Which is interesting because Apple was the LAST vendor to offer a 1920x1200 17" display in a laptop. Every PC vendor did that until the price fell out. Apple had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the >100 dpi club. Now they pretend to have invented it.
And, of course, there are 1920 displays available, it's just that 16x10 is regrettably gone.
The third board is the same as the first, and none are what the OP asked for..."something that's eassentially just like a commodity x86 motherboard except it uses ARM." I suppose if mini-PCIe is your idea of slots and PCs don't include DVI or DisplayPort connections, or run commodity OSes and applications then they slowly are starting to appear. Hey, embedded boards in PC form factors are PCs so long as you don't have to use them, right?
"It'd easily fit in the envelope of a full-size USB type A connector."
Which would be grossly out of scale with modern cellphones.
30A at 48V isn't unlike a typical 15A 110V wall plug and you don't run that over a USB cable/connector as you are implying. A 30A 2 conductor connector *could* fit into the volume of the largest USB connector but it would have enormous electrical contacts unprecedented in a mobile electronics device.
Funny how the common/.'er can't get the answer right when the facts are staring him in the face. Apparently they don't teach physics very well in 8th grade.
"BB was once the king of smartphones, and then Apple came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship."
Another child giving a history lesson on/.
BB was not successful in smartphones, it was successful appealing to business email users in an era before smartphones. A BB was more an evolution of the pager that was uniquely useful to business. It was not a smartphone though it tried poorly to become one.
People who switched to the iPhone were not BB users as a group, they were Apple users and smartphone user. The iPhone was technically NOT a smartphone either when it arrived. No apps, no SDK. Both grew into that market; only one successfully.
BB has been slowly dying because it WASN'T ever the king of smartphones, not because "1 billion" people switched away on a whim. You are an idiot.
"Never in my life has college been anything other than a money grab."
Your life is likely too short to matter. Don't need kids giving history lessons.
The California university system used to be free. When I went to college I paid $4 a semester hour, worked part time and graduated debt free without financial assistance. Never spent as much as $100 a semester on books and was always able to sell them back. Things have changed a great deal in a pretty short period of time.
Yes it is. There's no value in seeing the code *before* it's checked in and waiting for the review does take significant time. People who should know about the changes should review the work when it's checked and take action when necessary.
I have NEVER seen a traditional, mandatory code review process result in significant benefit. On the occasion that something is caught, it could also be caught at lower cost with other methods. Inspection is not as effective as testing so delaying testing for inspection is ignorant. People who support code review worship process over effectiveness. They need to take a frank look at the result.
The worst code I have ever worked with has come at the job I've had for the last 8 months. It is all formally code reviewed and it clear that code review is the lowest value work that the programmers produce. Frankly, I think programmers are often best served by being less current, code reviews are a great example. More testing, less intellectualizing. The BS that passes for programming these days...
"If MS had a legitimate set of patents, they wouldn't keep them a secret."
What patents are there other than legitimate ones and how can patents be kept secret?
Apparently you don't understand that patents are granted by the government in order to educate the public. That means they are inherently legitimate and inherently NOT secret.
"No, New Coke and then the switch to "Classic Coke" concealded the real changes from using sugar to using corn syrup as a sweetener."
A devious change that literally no one noticed at the time because the taste was no different. Neither are the health consequences. It's just the popular whipping boy for people who want to believe that sugar itself isn't deadly.
"We might see something similar with the taskbar, where they re-organize the taskbar in Microsoft's classic non-backwards-compatible ways but conceal them behind the restoration of any taskbar whatsoever."
Right, because Microsoft's real goal is to make the taskbar worse than it was before without anyone noticing. It's critical thinking skills like these that lead to the HFCS BS.
OS X may be "much better than both Windows and Linux desktops" but it will never be the "standard desktop OS". Apple's business model presents itself as the premium option, not the standard one, and Apple would just as soon see OS X die in favor of iOS.
A desktop line consisting of gimmicky miniature, an all-in-one, and and overpriced, functionally obsolete deskside doesn't make for standard even if it makes for the standard for you.
"Apple and Google both succeeded for different reasons. Apple succeeded because they introduced a revolutionary device. When everybody else was moving to full QWERTY keyboards and sliding form factors, Apple went with a single, simple, touch screen. They effectively created a completely new segment of the phone market for themselves. That, coupled with Jobs' reality distortion field, launched the iPhone into history.
Google saw Apple's stragglehold of this new market, and decided they wanted a piece of that market. But instead of competing directly by putting out their own phone, they wrote the software and gave it away to Apple's existing competitors. They figured the cream would rise to the top, which it has. They basically pulled a Microsoft on Apple."
You're someone who knows nothing about smartphone history.
"They are trying to wedge themselves into an existing, mostly-saturated market, using their existing customer base as leverage."
That's what Apple did. You're just choosing to redefine the market after the fact. Smartphones existed before Apple instroduced its "revolutionary" device. Those of us who used them BEFORE Apple's version had to wait for Apple to take a couple generations to finish copying the smartphone that existed already.
"This is one of the big reasons for supporting open source applications - violations like this can be exposed without relying on a single central authority to uncover it and trusting that the central authority will not be beholden to other interests."
By "supporting open source applications" you must mean using their products for free, and by "without relying on a single central authority" you must mean relying on Mozilla as if it wasn't a single central authority. No doubt Mozilla is only "beholden" to your interests.
"The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today..."
Not because of the wide gamut it won't. Having the gamut on your output device doesn't mean you have it on your input device. Content won't exist that uses it so it WILL be "relegated to photographers and graph (sic) designers", standard or not. The value is suspect and the cost is mandatory extra bit depth leading to higher data rates.
The side effect of wide gamut displays displaying common content in non-color managed environments is that it looks worse, not better. This is television we are talking about, not Photoshop. Today's HD content won't look the least bit better on a wide gamut display, it could only look worse.
Intel has had to "face a long slow slide to irrelevancy" against other processor architectures since the 80's. They have talent, money, market share, and fab superiority. There is nothing special about ARM that previous x86 competition did not also supposedly have. Nerds and fanboys do not learn from history.
Sure, platforms today do not require or benefit from backwards compatibility with the x86 instruction set. Neither did Unix, Linux, or Windows NT. Platform independence is right around the corner and that will surely spell the end of the x86. Here's to a bright RISC/ARM future!
Nothing quite like a history lesson from a girl in a training bra.
Prior to Windows having a TCP/IP stack integrated it was not an operating system but an application. Furthermore, PCs ran several networking protocols other than TCP/IP that were arguably more important than TCP/IP. I realize this was before you were born but try not to teach what you do not know.
I'm glad Apple didn't show Microsoft the way on preemptive multitasking or color displays.;)
"Those of us with a memory know the last great change for Dell came when it stopped developing its own proprietary PC hardware..."
I don't think you have much of a memory. Dell was doing that in the 90's. The entire Dimension line was founded to be outsourced.
"The problem with the PC market today is massive over-pricing of key components, especially the Motherboard, CPU, and to a lesser extent the RAM and HDD. "
That has remained unchanged for 25 years. Funny that it's the problem with the PC market today.
"Dell is predicated on GREED. The idea that the PC market will forever soak its customers with horribly high prices, and thus massive profits. Dell loved its PDAs while they could charge obscene prices for them."
While Dell's culture does begin and end with greed, it did not establish its business by soaking its customers with horribly high prices. Dell's problem is not ARM and it isn't gross overpricing.
"Today, even the cheapest current Android tablets can be plugged into a monitor and mouse, and potentially make for an excellent desktop computer for the majority of users."
This kind of handwaving is meaningless. The "majority of users" from Dell's persective won't be served in that manner. Dell sell a great deal into large accounts and those applications won't be satisfied with an Android tablet cobbled onto a desktop. You might, but if you could be satisfied with that then you don't have real requirements.
"We are only a year away from Android being seen as a desktop replacement for Windows."
No, we're not. We're more than a year away from Android being seen as a viable option for a smartphone! There is no evidence yet that phone/tablet UIs with their dumbed-down, full screen apps will do anything to displace desktops whether it's iOS, Win8 or Android.
"...and the three of them need continuing obscene levels of margins."
You really know nothing about Dell. Its margins are not great.
Somehow I doubt anyone cares about your views of the future considering your inability to grasp the past.
You got it right, plus Dell transitioned to new technologies faster than their competitors and they knew the importance of large accounts. Their focus on "JIT" manufacturing was important during a phase of their dominance but it was not of primary importance during the time they "became big". Offering the latest technology at good prices with the best support and customer satisfaction was what made them big.
At one time Dell produced 3x the revenue per employee of their closest competitor. It was not about JIT manufacturing though it degraded into that.
"Good audio quality content is hard to find anywhere on the web." No. "Finding quality MP3 bitrate is hard as well." No. "That is why people turn to apple, because there is quality control." No. "Developers are artists..." No.
"maybe I should go over to kick starter..." Yeah, you should do that.
I'm sure musicians would love having RMS dictate the licensing terms of their works. With the FSF revolutionizing music, perhaps we can look for some young Finnish artist starting a grassroots effort to clone Beethoven's 9th after Stallman failed to meet promises for decades. Then we can look forward to bickering over whether the name starts with "gnu/" to acknowledge that Stallman is more important than you. But whatever happens, at least RMS gets your work and you have no say-so.
"There's a little Thai joint in my 'hood that I quite like. There are negative reviews (along with my positive reviews). Why would he advertise on Yelp!? "
For the same reasons that anyone would advertise anywhere.
Bad reviews are not evidence that the service intends to oppose a business. Don't reject it because it does its job well and you don't. User-driven feedback sites are services that support users; companies that want to treat customers well should be fine with that. You should only fear what customers have to say when you treat customers badly.
"If I was a small business owner, the issue I'd have with advertising on Yelp! is the fact that I'm giving money to an organization that might post bad reviews of my establishment tomorrow."
Only if someone creates them. Why would that happen and what role would "your establishment" play in that? Why should anyone respect the opinion of someone who fears honesty?
Sure, user reviews are a mixed bag vulnerable to politics but any company engaging in advertising has no room to complain. They are, after all, engaging in lying for hire. Outliers aren't interesting on review sites, trends are. Just like word of mouth has always been.
I don't respect the views of someone whose looking to buy their way to success rather than work for it. Businesses that work to please customers don't need to fear sites like Yelp.
"TeX still had a compile-run-debug workflow, and without a graphic display, you had to run a hard copy on something like an electrostatic printer or a daisy wheel printer to check the results."
When TeX was new, "a graphic display" was common and there were many previewers available pre-1.0. The idea that anyone previewed work on a daisy wheel printer is absolutely ludicrous. Never happened and would be useless.
"Then you could go to the phototypesetting machine."
No, you would go to screen previewer, then a laser printer, and then only to a phototypesetter if you were publishing. You sound like someone who didn't use TeX in those days.
"Once everybody got an interactive display good enough to view the output of TeX..."
You mean like a PC in 1985? Seriously, you pretend to be a historian but you aren't one. I, on the other hand, cowrote one of the first PC TeX previewers, in...1985. I am actually familiar with how these tools were used then, and it's clear you weren't a TeX user. As an Interleaf user, it seems you were the type privileged by limitless company money. Not many even had access to a machine capable of running Interleaf in those days. In my next job I worked with someone who was an Interleaf fan and who had the clout to get the company to buy him, and only him, a seat. He liked it, no one else used it or really even got to see its output, and TeX worked well at zero cost.
Many consider "compile-run-debug" to be an advantage but perhaps not since it became trendy to call that a "workflow". What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is interesting because Apple was the LAST vendor to offer a 1920x1200 17" display in a laptop. Every PC vendor did that until the price fell out. Apple had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the >100 dpi club. Now they pretend to have invented it.
And, of course, there are 1920 displays available, it's just that 16x10 is regrettably gone.
"ARM fanboys want to see a more diverse market..."
Fanboys aren't into diversity, they're into cheering for "their team". It's tribalism, not merit.
The third board is the same as the first, and none are what the OP asked for..."something that's eassentially just like a commodity x86 motherboard except it uses ARM." I suppose if mini-PCIe is your idea of slots and PCs don't include DVI or DisplayPort connections, or run commodity OSes and applications then they slowly are starting to appear. Hey, embedded boards in PC form factors are PCs so long as you don't have to use them, right?
5% is 5%. It is barely on the edge of human perception. The average Joe would have difficulty noticing even if he were challenged to do so.
You are correct. Batteries were used for that in the 80's, not capacitors.
"It'd easily fit in the envelope of a full-size USB type A connector."
Which would be grossly out of scale with modern cellphones.
30A at 48V isn't unlike a typical 15A 110V wall plug and you don't run that over a USB cable/connector as you are implying. A 30A 2 conductor connector *could* fit into the volume of the largest USB connector but it would have enormous electrical contacts unprecedented in a mobile electronics device.
Funny how the common /.'er can't get the answer right when the facts are staring him in the face. Apparently they don't teach physics very well in 8th grade.
"BB was once the king of smartphones, and then Apple came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship."
Another child giving a history lesson on /.
BB was not successful in smartphones, it was successful appealing to business email users in an era before smartphones. A BB was more an evolution of the pager that was uniquely useful to business. It was not a smartphone though it tried poorly to become one.
People who switched to the iPhone were not BB users as a group, they were Apple users and smartphone user. The iPhone was technically NOT a smartphone either when it arrived. No apps, no SDK. Both grew into that market; only one successfully.
BB has been slowly dying because it WASN'T ever the king of smartphones, not because "1 billion" people switched away on a whim. You are an idiot.
"Never in my life has college been anything other than a money grab."
Your life is likely too short to matter. Don't need kids giving history lessons.
The California university system used to be free. When I went to college I paid $4 a semester hour, worked part time and graduated debt free without financial assistance. Never spent as much as $100 a semester on books and was always able to sell them back. Things have changed a great deal in a pretty short period of time.
Yes it is. There's no value in seeing the code *before* it's checked in and waiting for the review does take significant time. People who should know about the changes should review the work when it's checked and take action when necessary.
I have NEVER seen a traditional, mandatory code review process result in significant benefit. On the occasion that something is caught, it could also be caught at lower cost with other methods. Inspection is not as effective as testing so delaying testing for inspection is ignorant. People who support code review worship process over effectiveness. They need to take a frank look at the result.
The worst code I have ever worked with has come at the job I've had for the last 8 months. It is all formally code reviewed and it clear that code review is the lowest value work that the programmers produce. Frankly, I think programmers are often best served by being less current, code reviews are a great example. More testing, less intellectualizing. The BS that passes for programming these days...
That's an even worse justification since it delays progress for an unrelated (potential) benefit.
"If MS had a legitimate set of patents, they wouldn't keep them a secret."
What patents are there other than legitimate ones and how can patents be kept secret?
Apparently you don't understand that patents are granted by the government in order to educate the public. That means they are inherently legitimate and inherently NOT secret.
It's not "everything that you do", it's something specific and it's not hard when you aren't shady.
"No, New Coke and then the switch to "Classic Coke" concealded the real changes from using sugar to using corn syrup as a sweetener."
A devious change that literally no one noticed at the time because the taste was no different. Neither are the health consequences. It's just the popular whipping boy for people who want to believe that sugar itself isn't deadly.
"We might see something similar with the taskbar, where they re-organize the taskbar in Microsoft's classic non-backwards-compatible ways but conceal them behind the restoration of any taskbar whatsoever."
Right, because Microsoft's real goal is to make the taskbar worse than it was before without anyone noticing. It's critical thinking skills like these that lead to the HFCS BS.
OS X may be "much better than both Windows and Linux desktops" but it will never be the "standard desktop OS". Apple's business model presents itself as the premium option, not the standard one, and Apple would just as soon see OS X die in favor of iOS.
A desktop line consisting of gimmicky miniature, an all-in-one, and and overpriced, functionally obsolete deskside doesn't make for standard even if it makes for the standard for you.
"Apple and Google both succeeded for different reasons. Apple succeeded because they introduced a revolutionary device. When everybody else was moving to full QWERTY keyboards and sliding form factors, Apple went with a single, simple, touch screen. They effectively created a completely new segment of the phone market for themselves. That, coupled with Jobs' reality distortion field, launched the iPhone into history.
Google saw Apple's stragglehold of this new market, and decided they wanted a piece of that market. But instead of competing directly by putting out their own phone, they wrote the software and gave it away to Apple's existing competitors. They figured the cream would rise to the top, which it has. They basically pulled a Microsoft on Apple."
You're someone who knows nothing about smartphone history.
"They are trying to wedge themselves into an existing, mostly-saturated market, using their existing customer base as leverage."
That's what Apple did. You're just choosing to redefine the market after the fact. Smartphones existed before Apple instroduced its "revolutionary" device. Those of us who used them BEFORE Apple's version had to wait for Apple to take a couple generations to finish copying the smartphone that existed already.
"This is one of the big reasons for supporting open source applications - violations like this can be exposed without relying on a single central authority to uncover it and trusting that the central authority will not be beholden to other interests."
By "supporting open source applications" you must mean using their products for free, and by "without relying on a single central authority" you must mean relying on Mozilla as if it wasn't a single central authority. No doubt Mozilla is only "beholden" to your interests.
Pitiful tribalism as work.
"The image will look more life-like than any of the common TVs available today..."
Not because of the wide gamut it won't. Having the gamut on your output device doesn't mean you have it on your input device. Content won't exist that uses it so it WILL be "relegated to photographers and graph (sic) designers", standard or not. The value is suspect and the cost is mandatory extra bit depth leading to higher data rates.
The side effect of wide gamut displays displaying common content in non-color managed environments is that it looks worse, not better. This is television we are talking about, not Photoshop. Today's HD content won't look the least bit better on a wide gamut display, it could only look worse.
Intel has had to "face a long slow slide to irrelevancy" against other processor architectures since the 80's. They have talent, money, market share, and fab superiority. There is nothing special about ARM that previous x86 competition did not also supposedly have. Nerds and fanboys do not learn from history.
Sure, platforms today do not require or benefit from backwards compatibility with the x86 instruction set. Neither did Unix, Linux, or Windows NT. Platform independence is right around the corner and that will surely spell the end of the x86. Here's to a bright RISC/ARM future!
Nothing quite like a history lesson from a girl in a training bra.
Prior to Windows having a TCP/IP stack integrated it was not an operating system but an application. Furthermore, PCs ran several networking protocols other than TCP/IP that were arguably more important than TCP/IP. I realize this was before you were born but try not to teach what you do not know.
I'm glad Apple didn't show Microsoft the way on preemptive multitasking or color displays. ;)
"Those of us with a memory know the last great change for Dell came when it stopped developing its own proprietary PC hardware..."
I don't think you have much of a memory. Dell was doing that in the 90's. The entire Dimension line was founded to be outsourced.
"The problem with the PC market today is massive over-pricing of key components, especially the Motherboard, CPU, and to a lesser extent the RAM and HDD. "
That has remained unchanged for 25 years. Funny that it's the problem with the PC market today.
"Dell is predicated on GREED. The idea that the PC market will forever soak its customers with horribly high prices, and thus massive profits. Dell loved its PDAs while they could charge obscene prices for them."
While Dell's culture does begin and end with greed, it did not establish its business by soaking its customers with horribly high prices. Dell's problem is not ARM and it isn't gross overpricing.
"Today, even the cheapest current Android tablets can be plugged into a monitor and mouse, and potentially make for an excellent desktop computer for the majority of users."
This kind of handwaving is meaningless. The "majority of users" from Dell's persective won't be served in that manner. Dell sell a great deal into large accounts and those applications won't be satisfied with an Android tablet cobbled onto a desktop. You might, but if you could be satisfied with that then you don't have real requirements.
"We are only a year away from Android being seen as a desktop replacement for Windows."
No, we're not. We're more than a year away from Android being seen as a viable option for a smartphone! There is no evidence yet that phone/tablet UIs with their dumbed-down, full screen apps will do anything to displace desktops whether it's iOS, Win8 or Android.
"...and the three of them need continuing obscene levels of margins."
You really know nothing about Dell. Its margins are not great.
Somehow I doubt anyone cares about your views of the future considering your inability to grasp the past.
You got it right, plus Dell transitioned to new technologies faster than their competitors and they knew the importance of large accounts. Their focus on "JIT" manufacturing was important during a phase of their dominance but it was not of primary importance during the time they "became big". Offering the latest technology at good prices with the best support and customer satisfaction was what made them big.
At one time Dell produced 3x the revenue per employee of their closest competitor. It was not about JIT manufacturing though it degraded into that.
"Good audio quality content is hard to find anywhere on the web." No.
"Finding quality MP3 bitrate is hard as well." No.
"That is why people turn to apple, because there is quality control." No.
"Developers are artists..." No.
"maybe I should go over to kick starter..." Yeah, you should do that.
I'm sure musicians would love having RMS dictate the licensing terms of their works. With the FSF revolutionizing music, perhaps we can look for some young Finnish artist starting a grassroots effort to clone Beethoven's 9th after Stallman failed to meet promises for decades. Then we can look forward to bickering over whether the name starts with "gnu/" to acknowledge that Stallman is more important than you. But whatever happens, at least RMS gets your work and you have no say-so.
Wow, what horseshit. AC was a good choice for this one.
"There's a little Thai joint in my 'hood that I quite like. There are negative reviews (along with my positive reviews). Why would he advertise on Yelp!? "
For the same reasons that anyone would advertise anywhere.
Bad reviews are not evidence that the service intends to oppose a business. Don't reject it because it does its job well and you don't. User-driven feedback sites are services that support users; companies that want to treat customers well should be fine with that. You should only fear what customers have to say when you treat customers badly.
"If I was a small business owner, the issue I'd have with advertising on Yelp! is the fact that I'm giving money to an organization that might post bad reviews of my establishment tomorrow."
Only if someone creates them. Why would that happen and what role would "your establishment" play in that? Why should anyone respect the opinion of someone who fears honesty?
Sure, user reviews are a mixed bag vulnerable to politics but any company engaging in advertising has no room to complain. They are, after all, engaging in lying for hire. Outliers aren't interesting on review sites, trends are. Just like word of mouth has always been.
I don't respect the views of someone whose looking to buy their way to success rather than work for it. Businesses that work to please customers don't need to fear sites like Yelp.
"TeX still had a compile-run-debug workflow, and without a graphic display, you had to run a hard copy on something like an electrostatic printer or a daisy wheel printer to check the results."
When TeX was new, "a graphic display" was common and there were many previewers available pre-1.0. The idea that anyone previewed work on a daisy wheel printer is absolutely ludicrous. Never happened and would be useless.
"Then you could go to the phototypesetting machine."
No, you would go to screen previewer, then a laser printer, and then only to a phototypesetter if you were publishing. You sound like someone who didn't use TeX in those days.
"Once everybody got an interactive display good enough to view the output of TeX..."
You mean like a PC in 1985? Seriously, you pretend to be a historian but you aren't one. I, on the other hand, cowrote one of the first PC TeX previewers, in...1985. I am actually familiar with how these tools were used then, and it's clear you weren't a TeX user. As an Interleaf user, it seems you were the type privileged by limitless company money. Not many even had access to a machine capable of running Interleaf in those days. In my next job I worked with someone who was an Interleaf fan and who had the clout to get the company to buy him, and only him, a seat. He liked it, no one else used it or really even got to see its output, and TeX worked well at zero cost.
Many consider "compile-run-debug" to be an advantage but perhaps not since it became trendy to call that a "workflow". What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get.