1. Be an cluless end-user 2. Hose your machine 3. Try to fix it yourself and REALLY hose your machine 4. Complain about those who actually do know how to fix the problem 6. Write a story about it 5.... 6. Profit
In order for a government to make the common man depend on it, it needs to give the common man an arch enemy. It used to be the Kaiser, communists, drug dealers, and now it's terrorists.
When the common man doesn't have an absolute enemy to fear, he'll tend not to depend on the government as much. Of course this isn't in the lawmakers best interest.
Keep your dependents living in fear and they'll always remain your dependents.
The US has a military designed for distant conflicts. We have more aircraft carriers, long range bombers, fighters, transport vessels, cargo planes, and other logistics stuff than anyone else. Probably more than everyone else combined.
China's military is strictly geared for homeland protection. They have lots of tanks, troops, trucks, short range aircraft and things of that nature. They could never project their power over seas or a great distance like the US can.
With that said, the US is in no threat of being attacked by China, and China is in no threat of being attacked by the US, because nobody is dumb enough to deliver their troops into the backyard of an enemy that has that many tanks and troops sitting there.
If both NASA and the ESA want to share credit for the whole mission, fine, I'd go with that. But that didn't seem to be the attitude when the Huygens probe landed on Titan. When that happened, I recall the ESA being *very* specific that it was their probe- and their accomplishment, and not NASA's. I thought that was a bit rude. In other words they want to share partial credit for what isn't thiers, but they want to take total credit for what is theirs.
As I also mentioned in elsewhere in this thread several gaming reviews have shown that Athlon 64 and Pentium M performance is close when a high-end desktop video card (GeForce 6800GT or similar) is used.
The Pentium M doesn't fare very well in games vs. the Athlon 64, even when using the same video card.
Anandtech did a test comparing the A64, Pentium M and Pentium 4, and gave them each the same high end graphics card. The Pentium M finished in the lower half of the pack on almost every benchmark.
In addition, the Pentium M is pretty expensive, so you'll be able to buy a high end Athlon 64 chip with the same money as this below average performing Pentium M chip.
That is wrong. The Intel system is graphics bound, not CPU bound. In a clock-for-clock comparison Pentium M performs very similar to Athlon 64 in gaming performance when a high end video card is used as Tech Report, Anandtech, Sudhian and others have shown.
A chip can have similar clock-for-clock performance to another chip and still be CPU-bound. Technically you can perform better than an Itanium but if the clock speed is low enough it will be a slug.
The Pentium M may perform well on a clock for clock basis, but its clock speed is still pretty low when you compare it to high end chips like the Athlon 64 and P4. It's a mobile chip, its main purpose is to have low power consumption. It was never designed to take on the P4 and A64 in raw performance.
Actually, if you look at benchmarks on the fastest Pentium-M chip, they beat the high-end P4 quite consistantly.
I looked at the benchmarks and they definitely *do not* beat the high-end P4's consistently.
The Pentium-M compares to the P4 much the same way that the old Cyrix chips compared to a Pentium- they do well on non-CPU intensive tasks such as Microsoft word and internet explorer, but the weak FPU hinders its raw performance in CPU hungry tasks. The Pentium-M's floating point performance is slightly better than half of the high end P4's.
When you design a chip to be low power, you have to make tradeoffs. Intel designed a pretty efficient chip that delivers good performance for the amount of wattage it consumes, but it shouldn't be confused with more powerful desktop chips. It does well in light applications that aren't really CPU hungry and won't bog the processor.
Anandtech did a pretty thorough review of the Pentium-M and how it compares to desktop chips.
"As a mobile processor, the Pentium M cannot be beat - we've actually seen why, even in this comparison today. With a highly power optimized architecture, the Pentium M continues to deliver performance that is competitive with other mobile CPUs on the market. The problem is that in the transition to the desktop world, its competitors get much more powerful, while the Pentium M is forced to live within its mobile constraints."
This passage is pretty funny. While Griffin is strictly talking science and using sound logic, the other guy is just plain politicking:
Hall: Where are folks who did $400G estimate? Gone, in a nursing home?
Griffin: Different mission. I liked BMW a lot more, but Toyota gets me back and forth.
Hall: I'd prefer if you drove a Ford.
That's what kills our government. The entire process is stripped of logic and is replaced by emotional statements that don't get much done, but are effective at swaying public opinion. Seriously though, Griffin was trying to state factual arguments while the other guy was burning up my tax money thinking of something useless to say.
Since Shuttle launches and servicing missions are disproportionately expensive compared to non-Shuttle launches, I personally would support the idea of building a successor to Hubble and launching it with another launch vehicle, such as the Delta IV Heavy.
I figure you could build a more modern telescope with the knowledge that we gained with Hubble. We could make the mirror larger in diameter to give it more light gathering capability, give it a more sensitive imager and sensors, and even use adaptive optics.
But whatever we do, we need to get something working (that operates in visible wavelengths)
If I remember correctly, isnt apple in the top five for PC Sales? Put away the bias for a bit and give credit where credit is due.
No, they aren't.
"Currently, the top 10 worldwide PC vendors, by unit shipment, are Dell, HP, IBM, Fujitsu, Fujitsu-Siemens, Toshiba, NEC, Apple Computer, Lenovo Group and Gateway.
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?thre ad id=137596
I've noticed that many Apple fans are very enthusiastic about their favorite product and get a little carried away when it comes to putting things into perspective.
Intel developed USB. They have dominance in the industry. They pushed for USB, and the industry followed. Apple has 2% of the PC market, which is not very significant in the overall scheme of things.
The PC accessory aftermarket is not going to wait for 2% of the PC market to demand USB. They're going to start producing USB devices when the other 98% of the market demands USB. USB device design was coming to mass market by the time the Imac was introduced. Apple simply followed Intel's lead along with the rest of the industry.
Apple was not the first to incorporate USB ports on their computers, that much is correct. However, until Apple introduced the iMac and essentially forced USB on their users, there were very very very few actual USB devices available. It was only after the iMac came out that you could begin finding USB devices in your typical computer store.
Just using a little common sense here, do you think the USB peripheral market exploded because Apple, with its 2% of marketshare adopted it, or do you think it's because the other 98% of the market adopted it?
Even if Apple went belly up, it's hardly going to dent the overall PC industry. I know Apple has some very enthusiastic fans, but you need to keep things in perspective and look at the overall picture. Apple's Mac is a novelty act, they are not a major player.
In more modern times, the Ipod is a product that's a very major player in the Mp3 player market. They carry a lot of weight in that market and since they're such a major player, they have much influence in the direction that the market takes. But as far as the PC industry, the Macintosh is just a drop of water in the pond.
That's absurd. Apple had little influence.
on
Apple Backs Blu-ray
·
· Score: 0
You're correct that the iMac wasn't the first to ship with USB but I don't think you can argue against that it was the iMac that caused USB to become so popular today.
Apple has less than 2% of the PC market. In the broad scheme of things, they are a very small-time player in the industry. They definitely did not cause USB to become so popular today.
Intel is the reason. Intel, with it's 90%+ marketshare in the CPU market, created the USB standard and pushed for it. Since Intel had such dominance in the CPU and chipset market, any motherboards that were designed for their CPU's and/or used their chipsets supported USB. If you were a motherboard manufacturer and designed a new MB at that time, you most likely used an Intel chipset and supported USB. Almost all the new motherboards being made for the PC industry had USB capability, thanks to Intel being the de facto standard.
I was working in the motherboard industry when Intel first started the push for USB. They made it easy for any motherboard manufacturer to include USB on their motherboards. They created the standard, and created the USB Implementers Forum in 1995 to push the industry to adopt its standard.
I used to work for a motherboard manufacturer and they had similar policies here. We used to buy millions of chipsets from them. The MB business is very low profit margin, so a rise in the cost of components could kill you. If you were exclusive to Intel you'd be on their "MVP" list, but if you pissed them off you'd fall off that list. Being on that list ensured that you'd get your chipsets on time and for the best price. Without being on that list, they couldn't guarantee you the full supply you wanted, and the price would go up by a dollar or two.
They tried to hide it by saying that they had "shortages" and had to limit your supply, but the "shortage" always seemed to go hand in hand with you looking into buying other chipsets, or making boards for non-Intel processors.
They were very aggressive and commonly used strongarm tactics.
I've met people who pursued Master's degrees because they felt inadequate all their lives. Getting the piece of paper validates them in their own mind.
Some of these people I knew since grade school, they took school much more seriously than I did, yet resented me because I was a slacker who could ace the tests and get the grades. They felt that it wasn't fair that I was placed in gifted classes all throughout school while they worked their ass off to attain mediocrity. I talk mean about them now because of the attitude I got from them, but I was never big on status and really didn't care what grades they got. That didn't define them as a person.
Fast forward to present time, talking to these people and they're still dim. Only they're now dim people with Master's degrees, who talk down to me because I chose not to get a degree. And again, when we were out at the bar and they had one of those trivia games, when I won the match they didn't congratulate me or give me any credit, they simply reassured themselves that they have a degree.
A degree is nice, but it is no replacement for true talent. I'm always willing to apply myself when I need to, I just don't feel the need to brag about it.
I'm not big on status, I'm one of those people who is big on substance. It's more important to "have it" than it is to constantly market yourself and tell people that you have it. Keep life simple, stop trying to impress people.
Which is more than compensated for by the cheering of dribbling fanboys, who really care who makes their CPU on sites like this.
Yes, the fanboys pretty much threw all reason out the window already and will just cheer for their favorite team. But I'd expect a little bit more from a company that is supposed to have journalistic integrity.
Oh, please don't tell me you actually assign moralities to big companies? Corporations are neither good nor evil. They all do have one thing in common though. That is to make money
Yes, I do.
How they choose to make their money is up to them. Their leadership can either decide that it's best to maintain a good public image over getting every last penny, or they could choose the "every last penny over everything else" route.
You can't see the difference between the way that Apple operates and the way SCO or Rambus operates? One of them tries their best to maintain their public image, while the other 2 threw all ethics out the windows and will go as far as scamming people to make money.
'm not going to argue about the impact of gender/minority based hiring policies, I'm just saying your conclusions in this specific case are flawed. At the highest levels managers are responsible for higher level management practices, not individual screw-ups. Your arguement is along the lines of holding the CEO of IBM responsible because your laptop had a too many bad pixels.
Ever hear the saying "shit rolls downhill"?
If you put an incompetent leader up top, the bad decisions will trickle down. Anyone who disagrees with these bad ideas coming from above will be overruled by the higher authority.
The kingpin is very important. The chain of command starts there. With a bad CEO of a company, it's very possible to begin to get more bad pixels in your laptop screen. What if the CEO wanted to streamline the business and aim for lower production costs at the expense of quality? While one person may find that price/quality ratio unacceptable, the new CEO may have different values and consider it acceptable. Anyone below him who disgreed would most likely be forced to agree with his decision, or be forced out of the company. Look what Carly did to HP, or what Enron's leaders did to that company.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple (what the entire article and this thread is about)- 2 guys in a garage.
Microsoft (the giant everyone loves to hate) college dropouts.
I'm sure Apple relates more to this story than your examples.
1. Be an cluless end-user ...
2. Hose your machine
3. Try to fix it yourself and REALLY hose your machine
4. Complain about those who actually do know how to fix the problem
6. Write a story about it
5.
6. Profit
In order for a government to make the common man depend on it, it needs to give the common man an arch enemy. It used to be the Kaiser, communists, drug dealers, and now it's terrorists.
When the common man doesn't have an absolute enemy to fear, he'll tend not to depend on the government as much. Of course this isn't in the lawmakers best interest.
Keep your dependents living in fear and they'll always remain your dependents.
The US has a military designed for distant conflicts. We have more aircraft carriers, long range bombers, fighters, transport vessels, cargo planes, and other logistics stuff than anyone else. Probably more than everyone else combined.
China's military is strictly geared for homeland protection. They have lots of tanks, troops, trucks, short range aircraft and things of that nature. They could never project their power over seas or a great distance like the US can.
With that said, the US is in no threat of being attacked by China, and China is in no threat of being attacked by the US, because nobody is dumb enough to deliver their troops into the backyard of an enemy that has that many tanks and troops sitting there.
01001001001000000111010001101000011010010110111001 10101100100000011010010111010000100111011100110010 00000110011001100001011100110110100001101001011011 11011011100110000101100010011011000110010100100000 01110100011011110010000001110100011000010110110001 10101100100000011011000110100101101011011001010010 00000111010001101000011010010111001100101110001000 00010101110110100001100101011011100010000001001001 00100000011011110111000001100101011011100010000001 10110101111001001000000110110101101111011101010111 01000110100000101100001000000100100100100000011100 11011011110111010101101110011001000010000001101100 01101001011010110110010100100000011000010010000001 10110101101111011001000110010101101101001011100010 00000101010001101000011001010010000001101101011011 11011100110111010000100000011010010110111001110100 01100101011100100110010101110011011101000110100101 10111001100111001000000111000001100001011100100111 01000010000001101111011001100010000001110100011010 00011001010010000001100011011011110110111001110110 01100101011100100111001101100001011101000110100101 10111101101110001000000110100101110011001000000111 01000110100001100101001000000110100001100001011011 10011001000111001101101000011000010110101101100101 00101110
Cassini is NASA. ESA was the Huygens probe.
If both NASA and the ESA want to share credit for the whole mission, fine, I'd go with that. But that didn't seem to be the attitude when the Huygens probe landed on Titan. When that happened, I recall the ESA being *very* specific that it was their probe- and their accomplishment, and not NASA's. I thought that was a bit rude. In other words they want to share partial credit for what isn't thiers, but they want to take total credit for what is theirs.
The NASA portion was the Orbiter, which accounted for the vast majority of the mission.
As I also mentioned in elsewhere in this thread several gaming reviews have shown that Athlon 64 and Pentium M performance is close when a high-end desktop video card (GeForce 6800GT or similar) is used.
? i=2342&p=15
The Pentium M doesn't fare very well in games vs. the Athlon 64, even when using the same video card.
Anandtech did a test comparing the A64, Pentium M and Pentium 4, and gave them each the same high end graphics card. The Pentium M finished in the lower half of the pack on almost every benchmark.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx
In addition, the Pentium M is pretty expensive, so you'll be able to buy a high end Athlon 64 chip with the same money as this below average performing Pentium M chip.
That is wrong. The Intel system is graphics bound, not CPU bound. In a clock-for-clock comparison Pentium M performs very similar to Athlon 64 in gaming performance when a high end video card is used as Tech Report, Anandtech, Sudhian and others have shown.
A chip can have similar clock-for-clock performance to another chip and still be CPU-bound. Technically you can perform better than an Itanium but if the clock speed is low enough it will be a slug.
The Pentium M may perform well on a clock for clock basis, but its clock speed is still pretty low when you compare it to high end chips like the Athlon 64 and P4. It's a mobile chip, its main purpose is to have low power consumption. It was never designed to take on the P4 and A64 in raw performance.
Actually, if you look at benchmarks on the fastest Pentium-M chip, they beat the high-end P4 quite consistantly.
? i=2342&p=21
I looked at the benchmarks and they definitely *do not* beat the high-end P4's consistently.
The Pentium-M compares to the P4 much the same way that the old Cyrix chips compared to a Pentium- they do well on non-CPU intensive tasks such as Microsoft word and internet explorer, but the weak FPU hinders its raw performance in CPU hungry tasks. The Pentium-M's floating point performance is slightly better than half of the high end P4's.
When you design a chip to be low power, you have to make tradeoffs. Intel designed a pretty efficient chip that delivers good performance for the amount of wattage it consumes, but it shouldn't be confused with more powerful desktop chips. It does well in light applications that aren't really CPU hungry and won't bog the processor.
Anandtech did a pretty thorough review of the Pentium-M and how it compares to desktop chips.
"As a mobile processor, the Pentium M cannot be beat - we've actually seen why, even in this comparison today. With a highly power optimized architecture, the Pentium M continues to deliver performance that is competitive with other mobile CPUs on the market. The problem is that in the transition to the desktop world, its competitors get much more powerful, while the Pentium M is forced to live within its mobile constraints."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx
Loves those nancy boys.
This passage is pretty funny. While Griffin is strictly talking science and using sound logic, the other guy is just plain politicking:
Hall: Where are folks who did $400G estimate? Gone, in a nursing home?
Griffin: Different mission. I liked BMW a lot more, but Toyota gets me back and forth.
Hall: I'd prefer if you drove a Ford.
That's what kills our government. The entire process is stripped of logic and is replaced by emotional statements that don't get much done, but are effective at swaying public opinion. Seriously though, Griffin was trying to state factual arguments while the other guy was burning up my tax money thinking of something useless to say.
Since Shuttle launches and servicing missions are disproportionately expensive compared to non-Shuttle launches, I personally would support the idea of building a successor to Hubble and launching it with another launch vehicle, such as the Delta IV Heavy.
I figure you could build a more modern telescope with the knowledge that we gained with Hubble. We could make the mirror larger in diameter to give it more light gathering capability, give it a more sensitive imager and sensors, and even use adaptive optics.
But whatever we do, we need to get something working (that operates in visible wavelengths)
If I remember correctly, isnt apple in the top five for PC Sales? Put away the bias for a bit and give credit where credit is due.
e ad id=137596
No, they aren't.
"Currently, the top 10 worldwide PC vendors, by unit shipment, are Dell, HP, IBM, Fujitsu, Fujitsu-Siemens, Toshiba, NEC, Apple Computer, Lenovo Group and Gateway.
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?thr
Please don't use the term "Alpha Male" in a discussion about IT geeks ever again. They are closer to eunuchs.
We all know that Apple's marketshare is thin, but you have to admit that USB would not be where it is today without the iMac.
Yes it would. You had Intel, who designed it, and the other 98% of the industry to consume it.
I've noticed that many Apple fans are very enthusiastic about their favorite product and get a little carried away when it comes to putting things into perspective.
Intel developed USB. They have dominance in the industry. They pushed for USB, and the industry followed. Apple has 2% of the PC market, which is not very significant in the overall scheme of things.
The PC accessory aftermarket is not going to wait for 2% of the PC market to demand USB. They're going to start producing USB devices when the other 98% of the market demands USB. USB device design was coming to mass market by the time the Imac was introduced. Apple simply followed Intel's lead along with the rest of the industry.
Apple was not the first to incorporate USB ports on their computers, that much is correct. However, until Apple introduced the iMac and essentially forced USB on their users, there were very very very few actual USB devices available. It was only after the iMac came out that you could begin finding USB devices in your typical computer store.
Just using a little common sense here, do you think the USB peripheral market exploded because Apple, with its 2% of marketshare adopted it, or do you think it's because the other 98% of the market adopted it?
Even if Apple went belly up, it's hardly going to dent the overall PC industry. I know Apple has some very enthusiastic fans, but you need to keep things in perspective and look at the overall picture. Apple's Mac is a novelty act, they are not a major player.
In more modern times, the Ipod is a product that's a very major player in the Mp3 player market. They carry a lot of weight in that market and since they're such a major player, they have much influence in the direction that the market takes. But as far as the PC industry, the Macintosh is just a drop of water in the pond.
You're correct that the iMac wasn't the first to ship with USB but I don't think you can argue against that it was the iMac that caused USB to become so popular today.
Apple has less than 2% of the PC market. In the broad scheme of things, they are a very small-time player in the industry. They definitely did not cause USB to become so popular today.
Intel is the reason. Intel, with it's 90%+ marketshare in the CPU market, created the USB standard and pushed for it. Since Intel had such dominance in the CPU and chipset market, any motherboards that were designed for their CPU's and/or used their chipsets supported USB. If you were a motherboard manufacturer and designed a new MB at that time, you most likely used an Intel chipset and supported USB. Almost all the new motherboards being made for the PC industry had USB capability, thanks to Intel being the de facto standard.
I was working in the motherboard industry when Intel first started the push for USB. They made it easy for any motherboard manufacturer to include USB on their motherboards. They created the standard, and created the USB Implementers Forum in 1995 to push the industry to adopt its standard.
http://www.intel.com/standards/case/case_usb.htm
Firewire never gained more of the market share over USB, and that is why all DVDs use MPEG4.
History fails you.
Show me how all DVD's use Mpeg4. They don't. They use Mpeg2.
I used to work for a motherboard manufacturer and they had similar policies here. We used to buy millions of chipsets from them. The MB business is very low profit margin, so a rise in the cost of components could kill you. If you were exclusive to Intel you'd be on their "MVP" list, but if you pissed them off you'd fall off that list. Being on that list ensured that you'd get your chipsets on time and for the best price. Without being on that list, they couldn't guarantee you the full supply you wanted, and the price would go up by a dollar or two.
They tried to hide it by saying that they had "shortages" and had to limit your supply, but the "shortage" always seemed to go hand in hand with you looking into buying other chipsets, or making boards for non-Intel processors.
They were very aggressive and commonly used strongarm tactics.
I've met people who pursued Master's degrees because they felt inadequate all their lives. Getting the piece of paper validates them in their own mind.
Some of these people I knew since grade school, they took school much more seriously than I did, yet resented me because I was a slacker who could ace the tests and get the grades. They felt that it wasn't fair that I was placed in gifted classes all throughout school while they worked their ass off to attain mediocrity. I talk mean about them now because of the attitude I got from them, but I was never big on status and really didn't care what grades they got. That didn't define them as a person.
Fast forward to present time, talking to these people and they're still dim. Only they're now dim people with Master's degrees, who talk down to me because I chose not to get a degree. And again, when we were out at the bar and they had one of those trivia games, when I won the match they didn't congratulate me or give me any credit, they simply reassured themselves that they have a degree.
A degree is nice, but it is no replacement for true talent. I'm always willing to apply myself when I need to, I just don't feel the need to brag about it.
I'm not big on status, I'm one of those people who is big on substance. It's more important to "have it" than it is to constantly market yourself and tell people that you have it. Keep life simple, stop trying to impress people.
Which is more than compensated for by the cheering of dribbling fanboys, who really care who makes their CPU on sites like this.
Yes, the fanboys pretty much threw all reason out the window already and will just cheer for their favorite team. But I'd expect a little bit more from a company that is supposed to have journalistic integrity.
Oh, please don't tell me you actually assign moralities to big companies? Corporations are neither good nor evil. They all do have one thing in common though. That is to make money
Yes, I do.
How they choose to make their money is up to them. Their leadership can either decide that it's best to maintain a good public image over getting every last penny, or they could choose the "every last penny over everything else" route.
You can't see the difference between the way that Apple operates and the way SCO or Rambus operates? One of them tries their best to maintain their public image, while the other 2 threw all ethics out the windows and will go as far as scamming people to make money.
'm not going to argue about the impact of gender/minority based hiring policies, I'm just saying your conclusions in this specific case are flawed. At the highest levels managers are responsible for higher level management practices, not individual screw-ups. Your arguement is along the lines of holding the CEO of IBM responsible because your laptop had a too many bad pixels.
Ever hear the saying "shit rolls downhill"?
If you put an incompetent leader up top, the bad decisions will trickle down. Anyone who disagrees with these bad ideas coming from above will be overruled by the higher authority.
The kingpin is very important. The chain of command starts there. With a bad CEO of a company, it's very possible to begin to get more bad pixels in your laptop screen. What if the CEO wanted to streamline the business and aim for lower production costs at the expense of quality? While one person may find that price/quality ratio unacceptable, the new CEO may have different values and consider it acceptable. Anyone below him who disgreed would most likely be forced to agree with his decision, or be forced out of the company. Look what Carly did to HP, or what Enron's leaders did to that company.