If the user has limited uses for the scope, what a good analysis will show that is most low end scopes are OEMed anyway therefore likely to be nearly identical to one another. (That is, a CM, or contract manufacturer, is making the scope for Tek or NI, etc.)
When approaching the high end, scope manufacturers do begin to differentiate from one another, but it looks like this buyer is not informed enough to enable the SD community to truly assist.
I will add that one more important thing to consider is if there are desires for long term service, because those companies do offer substantial difference in customer service levels.
Final add: Agilent is successor to HP, so will find many of the same features and similar setups in an Agilent scope if you are used to HP.
Shifting? SHIFTING? This has been the case for the last 20+ years!
With some notable exceptions, Kucinich, Paul, etc., Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same in my eyes these days, their exuberant spending is just in different areas.
I don't know if we'll ever materialize into a real force, but I recently have migrated to the Libertarian party with the (naive?) hope things will be different.
The fact that Obama went back on his word to those of us who supported him for this reason is inexcusable. I am firmly voting for Barr instead of Obama now.
Sure McCain would have voted yes, but that thats the point, he isn't a lier and backstabber to his supporters, at least on this issue.
Perhaps I worded my OP poorly., the point here is that Apple would not make any money on the content. Apple provides the avenue to the content, and thus makes the money. Apple would not be satisfied in allowing Google to be providing the access.
Why is this even a comparison? Book fans are going to appreciate Kindle's interface and feel much more then they ever could on their iPhones.
The iPhone is great for what it is designed for; reading books was not one of its design criteria. Besides, the idea of Apple relying on someone else to provide the content goes against Apple's business plan of the iPhone regardless of how many board members Apple and Google share.
Apple at its core is a marketing machine, just like Intel. Intel and Apple feed off of each others marketing dollars and consumer perception. AMD, the self-declared non-marketer, makes little sense for Apple in light of their strategic marketing efforts.
Besides, Intel has bent over backwards for the Apple business, AMD doesn't have the resources right now to be Steve's toy.
Zune?:)
It wasn't a simple understating, it was bonafied declaration that they could go head to head with Core2Duo with the X2 architecture. I was there, and this was more then simple damage control. I believe you can still watch it online at AMD.com, see for yourself. This very idea is discussed on Tom's hardware in the intitial Core2Duo review as well.
"Time to react" - The thing that gets me about that idea is that if you rewind a year ago, heck even this summers AMD technology conference, AMD was touting how Intel's Core2Duo was not that great and AMD would have them beat with X2. (This was prior to Core2duo launch) They argued certain bandwidth specs, TDP measurements, etc. However at the end of the day they were clearly wrong in their assesment of what the Core2Duo could do.
For a company that fails to benchmark their competition effectively, its hard to imagine them building up the resources to effectively build a significant response. In other words, you can have all the time you want to react, but if you are reacting to the wrong thing, who cares? AMD should not be reacting to the Core2Duo at this point, rarther the Core2Quadro, which I understand they are working towards, lets just hope they have the proper benchmarks in mind to truly challenege what it Intel does.
I think that is a fair point, but let me try and be add to my original statement with this:
I don't believe that Intel can not innovate further, the question now is where to innovate. The improvements in processors the last several years have offered marginal gains for the average consumer. The key word here is "average".
Typical business PC's and home PC's are used for overwhelmingly for 2 things: Internet access, and office tasks. Looking at the research into PC users practices its clear that the largest pool of potential customers (>85%) don't need a new processor to do what they are doing. On the contrary, a average home or business user now typically only upgrades due to either mechanical failure of a PC or being serious software issues.
This is the very reason Intel is pushing Viiv and other platform strategies aimed at getting consumers to use their PC's in new applications which will expand that market they so need to keep up with the years (market boom) where everyone was buying a PC either get on the internet or enable their child to "do well in school".
Further evidence is the huge push Intel is putting into oversees markets, they are trying to establish a role there now, but since most countries fail to have the income to support Intel's desired high margins, its proving very difficult.
I don't doubt that Intel "made the market" in the 90's, I'm just of the camp that old model is dead (The writing has been on the wall here for years) and new approaches have to be taken if Intel wants to enjoy the same level of margins as before.
I agree with your first comment, but considering the question of whether or not Paul as a marketer is a good choice as CEO, I disagree.
Intel previously succeeded due to a market boom in CPU demand and a clear need for the processors to be as best as possible. With engineers leading the charge technology development was high, and the marketplace took care of itself. Now with increased competition, low differentiation among product, and the market slowing, a marketer like Paul is exactly what Intel needs, someone to find new opportunity and realize demand.
Recall Craig Barrett, former CEO and engineer, was responsible for Intel's largest business failure to date, the mobile phone division. This is a classic example of an engineers approach to business verses that which Paul should be bringing to the table. Craig's approach, simply make more processors in a different industry, its not that simple. He failed to understand the full stack of requirements of doing business in that sector while failing to understand the competition. Is Paul going to be able to realize and generate the demand necessary for Intel to maintain its high margins? I doubt it, but I'd much rather see someone trained in business then an engineer trying to overcome Intel's present challenges.
As an Intel employee this post represents my own opinion and not necessarily the opinion or views of Intel or anyone else at Intel.
Agreed. Great game. What's interesting is that it was a joint title between Nintendo and Silicon Knights. Now that Silicon Knights is a 3rd party I wonder how they feel about this?
Well, for those that fail to upgrade at least they will be able to play their Nintendo Revolutions without a problem. Obviously Nintendo has decided to market to those people who will have nothing else to do with their old TV's... Brillant!
Agreed. Many people forget there is a large cost associated with making the switch. It's not as easy as simply pulling one chip and inserting another.
Dell has massive amounts of R&D into using the Intel architecture, if they want to wait a year or so to see how things shake out, that is their business.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Dell is now a private company, so no need to worry about public shareholders anymore. 2. Swanson is not Dell's CEO, he is head of software.
Alternate translation: Let's turn these off and encourage millions of users to buy the WiiU.
1/3? They lost 1 million of about 22 million.
You have not run into me on the subway. :P
But point taken, people think I'm a nerd.
I find it cute that you believe you have privacy as it is.
Just realize that the n810 can only accept up to a 8GB card; 16GB will not work.
If the user has limited uses for the scope, what a good analysis will show that is most low end scopes are OEMed anyway therefore likely to be nearly identical to one another. (That is, a CM, or contract manufacturer, is making the scope for Tek or NI, etc.)
When approaching the high end, scope manufacturers do begin to differentiate from one another, but it looks like this buyer is not informed enough to enable the SD community to truly assist.
I will add that one more important thing to consider is if there are desires for long term service, because those companies do offer substantial difference in customer service levels.
Final add: Agilent is successor to HP, so will find many of the same features and similar setups in an Agilent scope if you are used to HP.
Shifting? SHIFTING? This has been the case for the last 20+ years!
With some notable exceptions, Kucinich, Paul, etc., Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same in my eyes these days, their exuberant spending is just in different areas.
I don't know if we'll ever materialize into a real force, but I recently have migrated to the Libertarian party with the (naive?) hope things will be different.
The fact that Obama went back on his word to those of us who supported him for this reason is inexcusable. I am firmly voting for Barr instead of Obama now. Sure McCain would have voted yes, but that thats the point, he isn't a lier and backstabber to his supporters, at least on this issue.
Perhaps I worded my OP poorly., the point here is that Apple would not make any money on the content. Apple provides the avenue to the content, and thus makes the money. Apple would not be satisfied in allowing Google to be providing the access.
Why is this even a comparison? Book fans are going to appreciate Kindle's interface and feel much more then they ever could on their iPhones.
The iPhone is great for what it is designed for; reading books was not one of its design criteria. Besides, the idea of Apple relying on someone else to provide the content goes against Apple's business plan of the iPhone regardless of how many board members Apple and Google share.
Expensive, but well built and assembled mostly in the US to my knowledge. I recommend doing more research and not just taking my word for it. :) Good luck.
http://www.mpccorp.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPC_Corporation
Apple at its core is a marketing machine, just like Intel. Intel and Apple feed off of each others marketing dollars and consumer perception. AMD, the self-declared non-marketer, makes little sense for Apple in light of their strategic marketing efforts.
Besides, Intel has bent over backwards for the Apple business, AMD doesn't have the resources right now to be Steve's toy.
Zune? :)
It wasn't a simple understating, it was bonafied declaration that they could go head to head with Core2Duo with the X2 architecture. I was there, and this was more then simple damage control. I believe you can still watch it online at AMD.com, see for yourself. This very idea is discussed on Tom's hardware in the intitial Core2Duo review as well.
"Time to react" - The thing that gets me about that idea is that if you rewind a year ago, heck even this summers AMD technology conference, AMD was touting how Intel's Core2Duo was not that great and AMD would have them beat with X2. (This was prior to Core2duo launch) They argued certain bandwidth specs, TDP measurements, etc. However at the end of the day they were clearly wrong in their assesment of what the Core2Duo could do.
For a company that fails to benchmark their competition effectively, its hard to imagine them building up the resources to effectively build a significant response. In other words, you can have all the time you want to react, but if you are reacting to the wrong thing, who cares? AMD should not be reacting to the Core2Duo at this point, rarther the Core2Quadro, which I understand they are working towards, lets just hope they have the proper benchmarks in mind to truly challenege what it Intel does.
I think that is a fair point, but let me try and be add to my original statement with this:
I don't believe that Intel can not innovate further, the question now is where to innovate. The improvements in processors the last several years have offered marginal gains for the average consumer. The key word here is "average".
Typical business PC's and home PC's are used for overwhelmingly for 2 things: Internet access, and office tasks. Looking at the research into PC users practices its clear that the largest pool of potential customers (>85%) don't need a new processor to do what they are doing. On the contrary, a average home or business user now typically only upgrades due to either mechanical failure of a PC or being serious software issues.
This is the very reason Intel is pushing Viiv and other platform strategies aimed at getting consumers to use their PC's in new applications which will expand that market they so need to keep up with the years (market boom) where everyone was buying a PC either get on the internet or enable their child to "do well in school".
Further evidence is the huge push Intel is putting into oversees markets, they are trying to establish a role there now, but since most countries fail to have the income to support Intel's desired high margins, its proving very difficult. I don't doubt that Intel "made the market" in the 90's, I'm just of the camp that old model is dead (The writing has been on the wall here for years) and new approaches have to be taken if Intel wants to enjoy the same level of margins as before.
I agree with your first comment, but considering the question of whether or not Paul as a marketer is a good choice as CEO, I disagree.
Intel previously succeeded due to a market boom in CPU demand and a clear need for the processors to be as best as possible. With engineers leading the charge technology development was high, and the marketplace took care of itself. Now with increased competition, low differentiation among product, and the market slowing, a marketer like Paul is exactly what Intel needs, someone to find new opportunity and realize demand.
Recall Craig Barrett, former CEO and engineer, was responsible for Intel's largest business failure to date, the mobile phone division. This is a classic example of an engineers approach to business verses that which Paul should be bringing to the table. Craig's approach, simply make more processors in a different industry, its not that simple. He failed to understand the full stack of requirements of doing business in that sector while failing to understand the competition. Is Paul going to be able to realize and generate the demand necessary for Intel to maintain its high margins? I doubt it, but I'd much rather see someone trained in business then an engineer trying to overcome Intel's present challenges.
As an Intel employee this post represents my own opinion and not necessarily the opinion or views of Intel or anyone else at Intel.
If people "scuttle" their warranty modding it, it saves MS the trouble of having to cover it any longer. Makes perfect sense to me.
"Dual" Core Duo? that have four cores? ;)
Agreed. Great game. What's interesting is that it was a joint title between Nintendo and Silicon Knights. Now that Silicon Knights is a 3rd party I wonder how they feel about this?
You found it worthy enough to reply to...
I know, that was part of my joke.
Well, for those that fail to upgrade at least they will be able to play their Nintendo Revolutions without a problem. Obviously Nintendo has decided to market to those people who will have nothing else to do with their old TV's... Brillant!
Agreed. Many people forget there is a large cost associated with making the switch. It's not as easy as simply pulling one chip and inserting another. Dell has massive amounts of R&D into using the Intel architecture, if they want to wait a year or so to see how things shake out, that is their business.
MS R&D inspired by: http://www.dsavenue.com/images/stories/News/DSeuro ad.jpg
http://media.gigex.com/biz/images/articles/dstouch ad.jpg