(Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Well, the exaggeration aside, not *really*. As a hardware platform, the iPhone is not particularly far ahead (or far behind) than the solid Android handsets.
It's not an exaggeration unless you consider 1% off being an error.
As for Google, they've been watching Apple clobber their vendors in performance, battery life, maintenance and upgrades over the years. The truth is, Apple makes a better overall product, by far, even if technically on paper they're using lower spec'd parts. It's not each individual part's capabilities that matter, but how it is put together as a whole and how it performs with the software. That they can get similar performance out of fewer cores and get more life out of a given battery size is a testament to their engineering the entire device, not just parts. My guess is Google may try the same path.
Not exactly. Parse the data - 23% own Android 7 and later, only 11% have large screens. So less than half of Android 7+ users have large screens. simplistic, yes, but supported by the numbers, and that's an optimistic view that only Android 7+ users have large screens.
That's not to disprove your statement that Samsung did prove there was a reasonable profitable market for larger phones.
I uninstalled Chrome back around 28. Even then, I only had it installed for support reasons. It's in a VM now, and that's where it will stay. I think your responses say there's more than 5 people in our group.
Google acquired Motorola Mobility and then sold it off just a couple of years later. Why repeat that move?
First, Motorola was a patent play. Google gained much protection by buying the patent portfolio.
Second, Google's tried the 3rd party vendor route and gotten shit products out of it and continues watching Apple reap 95% of the mobile profit. Pixel was an attempt by Google to create a realistic competitor that would actually help them. Now that the Pixel appears realistic, Google needs more control to keep up with Apple who is ahead in many areas. (Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Google buying HTC outright will have another immediate effect - Samsung's profits. Unless Samsung takes a page out of the same book and creates their own OS dev team and branches Android into their own offering.
It takes autistic neckbeards to cling to their poorly named 1970s utility names.
Waah, I don't like this name, I want it renamed.
Of course, if you want that, there is an alias for Select-string: just use 'sst'.
because look at my great naming scheme!
But hey, ignore the fact the the original comment about Windows and Unicode searching is provably false but has been voted up to 4 already. Slashdot is worse than Trump supporters, rallying around anything anti-Microsoft even if it is fake.
See how smart I am? (and like Trump, I ignore things that prove me wrong)
Impressive read speed none the less. As for memory, I'm running on 24GB. I considered going to 48 (the max on this system) but that requires swapping out the current CPU for a newer Xeon that supports the larger DIMMs, and would require replacing all memory with higher end buffered DIMMs. Even selling the current hardware at the time would still have cost several hundred, and after reviewing what the likely results would be decided that it just didn't justify the cost. Currently, I almost never swap, as long as I don't let Safari run too long (or Firefox, or anything that renders HTML, actually, including Chrome too btw) I usually bounce the browsers once a week, and restart maybe once every month or two, if I don't forget. I might be looking for a replacement system next year, when the current prices will drop as the new more better hardware comes out and the defective stuff has been identified (like the AMD ThreadRipper issues, I'm sure Intel will have their counterpart, they always do when they change something significant on die)
You sure that's R/W, or just read? The last numbers I saw when they were coming out was a paltry 1-2GB/s... write of course. While faster, it wasn't significantly faster than the currently easily expanded setup for a fraction of just one drive's cost. However, that was almost a year ago...
having access to NVMe will speed things up significantly
And the award for Understatement of the Century goes to...
Well, I'm running software RAID0 across 2 SATA3 SSDs and last time I checked was coming in around 400MB/s rw in real world use. I considered swapping or adding more and theoretically getting to near 1600 MB/s, but may only run 3 or 4 of the current, maxing out at 800MB/s. That's still pretty decent and well within an order of magnitude of NVMe performance, at least any drive I'd be buying. But 2 NVMe drives in RAID0 with memory and CPUs that can handle that throughput would be a nice step up.
anything more powerful than Apple is willing to sell me is still more powerful than Apple is willing to sell me.
This is true - Apple is just a tad behind the times in desktops. The Mac Pro tower seems like a perfect system, considering how well you could upgrade it.
We've seen considerable improvements in instructions per clock and had a few new instructions added to the instruction set since 2013, which makes each of my 8 cores faster than each of the 12 you had in 2013. On top of that, a highly threaded application will benefit from 50% fewer locks waiting for another core to finish its work or release a resource. If we assume that one of my 2017 cores can process 1.5x the workload of one of your 2013 cores (which benchmarks seem to bear out,
That was my point, until the recent CPU releases (in 2017, mind you) and those 2 improvements you mention, real CPU speed increases were vanishing small in previous CPU upgrades. 10-20% real world improvements, generation over generation. Now, note that is in comparison to the base core. If you bought an earlier black (unlocked) CPU, with OC you'd hit almost the same performance you could get out of later models which also had less overhead available, so the OC on those was less as well. Net: properly OC'd, you'd get maybe a 25% increase from 2010-2015 based on available CPUs that were in the $1K-$2K bucket at release. Now, were the cores more efficient as time went on? Of course. But, until the latest improvements, it was merely an incremental improvement in speed, not an order of magnitude. And Intel specifically had issues with task/process switching. Based on your statements above, it appears they have finally addressed at least a subset of those. It may be time to look at a new desktop, it'd be interesting to see whether my core tasks would run faster. (At least 1 will, as having access to NVMe will speed things up significantly)
It makes me wonder if you need the "system more powerful" or need to run a specific piece of software.
I do need to run that specific piece (suite, actually) of software in order to effectively work with some of my clients, as it is what they use and money talks.
That's all that needs saying there. If work requires it, you do it. I wrote an entire Windows server based piece of software because that's what the client wanted and there was an at the time compelling reason. It's still selling today, so it must be doing its job well. I did not at all enjoy writing that piece of software but it did give me deep factual insight into a lot of the previous suspicions of how shitty windows security is.
As for performance, well... I perform certain tasks that are greatly sped up by the availability of 16 high-performance threads and a pair of high-end GPUs.
only 16?;) I was looking at a 24 threaded system back in 2013, except that was only a 50% increase at a huge cost. To double my performance today requires the minimum 16 core Intel CPU. It's insightful of the CPU performance plateau that until this year doubling performance required a pretty massive multi-CPU system, and that even a doubling of cores wouldn't double performance, you'd need more cores. I'd have to go back and truly check the numbers, but I believe the 16 core Xeon finally doubles my multi-threaded performance.
Ah, but it should, according to your logic, and you acknowledge that.
As for Apple, yes, they should pull their head out of their collective ass regarding the Mac Pro, and it sound like they are. The biggest problem is Intel honestly with their ever changing sockets and CPUs tied to specific memory busses and types, upgrading either past what you buy the system with tends to be problematic.
What's really sad is that until this year, I couldn't buy a system that doubled the performance (of things I care about) of my current 7 year old system without spending more than $10K, and that even the 2013 (through 2017) Mac Pro in top end configuration was only 25% or so faster. As far as GPUs go, they're relatively cheap by comparison, and I can upgrade mine at will. Haven't needed to yet. However, my 2015 MBP can still outperform the current desktop in certain disk I/O bound tasks, but not by much.
It makes me wonder if you need the "system more powerful" or need to run a specific piece of software. Because if it's pure power you're after, windows doesn't deliver, you'd want to be running a *nix, unless you're running a pure single-threaded app, in which case the older Intel CPU is the top dog, at least until this year's releases.
Oh, no, they've made it worse. There are now several different print dialogs in Windows (ignoring apps which provide their own) and how easy or difficult it is to specify your print settings is now a matter of luck: does your app use the old dialog that actually allows this, or the new one that prints everything in shitmode? Photos, the Windows 10 default image viewer, uses shitmode.
Sounds like they finally made the same "improvements" to the print dialog that they did to networks. I think it might be simpler to run a Gentoo or BSD system from a usability stand point.
Seriously, one factor I consider when deciding which software to use is "have I ever seen Windows 10 install it without being asked?"
Don't be such a spoil-sport. In part, this methodology succeeds because it also takes angled pictures of the medium and that enables it to isolate depressions and take those into account when analyzing the writing. (I did read TFA - sorry, won't happen again)
Really, I think it's laziness. Probably, someone at Microsoft was tasked with re-implementing the Print Preview dialog and thought "well, since the document display is flat, it would be easier to make the whole dialog flat", which spilled into "I've created this flat interface, now it would be easier to use it everywhere so I don't have to learn two different form libraries."
While I could do all sorts of suppositions about MS's print preview functionality that would be both deprecating and speculation, the fact remains that MS's various GUI libraries are so locked in and difficult to migrate between that once something is written, you'd have to totally rewrite everything with a whole new set of APIs to get a different look. So yes, I do believe that they learned just one library and ran with it. And for Print Preview, well, that's a whole discussion in and of itself which would go much deeper to how MS completely screwed up all their apps. I have no idea if they've fixed the issues since then, but the fact that printing a document on 2 different printers even from the same manufacturer could result in two different physical copies was what drove me from MS office products long ago.
And you appear to be missing the point that it was already a de facto standard in GUIs, and MS was just following others leads in adopting the (only) popular existing paradigm. Unless, of course, you're a revisionist who's shifting definitions of popular to be "used by the masses" and since there were no "masses" prior to windows 95, therefore windows 95 is responsible. That'd be like saying Google's Gutenberg project is responsible for books, ignoring all the work of publishers and printing presses prior to that and Gutenberg himself.
I'll bet you use more than you say, unless you wrote your own servers. Which is possible, I've done more than one of those. Java isn't the problem, and the GP that only has been exposed to Struts 2 and Spring, well, yes, he'd likely think those two things are Java when they're only minor frameworks used for one small subset of things people do with Java, no matter what the appearance is.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason Apple makes significant profits (nowhere near 95%)
It's 94% of the market profits and this is not a historical anomaly.
(Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Well, the exaggeration aside, not *really*. As a hardware platform, the iPhone is not particularly far ahead (or far behind) than the solid Android handsets.
It's not an exaggeration unless you consider 1% off being an error.
As for Google, they've been watching Apple clobber their vendors in performance, battery life, maintenance and upgrades over the years. The truth is, Apple makes a better overall product, by far, even if technically on paper they're using lower spec'd parts. It's not each individual part's capabilities that matter, but how it is put together as a whole and how it performs with the software. That they can get similar performance out of fewer cores and get more life out of a given battery size is a testament to their engineering the entire device, not just parts. My guess is Google may try the same path.
It's about the available profit in the mobile market. And yes, you're both correct that it's not 95%, it's 93% in Feb 2015, 92% in July 2015, 91% in Feb 2016, 94% in Nov 2016.
I apologize for the rounding error.
By that reasoning, why would they bother using Equifax in the first place?
Using a crappy "blind" service to charge you more shields them from repercussions of predatory lending practices.
Not exactly. Parse the data - 23% own Android 7 and later, only 11% have large screens. So less than half of Android 7+ users have large screens. simplistic, yes, but supported by the numbers, and that's an optimistic view that only Android 7+ users have large screens.
That's not to disprove your statement that Samsung did prove there was a reasonable profitable market for larger phones.
I uninstalled Chrome back around 28. Even then, I only had it installed for support reasons. It's in a VM now, and that's where it will stay. I think your responses say there's more than 5 people in our group.
Google acquired Motorola Mobility and then sold it off just a couple of years later. Why repeat that move?
First, Motorola was a patent play. Google gained much protection by buying the patent portfolio.
Second, Google's tried the 3rd party vendor route and gotten shit products out of it and continues watching Apple reap 95% of the mobile profit. Pixel was an attempt by Google to create a realistic competitor that would actually help them. Now that the Pixel appears realistic, Google needs more control to keep up with Apple who is ahead in many areas. (Hint, there's a reason besides fanboism that Apple has 95% of the profits)
Google buying HTC outright will have another immediate effect - Samsung's profits. Unless Samsung takes a page out of the same book and creates their own OS dev team and branches Android into their own offering.
It takes autistic neckbeards to cling to their poorly named 1970s utility names.
Waah, I don't like this name, I want it renamed.
Of course, if you want that, there is an alias for Select-string: just use 'sst'.
because look at my great naming scheme!
But hey, ignore the fact the the original comment about Windows and Unicode searching is provably false but has been voted up to 4 already. Slashdot is worse than Trump supporters, rallying around anything anti-Microsoft even if it is fake.
See how smart I am? (and like Trump, I ignore things that prove me wrong)
Huh, funny, I didn't know all it took to make something true was two people making the claim with no evidence.
I tell you 3 times true....(also seems to be Trump's modus operandi)
But I get called on from time to time to help non computer illiterate friends and family do things on their computer.
My non computer illiterate friends and family call on me too, sometimes. It's the non computer literate ones that eat my time.
And if you have kids you're pretty much stuck buying their stuff. Sure, you can skip it, but you're kids are going to be the odd man/girl out.
They'll live. You don't have to stream their crap for your kids to experience it. Disney has just about saturated itself out of the market IMHO
Impressive read speed none the less. As for memory, I'm running on 24GB. I considered going to 48 (the max on this system) but that requires swapping out the current CPU for a newer Xeon that supports the larger DIMMs, and would require replacing all memory with higher end buffered DIMMs. Even selling the current hardware at the time would still have cost several hundred, and after reviewing what the likely results would be decided that it just didn't justify the cost. Currently, I almost never swap, as long as I don't let Safari run too long (or Firefox, or anything that renders HTML, actually, including Chrome too btw) I usually bounce the browsers once a week, and restart maybe once every month or two, if I don't forget. I might be looking for a replacement system next year, when the current prices will drop as the new more better hardware comes out and the defective stuff has been identified (like the AMD ThreadRipper issues, I'm sure Intel will have their counterpart, they always do when they change something significant on die)
it's currently getting 4GB/sec.
You sure that's R/W, or just read? The last numbers I saw when they were coming out was a paltry 1-2GB/s... write of course. While faster, it wasn't significantly faster than the currently easily expanded setup for a fraction of just one drive's cost. However, that was almost a year ago...
having access to NVMe will speed things up significantly
And the award for Understatement of the Century goes to...
Well, I'm running software RAID0 across 2 SATA3 SSDs and last time I checked was coming in around 400MB/s rw in real world use. I considered swapping or adding more and theoretically getting to near 1600 MB/s, but may only run 3 or 4 of the current, maxing out at 800MB/s. That's still pretty decent and well within an order of magnitude of NVMe performance, at least any drive I'd be buying. But 2 NVMe drives in RAID0 with memory and CPUs that can handle that throughput would be a nice step up.
anything more powerful than Apple is willing to sell me is still more powerful than Apple is willing to sell me.
This is true - Apple is just a tad behind the times in desktops. The Mac Pro tower seems like a perfect system, considering how well you could upgrade it.
We've seen considerable improvements in instructions per clock and had a few new instructions added to the instruction set since 2013, which makes each of my 8 cores faster than each of the 12 you had in 2013. On top of that, a highly threaded application will benefit from 50% fewer locks waiting for another core to finish its work or release a resource. If we assume that one of my 2017 cores can process 1.5x the workload of one of your 2013 cores (which benchmarks seem to bear out,
That was my point, until the recent CPU releases (in 2017, mind you) and those 2 improvements you mention, real CPU speed increases were vanishing small in previous CPU upgrades. 10-20% real world improvements, generation over generation. Now, note that is in comparison to the base core. If you bought an earlier black (unlocked) CPU, with OC you'd hit almost the same performance you could get out of later models which also had less overhead available, so the OC on those was less as well. Net: properly OC'd, you'd get maybe a 25% increase from 2010-2015 based on available CPUs that were in the $1K-$2K bucket at release. Now, were the cores more efficient as time went on? Of course. But, until the latest improvements, it was merely an incremental improvement in speed, not an order of magnitude. And Intel specifically had issues with task/process switching. Based on your statements above, it appears they have finally addressed at least a subset of those. It may be time to look at a new desktop, it'd be interesting to see whether my core tasks would run faster. (At least 1 will, as having access to NVMe will speed things up significantly)
It makes me wonder if you need the "system more powerful" or need to run a specific piece of software.
I do need to run that specific piece (suite, actually) of software in order to effectively work with some of my clients, as it is what they use and money talks.
That's all that needs saying there. If work requires it, you do it. I wrote an entire Windows server based piece of software because that's what the client wanted and there was an at the time compelling reason. It's still selling today, so it must be doing its job well. I did not at all enjoy writing that piece of software but it did give me deep factual insight into a lot of the previous suspicions of how shitty windows security is.
As for performance, well... I perform certain tasks that are greatly sped up by the availability of 16 high-performance threads and a pair of high-end GPUs.
only 16? ;) I was looking at a 24 threaded system back in 2013, except that was only a 50% increase at a huge cost. To double my performance today requires the minimum 16 core Intel CPU. It's insightful of the CPU performance plateau that until this year doubling performance required a pretty massive multi-CPU system, and that even a doubling of cores wouldn't double performance, you'd need more cores. I'd have to go back and truly check the numbers, but I believe the 16 core Xeon finally doubles my multi-threaded performance.
Ah, but it should, according to your logic, and you acknowledge that.
As for Apple, yes, they should pull their head out of their collective ass regarding the Mac Pro, and it sound like they are. The biggest problem is Intel honestly with their ever changing sockets and CPUs tied to specific memory busses and types, upgrading either past what you buy the system with tends to be problematic.
What's really sad is that until this year, I couldn't buy a system that doubled the performance (of things I care about) of my current 7 year old system without spending more than $10K, and that even the 2013 (through 2017) Mac Pro in top end configuration was only 25% or so faster. As far as GPUs go, they're relatively cheap by comparison, and I can upgrade mine at will. Haven't needed to yet. However, my 2015 MBP can still outperform the current desktop in certain disk I/O bound tasks, but not by much.
It makes me wonder if you need the "system more powerful" or need to run a specific piece of software. Because if it's pure power you're after, windows doesn't deliver, you'd want to be running a *nix, unless you're running a pure single-threaded app, in which case the older Intel CPU is the top dog, at least until this year's releases.
Oh, no, they've made it worse. There are now several different print dialogs in Windows (ignoring apps which provide their own) and how easy or difficult it is to specify your print settings is now a matter of luck: does your app use the old dialog that actually allows this, or the new one that prints everything in shitmode? Photos, the Windows 10 default image viewer, uses shitmode.
Sounds like they finally made the same "improvements" to the print dialog that they did to networks. I think it might be simpler to run a Gentoo or BSD system from a usability stand point.
Seriously, one factor I consider when deciding which software to use is "have I ever seen Windows 10 install it without being asked?"
Does that also go for Win10 itself?
Don't be such a spoil-sport. In part, this methodology succeeds because it also takes angled pictures of the medium and that enables it to isolate depressions and take those into account when analyzing the writing. (I did read TFA - sorry, won't happen again)
Really, I think it's laziness. Probably, someone at Microsoft was tasked with re-implementing the Print Preview dialog and thought "well, since the document display is flat, it would be easier to make the whole dialog flat", which spilled into "I've created this flat interface, now it would be easier to use it everywhere so I don't have to learn two different form libraries."
While I could do all sorts of suppositions about MS's print preview functionality that would be both deprecating and speculation, the fact remains that MS's various GUI libraries are so locked in and difficult to migrate between that once something is written, you'd have to totally rewrite everything with a whole new set of APIs to get a different look. So yes, I do believe that they learned just one library and ran with it. And for Print Preview, well, that's a whole discussion in and of itself which would go much deeper to how MS completely screwed up all their apps. I have no idea if they've fixed the issues since then, but the fact that printing a document on 2 different printers even from the same manufacturer could result in two different physical copies was what drove me from MS office products long ago.
You can lift multiple layers of writing from a piece of paper.
And some things are less secure than others, sometimes fundamentally much less secure.
And you appear to be missing the point that it was already a de facto standard in GUIs, and MS was just following others leads in adopting the (only) popular existing paradigm. Unless, of course, you're a revisionist who's shifting definitions of popular to be "used by the masses" and since there were no "masses" prior to windows 95, therefore windows 95 is responsible. That'd be like saying Google's Gutenberg project is responsible for books, ignoring all the work of publishers and printing presses prior to that and Gutenberg himself.
Automation of the service industry sends these workers...
To YouTube.
I'll bet you use more than you say, unless you wrote your own servers. Which is possible, I've done more than one of those. Java isn't the problem, and the GP that only has been exposed to Struts 2 and Spring, well, yes, he'd likely think those two things are Java when they're only minor frameworks used for one small subset of things people do with Java, no matter what the appearance is.