Its the same basic stuff we use today with color graphics thrown in for a thrill. The appeal of this sort of thing is really odd.
It begs the question: Why are we still stuck with this archaic style of operating system after all these decades ? Its so dated in the face of todays needs that we are supplementing file browsing with a brute force string search to find our stuff. Funnier still we tout this crude bandaid on defunct technology as new and innovative technology.
I once thought that computer technology would amount to something in my lifetime. Now we sit around waiting for the year of the Linux desktop, the free version of 40 year old shit. I don't understand why it wasn't being given away 20 years ago.
The free software movement needs more balanced, constructive, and visionary leadership. If Linus hadn't come along we'd all be eating this kinda poo for breakfast.
Microsoft makes risky predatory investments in the grossly uncertain future of poverty stricken countries while its product line turns to shite, its US market share continues to slip, and its cash reserve continues to dwindle. Makes me feel good all over.
When Frenchman smells a fart, even a silent one from a computer, the offense is usually intended. The proclamation that the fumes are noxious is just a belly laugh. Maybe I'll try setting the language on my MacBook Pro to French to see if I can trick it into farting at me too.
Sales of Vista are supposedly strong. Apparently Microsoft really didn't need the ads.
It also makes sense that Microsoft couldn't do much direct Vista promotion in the ads because they're already doing this in other ads and because they've announced that Windows 7 is coming out early next year. If, on the other hand, the ads attempted to promote Windows 7 this might appear to be at odds with representations that Vista is a great product as is.
So maybe all of the potentially substantive content for the ads was eliminated to remove the appearance of conflicting information to the less discerning customer.
As several people have pointed out, the notion of supercomputer is relative. The thing that you can hold in your hand today us usually far less capable than what you can hold in a room today.
With that in mind we can assume that the author is referring to the idea of having something with the power of today's supercomputers in your hand within x number of years. Even with that understanding it seems that today's supercomputers aren't capable of a very useful level of general intelligence and they are not concerned with addressing the technological issues associated with audio and visual interfaces that would help us to avoid automobile accidents and other problems when we are relying on these devices. Only some of the technological problems with audio visual interfaces are related to component density and speed.
Regarding Moore's law as it relates to these issues it is important to realize that doubling your component density and increasing your speed correspondingly is not likely to increase functionality in the same proportion. For many applications that require intelligence in a device it seems that something like the logarithm of the density and speed is the relevant performance measure. Then there is the issue of user interface software technology. Because of these types of issues I'm usually not interested in updating any of my computers unless there is a crudely validated performance factor of at least 2 or unless there is a big improvement in the user interface technology that requires a hardware upgrade. In the case of server technology I can understand getting spun up over a 10% performance increase but for most personal use a factor of at least 2 without a significant change in the user interface seems to result in no noticeable productivity improvement. Has anyone done a study of this ?
Its not the case that the difference reduces to poor internal communication on the part of Microsoft and good marketing on the part of Apple and its not the case that the problem is somehow the responsibility of Microsoft developers. If it were better marketing at issue then Microsoft wouldn't own 90% of the market. It is the leadership of Microsoft that is responsible for deciding what and where to invest in developing their product and it is the leadership that decides what their relationship with their customers will be, not the developers. It seems clear to me that these decisions take a systematic anti-end-user direction at Microsoft and the slight competition from Apple has been one of the few things that ameliorates their blatently bad attitude.
It is obvious that every company, including Apple, has interests that conflict with the interest of their customers. The quality of a company is largely determined by the way that they weigh their customers interests against their own. In this regard, if you integrate over the years, there is no comparison between the two companies. Not only does Microsoft score poorly in this regard but it has scored progressively lower with every percentage point of market share they won. Its possible to argue endlessly on this point but I've watched it happen and its unambiguous and inexcusably disproportionate. Microsoft doesn't care enough about the quality of the services rendered. Beyond cheap marketing tactics they make no effort to hide this unbelievably bad attitude. You only have to use Word for a few minutes and if you are an experienced OS X user you only have to use any version of Windows for a few minutes to fully appreciated this. I wish that I had a nickle for every time someone has told me that they have no problem with Micrsoft products in casual conversation only to reveal later that they had some horrific problems using a Microsoft product. I have had bad experiences with Mac operating systems but nothing even closely approximating the nightmares that I have experienced with Microsoft products.
For my part the difference between an inferior end user experience and an inferior product can be left for a loftier forum. I've used both Apple and Microsoft products extensively for a long time and in my view it is not objective to attempt to write off the difference as mostly a marketing issue or a communciations issue. As an end user I make no distinction between product quality and my ability to achieve quality results easily and without unnecessary effort needed to do, learn, or understand things that are irrelevant to the task at hand. All user interfaces have some of this problem but equivalencing Windows to OS X in this regard is incorrect. Apple cares more about what they produce and it shows.
" Heck I wouldn't even know many things about MS products if it weren't for the strange areas of work I'm involved with that bridge UI and OS studies and also being exposed to things at a development level. "
This sentence provides the clearest explanation I've seen as to why these and many other potentially powerful features are effectively useless to the average Windows user. Microsoft's unrelenting arrogant and hostile attitude toward its customers shines forth in their boogered user interface. If Microsoft really gave a damn they would pay for user oriented user interface design and they would stop pretending that superficial copies of Apple's GUI design is as good as Apple's actual design. Anyone waiting for that change in attitude is dreaming and Vista's interface should be a clear indication of the fact that they are actually headed somewhere else.
The iPhone whining will eventually stop but Apple haters reproduce faster than rodents. People who expect everything for nothing generally reproduce even faster because they've got nothing better to do with their time than get calouses on their genitals.
iWhining is a proud tradition in this nation of children who know the price of everything and the value of nothing and whose word and signature mean nothing.
Soon you'll probably be able to do anything you want to an iPhone without any consequences whatsoever and you can declare victory of the horrible monster that created that horrible device to begin with. But then why not just go out and buy a different product that lets you do all those things that you want to do from someone who doesn't make all that profit but who also doesn't take the expensive risks needed to develop and deliver something like that piece of crap that you obviously hate ? Or maybe you didn't buy one ? If that's the case then please ignore this response.
If you look carefully at Apple's remarks prior to the release of the iPhone you will see that they were careful not to absolutely preclude 3rd party development. The fact that they refused to announce guaranteed and unqualified support for 3rd party applications sent the iWhiners into iHyperWhine.
Prior to the release of the iPhone Apple did make remarks to the effect that robustness was a greater priority than 3rd party development. At the same time they said that they thought they could solve the robustness problem eventually and that they wanted to do that. The overwhelming cacophony of whining and bovine scattology has drowned out any sensible appreciation of what Apple said. Instead of attempting to understand exactly what was and was not being said and instead of having a little patience many people began putting badly integrated software onto a beautifully engineered device. In the hacking world where "software engineering" is nigh onto an oxymoron I guess this behavior is understandable. Otherwise it is incomprehensible unless the iPhone was bought only for purposes of farting around.
Combine Apple's remarks with the fact that it takes a while to produce something like what they propose for a 3rd party application development support environment and add the fact that the baseline iPhone functionality was harder to deliver in their original planned time frame and things fall into place without the need for paranoia regarding a nefarious moo-ha-ha monster lurking around Apple. Almost everything but core iPhone functionality got deprioritized to make the announced product release deadline. Recall that Apple even delayed the release of Leopard to get the iPhone out on time.
If Apple had allowed and endorsed the development of 3rd party applications before 3rd party applications could be supported securely and robustly then the iPhone would have gotten a reputation for being insecure and unreliable like the Treo. I really liked the Treo but it took a serious rap for the reduction in reliability caused by 3rd party apps even though it wasn't necessarily the Treo's fault as delieverd by Palm.
If Apple charges for the SDK then there will be third party SDKs shortly that access the new Apple SDK system interface. I doubt that Apple will charge for it but we will see shortly if all goes as announced.
If you carry your low cost desktop system around in our pocket it makes a much bigger impression than an iPhone. On top of that it will run emacs. That'll show Steve Jobs. how its done properly.
containing these profundities in some universal code. Or should we avoid potential embarrassment and sit on this one a while just in case we learn new physics in the next eon or two.
To be fair these scientist probably do have something interesting to say about the long term evolution of the universe implied by contemporary theoretical models. I would appreciate it if they didn't try to describe it in terms pseudo-physical semi-philosophical techno-babble like the "anthropic principle". GAG. I guess that's what you have to do to get picked up by a rag among rags.
This article is completely misunderstanding fanboyhood. I say this because the most rabid and ubiquitous fanboys are Microsoft fanboys. Since Microsoft is not an underdog it can't have anything to do with rooting for the underdog.
Even if the GUT doesn't do it it wouldn't mean that it can't be done in a practical way. After all the GUT would just be better theory on the road to better theory.
True it would be impractical to do it today. But not so long ago the calculations would have involved a big catapult and that would have yielded an even more discouraging analysis. But then the mathematics and physical understanding would not have been there to do that calculation. We've come a long way in a short time. We'll get there. Its probably not a choice.
If you just want to share your depressed view of the future of humanity in the universe then why go too all that effort to anal-ize the possibilities based on your limited understanding about todays limited physical models and the engineering implications of that. Just tell everyone to get off the prozac for a day or so then watch the evening news followed by a walk outside to look up at the night sky. Then realize that no one would beam us up even if they could.
I guess the military could use 5 or 6 of these if you made them 10 times as big, raised the table height, and added long sticks to touch the surface and move things around. Otherwise who uses a coffee table on a regular basis ? It is so typical of Microsoft to solve a problem that doesn't exist or would only exist if we were living in the past. They should stick to their successful approach of following Apple's lead and forget about introducing new stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Its the same basic stuff we use today with color graphics thrown in for a thrill. The appeal of this sort of thing is really odd.
It begs the question:
Why are we still stuck with this archaic style of operating system after all these decades ?
Its so dated in the face of todays needs that we are supplementing file browsing with a brute force string search
to find our stuff. Funnier still we tout this crude bandaid on defunct technology as new and innovative technology.
I once thought that computer technology would amount to something in my lifetime.
Now we sit around waiting for the year of the Linux desktop, the free version of 40 year old shit.
I don't understand why it wasn't being given away 20 years ago.
The free software movement needs more balanced, constructive, and visionary leadership. If Linus hadn't come along we'd all be eating this kinda poo for breakfast.
Almost sounds like Intelligent Design doesn't it.
Microsoft makes risky predatory investments in the grossly uncertain future of poverty stricken countries while its product line turns to shite, its US market share continues to slip, and its cash reserve continues to dwindle. Makes me feel good all over.
When Frenchman smells a fart, even a silent one from a computer, the offense is usually intended. The proclamation that the fumes are noxious is just a belly laugh. Maybe I'll try setting the language on my MacBook Pro to French to see if I can trick it into farting at me too.
Sales of Vista are supposedly strong. Apparently Microsoft really didn't need the ads.
It also makes sense that Microsoft couldn't do much direct Vista promotion in the ads because they're already doing this in other ads and because they've announced that Windows 7 is coming out early next year. If, on the other hand, the ads attempted to promote Windows 7 this might appear to be at odds with representations that Vista is a great product as is.
So maybe all of the potentially substantive content for the ads was eliminated to remove the appearance of conflicting information to the less discerning customer.
Eliminating religion has never been tried before.
Good luck.
As several people have pointed out, the notion of supercomputer is relative. The thing that you can hold in your hand today us usually far less capable than what you can hold in a room today.
With that in mind we can assume that the author is referring to the idea of having something with the power of today's supercomputers in your hand within x number of years. Even with that understanding it seems that today's supercomputers aren't capable of a very useful level of general intelligence and they are not concerned with addressing the technological issues associated with audio and visual interfaces that would help us to avoid automobile accidents and other problems when we are relying on these devices. Only some of the technological problems with audio visual interfaces are related to component density and speed.
Regarding Moore's law as it relates to these issues it is important to realize that doubling your component density and increasing your speed correspondingly is not likely to increase functionality in the same proportion. For many applications that require intelligence in a device it seems that something like the logarithm of the density and speed is the relevant performance measure. Then there is the issue of user interface software technology. Because of these types of issues I'm usually not interested in updating any of my computers unless there is a crudely validated performance factor of at least 2 or unless there is a big improvement in the user interface technology that requires a hardware upgrade. In the case of server technology I can understand getting spun up over a 10% performance increase but for most personal use a factor of at least 2 without a significant change in the user interface seems to result in no noticeable productivity improvement. Has anyone done a study of this ?
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Its not a communciation problem its a choice.
Its not the case that the difference reduces to poor internal communication on the part of Microsoft and good marketing on the part of Apple and its not the case that the problem is somehow the responsibility of Microsoft developers. If it were better marketing at issue then Microsoft wouldn't own 90% of the market. It is the leadership of Microsoft that is responsible for deciding what and where to invest in developing their product and it is the leadership that decides what their relationship with their customers will be, not the developers. It seems clear to me that these decisions take a systematic anti-end-user direction at Microsoft and the slight competition from Apple has been one of the few things that ameliorates their blatently bad attitude.
It is obvious that every company, including Apple, has interests that conflict with the interest of their customers. The quality of a company is largely determined by the way that they weigh their customers interests against their own. In this regard, if you integrate over the years, there is no comparison between the two companies. Not only does Microsoft score poorly in this regard but it has scored progressively lower with every percentage point of market share they won. Its possible to argue endlessly on this point but I've watched it happen and its unambiguous and inexcusably disproportionate. Microsoft doesn't care enough about the quality of the services rendered. Beyond cheap marketing tactics they make no effort to hide this unbelievably bad attitude. You only have to use Word for a few minutes and if you are an experienced OS X user you only have to use any version of Windows for a few minutes to fully appreciated this. I wish that I had a nickle for every time someone has told me that they have no problem with Micrsoft products in casual conversation only to reveal later that they had some horrific problems using a Microsoft product. I have had bad experiences with Mac operating systems but nothing even closely approximating the nightmares that I have experienced with Microsoft products.
For my part the difference between an inferior end user experience and an inferior product can be left for a loftier forum. I've used both Apple and Microsoft products extensively for a long time and in my view it is not objective to attempt to write off the difference as mostly a marketing issue or a communciations issue. As an end user I make no distinction between product quality and my ability to achieve quality results easily and without unnecessary effort needed to do, learn, or understand things that are irrelevant to the task at hand. All user interfaces have some of this problem but equivalencing Windows to OS X in this regard is incorrect. Apple cares more about what they produce and it shows.
" Heck I wouldn't even know many things about MS products if it weren't for the strange areas of work I'm involved with that bridge UI and OS studies and also being exposed to things at a development level. "
This sentence provides the clearest explanation I've seen as to why these and many other potentially powerful features are effectively useless to the average Windows user. Microsoft's unrelenting arrogant and hostile attitude toward its customers shines forth in their boogered user interface. If Microsoft really gave a damn they would pay for user oriented user interface design and they would stop pretending that superficial copies of Apple's GUI design is as good as Apple's actual design. Anyone waiting for that change in attitude is dreaming and Vista's interface should be a clear indication of the fact that they are actually headed somewhere else.
if I correctly understand the implications of your remark then you agree with Apple's approach.
The iPhone whining will eventually stop but Apple haters reproduce faster than rodents. People who expect everything for nothing generally reproduce even faster because they've got nothing better to do with their time than get calouses on their genitals.
iWhining is a proud tradition in this nation of children who know the price of everything and the value of nothing and whose word and signature mean nothing.
Soon you'll probably be able to do anything you want to an iPhone without any consequences whatsoever and you can declare victory of the horrible monster that created that horrible device to begin with. But then why not just go out and buy a different product that lets you do all those things that you want to do from someone who doesn't make all that profit but who also doesn't take the expensive risks needed to develop and deliver something like that piece of crap that you obviously hate ? Or maybe you didn't buy one ? If that's the case then please ignore this response.
If you look carefully at Apple's remarks prior to the release of the iPhone you will see that they were careful not to absolutely preclude 3rd party development. The fact that they refused to announce guaranteed and unqualified support for 3rd party applications sent the iWhiners into iHyperWhine.
Prior to the release of the iPhone Apple did make remarks to the effect that robustness was a greater priority than 3rd party development. At the same time they said that they thought they could solve the robustness problem eventually and that they wanted to do that. The overwhelming cacophony of whining and bovine scattology has drowned out any sensible appreciation of what Apple said. Instead of attempting to understand exactly what was and was not being said and instead of having a little patience many people began putting badly integrated software onto a beautifully engineered device. In the hacking world where "software engineering" is nigh onto an oxymoron I guess this behavior is understandable. Otherwise it is incomprehensible unless the iPhone was bought only for purposes of farting around.
Combine Apple's remarks with the fact that it takes a while to produce something like what they propose for a 3rd party application development support environment and add the fact that the baseline iPhone functionality was harder to deliver in their original planned time frame and things fall into place without the need for paranoia regarding a nefarious moo-ha-ha monster lurking around Apple. Almost everything but core iPhone functionality got deprioritized to make the announced product release deadline. Recall that Apple even delayed the release of Leopard to get the iPhone out on time.
If Apple had allowed and endorsed the development of 3rd party applications before 3rd party applications could be supported securely and robustly then the iPhone would have gotten a reputation for being insecure and unreliable like the Treo. I really liked the Treo but it took a serious rap for the reduction in reliability caused by 3rd party apps even though it wasn't necessarily the Treo's fault as delieverd by Palm.
If Apple charges for the SDK then there will be third party SDKs shortly that access the new Apple SDK system interface. I doubt that Apple will charge for it but we will see shortly if all goes as announced.
Its the shared skull-kernal that makes it impossible for Linux to enter the mainstream.
yup
If you carry your low cost desktop system around in our pocket it makes a much bigger impression than an iPhone. On top of that it will run emacs. That'll show Steve Jobs. how its done properly.
This bonehead doesn't know what mathematics is.
containing these profundities in some universal code. Or should we avoid potential embarrassment
and sit on this one a while just in case we learn new physics in the next eon or two.
To be fair these scientist probably do have something interesting to say about the long term evolution of the universe
implied by contemporary theoretical models. I would appreciate it if they didn't try to describe it in terms
pseudo-physical semi-philosophical techno-babble like the "anthropic principle". GAG.
I guess that's what you have to do to get picked up by a rag among rags.
This article is completely misunderstanding fanboyhood.
I say this because the most rabid and ubiquitous fanboys are Microsoft fanboys.
Since Microsoft is not an underdog it can't have anything to do
with rooting for the underdog.
Even if the GUT doesn't do it it wouldn't mean that it
can't be done in a practical way. After all the GUT would
just be better theory on the road to better theory.
True it would be impractical to do it today.
But not so long ago the calculations would have involved
a big catapult and that would have
yielded an even more discouraging analysis. But then the
mathematics and physical understanding would not have been there to do that calculation.
We've come a long way in a short time. We'll get there.
Its probably not a choice.
If you just want to share your depressed view of the future of humanity
in the universe then why go too all that effort
to anal-ize the possibilities based on your limited understanding
about todays limited physical models and the engineering implications of that.
Just tell everyone to get off the prozac for a day or so then watch the evening news
followed by a walk outside to look up at the night sky.
Then realize that no one would beam us up even if they
could.
Well then they've got 5 or 6 units sold for sure already.
I guess the military could use 5 or 6 of these if you made
them 10 times as big, raised the table height, and added long
sticks to touch the surface and move things around. Otherwise
who uses a coffee table on a regular basis ?
It is so typical of Microsoft to solve a problem that doesn't exist or
would only exist if we were living in the past.
They should stick to their successful approach of following Apple's lead
and forget about introducing new stuff.