That's what I think is being missed about this device — the Origami stuff appears to be an attempt at creating a very compact laptop-style device, whereas the 770 is firmly aiming to be an "internet appliance". If the Origami does what it's supposed to, they're not really comparable.
That's not entirely true - VB has its own set of libraries, and the.NET systems were designed to be (as much as possible) language-agnostic, rather than "designed for C#". This is a pretty major benefit of the CLI - it was designed with many OO langauges "in mind", and works pretty much as well with all of the languages it ships with (and, happily, they mostly interoperate with one another).
I hate VB, but.NET does at least make it a fairly serious tool. Some people find Basic easier, or it's what they're used to, so I don't see a particular reason to stop them using it (I gave up trying to "educate" people years ago). VB.NET is, despite how it may look, a pretty clever language in a lot of ways.
I hate coding in it and reading code examples for it though. Makes my blood boil. But it's quite a difficult tool to dismiss.
I think it's more the case that 10 years ago, your office suite did everything you needed. MS have been struggling to add new things that are useful since then.
Nah, I don't believe that. I just think Apple consider "competition" on another level. This is difficult to explain, but I think they basically consider music for the iPod a part of the iPod "experience", so it's their right to sell you it exclusively. Microsoft don't have this sort of ecosystem at all, since they don't make players — they just licence technology for players out to third parties.
I'm not convinced that the way you rephrase it is technically incorrect, though. DRM is one of those onerous technologies that can be used to subvert fair trade, and Apple are showing that very well.
I won't deny that Thinkpads are nice PC laptops, but it sounds like they're really pushing them on the students.
Well, as several sibling posts to this, they were probably trying to standardise on one range with an affordable lower-end to ease their support costs. I'm not comfortable with the "rabid sales pitch" of the announcement, though. Doesn't strike me as very professional when their "recommendation" sounds more like a brochure.
Strangely enough, I've never had problems with Wifi on XP, although I've only used it post-SP2. It's certainly no more difficult than it is on OSX (and it's easier than PocketPC, which is the only other platform I've used it on, but that's largely because entering passwords with a stylus is hilariously futile when your writing is like mine).
Sure, the SHITTIEST Stinkpad costs "$750" but it weighs a pound more and has half the RAM!
And this is relevant why? The cheapest one is the only one they can afford. It's that simple. The fact that upgrading it is expensive just further locks them to the cheapest one available, it doesn't vindicate the fact that most laptops are more expensive.
And next time you try to make fun of "trolls", I'd advise you not to use the word "Stinkpad", or capitalise the word "shittiest".:)
Heh. I often wonder if one or both of them (in particular Jobs, he always seemed the "nefarious" type) live on top of a dark, ominous hill in a tall, black building that gets hit by lightning more often than is statistically likely.
I believe they meant a economic ecosystem, since MS's DRM is set up to allow hardware and software manufacturers to compete with one another. By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to allow Apple to sell you music.
Of course, you could just buy and rip CDs (what I do) or buy from stores that do not sell DRMed content (I mean the non-Russian ones), but that tends to limit the range of music that they can sell.
Because making a hardware player, bringing it to be the forefront of its market, then tying it to its music store and locking out competitors from using its DRM scheme is considerably more difficult than it appears.
I would sorely love to believe that there will be large-scale backlash to this technology, but I really can't see it happening, unfortunately. Not in the short-to-medium term, anyway. And I still don't really believe that MS not offering support would make a real difference. It's not that I believe they would remove it if it'd make a difference, but I'm just not convinced it's relevant.
No. Other manufacturers would make the hardware, and take the market away from them. There's absolutely no way that a large-scale coup of the entertainment industry — which the manufacturers rely on for their income — when there's so much money to be made. And quite frankly, Microsoft's operating systems are a miniscule proportion of the overall sales of these entertainment products.
Manufacturers growing spines would put them out of business. Fact. The new standard is coming, and the only things that could stop it are the consumer — who by and large doesn't care so long as they can watch their content, regardless of whether they need to purchase new equipment to do so — and legislation, which I'm not convinced I'd be in favour of (limiting technology by law is a bad precedent, in my view).
I believe that it's been better modularised? Similar to what's recently happened to the Xorg server recently, I suppose — just had the barriers between constituent parts better defined and watched. I believe MS have regression tests now (this I'm not sure about, but they were certainly attempting more agile development, which would imply that) so that will probably guard against most unpleasantness.
That's a reason that HD-DVD/BluRay - that is, systems that use HDCP - suck. If you want to watch them on your computer, you need a new screen. If you want to watch them on your TV, you need a new one of those too. It's stupid but it's hardly Vista's fault for supporting the new standard. It's not like MS's support or otherwise would stop it being adopted.
Yeah. I suppose that trying to distinguish between "UNIX-certified Linux" and other distributions could be quite a difficult task in itself anyway.
I think that UNIX certification was what they were using to determine what fell into the "UNIX" category, although I'm really not sure. I expect all Linux, regardless of certification, was put into one category.
Linux is not Unix, it's "Unix-like". I'm not particularly anal about that distinction, but there is one, and the distinction was made in this test. Solaris is "real Unix" (as I believe AIX is, I'm not sure about the BSDs). There's a specification for "what Unix is", so as nit-picky as it sounds, there's a technical reason that they don't count. There's a bit more explanation on this Wikipedia page.
I was just trying to explain why Linux wasn't counted in the Unix ranking. On the other hand (as another reply to my post has pointed out) Linux, rather than Windows, is likely to be the reason that "real Unix" is losing market share.
How about the 12 servers we bought from dell without an OS that had linux installed on them? I know those were not counted. Or the 100+ servers acting as mpeg2 video routers in the headends that were also bought without an OS that has linux installed as well.
Linux was listed in the ranking seperately (it came third, according to the article). Linux is not UNIX, so even if you bought it with Linux installed, it wouldn't have changed the relative positions of the two operating systems.
I agree that Linux would have come higher if the eventual OS installs of servers with no OS installs had been recorded, though.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I think is being missed about this device — the Origami stuff appears to be an attempt at creating a very compact laptop-style device, whereas the 770 is firmly aiming to be an "internet appliance". If the Origami does what it's supposed to, they're not really comparable.
That's not entirely true - VB has its own set of libraries, and the .NET systems were designed to be (as much as possible) language-agnostic, rather than "designed for C#". This is a pretty major benefit of the CLI - it was designed with many OO langauges "in mind", and works pretty much as well with all of the languages it ships with (and, happily, they mostly interoperate with one another).
I hate VB, but .NET does at least make it a fairly serious tool. Some people find Basic easier, or it's what they're used to, so I don't see a particular reason to stop them using it (I gave up trying to "educate" people years ago). VB.NET is, despite how it may look, a pretty clever language in a lot of ways.
I hate coding in it and reading code examples for it though. Makes my blood boil. But it's quite a difficult tool to dismiss.
I think it's more the case that 10 years ago, your office suite did everything you needed. MS have been struggling to add new things that are useful since then.
Considering the fact that there's several versions, and only the high-end one requires a high-end video card, I'd say that was different.
Nah, I don't believe that. I just think Apple consider "competition" on another level. This is difficult to explain, but I think they basically consider music for the iPod a part of the iPod "experience", so it's their right to sell you it exclusively. Microsoft don't have this sort of ecosystem at all, since they don't make players — they just licence technology for players out to third parties.
I'm not convinced that the way you rephrase it is technically incorrect, though. DRM is one of those onerous technologies that can be used to subvert fair trade, and Apple are showing that very well.
So I've heard, that's why I specifically mentioned I was using SP2 when I played with it. :)
Well, as several sibling posts to this, they were probably trying to standardise on one range with an affordable lower-end to ease their support costs. I'm not comfortable with the "rabid sales pitch" of the announcement, though. Doesn't strike me as very professional when their "recommendation" sounds more like a brochure.
Strangely enough, I've never had problems with Wifi on XP, although I've only used it post-SP2. It's certainly no more difficult than it is on OSX (and it's easier than PocketPC, which is the only other platform I've used it on, but that's largely because entering passwords with a stylus is hilariously futile when your writing is like mine).
Sad but true. "Debt tickles!"
And this is relevant why? The cheapest one is the only one they can afford. It's that simple. The fact that upgrading it is expensive just further locks them to the cheapest one available, it doesn't vindicate the fact that most laptops are more expensive.
And next time you try to make fun of "trolls", I'd advise you not to use the word "Stinkpad", or capitalise the word "shittiest". :)
Heh. I often wonder if one or both of them (in particular Jobs, he always seemed the "nefarious" type) live on top of a dark, ominous hill in a tall, black building that gets hit by lightning more often than is statistically likely.
I believe they meant a economic ecosystem, since MS's DRM is set up to allow hardware and software manufacturers to compete with one another. By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to allow Apple to sell you music.
Of course, you could just buy and rip CDs (what I do) or buy from stores that do not sell DRMed content (I mean the non-Russian ones), but that tends to limit the range of music that they can sell.
Because making a hardware player, bringing it to be the forefront of its market, then tying it to its music store and locking out competitors from using its DRM scheme is considerably more difficult than it appears.
I would sorely love to believe that there will be large-scale backlash to this technology, but I really can't see it happening, unfortunately. Not in the short-to-medium term, anyway. And I still don't really believe that MS not offering support would make a real difference. It's not that I believe they would remove it if it'd make a difference, but I'm just not convinced it's relevant.
No. Other manufacturers would make the hardware, and take the market away from them. There's absolutely no way that a large-scale coup of the entertainment industry — which the manufacturers rely on for their income — when there's so much money to be made. And quite frankly, Microsoft's operating systems are a miniscule proportion of the overall sales of these entertainment products.
Manufacturers growing spines would put them out of business. Fact. The new standard is coming, and the only things that could stop it are the consumer — who by and large doesn't care so long as they can watch their content, regardless of whether they need to purchase new equipment to do so — and legislation, which I'm not convinced I'd be in favour of (limiting technology by law is a bad precedent, in my view).
I believe that it's been better modularised? Similar to what's recently happened to the Xorg server recently, I suppose — just had the barriers between constituent parts better defined and watched. I believe MS have regression tests now (this I'm not sure about, but they were certainly attempting more agile development, which would imply that) so that will probably guard against most unpleasantness.
That's a reason that HD-DVD/BluRay - that is, systems that use HDCP - suck. If you want to watch them on your computer, you need a new screen. If you want to watch them on your TV, you need a new one of those too. It's stupid but it's hardly Vista's fault for supporting the new standard. It's not like MS's support or otherwise would stop it being adopted.
You're completely right, of course. But the technicalities that I mentioned are why it's in a seperate category on the ranking.
Possible. I suppose further investigation is required, although I'm lazy and don't really care all that much!
Yeah. I suppose that trying to distinguish between "UNIX-certified Linux" and other distributions could be quite a difficult task in itself anyway.
I think that UNIX certification was what they were using to determine what fell into the "UNIX" category, although I'm really not sure. I expect all Linux, regardless of certification, was put into one category.
Unfortunately, the trademark is the distinguishing factor used. :/
Cheers for the clarification, and the quality reply. :)
Linux is not Unix, it's "Unix-like". I'm not particularly anal about that distinction, but there is one, and the distinction was made in this test. Solaris is "real Unix" (as I believe AIX is, I'm not sure about the BSDs). There's a specification for "what Unix is", so as nit-picky as it sounds, there's a technical reason that they don't count. There's a bit more explanation on this Wikipedia page.
I was just trying to explain why Linux wasn't counted in the Unix ranking. On the other hand (as another reply to my post has pointed out) Linux, rather than Windows, is likely to be the reason that "real Unix" is losing market share.
Linux was listed in the ranking seperately (it came third, according to the article). Linux is not UNIX, so even if you bought it with Linux installed, it wouldn't have changed the relative positions of the two operating systems.
I agree that Linux would have come higher if the eventual OS installs of servers with no OS installs had been recorded, though.
Well you want an archive on your system then. Well done, FLAC is right for you. :)