You do not recall correctly. Apple did not say they were redesigning the Mac Pro for 2013.
The number of people who still "specifically need" the Mac Pro aren't very different since Apple hasn't upgraded the expansion capacity of their other headless Macs. Computers aren't only about CPU or graphics power. The Mac Pro would be less important if Apple offered a smaller desktop that could take a 3.5" hard drive or two. Of course, that would kill their Mac Pro sales...
That's right, Lytro produces a shitty substitute for missing phase information and it does so in a computationally intensive manner that ruins resolving power. The founder knew this from the start but assumed Moore's Law would solve the problem. Thing is...it can't. Photography needs resolution AND dynamic range. Lytro makes the trade-off between those two competing goals much worse. That means Lytro can only be interesting for low resolution work. It may find its way into your next cell phone but not your next SLR. Apple could love this...it's closer to an Instagram filter than a photographic tool.
Perhaps you should study more closely the problems Lytro is trying to solve, then speculate on the "new art forms" it may lead to...or perhaps you'd be happier continuing to believe that Lytro could be useful for something.
Here's a hint...depth of field is directly related to the resolving power of a system. Lytro trades resolving power in order to gain variable depth of field after the fact. What it actually does is destroy resolution thereby inflating apparent depth of field, then allow selective degradation of that afterward. The best case result would approach parity with existing technology and no better. Look at the background research of Lytro's founder, you will see that this is true. Now Lytro wants to justify its approach more generically with this computation vs. optics nonsense but that's just BS. Without the right optics and sensors you have nothing. Garbage in, garbage out. Lytro's goal appears to be computing for computing's sake because they don't know any better. Smart people...misguided.
But by all means, believe that Lytro is doing something revolutionary. They've conned plenty of people out of money already, why not you too? They came from Stanford, they have to be good, right?
An AC calling someone a piece of shit. What a surprise.
I don't recall claiming I was interested in technology, but the fact that I am means I have actually studied what Lytro does. That's why I understand that it will be a failure. I suggest you funnel your anger toward a big, fat investment in Lytro if you feel otherwise.
Lytro trades off enormous, and irrecoverable, losses in resolution for features of dubious worth that are of no value to a photographer. If your target is cell phones, Lytro resolution is simply disappointing. Otherwise it is unforgivable and cannot be otherwise. That's the conscious technical choice they make that they don't want discussed. Resolution is not unlimited and it is not a problem that computation can grow into despite what the publicity implies.
'We are moving the power of photography from optics to computation,' he says. 'So when the public really demands 3-D content, we will be ready for it.'
Lytro is not and has never been about 3-D and they are certainly not ready for it. Furthermore, the power of photography is not optics nor computation and it never will be. Finally, photography will always be about optics and Lytro's technology itself is heavily dependent on specialized optics.
Very high density of idiotic non-sequitors here. I would be embarrassed to have that shit associated with my name.
"The legacy BIOS was a heap of junk, but throwing the kitchen sink in there and creating a new BIOS that's pretty much an operating system in its own right was not a good solution for anyone other than vendors looking for lockin."
UEFI is "pretty much" an operating system only to those that don't know what an operating system is. What "kitchen sink" got thrown "in there" and what about the legacy BIOS made it a "heap of junk"?
Lots of people demonstrating willful ignorance in this thread.
Macs don't implement UEFI, they implement EFI. Their implementation is only "weird" until you realize that they implemented a spec *before* it became UEFI.
You continue to demonstrate that your opinions of UEFI come from ignorance.
"...UEFI goes wildly in the opposite direction, to the point where the firmware is tantamount to a second OS; but still with all the fucked up weirdness that we know and love from BIOS features like ACPI..."
It is not "tantamount" to a second OS, not even remotely, and saying so just proves that you don't know what that means. UEFI provides an extension mechanism to enable a variety of things that are potentially needed for booting, that is all. "BIOS features like ACPI" are absolutely mandatory for the architecture; omitting them would be a failure.
I have yet to see a argument to justify claims of a "good deal" or a "large amount" of energy lost nor frankly do I expect to. That would require more than the most basic understanding of the issue.
Memory protection was not invented on a PC so your history lesson is way off. Also, Windows/386, which not only predates Win95 but Windows 3 (it was a Windows 2.1 variant) was protect mode.
Microsoft offered Xenix on the 286 and IBM offered TopView starting back in 1985. Both had protected memory.
Sorry, but the Lisa was not the "original first step" for protected memory. It does fit nicely with Apple lore though.
Light IS an "EM signal". If light only travelled at the "speed of light in a vacuum" there would no need to qualify the speed of light with "in a vacuum".
Furthermore, Dell was asked what he would do if he were to take over as CEO of Apple. His response more than once was that he would be a poor choice for that position. Not only was he not off-base with the comment, it was primarily aimed at underscoring how poor a choice he would be. Those who criticize it are actually agreeing with the point he was making at the time.
Dell foresaw the shakeout of the industry and the disappearance of many mainstays including Apple. Apple survived by entering a different market, not by competing in the one Dell was in. That comment caused nothing of significance when it was made. It's a rallying cry for the fanboys now, few of which are even old enough to remember it. It's pitiful.
Win 8 doesn't require secure boot for users, it requires secure boot for 64 bit certification. It's capability system vendors must provide but you don't have to use. People are such idiots...
The original IBM PC was designed to support multiple monitors and did so from day one. Dual head was a great way to develop software in the early days and CodeView supported it (that's the debugger in Visual Studio for those experts who weren't born yet). Apple was the slowest company to embrace color and multiple displays. Apple was technologically retarded, not forward thinking. They were concerned with fashion and marketing, not superior function. Wozniak was the master of inferior function on the cheap. Jobs didn't put a fan in the Mac because he didn't want to pay for it. Some forward thinkers these guys are...
It's another interest example of how history gets written by the victors. Apple was a company that was ridden into bankruptcy and irrelevance while producing products reflecting the design aesthetic on display here, only to be resurrected with products like the iMac and iPod that deviated significantly from it. Apple has always been strong in industrial design but that's not the core reason for their recent success nor does it suggest they are innovators.
Slashdot Mirror
"Open Firmware replaces BIOS and avoids legacy cruft, and doesn't seek to prevent people doing what they want with their computer."
Neither does UEFI.
If you want people to take you seriously, stop suggesting ignorant things.
...and then the cops, bureaucrats, and private enforcement firms change it for their best interests. Science doesn't rule traffic law, profit does.
You do not recall correctly. Apple did not say they were redesigning the Mac Pro for 2013.
The number of people who still "specifically need" the Mac Pro aren't very different since Apple hasn't upgraded the expansion capacity of their other headless Macs. Computers aren't only about CPU or graphics power. The Mac Pro would be less important if Apple offered a smaller desktop that could take a 3.5" hard drive or two. Of course, that would kill their Mac Pro sales...
That's right, Lytro produces a shitty substitute for missing phase information and it does so in a computationally intensive manner that ruins resolving power. The founder knew this from the start but assumed Moore's Law would solve the problem. Thing is...it can't. Photography needs resolution AND dynamic range. Lytro makes the trade-off between those two competing goals much worse. That means Lytro can only be interesting for low resolution work. It may find its way into your next cell phone but not your next SLR. Apple could love this...it's closer to an Instagram filter than a photographic tool.
Sure are a lot of buzzwords applied in ignorance here.
Perhaps you should study more closely the problems Lytro is trying to solve, then speculate on the "new art forms" it may lead to...or perhaps you'd be happier continuing to believe that Lytro could be useful for something.
Here's a hint...depth of field is directly related to the resolving power of a system. Lytro trades resolving power in order to gain variable depth of field after the fact. What it actually does is destroy resolution thereby inflating apparent depth of field, then allow selective degradation of that afterward. The best case result would approach parity with existing technology and no better. Look at the background research of Lytro's founder, you will see that this is true. Now Lytro wants to justify its approach more generically with this computation vs. optics nonsense but that's just BS. Without the right optics and sensors you have nothing. Garbage in, garbage out. Lytro's goal appears to be computing for computing's sake because they don't know any better. Smart people...misguided.
But by all means, believe that Lytro is doing something revolutionary. They've conned plenty of people out of money already, why not you too? They came from Stanford, they have to be good, right?
An AC calling someone a piece of shit. What a surprise.
I don't recall claiming I was interested in technology, but the fact that I am means I have actually studied what Lytro does. That's why I understand that it will be a failure. I suggest you funnel your anger toward a big, fat investment in Lytro if you feel otherwise.
Off the shelf junk works in space all the time. Processing power is unrelated to radiation shielding.
Lack of processor power has to do with qualification processes and lead times. Your pitiful opinion is misdirected and uninformed.
Lytro trades off enormous, and irrecoverable, losses in resolution for features of dubious worth that are of no value to a photographer. If your target is cell phones, Lytro resolution is simply disappointing. Otherwise it is unforgivable and cannot be otherwise. That's the conscious technical choice they make that they don't want discussed. Resolution is not unlimited and it is not a problem that computation can grow into despite what the publicity implies.
'We are moving the power of photography from optics to computation,' he says. 'So when the public really demands 3-D content, we will be ready for it.'
Lytro is not and has never been about 3-D and they are certainly not ready for it. Furthermore, the power of photography is not optics nor computation and it never will be. Finally, photography will always be about optics and Lytro's technology itself is heavily dependent on specialized optics.
Very high density of idiotic non-sequitors here. I would be embarrassed to have that shit associated with my name.
"The legacy BIOS was a heap of junk, but throwing the kitchen sink in there and creating a new BIOS that's pretty much an operating system in its own right was not a good solution for anyone other than vendors looking for lockin."
UEFI is "pretty much" an operating system only to those that don't know what an operating system is. What "kitchen sink" got thrown "in there" and what about the legacy BIOS made it a "heap of junk"?
Lots of people demonstrating willful ignorance in this thread.
Macs don't implement UEFI, they implement EFI. Their implementation is only "weird" until you realize that they implemented a spec *before* it became UEFI.
You continue to demonstrate that your opinions of UEFI come from ignorance.
"...UEFI goes wildly in the opposite direction, to the point where the firmware is tantamount to a second OS; but still with all the fucked up weirdness that we know and love from BIOS features like ACPI..."
It is not "tantamount" to a second OS, not even remotely, and saying so just proves that you don't know what that means. UEFI provides an extension mechanism to enable a variety of things that are potentially needed for booting, that is all. "BIOS features like ACPI" are absolutely mandatory for the architecture; omitting them would be a failure.
I have yet to see a argument to justify claims of a "good deal" or a "large amount" of energy lost nor frankly do I expect to. That would require more than the most basic understanding of the issue.
Memory protection was not invented on a PC so your history lesson is way off. Also, Windows/386, which not only predates Win95 but Windows 3 (it was a Windows 2.1 variant) was protect mode.
Microsoft offered Xenix on the 286 and IBM offered TopView starting back in 1985. Both had protected memory.
Sorry, but the Lisa was not the "original first step" for protected memory. It does fit nicely with Apple lore though.
"If I had started on an x86 I probably would have had a bad attitude towards assembly like most who did start on x86."
There's an idiotic generalization. What you really mean is that you're pleased with your prejudices.
Light IS an "EM signal". If light only travelled at the "speed of light in a vacuum" there would no need to qualify the speed of light with "in a vacuum".
AC does it again.
AC steps in with a complete misunderstanding of the concepts.
Good job quoting Wikipedia though.
Furthermore, Dell was asked what he would do if he were to take over as CEO of Apple. His response more than once was that he would be a poor choice for that position. Not only was he not off-base with the comment, it was primarily aimed at underscoring how poor a choice he would be. Those who criticize it are actually agreeing with the point he was making at the time.
Dell foresaw the shakeout of the industry and the disappearance of many mainstays including Apple. Apple survived by entering a different market, not by competing in the one Dell was in. That comment caused nothing of significance when it was made. It's a rallying cry for the fanboys now, few of which are even old enough to remember it. It's pitiful.
A grotesque misrepresentation of the quote without a shred of context. Love how the comments start 8 years after the supposed article.
Try finding a transcript of the actual interview rather than a sensationalist work of hack journalism. Some of us actually remember the interview.
Dell has no "retirement".
No one who actually remembers the quote would laugh. Only those who perpetuate the fanboy retelling of it would.
Win 8 doesn't require secure boot for users, it requires secure boot for 64 bit certification. It's capability system vendors must provide but you don't have to use. People are such idiots...
Correct. OP is a fool.
Long after PCs had multiple monitors.
Funny, though, how this is always brought up as Apple innovation.
The original IBM PC was designed to support multiple monitors and did so from day one. Dual head was a great way to develop software in the early days and CodeView supported it (that's the debugger in Visual Studio for those experts who weren't born yet). Apple was the slowest company to embrace color and multiple displays. Apple was technologically retarded, not forward thinking. They were concerned with fashion and marketing, not superior function. Wozniak was the master of inferior function on the cheap. Jobs didn't put a fan in the Mac because he didn't want to pay for it. Some forward thinkers these guys are...
It's another interest example of how history gets written by the victors. Apple was a company that was ridden into bankruptcy and irrelevance while producing products reflecting the design aesthetic on display here, only to be resurrected with products like the iMac and iPod that deviated significantly from it. Apple has always been strong in industrial design but that's not the core reason for their recent success nor does it suggest they are innovators.