitten videos?
Being 100% renewable does not mean that every Apple Store is powered by a solar farm, of course. Apple contributes to the power grid in even absolute amounts to what it uses. Unlike some other companies, it does not buy up REC in open market transactions to offset its dirty energy consumption skew the figures. Jackson explains
So Apple produces as much or more energy than it uses.
So we've established you didn't read what I said. Now you ask another question which I also answered.
No we've established you poorly understand what it takes to develop software. You've failed to answer a basic question: How do you emulate a 64-bit x86 chip on a 32 bit ARM processor? Because that's one major obstacle of the many obstacles that you proposed.
I cited an emphasis on emulating older programs first due to any hardware issues.
Bahahahaha. This is what you said
here people will say "imcompatible hardware" to which I can respond with "emulation" to which they'll respond with "it will be slow" to which I can respond with "the phones are so much more powerful than older windows computers that even with inefficiency they can emulate all sorts of old windows programs"
In other words, you didn't cite anything but you think you solved the problem by mentioning"emulation". You could have easily said "magic will solve the problem" as it seems you don't understand the basic premise of emulation is contingent on faster and newer hardware trying to emulate older and slower hardware. It does not happen in reverse which is required for smart phones to emulate desktops as again you are requiring slower mobile chips to emulate faster desktop/laptop CPUs.
This was all made clear in my first post which you didn't read.
Again no. You are purposely vague when asked specific questions none of which you've answered. I would guess it's probably because you don't have the technical understanding to answer.
In the future, make a good faith effort to read what someone said before you presume to comment. You didn't do that and that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I will not comment further to you in this thread. Next time ACTUALLY read what someone says before you comment.
Again you failed to answer a single question. Again you've shown an inability to understand technical details. When confronted with your lack of understanding, you again and again repeat the false mantra that I didn't read it. What you wrote lacks any understanding of details. You could at any time answer the single question of how you propose that a 32 ARM bit processor will emulate a 64-bit x86 chip that is faster than it. Don't have an answer: That's what I thought.
The group isn't saying that YouTube is intentionally targeting children. The group is saying that like all videos, YouTube collects data and targets ads towards content regardless if the content is more geared towards children or adults. Unless YouTube screens every single video for content, it would be hard to know if a video is indeed for children. Some creators like The Disney Channel will definitely be creating content for children but for others it's not clear. The second part which is more nuanced is that YouTube requires a minimum age of 13 for the site, but that requires a user account to know whether the user is at least 13. Many people don't bother signing into accounts to use YouTube so YouTube will never know.
YouTube requires users be at least 13 years old when joining the site, and makes clear its ad policies that it bars collecting data from children under 13. The CCFC complaint, however, notes that this age requirement only applies to users creating an account. Signed out, users of any age can watch videos (thus, potentially have their data collected) without any age check. As Golin tells Gizmodo, the FTC will ultimately decide whether to fine YouTube and, crucially, for how much.
I referred to emulation... why would I do that?
Er? You expect an ARM 32-bit processor with a smartphone OS to emulate possibly a 64-bit x86 chip with a 64-bit OS. You expect a mobile phone GPU like Andreno to emulate an Nvidia or AMD desktop GPU? You expect a smart phone with less than resolution than desktop or laptop to emulate a desktop or even laptop display?
play devil's advocate please with your positions so I don't have to point out the obvious.
The obvious is that putting Windows on a phone wasn't remote feasible from a hardware standpoint alone. The obvious is that UI is unsuitable to run most Windows programs. The obvious is that ever changing APIs make any emulation difficult. Rather it seems obvious that you may not know what you are talking about. You might have asked that your smart phone should fly you to the moon while calculating the ultimate questions of life.
The problem for MS was it was way behind on smartphone development like it was behind in MP3 players. It entered that MP3s as even Apple was leaving for smartphones. Any smartphone by MS was going to be years behind Apple and Android. The situation would have been crazier if MS attempted to make the phones compatible with Windows as the OP wanted. I can't count the number of .NET libraries I've had to install to get things in Windows to work. Imagine having to install them on a phone.
Where did you address the fact that the mobile and desktops use different (and ever changing architectures and APIs) such that using Windows programs on a phone is not very feasible today much less when MS started their smartphones years ago? When did you address that smartphones have smaller screens and resolutions than desktops have traditionally had in years? That's not even addressing other simple things like diskspace where Windows 7 requires a minimum of 16GB and Excel 2010 alone requires 3GB not including any addons or patches.
No, I'm well aware of the issue. You just weren't listening. There is nothing you complained about that wasn't actually addressed previously. You were too busy constructing a strawman to actually hear the argument.
I wrote this but you failed to address it:
For example, it's impressive if you run Photoshop on a phone. But with a tiny screen how effective can someone be at using Photoshop. Then there's the other problem with UI. Fine controls with photoshop at a minimum require a keyboard and mouse, but many pros use pressure sensitive pens and Wacom pads . . . If we narrow our software only to type that people generally use and not specialty software like drawing, then how good could Excel and Word be on a phone. Entering in formulas would be a pain in Excel without a major change to UI. But that version of Excel would not be the same version as the Windows version.
I also wrote:
That does not take into account advances that have dramatically changed architecture that necessitate deprecating APIs at the OS level. For example, Windows Mobile 6 -> Windows Phone 7 -> Windows Phone 8. Is there any phone that you can run the same mobile software on all three Windows phone platforms? No. Each OS version requires new versions and adherence to new standards and APIs.
These are practical concerns and reasons as to why phones do not run Windows. You've failed to address them and some of them are outright common sense. For example, a phone generally uses an ARM processor which is entirely different in capability and specification to an x86 chip that runs Windows. A phone cannot support the resolutions that Windows supported 5 or 10 years ago. Instead you cry "strawman" without even addressing practical concerns.
As to strawman you clearly said: "As to what should and shouldn't be run, I'll be the judge of that thanks." Those are your words, not mine.
Here's what I'm read from the article. The fund founded (not run by George Soros but his son) has approved trading in cryptocurrency.
The Soros Fund Management venture internally approved the trading of virtual coins in the past few months. So far, no actual “big trades” have has been made, but that situation will come to change very soon.
As for Rockefeller, this was the relevant passage:
Also, Venrock — a venture capital firm founded by descendants of famed capitalist John D. Rockefeller — announced it was partnering with a cryptocurrency investment firm based in Brooklyn.
The article makes clear that the fund not run by Soros himself has only approved trading not that it has traded in cryptocurrency. It doesn't necessarily say that the fund will invest in cryptocurrency as an asset; the fund could be shorting them. As for Venrock, there are no details on what and how much investment is being made. It could be a small amount.
As to what should and shouldn't be run, I'll be the judge of that thanks.
So what you're saying you should be able to dictate to developers like MS, Adobe, and any independent ones what they should make because you are the judge of things? Hey if you want to port all the Windows programs you like onto your phone, you can get a mobile developer license. But telling companies that they have to develop according to your needs and not what makes them the most money is a little egotistical.
As a customer, if MS had made an effort to offer this as a feature on their phones, I would have bought one instead... I am not alone in this matter.
If "Windows compatibility" was an actual selling feature of phones, you'd think MS would jump on that. After all they were behind Android and Apple in smart phones. Why didn't they do that? It wasn't practical. No one wants it. Even now it's not a big selling point for Windows tablets. Sure you can use the same programs on Surface tablets as desktops. How are they selling? Behind Android and Apple ones.
I'm a customer. It is what I want. Business 101 would suggest that you simply not argue that point since your objective as a business is to get me to give you money. So... enough.
No Business 101 says you make practical products to what the majority of customers want. No one really wanted MS phones to run Windows. First of which was it wasn't practical given the limitations of the devices. Second of which, it wasn't practical given the UI limitations of devices. But I guess engineering and design have no place in your business.
There are billions on the planet that have software needs. Let's take one small group: artists. For Photoshop and Illustrator, most need pens and Wacom tablets. They need large screens and lots of pixels. This is not practical on a phone. Yet there is a need for some of the functionality. That's why Adobe makes versions for phones that have a subset of functionality of a Windows or OS X version.
As to your windows mobile 6~8... I'm talking about making it compatible with Windows DESKTOP versions 95~Windows 10
You do know that over time software changes and things may not work in all versions of Windows much less all versions of phones that have used different processors. Take for example SMB to share files has changed over the years. A current Windows 10 server that implements SHA-512 security will not work on a Windows 95 machine because I doubt MS has updated Win95 to use SHA-512.
But on top of that you want to ensure that phones are compatible with changing specifications of Windows desktop versions despite the fact that the OS in phones has changed dramatically over the last 10 years much less 30+ years for Windows. The differences between WM6 compared to WP10 kernels alone is such a large disparity that emulation is difficult between mobile OSes much less emulating desktop CPUs and OS.
And here you might ask "why the fixation on the old stuff instead of the latest stuff?.. Because the old stuff ran on computers with less ram and CPU power than what you find in many modern smart phones.
They also ran on different CPU processors (x86 vs ARM) and different kernels. The kernel reason alone is why no programs survived the WM6 -> WP7 transition..
So you can pack literally every pixel on the screen without any trouble.
You can run 4K resolution on XP, 5K on Windows 7. It hasn't been until the latest and greatest smart phones that 4K is even possible. So how you propose to fit a 4K screen on smaller display than 4K? Because then the vast number of phones will not be able to show what Windows can show. This has been historically true.
To this people will then say "why would anyone want to run old windows software on a phone"... well, a lot of that software is actually really impressive. Furthermore, it expands the liberary of programs that can be run on the phone beyond what the android and iOS has which would make Microsoft competitive with android for a lot of things that they otherwise can't be due to a lack of software.
The problem isn't that some software can be run on a phone. The problem is that some software shouldn't be run on a phone. For example, it's impressive if you run Photoshop on a phone. But with a tiny screen how effective can someone be at using Photoshop. Then there's the other problem with UI. Fine controls with photoshop at a minimum require a keyboard and mouse, but many pros use pressure sensitive pens and Wacom pads.
If we narrow our software only to type that people generally use and not specialty software like drawing, then how good could Excel and Word be on a phone. Entering in formulas would be a pain in Excel without a major change to UI. But that version of Excel would not be the same version as the Windows version.
And it gets better because there's nothing to stop people from writing new software that is compatible with that older archetecture. And you could ask why anyone would do that, but the easy answer is that there are a lot of people that know how to program programs for that but not for whatever new language your phones are using.
That does not take into account advances that have dramatically changed architecture that necessitate deprecating APIs at the OS level. For example, Windows Mobile 6 -> Windows Phone 7 -> Windows Phone 8. Is there any phone that you can run the same mobile software on all three Windows phone platforms? No. Each OS version requires new versions and adherence to new standards and APIs. A WP8 app will not run on a WM6 machine. You have to at a minimum recode/recompile for each platform even if all you might be doing is displaying "Hello World"
Yes because every industry does things like reduce pollution or increase safety without a mandate. Every power plant I know was actively looking to reduce pollution. Car manufacturers were fighting with each other to have the lowest emissions. I mean look at Volkswagen and how low their diesel cars emit.
Also stop picking on poor little Apple and their lack of choices in power generation. I mean they only have billions in cash and can't possibly afford to buy any power plant they wanted. So little choice Apple has. . . [/sarcasm]
Many may have begrudgingly gotten the iMac 5K as it comes with a 5K display and updated hardware.