I use Maemo (Internet Tablet OS 2008, technically) on an N810, and it is good. It uses a touch-optimized GNOME variant (Hildon) as its UI, and it works really well. The really cool part of it is that, unlike Android, it can run any ARM Linux application, including the entire Debian repository. Also, performance is very good - in a couple unscientific tests at work, Flash and general web performance were pretty similar between the N810 (128MB RAM, 400MHz ARM11) and a Samsung Galaxy S running Android 2.2 (1GHz Cortex A8, 512MB RAM).
"Throw in the lack of apps (the PlayBook uses a new OS acquired from QNX, so developers must start over again) and the too-small seven-inch screen (which limits the kind of apps and data you can work with effectively), and you can see why the PlayBook doesn't appear all that compelling."
Sorry, but no. PlayBook is compatible with BBOS 6 software. And interestingly, the article doesn't complain about all the 7" Android tablets.
"If HP's hope is to leverage WebOS for its post-PC transition, it needs to stake that ground soon, while there is still ground to be claimed."
Post-PC? Please.
"Let's hope so because the smartphone and tablet market doesn't need another OS. WebOS would have to undergo major transformation to get any attention; WebOS 2.0 as demonstrated certainly won't do the trick. (Here's an idea: HP can buy Windows Phone 7 from Microsoft for its nice UI and graft that onto WebOS's core -- after modernizing the core, of course.)"
Doesn't need another OS? That market was crowded when Android arrived. I also have to question why porting the WP7 UI to a Linux kernel makes it inherently better.
Actually, there have been a lot of reports indicating that the FSB's internal surveillance, including informants, has reached an extent that the KGB never reached in the USSR.
Doesn't solve the problem of the CPU itself - which in the PS3 is a rather power-hungry 3.2GHz PowerPC 970 - taking up an enormous amount of power. The Cell's "cores" are just vector units.
No, you can't. The PS3 has a reasonably fast in-order PPC970-derived core at 3.2GHz with several external vector units. You just can't put that kind of oomph in a portable device right now. I think the absolute best they could do is one of
-PPC4xx - Dual core, clock in the low GHz range. Faster than most or all smartphones that currently exist, but not normally going to match up to the Cell.
-A Tegra2 or OMAP4. Dual core, 1-1.2GHz, integrated (rather slow) GPU.
-Intel Moorestown. I think this is unlikely, but it provides a pretty fast x86-derived core and the associated advantages.
Even if they can get the processor up to 40% or so of the PS3 (which is the best they'll be able to do), there is no way they're going to have a GPU at anything close to the same level, or memory bandwidth in the same ballpark. In other words, Sony is hyping, and that's it.
No. They are not remotely close in power. The 1GHz Cortex A8's in almost every high-end phone are *maybe* equivalent to lower-end models of Pentium 4 - so you're looking at a low-end chip in 2003 or so.
The charge is for publishing to the app store, not accessing it. Which you would know if you had read either the article or a series of comments above.
Why? What RISC architecture provides the same price/power/performance ratio that x86 provides?
POWER is fast and has an excellent power/performance, but entry-level systems cost ~$3500 after discounts.
Itanium is fast, but expensive and power-hungry.
MIPS is fast and power-efficient, but none of the players in the high-performance MIPS market have any interest in anything but network processors.
SPARC gives you two options - SPARC64 (slow, expensive, power-inefficient) and SPARC T-series (fast, but only for throughput-driven workloads; expensive; fairly power-hungry)
ARM has good power and price characteristics, but is slow compared to any production x86 chip except the Atoms and ULV stuff.
Basically, I'm not seeing a credible alternative to x86 for the market that it thrives in. If you want to pay up and get a nice fast RISC system, they're out there; alternatively, if you want a somewhat slower one for cheap, ARM is always available.
Correct. This bug, while rare, occurs when trying to send a message in an existing thread. The message appears in that thread, and the only way to verify that it was sent to the wrong contact is to view the message details.
Slashdot Mirror
N900 would like a word with you.
Yeah, seriously. I think this even got a Slashdot article from around then.
No it won't.
http://us.blackberry.com/playbook-tablet/
I use Maemo (Internet Tablet OS 2008, technically) on an N810, and it is good. It uses a touch-optimized GNOME variant (Hildon) as its UI, and it works really well. The really cool part of it is that, unlike Android, it can run any ARM Linux application, including the entire Debian repository. Also, performance is very good - in a couple unscientific tests at work, Flash and general web performance were pretty similar between the N810 (128MB RAM, 400MHz ARM11) and a Samsung Galaxy S running Android 2.2 (1GHz Cortex A8, 512MB RAM).
"Throw in the lack of apps (the PlayBook uses a new OS acquired from QNX, so developers must start over again) and the too-small seven-inch screen (which limits the kind of apps and data you can work with effectively), and you can see why the PlayBook doesn't appear all that compelling."
Sorry, but no. PlayBook is compatible with BBOS 6 software. And interestingly, the article doesn't complain about all the 7" Android tablets.
"If HP's hope is to leverage WebOS for its post-PC transition, it needs to stake that ground soon, while there is still ground to be claimed."
Post-PC? Please.
"Let's hope so because the smartphone and tablet market doesn't need another OS. WebOS would have to undergo major transformation to get any attention; WebOS 2.0 as demonstrated certainly won't do the trick. (Here's an idea: HP can buy Windows Phone 7 from Microsoft for its nice UI and graft that onto WebOS's core -- after modernizing the core, of course.)"
Doesn't need another OS? That market was crowded when Android arrived. I also have to question why porting the WP7 UI to a Linux kernel makes it inherently better.
Yeah, saying that the #1 manufacturer of smartphones "ceased to matter" is pretty epic.
No. A5 is Apple's new processor. The article explicitly states that they're adding an ARM Cortex A8 chip, which weirdly the iPhone 4 already has.
For one of the most-used websites on the Internet, that budget is tiny.
Actually, there have been a lot of reports indicating that the FSB's internal surveillance, including informants, has reached an extent that the KGB never reached in the USSR.
Doesn't solve the problem of the CPU itself - which in the PS3 is a rather power-hungry 3.2GHz PowerPC 970 - taking up an enormous amount of power. The Cell's "cores" are just vector units.
No, you can't. The PS3 has a reasonably fast in-order PPC970-derived core at 3.2GHz with several external vector units. You just can't put that kind of oomph in a portable device right now. I think the absolute best they could do is one of
-PPC4xx - Dual core, clock in the low GHz range. Faster than most or all smartphones that currently exist, but not normally going to match up to the Cell.
-A Tegra2 or OMAP4. Dual core, 1-1.2GHz, integrated (rather slow) GPU.
-Intel Moorestown. I think this is unlikely, but it provides a pretty fast x86-derived core and the associated advantages.
Even if they can get the processor up to 40% or so of the PS3 (which is the best they'll be able to do), there is no way they're going to have a GPU at anything close to the same level, or memory bandwidth in the same ballpark. In other words, Sony is hyping, and that's it.
No. They are not remotely close in power. The 1GHz Cortex A8's in almost every high-end phone are *maybe* equivalent to lower-end models of Pentium 4 - so you're looking at a low-end chip in 2003 or so.
The charge is for publishing to the app store, not accessing it. Which you would know if you had read either the article or a series of comments above.
And how exactly does iPhone play into your little fantasy?
Only if you're a developer. Apple charges the same fee, if I recall.
But don't let me get in the way of your anti-Microsoft ranting, informed or not.
Why? What RISC architecture provides the same price/power/performance ratio that x86 provides?
POWER is fast and has an excellent power/performance, but entry-level systems cost ~$3500 after discounts.
Itanium is fast, but expensive and power-hungry.
MIPS is fast and power-efficient, but none of the players in the high-performance MIPS market have any interest in anything but network processors.
SPARC gives you two options - SPARC64 (slow, expensive, power-inefficient) and SPARC T-series (fast, but only for throughput-driven workloads; expensive; fairly power-hungry)
ARM has good power and price characteristics, but is slow compared to any production x86 chip except the Atoms and ULV stuff.
Basically, I'm not seeing a credible alternative to x86 for the market that it thrives in. If you want to pay up and get a nice fast RISC system, they're out there; alternatively, if you want a somewhat slower one for cheap, ARM is always available.
Chechnya (1992-), Abkhazia (1991-1993), Nagorno-Karabakh (1990-1994), Ukraine (40's and 50's)
"More civilized?" Really? The people who can't go a couple decades without having a genocide or two?
Please.
Is it supposed to be GameTree or TreeGame? Who knows.
Windows Mobile and Windows Phone have no relation to Windows XP. They are based on CE, which is a totally seperate development from NT.
Office is getting ported. That's a start.
Like ham radio operators. You know we're secretly controlling the world.
Surprisingly perceptive for a troll......
Correct. This bug, while rare, occurs when trying to send a message in an existing thread. The message appears in that thread, and the only way to verify that it was sent to the wrong contact is to view the message details.