This is more like the guy who got used to driving a horse and buggy and then cried about how cars sucked because he was used to whipping the horse to make it go faster.
Seriously, get over it. The start screen is better than the old piece of crap start menu.
Not surprisingly, nobody I've spoken to is happy with this.
The logical fallacy in your statement is that servers do not use 100% of the bandwidth all the time. There is no service that i'm aware of that will use a full 1gbit link 100% of the time. If i put up a moderate website, i doubt that'll get more than 1 gigabyte of traffic a month. That equates to ~10 seconds of full speed on a gigabit connection. I'm fairly sure google can spare 10 seconds out of 2678400 seconds in a month for a simple website. Even if it's a terrabyte of traffic (year right), that's 9000 seconds of that 2678400 in a month. You'd have to transfer ~300 terrabytes of traffic to utilize it 100%.
I guess if you run a torrent site and allowed full bandwidth with unlimited connections you could use a bunch of that bandwidth, but then again, you don't need a server to run that. You're also limited to the bandwidth on the opposite side.
Lol, I know of many services that would use a 1tb/sec connection at 100% of the bandwidth all the time. You are just thinking too small, and vastly underestimate what people will try given the chance.
The 64-bit bus will be nice, as will the 64-bit registers. The 64-bit addresses will only benefit if you have need of more than 4GB of addressable space. That includes RAM, any ROMs, and any memory mapped device space (which can eat considerable amounts of that 4GB space) -- Storage controller, video memory, etc.
Seriously? You correct someone by trying to point out a mistake they made and then go on to prove that you don't understand it? Flash IS a type of RAM, perhaps you don't know the difference between DRAM and non-volatile RAM. Whilhoitm may or may not understand the difference, however, he is correct in that a 64-bit processor would allow easier access to the flash RAM storage, as it would be able to reference the entire space in a single pointer rather than however it does it currently (pointer to pointer, or MSR/LSR, or "sector" number in one register and offset in the other).
Well considering that all iPhones contain more than 4GB of storage, how about cleaner filesystem access? Or how about not focusing on just 1 part of 3 that a 64-bit processor includes? Longer addresses is just one. Don't forget about larger registers and larger I/O bus. I'm all for both of those, both of which can significantly impact performance.
I agree. As an American citizen I demand that that the US take their helicopters and fly from house to house 60' from every bedroom window in Germany to ensure there isn't any spying equipment trying to spy on our consulate. In the name of transparency, all video should be streamed live on the internet. Fair is fair.
Sorry, I just checked, their standard rate was 2.25% not 2.5%.
In addition, if (like the XBOX), it also included WiFi technology, now the licenses would be for 4.5% of the total price of the car, which would be $4500. I think I would skip that/those options if given the choice, lol. Of course, the sad thing is that Google/Motorola are just one such patent holder regarding H.264 and 802.11. I shudder to think what the final cost would be to get WiFi in a car if all the patent holders want such an insane uncapped rate.
Here a company should negotiate and get "10% of the system can be classified as a cellphone so lets pay 2% of 10% of $550"..
But that isn't how Motorola decided to license their patents. See here:
As per Motorola’s standard terms, the royalty is calculated based on the price of the end product (e.g., each Xbox 360 product, each PC/laptop, each smartphone, etc.) and not on component software (e.g., Xbox 360 system software, Windows 7 software, Windows Phone 7 software, etc.).
Quote taken from court documents.
So if say a new Mercedes decides to include the ability to play an "Welcome to your new car, here's how to use it" video on the display in their new $100k car, the license fee would be $2500. That seems pretty exorbitant to me, and apparently even to Motorola.
Mostly correct except for "Seattle court says the case is already in review and German court cannot make a judgement " which isn't true. The Seattle court never demanded anything of the German court. They said you already brought the case up here, and if you (Motorola/Google) try and intimidate the other party, we will make sure your punishment is many times worse than anything you hope to achieve, regardless of what the German court decides. Motorola/Google could have continued their suit in Germany. Assuming the German courts would hear it (I'm not all that familiar with German law, so I won't pretend to assume what they would or wouldn't do), they were within their legal right to make whatever verdict they deem reasonable. However, the Seattle court could then rule that Motorola be fined a bajillion zillion dollars, and seize all their property including any US patents they hold, and hold their entire executive team in contempt of court and jail them for a bajillion zillion years, or any other thing they deemed appropriate.
And the difference is that the Motorola patents are part of a standard, and part of being included in that standard is that they agree to license under FAIR and REASONABLE terms. The amount they asked for was not fair, nor reasonable even by **Motorola's own admission**.
On the other hand, the patents involved between MS and android are not part of any standard. Microsoft did not agree to license them under FRAND terms. Android makers can make phones that adhere to all the standards they do now, but they decided to include patented technology. There are many other phone manufacturers that don't use those patents, so they definitely aren't essential for a phone or a smartphone.
Slashdot Mirror
This is more like the guy who got used to driving a horse and buggy and then cried about how cars sucked because he was used to whipping the horse to make it go faster.
Seriously, get over it. The start screen is better than the old piece of crap start menu.
Not surprisingly, nobody I've spoken to is happy with this.
Well, now you have.
I tried this. I rewrote all of windows, tried to launch paint, and it came back and said not enough memory so I gave up.
The logical fallacy in your statement is that servers do not use 100% of the bandwidth all the time. There is no service that i'm aware of that will use a full 1gbit link 100% of the time. If i put up a moderate website, i doubt that'll get more than 1 gigabyte of traffic a month. That equates to ~10 seconds of full speed on a gigabit connection. I'm fairly sure google can spare 10 seconds out of 2678400 seconds in a month for a simple website. Even if it's a terrabyte of traffic (year right), that's 9000 seconds of that 2678400 in a month. You'd have to transfer ~300 terrabytes of traffic to utilize it 100%.
I guess if you run a torrent site and allowed full bandwidth with unlimited connections you could use a bunch of that bandwidth, but then again, you don't need a server to run that. You're also limited to the bandwidth on the opposite side.
Lol, I know of many services that would use a 1tb/sec connection at 100% of the bandwidth all the time. You are just thinking too small, and vastly underestimate what people will try given the chance.
Yeah. I vote we fix that. Everyone should pay 100x what they are now, and we'll get that fixed right up. Where can I send your new bill to?
Then get a decent projector that has a volume control. Seriously.
But it's not accurate enough for sharks with lasers heads.
It should be.
Panicked, or thought the cop was going somewhere and tried to let them by?
The number of letters required to spell its name of course. IE wins, hands down!
But you need the 64-fart app so that you can play it back in lossless 7.1 surround sound.
The 64-bit bus will be nice, as will the 64-bit registers. The 64-bit addresses will only benefit if you have need of more than 4GB of addressable space. That includes RAM, any ROMs, and any memory mapped device space (which can eat considerable amounts of that 4GB space) -- Storage controller, video memory, etc.
We have phones with at least 65GB of RAM now (1GB DRAM + 64GB FLASH). I believe you meant 4GB of DRAM, but that isn't what you said.
Seriously? You correct someone by trying to point out a mistake they made and then go on to prove that you don't understand it? Flash IS a type of RAM, perhaps you don't know the difference between DRAM and non-volatile RAM. Whilhoitm may or may not understand the difference, however, he is correct in that a 64-bit processor would allow easier access to the flash RAM storage, as it would be able to reference the entire space in a single pointer rather than however it does it currently (pointer to pointer, or MSR/LSR, or "sector" number in one register and offset in the other).
Well considering that all iPhones contain more than 4GB of storage, how about cleaner filesystem access? Or how about not focusing on just 1 part of 3 that a 64-bit processor includes? Longer addresses is just one. Don't forget about larger registers and larger I/O bus. I'm all for both of those, both of which can significantly impact performance.
"SSD Killer" would have been a better codename.
To my office? I don't think the formula 1 car would survive the potholes.
But not on a SSD.
Just being more thorough.
I agree. As an American citizen I demand that that the US take their helicopters and fly from house to house 60' from every bedroom window in Germany to ensure there isn't any spying equipment trying to spy on our consulate. In the name of transparency, all video should be streamed live on the internet. Fair is fair.
Yes.
They picked a high number for everyone apparently, as 2.25% was their "standard rate".
Sorry, I just checked, their standard rate was 2.25% not 2.5%.
In addition, if (like the XBOX), it also included WiFi technology, now the licenses would be for 4.5% of the total price of the car, which would be $4500. I think I would skip that/those options if given the choice, lol. Of course, the sad thing is that Google/Motorola are just one such patent holder regarding H.264 and 802.11. I shudder to think what the final cost would be to get WiFi in a car if all the patent holders want such an insane uncapped rate.
Here a company should negotiate and get "10% of the system can be classified as a cellphone so lets pay 2% of 10% of $550"..
But that isn't how Motorola decided to license their patents. See here:
As per Motorola’s standard terms, the royalty is calculated based on the price of the end product (e.g., each Xbox 360 product, each PC/laptop, each smartphone, etc.) and not on component software (e.g., Xbox 360 system software, Windows 7 software, Windows Phone 7 software, etc.).
Quote taken from court documents.
So if say a new Mercedes decides to include the ability to play an "Welcome to your new car, here's how to use it" video on the display in their new $100k car, the license fee would be $2500. That seems pretty exorbitant to me, and apparently even to Motorola.
Mostly correct except for "Seattle court says the case is already in review and German court cannot make a judgement " which isn't true. The Seattle court never demanded anything of the German court. They said you already brought the case up here, and if you (Motorola/Google) try and intimidate the other party, we will make sure your punishment is many times worse than anything you hope to achieve, regardless of what the German court decides. Motorola/Google could have continued their suit in Germany. Assuming the German courts would hear it (I'm not all that familiar with German law, so I won't pretend to assume what they would or wouldn't do), they were within their legal right to make whatever verdict they deem reasonable. However, the Seattle court could then rule that Motorola be fined a bajillion zillion dollars, and seize all their property including any US patents they hold, and hold their entire executive team in contempt of court and jail them for a bajillion zillion years, or any other thing they deemed appropriate.
And the difference is that the Motorola patents are part of a standard, and part of being included in that standard is that they agree to license under FAIR and REASONABLE terms. The amount they asked for was not fair, nor reasonable even by **Motorola's own admission**.
On the other hand, the patents involved between MS and android are not part of any standard. Microsoft did not agree to license them under FRAND terms. Android makers can make phones that adhere to all the standards they do now, but they decided to include patented technology. There are many other phone manufacturers that don't use those patents, so they definitely aren't essential for a phone or a smartphone.