Certainly it is isn't for us (hardcore computer users) with tons of native applications.
I have a 3+GHz Quad core desktop, I dont' think I really need to worry about they extra latency the OS imposes on my browser.
Next I thought of my mostly computer illiterate brother who I set up a windows PC for. He is familiar with some applications for ripping/burning CDs, editing documents, drawing/photo editing, printing. So what now. He has to learn all new applications. You can stop right there. Is there even a web based ripping/burning app for CD's?
Can he even store stuff in a local file system, or is everything in the cloud? Speaking of cloud. What about bandwidth. He is on Dial up!
Seriously who is this for. I don't see any success with power users, and next to none with borderline users who have already learned some applications.
About the only users I see is setting it up for granny to check email...
So, Apple may choose "high quality components", but that doesn't translate into a more useful or productive device
Seriously? A better screen with better viewing angles isn't more useful? Longer battery life isn't more useful or productive?
These are not meaningless luxuries as you keep trying to paint them, they are beneficial advantages.
You are appearing more and more like a nerd raging Apple hater, than reasonable, with your continuing dismissive attitude to all the things that were done in an exemplary manner here.
I don't own any of Apples products because none of them fits my needs, but it doesn't mean I have to go into "sour grapes" mode about them. I just recognize they aren't for me.
I think it is sad that some people can only be happy with their own choices by attacking (often irrationally) the alternatives.
No, just luxury components and packaging. Same thing: they use expensive components. Yes, they buy expensive and high end components. Your point?
The point is you were claiming it was just branding and not technology. Using higher end components across the board is using BETTER TECHNOLOGY.
Do you want to save a few bucks and buy a cheap knockoff using second rate component?
Many will, but the people choosing to get a well designed product with superior industrial engineering, better components, and better sw/hw integration aren't merely choosing branding as you claim, they are choosing a higher quality product.
Perhaps you mean Apples niche isn't check-box marketing and they aren't meeting your check-boxes?? While I don't own anything Apple (yet) but it is clear to me that it is a lot more than just branding.
Unless Apples Branding is shorthand for technical excellence(at least in this case). Just look at the technology aspects.
Example: Brilliant industrial engineering and packaging.
Example: High Quality IPS screen: Apple is using a better screen here than practically every product shown so far. All I see in competitors is crappy TN screen with horrendous viewing angles, that might be acceptable in a netbook, but not in a tablet meant to be used in multiple orientations.
Example: Battery life. Apple engineer it to use the lowest power envelop possible and deliver solid 10 hour battery life, also it doesn't need a fan, doesn't get hot.
Example: Capacitive multi-touch. Many competitors are single touch resistive (Yuk).
Example: HW/SW integration. This is the special sauce that make enables them to build something that is greater than the sum of its parts. That enables true engineering to take place where every component is engineered to just deliver what needs to be there, so you can a low powered device that is more response than people dropping in much more powerful off the shelf components but poor integration.
So I would like a more open tablet with and SD-Slot/USB port, but I serious don't think we will have anything with remotely as good technology (Screen/digitizer/battery life/industrial engineering/HW-SW integration) all in one package for a long time to come.
To say Apple is just branding and not technology is completely ridiculous. Did you take any time to consider the technology and execution before you made that claim?
I was trying to figure out what Toyota gets out of this. They have everything they need to build their own EVs. The Prius has electrical components for everything, it is nearly an EV already and they have had the Rav4 EV, and the FCHV test bed platforms. There is nothing in technology that they really need Tesla for.
But I think I know what they get out of this: ZEV credits in California. 50 Million is pocket change compared to the cost of bringing their own new EV to market. This lets them cover their ZEV requirements in California on the cheap if they don't really believe a full EV is practical (money making) for them at this time.
The actual California State pages on ZEV program seem to be down for me right now, but this is what I am talking about:
"Under the new standards, passed unanimously, the board will require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for sale, lease or loan in California from 2012 to 2014 -- down from the 25,000 required in the period under the previous rules.
In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. The previous regulation, passed in 2003, made no provisions for plug-in hybrids because they were not considered viable at the time."
First off Top Gear isn't a source of factual information, they are an entertainment program. They have a massive anti-EV, anti-Hybrid bias. Do you remember Tesla story where they had to push the Tesla off because it ran out of power? Well it didn't actually run out of power, they just did that for dramatic effect. I love watching Top Gear as entertainment, but they are not credible source of anything.
So who knows what the actual facts of the M3 run where, but still you are just making the information up, because even top gear didn't make those claims.
They raced a Prius around a track at it's absolute limit, pedal to the metal 100% of the time, and followed it in a M3 which could match the Prius easily at part throttle and under those circumstances and claimed the M3 got better gas mileage. That is possible but given it is Top gear, in no way guaranteed.
But even Top gear didn't claim that an M3 got better highway MPG.
The rest of the post is just a reiteration of the debunked Hummer is better than a Prius FUD.
Pure FUD, no facts. If there isn't a mod for that, there should be.
I was refuting a raft of claims in response to the parent that claimed the Prius used a conventional CVT. It clearly doesn't.
As far as the claim that the secondary drive motors don't need significant torque. That remains to be seen IMO, nothing is clearly shown from a plastic model.
To me the only thing I like about the Chrome interface is that you recover some vertical screen real estate.
The FF 4 mockup seems to have a much fatter blank area at the top. IMO they need to shrink this more, not enlarge it, if you are going to copy improve, don't degrade.
Seems faster? In my experience it has been more than "seems", Chrome actually is faster.
Chrome is faster in benchmarks, but that doesn't translate into a real world performance difference on typical web pages.
Every time there is a post about "OMG Chrome is so much faster", I say, show me the money, give me the links to visit that demonstrate this so I can put chrome and FF side by side and feel/see a difference. So far no one has responded.
Bear in mind that both browsers have kept improving, FF is faster now than when Chrome first showed up as the "OMG that is fast" browser. They both obliterate IE which most people still use.
Speed isn't really an issue(though faster launch would be nice), so FF remains my main browser because it is Much more configurable (about:config), it has more plugins and the plugins are of higher quality.
Color on RGB monitors currently is a fine match for standard broadcast/HDTV/Blu Ray gamut, and LCD monitors are plenty bright, this really doesn't solve a problem anyone was actually having.
Sharp has among the worse LCD tech(IMO) with weak (grey) blacks and a lot of viewing angle shift.
The first reviews that I read, say these problems persist, so Sharp didn't work on real (hard) they have with their technology. Instead they decided to tackle something they can use as a marketing differentiator to impress the rubes.
It looks like they are aware of various scaling issues and a better scaler might be along in 2.8, maybe I will try again then, but this is a fundamental operation, so I am deleting again. Much testing shows me scaling is unpredictable and inconsistent with other image processing programs. Often it looks like it was done nearest neighbor, or had USM applied after, not what a good scaling algorithm should do.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly it is isn't for us (hardcore computer users) with tons of native applications.
I have a 3+GHz Quad core desktop, I dont' think I really need to worry about they extra latency the OS imposes on my browser.
Next I thought of my mostly computer illiterate brother who I set up a windows PC for. He is familiar with some applications for ripping/burning CDs, editing documents, drawing/photo editing, printing. So what now. He has to learn all new applications. You can stop right there. Is there even a web based ripping/burning app for CD's?
Can he even store stuff in a local file system, or is everything in the cloud? Speaking of cloud. What about bandwidth. He is on Dial up!
Seriously who is this for. I don't see any success with power users, and next to none with borderline users who have already learned some applications.
About the only users I see is setting it up for granny to check email...
It really looks like the other "Solutions" like the tophat, topkill etc, were just politics.
Doing something (largely for the sake of appearenc) to quell the angry mob, while they tackle what actually works but will take time: Relief wells.
So how many months until the relief wells are ready?
we would need to have more scientists talking openly about issues of religion, where such issues are particularly relevant to their discipline.
Exactly what disciplines is religion relevant?
So, Apple may choose "high quality components", but that doesn't translate into a more useful or productive device
Seriously? A better screen with better viewing angles isn't more useful? Longer battery life isn't more useful or productive?
These are not meaningless luxuries as you keep trying to paint them, they are beneficial advantages.
You are appearing more and more like a nerd raging Apple hater, than reasonable, with your continuing dismissive attitude to all the things that were done in an exemplary manner here.
I don't own any of Apples products because none of them fits my needs, but it doesn't mean I have to go into "sour grapes" mode about them. I just recognize they aren't for me.
I think it is sad that some people can only be happy with their own choices by attacking (often irrationally) the alternatives.
So someone says Apple is all branding and I point out all the technical exemplars and it is trolling???
Looks more like Apple hater moderation. Is this Slashdot or Digg?
No, just luxury components and packaging.
Same thing: they use expensive components.
Yes, they buy expensive and high end components. Your point?
The point is you were claiming it was just branding and not technology. Using higher end components across the board is using BETTER TECHNOLOGY.
Do you want to save a few bucks and buy a cheap knockoff using second rate component?
Many will, but the people choosing to get a well designed product with superior industrial engineering, better components, and better sw/hw integration aren't merely choosing branding as you claim, they are choosing a higher quality product.
"Apple's market niche isn't technology, it's branding."
WTF??
Perhaps you mean Apples niche isn't check-box marketing and they aren't meeting your check-boxes?? While I don't own anything Apple (yet) but it is clear to me that it is a lot more than just branding.
Unless Apples Branding is shorthand for technical excellence(at least in this case). Just look at the technology aspects.
Example: Brilliant industrial engineering and packaging.
Example: High Quality IPS screen: Apple is using a better screen here than practically every product shown so far. All I see in competitors is crappy TN screen with horrendous viewing angles, that might be acceptable in a netbook, but not in a tablet meant to be used in multiple orientations.
Example: Battery life. Apple engineer it to use the lowest power envelop possible and deliver solid 10 hour battery life, also it doesn't need a fan, doesn't get hot.
Example: Capacitive multi-touch. Many competitors are single touch resistive (Yuk).
Example: HW/SW integration. This is the special sauce that make enables them to build something that is greater than the sum of its parts. That enables true engineering to take place where every component is engineered to just deliver what needs to be there, so you can a low powered device that is more response than people dropping in much more powerful off the shelf components but poor integration.
So I would like a more open tablet with and SD-Slot/USB port, but I serious don't think we will have anything with remotely as good technology (Screen/digitizer/battery life/industrial engineering/HW-SW integration) all in one package for a long time to come.
To say Apple is just branding and not technology is completely ridiculous. Did you take any time to consider the technology and execution before you made that claim?
Yes but it was 5.x.x when I jumped on board.
I installed a dev channel version a while back and didn't even realize it has been silently upgrading.
I only found out when I read this story and checked my version and found out it was 6.0.408.
Now I have to figure out how to stop that...
I think this is a great example of how shorter copyright terms encourage more production.
The original would be public domain and the author would be forced to make it more desirable if he wanted to keep milking it.
Plus other people could also easily make derivative works.
Couldn't be worse conditions than working in a Chinese garment factory:
I watched this documentary.
http://www.teddybearfilms.com/chinablue
Workers are pretty much slave labor.
I was trying to figure out what Toyota gets out of this. They have everything they need to build their own EVs. The Prius has electrical components for everything, it is nearly an EV already and they have had the Rav4 EV, and the FCHV test bed platforms. There is nothing in technology that they really need Tesla for.
But I think I know what they get out of this: ZEV credits in California. 50 Million is pocket change compared to the cost of bringing their own new EV to market. This lets them cover their ZEV requirements in California on the cheap if they don't really believe a full EV is practical (money making) for them at this time.
The actual California State pages on ZEV program seem to be down for me right now, but this is what I am talking about:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/28/business/fi-zev28
"Under the new standards, passed unanimously, the board will require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for sale, lease or loan in California from 2012 to 2014 -- down from the 25,000 required in the period under the previous rules.
In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. The previous regulation, passed in 2003, made no provisions for plug-in hybrids because they were not considered viable at the time."
Because that post deserves it. What a load of BS.
First off Top Gear isn't a source of factual information, they are an entertainment program. They have a massive anti-EV, anti-Hybrid bias. Do you remember Tesla story where they had to push the Tesla off because it ran out of power? Well it didn't actually run out of power, they just did that for dramatic effect. I love watching Top Gear as entertainment, but they are not credible source of anything.
So who knows what the actual facts of the M3 run where, but still you are just making the information up, because even top gear didn't make those claims.
They raced a Prius around a track at it's absolute limit, pedal to the metal 100% of the time, and followed it in a M3 which could match the Prius easily at part throttle and under those circumstances and claimed the M3 got better gas mileage. That is possible but given it is Top gear, in no way guaranteed.
But even Top gear didn't claim that an M3 got better highway MPG.
The rest of the post is just a reiteration of the debunked Hummer is better than a Prius FUD.
Pure FUD, no facts. If there isn't a mod for that, there should be.
I was refuting a raft of claims in response to the parent that claimed the Prius used a conventional CVT. It clearly doesn't.
As far as the claim that the secondary drive motors don't need significant torque. That remains to be seen IMO, nothing is clearly shown from a plastic model.
I see a lot of people have chimed in without knowledge of how the Prius HSD works. There is NO conventional belt CVT in a Prius.
Prius works almost exactly like this demo. Gear Driven Planetary and Sun gears.
The HSD with its robust gear system without friction drive is what makes it so special.
Here is a simplified demo of how the Prius HSD works:
http://eahart.com/prius/psd/
Anyone who knows how a Prius HSD works will see that this is largely the same thing.
Prius uses Sun and Planetary gears with primary from gas engine and EV motors driving other shafts that vary the power from sources.
No clutches, no fixed ratios. Everything is controlled by the speed of the EV controlling motors.
"I read the article and I'm a bit stunned about the way she writes about a working Amiga like if it was something really special and really rare. "
I have an Amiga 1000, in a box with a bunch of floppies from the day.
I would be surprised if those 20 year old floppies were in good enough condition to boot the Kickstart (ROM emulation disks) and WB desktop.
To me the only thing I like about the Chrome interface is that you recover some vertical screen real estate.
The FF 4 mockup seems to have a much fatter blank area at the top. IMO they need to shrink this more, not enlarge it, if you are going to copy improve, don't degrade.
Seems faster? In my experience it has been more than "seems", Chrome actually is faster.
Chrome is faster in benchmarks, but that doesn't translate into a real world performance difference on typical web pages.
Every time there is a post about "OMG Chrome is so much faster", I say, show me the money, give me the links to visit that demonstrate this so I can put chrome and FF side by side and feel/see a difference. So far no one has responded.
Bear in mind that both browsers have kept improving, FF is faster now than when Chrome first showed up as the "OMG that is fast" browser. They both obliterate IE which most people still use.
Speed isn't really an issue(though faster launch would be nice), so FF remains my main browser because it is Much more configurable (about:config), it has more plugins and the plugins are of higher quality.
Color on RGB monitors currently is a fine match for standard broadcast/HDTV/Blu Ray gamut, and LCD monitors are plenty bright, this really doesn't solve a problem anyone was actually having.
Sharp has among the worse LCD tech(IMO) with weak (grey) blacks and a lot of viewing angle shift.
The first reviews that I read, say these problems persist, so Sharp didn't work on real (hard) they have with their technology. Instead they decided to tackle something they can use as a marketing differentiator to impress the rubes.
Usage billing was already being done by most ISPs.
This move just let Bell (completely ridiculous) lets bell impose bandwidth charges on the competitors who get their local loop from Bell.
These guys generally are paying for their own backbone to the internet so it is ridiculous that they have to pay bell again for that bandwidth.
Anyway more monopoly supporting moves from the CRTC, not a real surprise.
It looks like they are aware of various scaling issues and a better scaler might be along in 2.8, maybe I will try again then, but this is a fundamental operation, so I am deleting again. Much testing shows me scaling is unpredictable and inconsistent with other image processing programs. Often it looks like it was done nearest neighbor, or had USM applied after, not what a good scaling algorithm should do.
There is already some bug reports (mine is closer to the one that was marked duplicate in last comment, downsize jaggies).
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553390
"Gimp one looks just like the autoscaling done by Firefox, while the other one looks pretty blurry to me"
Opposite here.
Here is the Firefox crop:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9004/firefoxcrop.jpg
Again, nearly identical to Irfanview, paint.net.
Something is odd with GIMP scaling.
In a hurry so of course, I inidcated wrong..... Gimp is on the left.
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/8550/gimpcrop.jpg
Gimp on the right.