That's not correct. Multiple CPUs were not always available to it...even if it were 'normal' (which I would question too, since, in plain numbers, there were many more uses on the single-CPU desktops than on the multi-CPU systems).
It was designed to make use of multiple CPUs (and graphics pipes) - that's what we're talking about - but it also allowed applications to work just fine on single CPUs. Applications using it ran on any of the IRIX single CPU systems "just fine".
You beat me too it...of course it was not 'always multi-cpu'.
Furthermore, it is also not true that it has nothing to do with 'PC gaming', since there's nothing to stop the same technology/techniques from being applied to 'PC gaming'.
OpenGL Performer managed to enable applications to run on different platforms, from single CPU, single GPU, all the way up to hundreds of CPUs and upto (IIRC) 16 GPUs, without any changes.
OK, so the developers of OpenGL Performer were clever and motivated, but it certainly proves that it isn't a technical limitation and (IMO) invalidates your assertion that they "have to go for some version of the lowest common denominator".
Oh, ok. I thought that was general knowledge...let me see if I can find it. I think it was on the BBC world news, and it's how they discovered the 'hacking' was more widespread than just Google (and affected the other big companies there too).
Well, this isn't the reference I originally saw, but it hints at it :
"Google was able to determine, by examining the server, that the hackers had struck numerous other companies, she said. Google said in its Tuesday announcement that 20 other companies had been hacked. But iDefense found evidence that at least 33 were targeted."
I guess you can do your own research into if it is actually fact or not...it's a good point to question, for sure.
I suppose there's an argument there that 30% could be considered successful - it's not my opinion, but anyway, I think it'd be much more telling to see some figures for profits. Having people use their search service is one thing, but their actual money comes from advertising, and I have to wonder if they're being successful in turning that 30% into actual rmb. Some high numbers there *would* convince me.
> how come people don't do that?!! It's not hard!!
Well, there's one obvious answer to that...ie is hard because there is no other information...though I think I gave you some that seemed to be missing from your original post, though I guess you knew it already.
I think it's irrelevant to Chinese people, no matter what the %. If Google disappears, they'll just use one of the other ones. I really don't think many people there actually *like* to use Google in the way that people in the US seem to.
It's relevant to Google, of course; and I suppose the figure itself might seem to suggest some success, but I don't think that's the whole story either...it's just search. I wonder what the figures are for Google's other services and the impact for their real income - they're just an advertising company in the end. Of course, I could be wrong and they're quite happy with their success there, but I suspect otherwise.
No, you're not the only one. I offer the following points :
1. The servers hacked where those whose purpose was to supply email headers to the US government. Why shouldn't the Chinese gov get them too? 2. Google hacked into the computer from which they claim the attacked originated. Why is *that* ok? 3. Most spam is sent *via* hacked Chinese servers and if Google managed to hack into it, why couldn't anyone (including the Chinese dissidents themselves)?
I'd be much more likely to listen to Google and their threats if they weren't doing poorly business-wise in China. IMO, Google have decided China isn't working for them and want to leave China for that reason: so they're just using this to spin it in a different light.
If they do leeave, I don't think many will notice. Google just isn't relevant there. Of course, Google share holders will notice, so I don't think they have the balls.
Actually, when I bought a Microsoft product (for my Mac, as it happens), the product came with a few (forget exactly) free calls. When I had occasion to call them, the support was excellent.
Yes, I hate Microsoft products (too?), but their support was excellent.
After I moved to Finland, I was amazed how many people here used Emacs compared to vi(m). I was trying to think of a good reason and the only thing I could think of was the arrangement of keys on the Finnish keyboards makes vi(m) much more awkward to use. For example, '/', which I use very often, is shift-7.
I guess the same might be true of many other countries' keyboard layouts (there are quite a few German emacs users too).
Slashdot Mirror
That's not correct. Multiple CPUs were not always available to it...even if it were 'normal' (which I would question too, since, in plain numbers, there were many more uses on the single-CPU desktops than on the multi-CPU systems).
It was designed to make use of multiple CPUs (and graphics pipes) - that's what we're talking about - but it also allowed applications to work just fine on single CPUs. Applications using it ran on any of the IRIX single CPU systems "just fine".
You beat me too it...of course it was not 'always multi-cpu'.
Furthermore, it is also not true that it has nothing to do with 'PC gaming', since there's nothing to stop the same technology/techniques from being applied to 'PC gaming'.
OpenGL Performer managed to enable applications to run on different platforms, from single CPU, single GPU, all the way up to hundreds of CPUs and upto (IIRC) 16 GPUs, without any changes.
OK, so the developers of OpenGL Performer were clever and motivated, but it certainly proves that it isn't a technical limitation and (IMO) invalidates your assertion that they "have to go for some version of the lowest common denominator".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_Performer
> Because its quite hard to prove it
It wouldn't normally stop them from being *charged*. In any case, IMO, it should fall into the same category as receiving stolen goods.
It's obviously because they weren't Chinese, but USians - it's the usual double standards at work.
I have to applaud your response - nicely debunked :)
> Cite please, or you're making this up to start a rumor
No. You can find this out for yourself. It's not my fault if you're not following the story closely enough.
"making this up to start a rumor[sic]" is not the only alternative to not citing sources.
Oh, ok. I thought that was general knowledge...let me see if I can find it. I think it was on the BBC world news, and it's how they discovered the 'hacking' was more widespread than just Google (and affected the other big companies there too).
Well, this isn't the reference I originally saw, but it hints at it :
"Google was able to determine, by examining the server, that the hackers had struck numerous other companies, she said. Google said in its Tuesday announcement that 20 other companies had been hacked. But iDefense found evidence that at least 33 were targeted."
I guess you can do your own research into if it is actually fact or not...it's a good point to question, for sure.
I suppose there's an argument there that 30% could be considered successful - it's not my opinion, but anyway, I think it'd be much more telling to see some figures for profits. Having people use their search service is one thing, but their actual money comes from advertising, and I have to wonder if they're being successful in turning that 30% into actual rmb. Some high numbers there *would* convince me.
> how come people don't do that?!! It's not hard!!
Well, there's one obvious answer to that...ie is hard because there is no other information...though I think I gave you some that seemed to be missing from your original post, though I guess you knew it already.
I think it's irrelevant to Chinese people, no matter what the %. If Google disappears, they'll just use one of the other ones. I really don't think many people there actually *like* to use Google in the way that people in the US seem to.
It's relevant to Google, of course; and I suppose the figure itself might seem to suggest some success, but I don't think that's the whole story either...it's just search. I wonder what the figures are for Google's other services and the impact for their real income - they're just an advertising company in the end. Of course, I could be wrong and they're quite happy with their success there, but I suspect otherwise.
No, you're not the only one. I offer the following points :
1. The servers hacked where those whose purpose was to supply email headers to the US government. Why shouldn't the Chinese gov get them too?
2. Google hacked into the computer from which they claim the attacked originated. Why is *that* ok?
3. Most spam is sent *via* hacked Chinese servers and if Google managed to hack into it, why couldn't anyone (including the Chinese dissidents themselves)?
I'd be much more likely to listen to Google and their threats if they weren't doing poorly business-wise in China. IMO, Google have decided China isn't working for them and want to leave China for that reason: so they're just using this to spin it in a different light.
If they do leeave, I don't think many will notice. Google just isn't relevant there. Of course, Google share holders will notice, so I don't think they have the balls.
ok...best evidence so far, I'd say.
While still not 'most people', these figures are certainly more believable, especially since google.cn is #15 and google.de is there too.
Thanks.
That doesn't list even baidu, clearly not comprehensive or accurate.
Seems like it is only considering the USA.
Actually, when I bought a Microsoft product (for my Mac, as it happens), the product came with a few (forget exactly) free calls. When I had occasion to call them, the support was excellent.
Yes, I hate Microsoft products (too?), but their support was excellent.
> This serves their bottom line because when most people use the Internet they use Google services
Really? *Most* people? Any evidence for that?
DidnMt Nokia have such a product long before Google?
I fail to see the irony. I'm not American, so I guess you must be?
This brings up an interesting (to me) point...
After I moved to Finland, I was amazed how many people here used Emacs compared to vi(m). I was trying to think of a good reason and the only thing I could think of was the arrangement of keys on the Finnish keyboards makes vi(m) much more awkward to use. For example, '/', which I use very often, is shift-7.
I guess the same might be true of many other countries' keyboard layouts (there are quite a few German emacs users too).
or even better, an N900
Does this patent mean Nokia can't use it on the N900 (and successors)? if so, "Good, well done Apple." Tough shit iPhone users though.
I disagree. Reading a number is much easier and more accurate than trying to guess how loose my trousers might be.
> I don't understand the obsession with weight
IMO, it's because your weight is the easiest thing to measure.
> No, the problem is worse than that
*Your* problem might be worse than that, but I'm talking about a different problem...that of watching US shows outside the US.