The reason why Intel/AMD had to reduce speeds was that they were achieving the greater speeds through very long pipelines - which is fine, but from an instruction point of view, it has to wait through the pipeline before it will get executed. IBM have kept their pipeline at the same length as the previous generation chips and have increased the speed, in part, through a combination of 65nm and 90nm parts - so in this case it is like taking the Core 2 and increasing its clock speed beyond the NetBurst Pentium: The performance is multiplied.
There's a reason IBM supercomputers number the most in the most powerful computers in the world beyond any other manufacturer. Check out top500.org.
If this isn't monopolistic activity, clearly the intention is to get everyone using their own 'rubber stamped' version of Linux. I would love to get hold of the actual deal paperwork to see what's in it for them. Seems to me their objectives will be that they now have a hold in the Linux market and can compete for Linux business while protecting their own systems.
Currently they can't really sue people for IP if they use Linux because the migration problems would be too horrible - but now they can just bully people into using their version - and start getting cash from non MS people too. Perhaps this also means they're going to break interoperability with Vista/Linux?
The anonymous user, for example, is comparing the OEM price (that you get if you're making computers) of XP Pro to the Retail Price of Red Hat. The retail price of XP Pro is the same as Red Hat at $299.
The big missing point here is that while there are costly alternatives (and this person is only picking the most expensive), there are also completely free alternatives.
Either this article is written by a Microsoft or other software house employee, or perhaps by someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time researching what software they should be using. I agree that its easier to go with the big names, but with a little extra effort, you can save yourself a lot of money.
He talks in the article about installing Windows, hence the comment I made.
When networks are able to provide the same bandwidth to all users as each of them having local disks, then I suppose there wouldn't be a reason to have any drives.
This can never work to cool a computer - the only thing this would be useful for is to pull charged dirt particles out of the air and capture them. That might cause some incidental 'breeze' but never enough to cool hundreds of watts of computer power.
Also, did anyone notice how he's using RAM drives, but with nothing to install software on them in the first place?
I have to say, after seeing the keynote address online that I was pretty disappointed too. But Apple has gone from being a quirky little company no-one is worrying about to a major player in the consumer market. Microsoft's decision to create a rival to iPod is not so much a decision to get into a market they would like to be in as a strategic decision to spread thin Apple's resources. Like IBM's entry into photocopiers to keep Xerox out of the PC market, and Dell's entry into the printer market to worry HP and stop them using their profitable printer division subsidizing cheap PC's to gain market share. Apple has now got the attention of some of the world's biggest and most muscular companies and they're worried about how fast Apple could threaten their existing businesses. Apple now has to be doubly innovative to maintain their growth, and to keep on the offensive. There's a large part of me that would like - and thinks it possible - that Apple could be the major player in the next few years. I know I'd prefer them to Microsoft.
I have to confess to not really knowing about this stuff, but all the torrents I download are used by relatively few people in isp terms... does this not mean that to have any significant benefit to end users, the storage requirements of such a cache would be vast? The ISPs may as well trawl the internet for torrents and become seeders themselves. I bet the MPAA would prefer non obfuscating clients too.
I love comments like "eight cores are too many" Reminds me of one particular industry shaker who said that he couldn't imagine anyone needing more than 640k...
Clearly I would need to now a lot more about exactly what's proposed by your customers, but to me the main issue is rather who owns copyright on the extended work? If they start adding features that you might have added yourselves in the future, you could find yourself licensing back technology from them if you don't have the right legal framework in place. While it isn't as flexible as giving them the code, I would suggest you doing their in-house development and hosting for them - just move some people inside. Its your product and you should be able to take any developments from experiences with customers as your own to resell onto others, excluding of course any features that could be considered proprietary to an individual customer's business processes. The whole process should cost them less (no training of in-house staff for a start), you would retain more control over your source and future copyright and you both reduce risk. Further, if you haven't structured your software in a modular way for licensing your source in mind, you will then have several source trees to manage and build in new features which could become very costly.
I realise they can't for the moment because the battle hasn't even begun on the shelves - but when the stakes become higher, economics will take over from blind optimism over winning and we'll see the licenses rewritten. In fact, it would be very unlikely that two independent standards could ever survive separately if the original licenses didn't preclude compatibility with the other.
Ultimately, while they can't and don't support each other for the moment support, neither will win or lose. Both formats are backed by huge consortiums. What will ultimately happen is that players will support both disk types after a while and the version that's then supported by the majority of people (and has the lowest production costs with volume) will become the standard. There's no possibility of a repeat of betamax because the medias will physically fit in the same slot. If I were to bet blue-ray will become the preferred medium because the number of blue-ray drives out there will be greater than HD-DVD (PS3) and so manufacturing facilities and production will mature more quickly driving costs down. Its what drove DVD into the mainstream.
I'm a huge fan of Apple, despite being a PC user and complely un-trendy. It is one of the few corporations out there where I don't mind spending my money with them - everyone else I resent it. I would love to see a few really cool wireless gadgets out there courtesy of Apple and I'd certainly buy them. Buy RIM and Apple shares anyone?
AppleBerry would be cool, just not BlackApple, please.
It seems unlikely that an organism would find it evolutionary better to have a progressively harder skin for protection only to break out of it later whilst still young. It is much more likely the organism developed from one that budded offspring and the shell developed as a protection for the child to develop as the organism became more complicated and time increased between "birth" and autonomy of the offspring. Mammals went on to develop the child internally while birds laid eggs for offsrping to develop - an egg/a womb are different approaches to the same problem.
The idea that an organism developed a shell first is quite simply ridiculous.
It would be nice to keep some sort of competition out there. With games consoles, search, tv, and everything else, I don't want to end up giving more to Microsoft in a year than I do to the government in tax!
These sorts of rules are only going to have one effect - to annoy people. The rulemakers don't seem to be able to see that in actual fact, they're probably making piracy a little simpler - most people who watch piraated movies are willing to sacrifice some quality for the fact its free, and for the fact its quicker to download. By outputting a lower resolution, they're just making it easier for anyone to encode to divx and distribute it. If they output at the full resolution, they would restrict those able to do that to people with more patience and higher end hardware. And those people would just end up downgrading the quality to make it easier for people to download anyway. So it seems to me all they're going to do is annoy people.
I suppose that it was bound to happen - with google making so much money. The personal equivalent would be them charging more money for a phone call when I complete a commodity trade on a profit. Why don't they just ask for a share of profits from companies based on how dependent those companies are on Verizon's networks.
They should start concentrating on innovating like Google to generate profits. If they're coming up with ideas like this, they may have run out of ideas. Short Verizon stock!
I have 3 of these monitors, 2 connected by DVI, one by VGA - and they all work perfectly... perhaps the problem is not with the monitor but the computer?
Has anyone actually read the technology overview? It's complete rubbish. I especially like the way they claim code optimization is performed relevant to how the user is using the application. Sorry, but no.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I remember someone saying something similar about 640k
The reason why Intel/AMD had to reduce speeds was that they were achieving the greater speeds through very long pipelines - which is fine, but from an instruction point of view, it has to wait through the pipeline before it will get executed. IBM have kept their pipeline at the same length as the previous generation chips and have increased the speed, in part, through a combination of 65nm and 90nm parts - so in this case it is like taking the Core 2 and increasing its clock speed beyond the NetBurst Pentium: The performance is multiplied.
There's a reason IBM supercomputers number the most in the most powerful computers in the world beyond any other manufacturer. Check out top500.org.
If this isn't monopolistic activity, clearly the intention is to get everyone using their own 'rubber stamped' version of Linux. I would love to get hold of the actual deal paperwork to see what's in it for them. Seems to me their objectives will be that they now have a hold in the Linux market and can compete for Linux business while protecting their own systems. Currently they can't really sue people for IP if they use Linux because the migration problems would be too horrible - but now they can just bully people into using their version - and start getting cash from non MS people too. Perhaps this also means they're going to break interoperability with Vista/Linux?
The anonymous user, for example, is comparing the OEM price (that you get if you're making computers) of XP Pro to the Retail Price of Red Hat. The retail price of XP Pro is the same as Red Hat at $299. The big missing point here is that while there are costly alternatives (and this person is only picking the most expensive), there are also completely free alternatives. Either this article is written by a Microsoft or other software house employee, or perhaps by someone who hasn't spent a great deal of time researching what software they should be using. I agree that its easier to go with the big names, but with a little extra effort, you can save yourself a lot of money.
He talks in the article about installing Windows, hence the comment I made. When networks are able to provide the same bandwidth to all users as each of them having local disks, then I suppose there wouldn't be a reason to have any drives.
This can never work to cool a computer - the only thing this would be useful for is to pull charged dirt particles out of the air and capture them. That might cause some incidental 'breeze' but never enough to cool hundreds of watts of computer power. Also, did anyone notice how he's using RAM drives, but with nothing to install software on them in the first place?
I have to say, after seeing the keynote address online that I was pretty disappointed too. But Apple has gone from being a quirky little company no-one is worrying about to a major player in the consumer market. Microsoft's decision to create a rival to iPod is not so much a decision to get into a market they would like to be in as a strategic decision to spread thin Apple's resources. Like IBM's entry into photocopiers to keep Xerox out of the PC market, and Dell's entry into the printer market to worry HP and stop them using their profitable printer division subsidizing cheap PC's to gain market share. Apple has now got the attention of some of the world's biggest and most muscular companies and they're worried about how fast Apple could threaten their existing businesses. Apple now has to be doubly innovative to maintain their growth, and to keep on the offensive. There's a large part of me that would like - and thinks it possible - that Apple could be the major player in the next few years. I know I'd prefer them to Microsoft.
I have to confess to not really knowing about this stuff, but all the torrents I download are used by relatively few people in isp terms ... does this not mean that to have any significant benefit to end users, the storage requirements of such a cache would be vast? The ISPs may as well trawl the internet for torrents and become seeders themselves. I bet the MPAA would prefer non obfuscating clients too.
I love comments like "eight cores are too many" Reminds me of one particular industry shaker who said that he couldn't imagine anyone needing more than 640k...
Clearly I would need to now a lot more about exactly what's proposed by your customers, but to me the main issue is rather who owns copyright on the extended work? If they start adding features that you might have added yourselves in the future, you could find yourself licensing back technology from them if you don't have the right legal framework in place. While it isn't as flexible as giving them the code, I would suggest you doing their in-house development and hosting for them - just move some people inside. Its your product and you should be able to take any developments from experiences with customers as your own to resell onto others, excluding of course any features that could be considered proprietary to an individual customer's business processes. The whole process should cost them less (no training of in-house staff for a start), you would retain more control over your source and future copyright and you both reduce risk. Further, if you haven't structured your software in a modular way for licensing your source in mind, you will then have several source trees to manage and build in new features which could become very costly.
I realise they can't for the moment because the battle hasn't even begun on the shelves - but when the stakes become higher, economics will take over from blind optimism over winning and we'll see the licenses rewritten. In fact, it would be very unlikely that two independent standards could ever survive separately if the original licenses didn't preclude compatibility with the other.
Ultimately, while they can't and don't support each other for the moment support, neither will win or lose. Both formats are backed by huge consortiums. What will ultimately happen is that players will support both disk types after a while and the version that's then supported by the majority of people (and has the lowest production costs with volume) will become the standard. There's no possibility of a repeat of betamax because the medias will physically fit in the same slot. If I were to bet blue-ray will become the preferred medium because the number of blue-ray drives out there will be greater than HD-DVD (PS3) and so manufacturing facilities and production will mature more quickly driving costs down. Its what drove DVD into the mainstream.
I'm a huge fan of Apple, despite being a PC user and complely un-trendy. It is one of the few corporations out there where I don't mind spending my money with them - everyone else I resent it. I would love to see a few really cool wireless gadgets out there courtesy of Apple and I'd certainly buy them. Buy RIM and Apple shares anyone? AppleBerry would be cool, just not BlackApple, please.
Well, that's a good point. It just set poor chickens' destiny to be at the bottom of a KFC bucket.
It seems unlikely that an organism would find it evolutionary better to have a progressively harder skin for protection only to break out of it later whilst still young. It is much more likely the organism developed from one that budded offspring and the shell developed as a protection for the child to develop as the organism became more complicated and time increased between "birth" and autonomy of the offspring. Mammals went on to develop the child internally while birds laid eggs for offsrping to develop - an egg/a womb are different approaches to the same problem.
The idea that an organism developed a shell first is quite simply ridiculous.
It would be nice to keep some sort of competition out there. With games consoles, search, tv, and everything else, I don't want to end up giving more to Microsoft in a year than I do to the government in tax!
These sorts of rules are only going to have one effect - to annoy people. The rulemakers don't seem to be able to see that in actual fact, they're probably making piracy a little simpler - most people who watch piraated movies are willing to sacrifice some quality for the fact its free, and for the fact its quicker to download. By outputting a lower resolution, they're just making it easier for anyone to encode to divx and distribute it. If they output at the full resolution, they would restrict those able to do that to people with more patience and higher end hardware. And those people would just end up downgrading the quality to make it easier for people to download anyway. So it seems to me all they're going to do is annoy people.
I suppose that it was bound to happen - with google making so much money. The personal equivalent would be them charging more money for a phone call when I complete a commodity trade on a profit. Why don't they just ask for a share of profits from companies based on how dependent those companies are on Verizon's networks. They should start concentrating on innovating like Google to generate profits. If they're coming up with ideas like this, they may have run out of ideas. Short Verizon stock!
I have 3 of these monitors, 2 connected by DVI, one by VGA - and they all work perfectly... perhaps the problem is not with the monitor but the computer?
Has anyone actually read the technology overview? It's complete rubbish. I especially like the way they claim code optimization is performed relevant to how the user is using the application. Sorry, but no.