If it's a small embedded device that actually runs an X86 chip, it's one of the first in the world. X86 would be a horrible choice for an embedded device. It's big, it's hot, and it sucks power like a kid on a Slurpee. Given Jobs' excitement over battery life (and my own experience with embedded devices), it leads me to surmise that the likelyhood of an X86 chip in there is near nil.
Yes, it can have widgets. Xcode doesn't let you compile for ARM (today), which is the most likely candidate for what's inside (a logical choice for a low power CPU given the NVidia based GPU the unit is said to have), but that wouldn't be rocket science to add. It wouldn't make sense to compile it as a universal, since the device has little or no need for backcompat (you aren't running PPC software on it).
We'll see. I can see Apple wanting to be closed on this as long as possible.
I agree with the RDF aspect. It's an amazingly sexy consumer device but the reality is that it's a (non-3G) phone that plays music with a very sexy UI.
But as far as "tiring of gadgets", the reality is that Apple can keep innovating just as Sony and others have done for 30 years. And at the end of the day, they can also claim that for many of the devices, the attach rate back to Macs is going to help them in several ways (they'll also make quite a bit off of iTunes, whether the user has a Mac or not).
If you want a 9-5 with no innovation then go work for microsoft.
Oh. Ow. Words that hurt.
But seriously. Microsoft may be like that in some parts today - and why the hell not, it's a giant sloth-like beast with 50K fulltime employees and probably nearly that many contractors. However, there are quite a few areas where Microsoft (that's a "big" M on there for you, my Mac-loving friend) does innovate and create cool new software. And the reality (I can tell you from experience) is that it's often much more than a M-F 9-5 commitment.
Given that it is highly doubtful that there is an Intel processor inside the iPhone, it will mean recompilation to run on the CPU that is in there. Honestly, given the form factor, it's much like trying to take a Win32 application to CE or vice versa - it doesn't work. Not because you can't scrape or expand the API to fit one another, it's just a totally different UI paradigm. Jobs highlighted the fact that it runs OS X as a sex factor. Meaning if you loved the eye candy of the home version, you'll love the portable one. Additionally, it's a nice snub at Microsoft (don't know how intended that was on Steve's part), which has spent considerable time and effort running two totally different versions of Windows for devices and for PC's.
I don't predict the same ecosystem for iPhone development that exists for CE devices. I can see Apple holding apps on the iPhone quite close to the fold for now. Why risk not owning the platform? Given that Apple, Cingular, and Yahoo (making this a completely consumer device no professional could or would ever use) all partnered up, they'll portray it as everything you need. Even if it isn't.
Love them or hate them, Dell sells more PC's than any other vendor. So their moves as a whole would generally be something that the linux community SHOULD follow, not just disregard and only cite statistics for much smaller vendors or channel resellers.
Frankly, though, this isn't that big of a deal. As has been said before, it's relatively easy today to buy a PC from Dell (US) without an operating system. And the fact that in China you can buy a PC preloaded with a government-funded operating system isn't something I'd use the word "shocking" to describe.
Actually, property tax in TX is pretty brutal. Much worse than Seattle. But the houses, insurance, and everything else are so much cheaper that yes, it is a good cost of living.
They generally can't. U3 drives use a hacked approach to lie to the OS - they say that they are a CD-ROM drive in order to have the OS autorun as it would using a CD.
It's software. Not slavery. Take a few deep breaths - you're obviously a bit obsessed with hating Microsoft - so I can see why my post became fodder for you. But puh-leeze... "the problems will never end"? What problems? The e-ville empire? You're obviously a free software fan, and I'm guessing you hate Microsoft because they represent everything about commercial software (besides just being "big old e-ville Microsoft". But ending a sentence with "...people quit using their shit." isn't really a good way to reinforce any point.
I again state my case that anyone who is confusing basic civil liberties with what the EU has done needs to seriously revisit their understanding of both philosophy and economics.
Give me a break. Find a PC that didn't actually ship with Windows. Then try stating that again... if computers actually came without an OS, that might be a viable argument. But you can't argue that Windows is expensive when it's a cost incorporated into 99.9% of consumer PC's.
Au contraire. Two things meant that it directly cost Microsoft money to implement legacy protocols.
The entirely rewritten networking stack in Vista meant that those protocols would have had to be engineered in as well as the "non-legacy" protocols that Vista doessupport. Meaning an increased development cost.
Even if Microsoft hadn't rewritten the stack, testers would have had to test those protocols - meaning a considerable (yes, really) test cost.
So it hurt Microsoft's bottom line... hence they hit the cutting room floor. I know, some organizations DO use them today. But the reality is that those orgs aren't likely to be candidates for Vista any time soon, now are they?
Actually, I think you'll see companies holding out on Vista as long as possible. It will be more than just a "roll it out with new hardware" as XP was.
XP was honestly not something that many companies excitedly moved to - see the other poster's comment about Ford. Truth be told, there will be a handful of companies that move to Vista in 2007. Most will take considerably longer than they did to get to 2000 from NT or XP from 2000 (or NT)...
Also, only select pieces of what companies learned in earlier migrations are even applicable. Vista has markedly different deployment and/or migration technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a small embedded device that actually runs an X86 chip, it's one of the first in the world. X86 would be a horrible choice for an embedded device. It's big, it's hot, and it sucks power like a kid on a Slurpee. Given Jobs' excitement over battery life (and my own experience with embedded devices), it leads me to surmise that the likelyhood of an X86 chip in there is near nil.
Yes, it can have widgets. Xcode doesn't let you compile for ARM (today), which is the most likely candidate for what's inside (a logical choice for a low power CPU given the NVidia based GPU the unit is said to have), but that wouldn't be rocket science to add. It wouldn't make sense to compile it as a universal, since the device has little or no need for backcompat (you aren't running PPC software on it).
We'll see. I can see Apple wanting to be closed on this as long as possible.
I agree with the RDF aspect. It's an amazingly sexy consumer device but the reality is that it's a (non-3G) phone that plays music with a very sexy UI.
But as far as "tiring of gadgets", the reality is that Apple can keep innovating just as Sony and others have done for 30 years. And at the end of the day, they can also claim that for many of the devices, the attach rate back to Macs is going to help them in several ways (they'll also make quite a bit off of iTunes, whether the user has a Mac or not).
If you want a 9-5 with no innovation then go work for microsoft.
Oh. Ow. Words that hurt.
But seriously. Microsoft may be like that in some parts today - and why the hell not, it's a giant sloth-like beast with 50K fulltime employees and probably nearly that many contractors. However, there are quite a few areas where Microsoft (that's a "big" M on there for you, my Mac-loving friend) does innovate and create cool new software. And the reality (I can tell you from experience) is that it's often much more than a M-F 9-5 commitment.
I'll believe it when I see it. I predict it still won't go a day for a chronic user.
Given that it is highly doubtful that there is an Intel processor inside the iPhone, it will mean recompilation to run on the CPU that is in there. Honestly, given the form factor, it's much like trying to take a Win32 application to CE or vice versa - it doesn't work. Not because you can't scrape or expand the API to fit one another, it's just a totally different UI paradigm. Jobs highlighted the fact that it runs OS X as a sex factor. Meaning if you loved the eye candy of the home version, you'll love the portable one. Additionally, it's a nice snub at Microsoft (don't know how intended that was on Steve's part), which has spent considerable time and effort running two totally different versions of Windows for devices and for PC's.
I don't predict the same ecosystem for iPhone development that exists for CE devices. I can see Apple holding apps on the iPhone quite close to the fold for now. Why risk not owning the platform? Given that Apple, Cingular, and Yahoo (making this a completely consumer device no professional could or would ever use) all partnered up, they'll portray it as everything you need. Even if it isn't.
There is absolutely, positively, no way that there is an Intel Inside the iPhone.
Ever get frustrated at the plastic parts that break and render something useless?
You bent my wookie!
Love them or hate them, Dell sells more PC's than any other vendor. So their moves as a whole would generally be something that the linux community SHOULD follow, not just disregard and only cite statistics for much smaller vendors or channel resellers. Frankly, though, this isn't that big of a deal. As has been said before, it's relatively easy today to buy a PC from Dell (US) without an operating system. And the fact that in China you can buy a PC preloaded with a government-funded operating system isn't something I'd use the word "shocking" to describe.
Same with Yahoo and Sun. I also seem to recall that Linus came from somewhere before he lived in SI Valley. But I can't seem to recall where... Hmm...
Actually, property tax in TX is pretty brutal. Much worse than Seattle. But the houses, insurance, and everything else are so much cheaper that yes, it is a good cost of living.
Read it again.
Really? Jesus!
<sorry - had to do it.>
They generally can't. U3 drives use a hacked approach to lie to the OS - they say that they are a CD-ROM drive in order to have the OS autorun as it would using a CD.
It's software. Not slavery. Take a few deep breaths - you're obviously a bit obsessed with hating Microsoft - so I can see why my post became fodder for you. But puh-leeze... "the problems will never end"? What problems? The e-ville empire? You're obviously a free software fan, and I'm guessing you hate Microsoft because they represent everything about commercial software (besides just being "big old e-ville Microsoft". But ending a sentence with "...people quit using their shit." isn't really a good way to reinforce any point.
I again state my case that anyone who is confusing basic civil liberties with what the EU has done needs to seriously revisit their understanding of both philosophy and economics.
Give me a break. Find a PC that didn't actually ship with Windows. Then try stating that again... if computers actually came without an OS, that might be a viable argument. But you can't argue that Windows is expensive when it's a cost incorporated into 99.9% of consumer PC's.
That's an unbelievably bizarre metaphor - equating operating system support as anything like racial discrimination.
- The entirely rewritten networking stack in Vista meant that those protocols would have had to be engineered in as well as the "non-legacy" protocols that Vista doessupport. Meaning an increased development cost.
-
Even if Microsoft hadn't rewritten the stack, testers would have had to test those protocols - meaning a considerable (yes, really) test cost.
So it hurt Microsoft's bottom line... hence they hit the cutting room floor. I know, some organizations DO use them today. But the reality is that those orgs aren't likely to be candidates for Vista any time soon, now are they?(hangs head in shame...) I even have that issue somewhere around here
IPX and AppleTalk are dead. Vint said it best... IP Everywhere.
Vista's delays had NOTHING to do with security changes, enhancements, or flaws in earlier versions.
Microsoft has, quite a bit. But never use Microsoft as an example of how the average company's IT process works.
Actually, I think you'll see companies holding out on Vista as long as possible. It will be more than just a "roll it out with new hardware" as XP was. XP was honestly not something that many companies excitedly moved to - see the other poster's comment about Ford. Truth be told, there will be a handful of companies that move to Vista in 2007. Most will take considerably longer than they did to get to 2000 from NT or XP from 2000 (or NT)... Also, only select pieces of what companies learned in earlier migrations are even applicable. Vista has markedly different deployment and/or migration technologies.
What's a modem?
Oh, don't worry - Ultimate will be on store shelves too. Just as XP Pro was.
Don't suggest replacing the wall when someone asks for a hammer.