I can see how it's cool technology, but who's gonna adapt this?
Hopefully no one. I guess they're targeting OEMs, who will be able to only buy and support one motherboard. A real board for either platform would most likely work better and be more reliable.
And how hard would it have been to intergrate and TRULY have one board?
Pretty hard. They have to have separate chipsets, RAM slots, sometimes even video slots, etc. They would be duplicating a lot of functionality (as they already are.) See how big the daughterboard is? Any motherboard that integrated both CPU sockets would be very difficult. When both chips have different ways of doing anything, they have to duplicate a lot of stuff. It's really not that worth it. For enthusiats that may want to switch CPUs... why not buy two motherboards? That way, they have two separate systems.
Great, so two irrelevant branches of an obsolete architecture are once again pin-compatible
Irrelevant and obsolete to you in your alternate reality. And they aren't pin compatible.
If you want a better architecture, there are choices other than Intel and AMD CPUs. However, they are good enough for a great majority of the world. Most people's needs are well suited by the current Intel/AMD offerings; the R&D cost to satisfy a few whiny people would definitely not be worth it. There are other architectures that may come closer to satisfying your needs; why not use those?
Or I suppose you can simply continue to whine about a problem that only exists in your own mind.
It would be a waste of engineering time and money. The effort needed to make the thing work would not be worth it, IF they could get it to work reliably and fast enoguh.
Don't you have a mcafee virus scan or spybot search to run or something?
Nope. I don't use Internet Explorer, don't download suspicious software, and don't run as administrator. I have no problems.
Yeah, when you get tired of that (and if your time is worth anything- mine is), try the "extreme" 500 buck Mac Mini.
I don't have anything to get tired of. And I don't want an entry level system. The Mac Mini wouldn't suit my needs. I enjoy my dual-display support, TV tuner, three hard drives, two optical drives, multiple DDR RAM slots, six channel sound, etc. If I bought a PC (let's say a computer only) for the same price, I'd get something that would be more powerful to begin with, and although in a much bigger case, would be far more upgradable in the future.
If I needed to, I can just restore my hard drive from the last backup image I've made. Haven't had to restore yet.
If that puts a dent in your budget... just think that you could probably resell it on eBay.
That's $500 I could spend on other things. Why would I spend money on replacing a computer that suits my needs just fine?
Yes, as a person who uses a Windows laptop all day at work and troubleshoots and repairs countless friends' and family members' PC machines, I freely admit that I AM an arrogant Mac user. You would be, too.
With the amount of money it would take to get a Mac that does everything I'd want it to, I could have bought at least two PCs that do everything I need them to.
I see no advantages to Mac OS X. Unix? I can run Linux on Windows with coLinux or get a very BSD-like operating environment via Interix. Games? None. The extensive software available? Oh wait. Nope.
5) Mostly I was trying to make the point that Windows far from dominates this little market.::snicker::
Windows does dominate the P2P market. Most P2P users use Windows. Many of them *are* smart enough to use spyware free software.
Your post does not explain how P2P is better on Macs.
1) Acquisition. All the search hits with none of the spyware, plus a snazzy interface.
It's a fancy Gnutella client. And you have to pay for it. Isn't that a bit ironic?
2) Azureus. Everyman's BitTorrent client (only gripe is the high CPU usage)
Available on many other platforms. It does have very high CPU usage; there are much better clients (BitComet for Windows) that more people would use if they knew about it.
3) eetee. Interesting p2p app. No spyware.
eetee no longer exists, probably because they apparently had stolen code illegally from Azureus and LimeWire (from what I can find.)
4) HandBrake. Easiest-to-use DVD ripper in existence, on any platform.
Have you used every DVD ripper in existence?
5) Many other p2p clients in various levels of development... all with no spyware
There are a lot of P2P programs for Windows without spyware. I use BitComet and eMule.
Still snickering at the Windows holdouts...
Why? You sound like an arrogant Mac user. It seems like you could possibly be attempting to justify the extreme cost of a Mac by telling yourself that it's so much better than Windows (maybe you like it better, but Windows suits most people fine.)
There's still more software for Windows than Mac OS X. You have no reason to snicker at the Windows "holdouts", because not many people are really "holding out". PCs are still cheaper and more capable than Macs for most uses.
I can find and download all the music I want. There has yet to be *anything* I haven't been able to find on BitTorrent or eMule.
There is no need to "donate" money for eMule or BitTorrent. There's no single central network to connect to. I have my choice of many BitTorrent music communities, or on eMule, many different servers to connect to (along with Kad.) And there are no "donation" schemes for better download priority. Plus, both protocols have many clients, including open-source ones, and there are rarely (if ever) forced upgrades.
You sound fairly bitter. Did you have trouble getting five people to sign up? How did this get modded insightful?
I doubt you ignoring those with non-free signatures will make a difference.
People like to watch movies on the tiny PDA screen? Who? I mean the scree really sucks and even a single movie will take up a huge amount of space on the average PDA. I know the cost of memory cards has come way down but I doubt that many people use there PDA for that.
It's not that much space. People do like to watch movies on small screens. You can fit a few movies or a lot of episodes of a TV show on a 512mb memory card. People also use smartphones for this purpose too.
There are a lot of people interested in this.
Yes they do but wouldn't a GBA, PSP, or the new Gamboy DS cost less and be a better system to play games on? What really great games can you get for a Pocket PC?
Emulators. I can play NES/SNES/Genesis games. PDAs are allowed in many schools, where gaming devices aren't. As for great games, there are some that look pretty good.
Again you need to have a wireless Internet connection. I also doubt that most Pocket PC users use IRC. If you must have IRC for your PDA
Most Pocket PC users use their Pocket PC as a PDA. Anyway, my original point wasn't that you can use AIM or IRC, but that you can do all at once. Pasting those links just shows that you can use Google. Congratulations.
Also, wireless internet connections are not uncommon on Pocket PCs. Many Pocket PCs have wifi built in, something Palm is not doing well with. There are many wifi SD and CF adapters. Otherwise, there's Bluetooth for cellular access.
While I agree that some of these new functions are nice For the core business user they are just not all that important.
For a business user, multitasking can be very useful.
I do think Palm is playing a big of catchup.
Catching up to what? the features capabilities you just called "useless"?
Frankly they have blown what was fantastic lead. Palm should have taken a not from Apple and jumped to a Palm OS layer running on a Unix core sooner. They should have jumped from the DragonBall to the ARM sooner as well.
Yeah, they're way behind and will probably remain that way.
And the change to filesystem methodology for Palms is a good thing WHY?
New applications. Multimedia. More demanding games. Because the competition is both more advanced *and* has taken over market share.
The old database-style techniques were far more efficient. When PalmOne moved to a filesystem-based architecture with the Treo 650, users found that N megs of RAM in the new device was equivalent to N/2 megs of RAM in the old device.
It was never "equivalent". First, PalmOne should have included more RAM in the Treo 650. Second, a sacrifice in efficency is necesarry. However, the way in which they mapped old databases to files was not very efficent. The old system was hindering the platform greatly.
PalmOS has always been more efficient and far better than Windows Mobile for any embedded device.
PalmOS was very kludgy, not 32-bit, etc. If by "embedded device" you mean "plain-jane simple organizer", I agree completely.
PalmOS devices have historically been more usable despite 1/10 the processing power of a WinCE device
WinCE has had the same basic architecture from the beginning. While it didn't work out as well to begin with (the OS wasn't very mature and hardware wasn't too great,) it has evolved and is now a very decent platform. PalmOS devices have always been usable, and rather simple to use, but you can't use it for much.
As for processing power - clearly they needed more. The old Dragonball CPUs took a few seconds to decode JPEGs and had no hope at playing mp3s.
thanks to the fact that PalmOS was designed from the ground up for mobile devices
It was designed for simple organizers.
while WinCE and its bastard brethren are a horrendous hack.
That's an unsubstantiated anti-Microsoft troll.
PalmOS still does not have anything close to the mutlimedia support present on Windows Mobile (yes, people *do* like to put music on their PDAs and watch movies too), nor does it have the advanced gaming or emulation support (yes, people like to play games too.) For those that like to multitask... they can. I can run IRC, AIM, browse the web, and play music (streaming radio if I want it to be), all at the same time. And you can do so much from the device itself - you don't need to have a computer with the right software to be able to install software, mess around, etc.
Unfortunately, PalmOS 5.x is a step backwards. POS 5.x runs on significantly faster hardware than OS4, with practically no benefits in 95% of situations. It's still a hell of a lot better than any mobile version of Windows.
Step backwards? Do you think they switched to ARM because it was a step backwards? No. They needed to move forward. Windows Mobile does so much more, and people see that. PalmOne is really struggling to catch up now. People enjoy using their PDAs to go online and play mp3s. "95% of situations" of what Palm OS did originally won't benefit from a faster CPU, but what people want to do now requires a faster CPU.
No way. Nearly impossible. Not only would it require an extremely long time to do this, such an application would be both enormously complex and so different than the original that'd it be much easier to write a brand new browser. Symbian platform would be a bit easier, as would Palm OS, but as you see here, Windows Mobile handheld platforms aren't too much trouble, and Linux is hardly any work at all.
Java MIDP has many constraints, such as the lack of a true filesystem and memory/filesize constraints, that would make this very difficult. The one MIDP Java web browser (ReqWireless, I think) I've seen uses a special proxy to pre-render pages into an easy-to-digest format. An older version of Handspring Blazer did the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
And that would be the easy part.
Hopefully no one. I guess they're targeting OEMs, who will be able to only buy and support one motherboard. A real board for either platform would most likely work better and be more reliable.
And how hard would it have been to intergrate and TRULY have one board?
Pretty hard. They have to have separate chipsets, RAM slots, sometimes even video slots, etc. They would be duplicating a lot of functionality (as they already are.) See how big the daughterboard is? Any motherboard that integrated both CPU sockets would be very difficult. When both chips have different ways of doing anything, they have to duplicate a lot of stuff. It's really not that worth it. For enthusiats that may want to switch CPUs... why not buy two motherboards? That way, they have two separate systems.
Irrelevant and obsolete to you in your alternate reality. And they aren't pin compatible.
If you want a better architecture, there are choices other than Intel and AMD CPUs. However, they are good enough for a great majority of the world. Most people's needs are well suited by the current Intel/AMD offerings; the R&D cost to satisfy a few whiny people would definitely not be worth it. There are other architectures that may come closer to satisfying your needs; why not use those?
Or I suppose you can simply continue to whine about a problem that only exists in your own mind.
If you want to play music and just music, Pocket Player is much nicer. (And Musepack is only used by losers.)
It would be a waste of engineering time and money. The effort needed to make the thing work would not be worth it, IF they could get it to work reliably and fast enoguh.
Remote Desktop also is MUCH faster.
Because Windows and Maximize are so often used on mobile devices! Sarcasm, yes, but Windows is often used on mobile devices.
It's only a "blessing" to those willing to pay $5 to steal stuff.
Nope. I don't use Internet Explorer, don't download suspicious software, and don't run as administrator. I have no problems.
Yeah, when you get tired of that (and if your time is worth anything- mine is), try the "extreme" 500 buck Mac Mini.
I don't have anything to get tired of. And I don't want an entry level system. The Mac Mini wouldn't suit my needs. I enjoy my dual-display support, TV tuner, three hard drives, two optical drives, multiple DDR RAM slots, six channel sound, etc. If I bought a PC (let's say a computer only) for the same price, I'd get something that would be more powerful to begin with, and although in a much bigger case, would be far more upgradable in the future.
If I needed to, I can just restore my hard drive from the last backup image I've made. Haven't had to restore yet.
If that puts a dent in your budget... just think that you could probably resell it on eBay.
That's $500 I could spend on other things. Why would I spend money on replacing a computer that suits my needs just fine?
Yes, as a person who uses a Windows laptop all day at work and troubleshoots and repairs countless friends' and family members' PC machines, I freely admit that I AM an arrogant Mac user. You would be, too.
With the amount of money it would take to get a Mac that does everything I'd want it to, I could have bought at least two PCs that do everything I need them to.
I see no advantages to Mac OS X. Unix? I can run Linux on Windows with coLinux or get a very BSD-like operating environment via Interix. Games? None. The extensive software available? Oh wait. Nope.
5) Mostly I was trying to make the point that Windows far from dominates this little market. ::snicker::
Windows does dominate the P2P market. Most P2P users use Windows. Many of them *are* smart enough to use spyware free software.
1) Acquisition. All the search hits with none of the spyware, plus a snazzy interface.
It's a fancy Gnutella client. And you have to pay for it. Isn't that a bit ironic?
2) Azureus. Everyman's BitTorrent client (only gripe is the high CPU usage)
Available on many other platforms. It does have very high CPU usage; there are much better clients (BitComet for Windows) that more people would use if they knew about it.
3) eetee. Interesting p2p app. No spyware.
eetee no longer exists, probably because they apparently had stolen code illegally from Azureus and LimeWire (from what I can find.)
4) HandBrake. Easiest-to-use DVD ripper in existence, on any platform.
Have you used every DVD ripper in existence?
5) Many other p2p clients in various levels of development... all with no spyware
There are a lot of P2P programs for Windows without spyware. I use BitComet and eMule.
Still snickering at the Windows holdouts...
Why? You sound like an arrogant Mac user. It seems like you could possibly be attempting to justify the extreme cost of a Mac by telling yourself that it's so much better than Windows (maybe you like it better, but Windows suits most people fine.)
There's still more software for Windows than Mac OS X. You have no reason to snicker at the Windows "holdouts", because not many people are really "holding out". PCs are still cheaper and more capable than Macs for most uses.
There is no need to "donate" money for eMule or BitTorrent. There's no single central network to connect to. I have my choice of many BitTorrent music communities, or on eMule, many different servers to connect to (along with Kad.)
And there are no "donation" schemes for better download priority. Plus, both protocols have many clients, including open-source ones, and there are rarely (if ever) forced upgrades.
how is it that soulseek stays off EVERYONES RADAR? I bet it has something to do with the lack of userbase and possibly the donation system.
You sound fairly bitter. Did you have trouble getting five people to sign up? How did this get modded insightful? I doubt you ignoring those with non-free signatures will make a difference.
Important enough to design the devices to be able to use them.
How many high school or younger kids can afford a $300+ PDA?
More than you'd think. With more and more schools getting WiFi networks, PDAs are only becoming more useful.
It's not that much space. People do like to watch movies on small screens. You can fit a few movies or a lot of episodes of a TV show on a 512mb memory card. People also use smartphones for this purpose too.
There are a lot of people interested in this.
Yes they do but wouldn't a GBA, PSP, or the new Gamboy DS cost less and be a better system to play games on? What really great games can you get for a Pocket PC?
Emulators. I can play NES/SNES/Genesis games. PDAs are allowed in many schools, where gaming devices aren't. As for great games, there are some that look pretty good.
Again you need to have a wireless Internet connection. I also doubt that most Pocket PC users use IRC. If you must have IRC for your PDA
Most Pocket PC users use their Pocket PC as a PDA. Anyway, my original point wasn't that you can use AIM or IRC, but that you can do all at once. Pasting those links just shows that you can use Google. Congratulations.
Also, wireless internet connections are not uncommon on Pocket PCs. Many Pocket PCs have wifi built in, something Palm is not doing well with. There are many wifi SD and CF adapters. Otherwise, there's Bluetooth for cellular access.
While I agree that some of these new functions are nice For the core business user they are just not all that important.
For a business user, multitasking can be very useful.
I do think Palm is playing a big of catchup.
Catching up to what? the features capabilities you just called "useless"?
Frankly they have blown what was fantastic lead. Palm should have taken a not from Apple and jumped to a Palm OS layer running on a Unix core sooner. They should have jumped from the DragonBall to the ARM sooner as well.
Yeah, they're way behind and will probably remain that way.
New applications. Multimedia. More demanding games. Because the competition is both more advanced *and* has taken over market share.
The old database-style techniques were far more efficient. When PalmOne moved to a filesystem-based architecture with the Treo 650, users found that N megs of RAM in the new device was equivalent to N/2 megs of RAM in the old device.
It was never "equivalent". First, PalmOne should have included more RAM in the Treo 650. Second, a sacrifice in efficency is necesarry. However, the way in which they mapped old databases to files was not very efficent. The old system was hindering the platform greatly.
PalmOS has always been more efficient and far better than Windows Mobile for any embedded device.
PalmOS was very kludgy, not 32-bit, etc. If by "embedded device" you mean "plain-jane simple organizer", I agree completely.
PalmOS devices have historically been more usable despite 1/10 the processing power of a WinCE device
WinCE has had the same basic architecture from the beginning. While it didn't work out as well to begin with (the OS wasn't very mature and hardware wasn't too great,) it has evolved and is now a very decent platform. PalmOS devices have always been usable, and rather simple to use, but you can't use it for much.
As for processing power - clearly they needed more. The old Dragonball CPUs took a few seconds to decode JPEGs and had no hope at playing mp3s.
thanks to the fact that PalmOS was designed from the ground up for mobile devices
It was designed for simple organizers.
while WinCE and its bastard brethren are a horrendous hack.
That's an unsubstantiated anti-Microsoft troll.
PalmOS still does not have anything close to the mutlimedia support present on Windows Mobile (yes, people *do* like to put music on their PDAs and watch movies too), nor does it have the advanced gaming or emulation support (yes, people like to play games too.) For those that like to multitask... they can. I can run IRC, AIM, browse the web, and play music (streaming radio if I want it to be), all at the same time. And you can do so much from the device itself - you don't need to have a computer with the right software to be able to install software, mess around, etc.
Unfortunately, PalmOS 5.x is a step backwards. POS 5.x runs on significantly faster hardware than OS4, with practically no benefits in 95% of situations. It's still a hell of a lot better than any mobile version of Windows.
Step backwards? Do you think they switched to ARM because it was a step backwards? No. They needed to move forward. Windows Mobile does so much more, and people see that. PalmOne is really struggling to catch up now. People enjoy using their PDAs to go online and play mp3s. "95% of situations" of what Palm OS did originally won't benefit from a faster CPU, but what people want to do now requires a faster CPU.
No way. Nearly impossible. Not only would it require an extremely long time to do this, such an application would be both enormously complex and so different than the original that'd it be much easier to write a brand new browser. Symbian platform would be a bit easier, as would Palm OS, but as you see here, Windows Mobile handheld platforms aren't too much trouble, and Linux is hardly any work at all. Java MIDP has many constraints, such as the lack of a true filesystem and memory/filesize constraints, that would make this very difficult. The one MIDP Java web browser (ReqWireless, I think) I've seen uses a special proxy to pre-render pages into an easy-to-digest format. An older version of Handspring Blazer did the same thing.
I agree with that. NetFront is very nice (compared to PIE).