My pride is hurt by the America bashing (wouldn't yours be too, if it were your mother counry?), but I feel anger at the wrongness of the situation.
Nope... it wouldnt change who I or my friends are. Nor would it change that, as is usually the case, a few idiots (whether they be in government or are just regular citizens) get the most publicity which causes such perceptions.
LoL! While humorous and accurate in the OP's choice of using "latest words" I somehow suspect (especially in the light of more confusing privacy controls, and sections where there is none) that Zuckerberg probably feels his statement is even more accurate and is enjoying exploiting such a situation for financial gain. Either that, or he has realized that his statement isn't as accurate as he thought in 2003, and thusly has made certain activities on Facebook public with no privacy option (other than including no data in the specific sections).
I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.
They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).
I messed something up earlier... supposedly, the Roadster/Model S cost about $4 per full charge... or 01.333 cents per mile in "fuel" (based on night charging using California's electricity rates of a couple years ago).
As an end user, I'd rather pay $4 for 300 miles than $30 (at $3/gallon) for 300 miles (30mpg range of my current car under optimal driving conditions)... and would still rather pay $4 than the $13 the production Lupo you mention would cost to drive 300 miles ($$ adjusted to $4 a gallon for diesel).
100,000 miles is $10,000 gas (at $3 a gallon and 30mpg), or $4,444 diesel (at $4 and 90mpg), or $1,333 for electricity (at California nighttime charge rate cost of 1.3333 cents a mile).
Now, even assuming that one wants to keep the car beyond 100,000 miles (up to 200,000 miles used in my calculations, ie: ONE battery unit swap), it becomes (if batteries dont get cheaper - which they will - as that's 5-10 years for silicon based batteries to hit the market or mass production of current batteries to increase enough to drop costs), based off Tesla's $36K cost for battery replacement, it ends up being 19.3 cents a mile instead of 1.3 cents (first battery unit comes with car - no extra cost. 2nd battery unit is $36K... total range is 200,000 miles).
So, YES, that is where uber efficient diesels are better... the Tesla, to exceed 100,000 miles (but be under 200,000 miles), would be $5.79 a gallon equivalent.
So... for people like me, you are correct. It is not cost effective. For people who buy mid range luxury type cars (ie: similar costs to the Model S) like my neighbors or one of my brothers, who rarely hits 80,000 miles before trading in or buying a new car, the Tesla is cheaper for mile. For me (who runs my cars into the ground, squeeking every last mile out of them... usually in excess of 200,000 miles) it doesnt work out - yet. If battery tech does advance (and get cheaper) during the next 5-10 years (lifetime of the first set of batteries), then things change.
But for people on Slashdot, the key thing is, I suspect all of us are more than capable of doing the rather simple math to determine whether it is feasible (and a cost savings) to get such a car (of course factoring in other things like "yeah, I always buy a $50K car like an Audi or whatever other luxury car meets my fancy" - compared to (people like me) "it's a car... it has 4 wheels, it moves, it gets decent mpg... I'll take it!")
Well I've looked at the Tesla Roadsters specs, and they are very similar to the EV1.
Let me help you on that one:
EV1 - NiMH batteries or Lead Acid batteries
- 50 mile to 150 range (depending on batteries installed)
- 8 hour charge to full
- Seats 2 people
Tesla Model S/Roadster - Lithium Ion batteries
- 300 mile range on a charge
- 45 minute charge to full (Model S)/under 4 hour charge to full (Roadster)*
- Seats 2 people (Roadster)/seats 5 people (Model S)
* meaning worst case scenario: less than half the charge time (Roadster) for twice the mileage of the best range EV1 - and less than 1/10th the charge time (Model S) for twice the range.
I dont see any real similarities other than the fact that they are both EVs.
The only advantage the EV1 had was (when using NiMH batteries) longer battery life (up to 160,000 miles) - compared to the Roadster's expected 7 years/100,000 mi battery lifetime. That situation is changing with the advent of (as) cheap lithium iron phosphate batteries that have expected life cycles of over ten to twelve years, and an excess of over 2,000 charge cycles (meaning with recharges every day and a half, it's charge cycle lifetime will also be over 10 years). That translates into about 480,000 miles of driving (at 80% discharge before each full recharge). So, even in this area, the Tesla fleet currently performs similarly to (and will soon drastically outperform) the NiMH powered GM EV1 fleet by a lot - and the lead acid EV1s simply dont compare at all.
That leaves the remaining advantage being GM's Magne Charge unit for their NiMH powered cars, that promised a 10 minute recharge for 60-100 mile range (or range equivalent to 30-50 minutes for 300 miles), making it only marginally better than the Model S charging unit and charge times.
I agree with all your points. Including this: "The difference is that Tesla sees zero-emission cars as an opportunity, whereas GM just went through the motions so they could go back to making SUVs"
Though, as for the money (the part I was trying to point out), with the matching federal funds in the battery area, and with money from California as well, GM did get a massive chunk of money - which they intentionally wasted. The government was not the problem then - GM largely was. Including their interference with Stan Ovshinsky's newer battery tech, various other EV hybrid models that disappeared (yet were far more ready for prime time than virtually anything else of the time) and so on.
So... in agreement... the government is not always the problem. I do though, think that in recent years, with a company that has proven they have (a) interest and (b) the ability to produce the types of cars that the government has been decrying they want manufactured, that Tesla would warrant further help. It just seems their priorities are a bit different than they should be.
That aside, it makes economic sense in the short term. If the government were to ensure their automobile goals were met ASAP (instead of eventually) by simply assisting with funding of Tesla at a level where they could push ahead on the Model S and the "Bluestar" project, and on an infrastructure (of quick charge stations and/or battery swap stations), then it would be very damaging to the (largely oil revenue based) state and federal economies.
So... as I am in agreement with virtually all you have written, I guess I'm just frustrated that, whatever they say they really want to happen, the truth is this country is not in an economic situation to allow it to happen in the short term; and such advancements need to be metered out over time to prevent economic damage or collapse at the state - for instance, $3.1 billion in lost revenue for Texas, and who knows what economic consequences at the federal level. Of course, those numbers of "lost revenue" increase substantially for certain states (Texas again being one) when tax revenue for manufacturing, processing, transport and wholesale sale of gasoline, and retail sales of diesel, and automobile repair taxes, etc, get taken into account.
Sorry, just grumpy I guess. I'm not really trying to blame the government about this current situation... I'm just frustrated that due to technological trends of earlier years, we've got an infrastructure and economy that cannot allow cheap, high range EVs to become commonplace "overnight" - it's just annoying knowing that an ever improving solution (that would work for 90% of the population) is there; but cant be used to any large extent for fear of the damage it will create in other areas.
How can you compare a very limited range EV to a Tesla 300 mile range car?
Now... on to batteries. You do realize that the Tesla does not use NiMH? It uses Lithium Ion batteries. And you do realize that there is currently two major manufacturers who are mass producing a "special" variant of the Lithium Ion battery (uses iron in it as well I think) that is a little cheaper, and lasts longer (12+ years)?
You also realize that supercaps are already in use in certain EVs? Only to a limited extent, but that extent has been increasing as the technology matures. And of course you realize that silicon based batteries, though not in mass production, are already being tested by two different groups?
I believe that you, sir, are behind the times in your knowledge of the situation.
As for me, I am actually interested in a hybrid (of my own design) that can manage 300 miles on a charge, yet go longer by switching to "hybrid" mode. Inotherwords, take something like a Tesla Model S, drop in a genset unit and small gas tank, and use it to extend range for the "ultra long" trips.
Before you write such an extremely long rant, expend a little effort to get your facts straight. EV1 was a GM project, not a government one. Of course, it was designed to fail (in order to "prove" that there was no market for electric cars) but that's not on the government either.
I did. You didnt. While GM designed and built the EV1, it was due to government pressure and more importantly, funded largely by the government:
GM stated the cost of the EV1 program at slightly less than $500 million before marketing and sales costs, and over $1 billion in total; a portion of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. In addition, all manufacturers seeking to produce electric cars for market consumption also benefited from matching government funds committed to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.
There ya go! $1.25 BILLION guaranteed to the program, PLUS matching funds on other monies spent by GM and others. Should I go into tax incentives as well? Or additional funding from other initiatives and on the local level (California)?
I'm pretty sure that the environmental impact of the current generation of electric cars is actually more than petroleum ones, just much better hidden.
And I'm pretty sure that's wrong, because:
The electricity that's used to make and power them today is coming mostly from burning fossil fuels in 30 year old power plants. That might change in 10 years time, but it's not 10 years time, it's now.
While that is true, it's a sad fact that a 30 year old fossil fuel burning power station is STILL greener than the ICEs in most of the cars on the road on a power-generation to output-of-bad-stuff comparison...
Plus of course, a small amount of power generation DOES come from greener sources, and this will be used equally along with the non-green sources. As green sources increase, that automatically makes all these cars greener without being changed. Unlike ICE vehicles which remain equally as non-green no matter what you do to processes external to them.
To add to this statement, (nicely done, btw), many of the most highly populated metro areas in the US (NYC, San Fran, LA) get very large amounts of their power from "greener" sources: hydro, nuclear, natural gas. That's (just including those metro areas) what... 40 million people(?) who will be recharging their cars from power generated largely via cleaner methods? NYC and Long Island, for instance, even though having some "dirty coal" plants, get a bunch of their power "shipped in" from hydro plants, and nuke plants - as well as from a variety of local natural gas fired plants.
Also, as more coal plants are converted to natural gas or another cleaner source; or have their pollutants collected and re-harvested for other purposes - or outright replaced; each EV will be thus "generating" even less pollution during recharge.
Why is that statement so important? Simple. Most people buy a car. Ooops... that's it. No "gee, this new engine produces less pollutants and gets better mileage, lets change my engine!" Power plants, on the other hand, do get replaced and/or upgraded to work more efficiently and cleaner.
While "Big Government" is willing to either give away (like for the EV1 projects) or loan (recent bailout) millions or billions of dollars to the big automakers, they seemed to have no real interest in helping Tesla...
What? You think the $465 million government loan Tesla got doesn't count as help?
(1) You have no idea how much a production facility costs apparently
(2) You forget that half a billion is a LOT LESS than GM's and other's recent MULTI-BILLION dollar bailout.
(3) You obviously have no idea how much was wasted on the EV1.
In comparison, that makes their efforts with Tesla seem like "no real interest"
Tesla, to me, seems to be the same old inefficient car bodies with a bunch of batteries squeezed into it. Batteries where the elements come from strip mining and other nasty things, so the environmental impact is just shifted and reduced a bit, but not a lot.
OTOH, Aptera, to me, represents a new way of thinking.
Really? Is Panasonic that bad? I wonder if that applies to their laptop batteries as well... good to know.
I figured Tesla's new choice of battery manufacturers would have considered such horrendous environmental practices.
I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.
They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).
The Tesla, based off Scientific American's price per mile calculations, and using those prices as comparison, gets 120mpg equivalent (75 cents per gallon equivalent of miles driven instead of $3).
Additionally, Tesla has already designed their new models with 5 minute battery replacement in mind. Yes, the infrastructure doesnt yet exist, but the more of these cars that sell, the more likely such an infrastructure will come into existence.
On top of that, when it comes to road trips, most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour. A quickcharge station (ie:45 minute charge) is something very easy to install at most rest stops and Interstate located gas stations. Again, no infrastructure yet, but this one is a very easy infrastructure to install.
Additionally, for those who do go on road trips, the gas savings each year should (generally) easily cover the cost of a rental car and leave money left over.
So, for the vast majority of drivers who do not go on long road trips, this vehicle makes a lot of sense. Eventually, this means an increase in demand, and increase in infrastructures (battery replacement and/or quickcharge stations).
Additionally, there is no reason why, through sales of these vehicles (or other methods of justifying it) that Toyota and Tesla cannot come up with a 300 mile on electric range car that supplements battery charging with a small motor for "enhanced range" mode.
On top of all of that, there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size (various new lithium ion technologies that use other elements in their design, as well as promised breakthroughs in supercap technologies). As with all technology, I expect these improvements, especially with a growing (albeit slowly) market emerging that needs them, will help push the technology (electric cars) into something more people are interested in. There's always gotta be the first effort to get things to that point. Just like the original IBM PC. As much of a success as it was, it pales in comparison to the situation today, where "everyone" owns a computer - or two or three, and prices have dropped to make them a commodity item.
Most people didnt think that the automobile would take off either. Or numerous other technological advances.
I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.
I disagree. It will also be attractive to those who have decent length commutes. First, the Teslas (fully outfitted) can go 300 miles a charge. That is a lack of spontaneity for very very few people (those who do cross country road trips or very long road trips - it's 5 hours of driving without stopping). Secondly (on the gas price bit), per Scientific American, it costs about 75 cents per gallon equivalent of gas. Even at $3 a gallon in the US, that's a massive savings. I used to drive 40,000 miles a year (or roughly 1600 gallons in gas; 120 miles a day round trip 5 days a week for work, plus driving "here and there" during non-work time) - meaning for me, it's either $4800 in gas, or $1200 in electricity. $3600 a year isn't bad in savings. In ten years (expected battery life with the newer battery series that Panasonic is supposedly going to be selling them), that's a $36,000 savings.
Now of course, many people replace cars sooner than that. But in today's economy, I think that situation is changing as well. I for one always drove my car into the ground before replacing it. Well maintained, I've had 5 cars (old and newer ones) that have well exceeded 300,000 miles (one of which well into the 500,000 or more range - a 1963 Chevy - coulda been more, but that was as many odometer rollovers as we counted).
no no, I understand this point, but in 49 states of this country, people are still much more likely to say "screw it, i'll buy a comparable regular car for $20,00 - $30,000 less"
I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.
Yes, those fall into two categories...
(1) The people who dont have the extra $20K-$30K
(2) The people who DO have the extra money, but cant do math (or dont care about saving money in the long run)
This is an excellent start. For a couple reasons:
One, other car companies will soon no longer be able to play the (erroneous) "electric cars cant get decent mileage - buy ours that only gets 50-120 miles on a charge and takes all night to recharge"
And two, as more get produced, (ie: getting towards mass production and sales volume), they will get cheaper (meaning we may see things like the proposed far cheaper Tesla Bluestar).
Like many others have said, "we've gotta start somewhere" - much like when cars first came out. It took a while before everyone switched from their cheaper horse and buggies to cars. Nowadays, it's not often I see a horse and buggy anymore (yes, I have seen a few though... maybe 4 total outside of "Amish-ville").
This is the "boon" Tesla has needed. While "Big Government" is willing to either give away (like for the EV1 projects) or loan (recent bailout) millions or billions of dollars to the big automakers, they seemed to have no real interest in helping Tesla (contrary to what goals their clean energy and reduced emissions agendas would lead you to think they'd do). So now, bereft of any real help or financing from the government, they've finally found a partner with the financial, manufacturing and marketing muscle to go into "real" production (ie: assembly lines and such) - and can benefit from the Toyota name, which far more people know than those who know the Tesla name. (sure, insert car brakes joke here - but that fiasco aside for whatever reasons, Toyota still has massive customer loyalty, great brand recognition and a brand name that most people equate with reliability and quality).
See? Microsoft made a PM clone (in look only) while IBM continued PM development using their paradigm to be able to layer the WPS on top of it. (Just in case I didnt state that correctly in my most recent post).
"Presentation Manager was codenamed Winthorn and developed primarily at the IBM Hursley Labs in UK (with substantial input from Redmond). It was a cross between Microsoft Windows and IBM's mainframe graphical system (GDDM)."
IBM wanted to extend it into a real desktop environment, as they realized it's limitations. Thus, the WPS was born. Microsoft, on the other hand, was happy with it, thus NT and Win3.1 continued to use the Windows version of it. This was one of the big divergences of opinion on the matter. Later (Windows 95), Microsoft realized they needed something better and released the Win95 shell. Various internal IBM and Microsoft emails (see DOJ case and IBM/MS breakup agreement and docs related to that) show all of this.
WPS runs on PM, but handles all GUI tasks. Keep pulling references - as many as you want... but I have actually programmed for PM and WPS and SOM.
First you said this: "OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... "
Now you're saying this: "Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x"
So excuse me a minute while I question your credibility.
Do you just like arguing?
Let me try again. OS/2 Version ONE POINT X was written by MS and IBM. OS/2 Version TWO POINT X was a massive rewrite by IBM without collaboration with Microsoft. Microsoft had long since abandoned OS/2 development to work on NT, while IBM, fed up with Microsoft's programming and design deficiencies (like the presentation manager interface that was duplicated for NT and Windows 3.x and earlier) - and due to the OS being moved to a 32bit 386 and better platform decided/needed to take over the development to create the 32 bit version of OS/2 known as OS/2 2.0 (and higher) - which was the replacement for the MS/IBM 16bit OS/2 1.x
The WPS and SOM (which was the topic of discussion) came out with OS/2 TWO POINT X and above - and was written by IBM.
Now do you understand? The key point is, IBM wrote SOM. IBM designed SOM. SOM was designed because the Windows 3/2.x Presentation Manager interface that MS kept pushing was pathetic, antiquated and limited in capabilities. Thus, SOM and WPS were born.
"is a 32 bit operating system" is not "Is the first 32 bit operating system".
That was your claim. And Win95 was a 32 bit OS as much as OS/2 was (you do know that OS/2 had 16 bit underpinnings as well, right?)
Windows 95 was DOS, 16 bit Windows 3.1 and a few 32bit extensions and workarounds. The second/updated release of Windows 95 improved that to some extent.
OS/2 version 2 onwards was a 32bit operating system that incorporated 16bit code for backwards compatibility for OS/2 1.x programs and certain drivers. It was not a 16bit (heh, 32bit? what was MS smoking) GUI thrown onto a 16bit DOS, using a 16bit memory subsystem with kludges added on for semi-32bit memory access and claimed (but false) 32bit disk subsystem (what parts were, were once again workarounds that tried to bypass DOS whenever possible - which wasnt all the time).
The thing most people forget about Windows 95 was that OSR2 is what finally lived up to the claims of being closer to a true 32bit operating system - NOT the first Win95 release.
Microsoft never claimed Windows 95 was the first 32 bit operating system.
There are marketing materials out there - sorry I did save them the last 15 years.
Also, while Microsoft did claim that Windows 95 no longer ran on top of DOS very early in it's development, that was the plan.. things changed, and compatibility became more important, which necessitated a real DOS subsystem.
Yet they still claimed it even after Win95 was released. This can be seen in "articles" (Microsoft provided press kits with some random author's name attached for publication) and other documents.
It's still a matter of semantics as to whether or not it "ran on dos" because in reality, Windows 95 took over and ran the DOS session in it's own process, then routed various interrupt routines through it. Although this was not that much different from what programs like DesqView did.
While you certainly *CAN* hold Microsoft or any company responsible for claims they made about a product 3 years before it shipped, doing so is rather pointless. Products always end up different from the original plans. And not just Microsoft has that problem.
True... but (1) Microsoft continued to make many of those erroneous claims during and after the release date. (2) Microsoft does such things to try to prevent others from buying competing products while Microsoft's promised product is still in vaporware status or completed with less features. (3) Microsoft was found guilty in a court of law of those practices (multiple courts of law... DOJ Antitrust case, EU antitrust case and others).
So, while other companies indeed do such things, the big difference is Microsoft, in the past and recently, have done so intentionally, in violation of the law, and with various nefarious motives driving such behavior.
Let me clarify, as I thought this was a topic that everyone understood.
Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x - which is what the press release you point to is discussing.
Microsoft backed out of OS/2 development to work on Windows NT. IBM rewrote massive (ie: most) portions of OS/2 without Microsoft's work or input for OS/2 version 2.0 and onwards. Remaining pieces of code were in areas such as HPFS, virtual FAT (in kernel), vDOS and of course Win3.x support (with even large sections of that to be rewritten for OS/2 desktop based sessions where OS/2 controls and folders were used and simply redressed as Windows ones (a reason they use OS/2's frame and border settings as opposed to whatever is defined in the full screen Windows sessions). Many other key areas were written from scratch (ie: never in OS/2 v1.x) such as the WPS, SOM, DSOM - or largely rewritten (such as the new kernel designed for 386 machines an up - to replace the 16bit 286 kernel from OS/2 1.x).
WPS and SOM were IBM inventions for OS/2 2.0 and onwards.
Now, does that make sense?
Switching topics for a second: why do you think companies fund research in universities? For shits and giggles?
No, I dont. But that doesnt mean the company innovated - it oft times means that they paid someone else for their innovation. Microsoft has a bigger track record of buying innovations, or finding people who are innovating and funding them in a fund/procure process than they do with coming up with ideas and paying someone else to create their (Microsoft's) innovations. The list includes (very short version) WoW and IE's protected space derived from Citrix's VM technology, DOS (well, they didnt buy it... IBM did and gave it to them), DOS 6.22 disk compression (ok, they didnt buy it... they stole this one, but you get the point), Internet Explorer (Spry Networks I think), the desktop enhancements and themes for XP (and earlier and later versions) from SDS and others... and too numerous more to list. On the aquisition front, here's a short list: Wikipedia: MS Acquisitions - and that does not even cover products bought, licensed or stolen.
The point is this. If Company X produces Innovation Y, and then Company Z buys/acquires/steals Innovation Y to use as is or to incorporate into their products (unless the incorporation method in itself is novel), then it is Company X that innovated, and Company Z who was acting intelligently by acquiring Innovation Y.
Thus, in many cases, Microsoft did not innovate - they acquired the innovation. In other cases that the OP listed, they were simply not first - being second or third or fourth (ie: copying someone else's idea) is not innovation.
And again, I am sure that Microsoft does have innovations... others here (including me) have pointed out a few. Those innovations though, simply do not include the ones listed by the OP.
Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.
Microsoft Bob. Gates was so impressed with the innovation that he married the project manager, Melinda French (now Melinda Gates) in order to produce Gates 2.0. She also was behind Microsoft Encarta, but Encarta was just a cheap copy of Encyclopedia Britannica which existed at the time in electronic form.
LoL! As much as I would like to blame that "innovation" on Microsoft (1995), Packard Bell and others came up with the idea first. Packard Bell Navigator (1993), Apple At Ease (1992) and probably others.
Slashdot Mirror
My pride is hurt by the America bashing (wouldn't yours be too, if it were your mother counry?), but I feel anger at the wrongness of the situation.
Nope... it wouldnt change who I or my friends are. Nor would it change that, as is usually the case, a few idiots (whether they be in government or are just regular citizens) get the most publicity which causes such perceptions.
Well, you seem like an ass, so I'm glad you're staying up there.
Well, YOU seem like the ass, so I wish you'd move there.
2003 called, they want their "latest words" back.
LoL! While humorous and accurate in the OP's choice of using "latest words" I somehow suspect (especially in the light of more confusing privacy controls, and sections where there is none) that Zuckerberg probably feels his statement is even more accurate and is enjoying exploiting such a situation for financial gain. Either that, or he has realized that his statement isn't as accurate as he thought in 2003, and thusly has made certain activities on Facebook public with no privacy option (other than including no data in the specific sections).
>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars
I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.
They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).
I messed something up earlier... supposedly, the Roadster/Model S cost about $4 per full charge... or 01.333 cents per mile in "fuel" (based on night charging using California's electricity rates of a couple years ago).
As an end user, I'd rather pay $4 for 300 miles than $30 (at $3/gallon) for 300 miles (30mpg range of my current car under optimal driving conditions)... and would still rather pay $4 than the $13 the production Lupo you mention would cost to drive 300 miles ($$ adjusted to $4 a gallon for diesel).
100,000 miles is $10,000 gas (at $3 a gallon and 30mpg), or $4,444 diesel (at $4 and 90mpg), or $1,333 for electricity (at California nighttime charge rate cost of 1.3333 cents a mile).
Now, even assuming that one wants to keep the car beyond 100,000 miles (up to 200,000 miles used in my calculations, ie: ONE battery unit swap), it becomes (if batteries dont get cheaper - which they will - as that's 5-10 years for silicon based batteries to hit the market or mass production of current batteries to increase enough to drop costs), based off Tesla's $36K cost for battery replacement, it ends up being 19.3 cents a mile instead of 1.3 cents (first battery unit comes with car - no extra cost. 2nd battery unit is $36K... total range is 200,000 miles).
So, YES, that is where uber efficient diesels are better... the Tesla, to exceed 100,000 miles (but be under 200,000 miles), would be $5.79 a gallon equivalent.
So... for people like me, you are correct. It is not cost effective. For people who buy mid range luxury type cars (ie: similar costs to the Model S) like my neighbors or one of my brothers, who rarely hits 80,000 miles before trading in or buying a new car, the Tesla is cheaper for mile. For me (who runs my cars into the ground, squeeking every last mile out of them... usually in excess of 200,000 miles) it doesnt work out - yet. If battery tech does advance (and get cheaper) during the next 5-10 years (lifetime of the first set of batteries), then things change.
But for people on Slashdot, the key thing is, I suspect all of us are more than capable of doing the rather simple math to determine whether it is feasible (and a cost savings) to get such a car (of course factoring in other things like "yeah, I always buy a $50K car like an Audi or whatever other luxury car meets my fancy" - compared to (people like me) "it's a car... it has 4 wheels, it moves, it gets decent mpg... I'll take it!")
Well I've looked at the Tesla Roadsters specs, and they are very similar to the EV1.
Let me help you on that one:
EV1
- NiMH batteries or Lead Acid batteries
- 50 mile to 150 range (depending on batteries installed)
- 8 hour charge to full
- Seats 2 people
Tesla Model S/Roadster
- Lithium Ion batteries
- 300 mile range on a charge
- 45 minute charge to full (Model S)/under 4 hour charge to full (Roadster)*
- Seats 2 people (Roadster)/seats 5 people (Model S)
* meaning worst case scenario: less than half the charge time (Roadster) for twice the mileage of the best range EV1 - and less than 1/10th the charge time (Model S) for twice the range.
I dont see any real similarities other than the fact that they are both EVs.
The only advantage the EV1 had was (when using NiMH batteries) longer battery life (up to 160,000 miles) - compared to the Roadster's expected 7 years/100,000 mi battery lifetime. That situation is changing with the advent of (as) cheap lithium iron phosphate batteries that have expected life cycles of over ten to twelve years, and an excess of over 2,000 charge cycles (meaning with recharges every day and a half, it's charge cycle lifetime will also be over 10 years). That translates into about 480,000 miles of driving (at 80% discharge before each full recharge). So, even in this area, the Tesla fleet currently performs similarly to (and will soon drastically outperform) the NiMH powered GM EV1 fleet by a lot - and the lead acid EV1s simply dont compare at all.
That leaves the remaining advantage being GM's Magne Charge unit for their NiMH powered cars, that promised a 10 minute recharge for 60-100 mile range (or range equivalent to 30-50 minutes for 300 miles), making it only marginally better than the Model S charging unit and charge times.
I agree with all your points. Including this: "The difference is that Tesla sees zero-emission cars as an opportunity, whereas GM just went through the motions so they could go back to making SUVs"
Though, as for the money (the part I was trying to point out), with the matching federal funds in the battery area, and with money from California as well, GM did get a massive chunk of money - which they intentionally wasted. The government was not the problem then - GM largely was. Including their interference with Stan Ovshinsky's newer battery tech, various other EV hybrid models that disappeared (yet were far more ready for prime time than virtually anything else of the time) and so on.
So... in agreement... the government is not always the problem. I do though, think that in recent years, with a company that has proven they have (a) interest and (b) the ability to produce the types of cars that the government has been decrying they want manufactured, that Tesla would warrant further help. It just seems their priorities are a bit different than they should be.
That aside, it makes economic sense in the short term. If the government were to ensure their automobile goals were met ASAP (instead of eventually) by simply assisting with funding of Tesla at a level where they could push ahead on the Model S and the "Bluestar" project, and on an infrastructure (of quick charge stations and/or battery swap stations), then it would be very damaging to the (largely oil revenue based) state and federal economies.
So... as I am in agreement with virtually all you have written, I guess I'm just frustrated that, whatever they say they really want to happen, the truth is this country is not in an economic situation to allow it to happen in the short term; and such advancements need to be metered out over time to prevent economic damage or collapse at the state - for instance, $3.1 billion in lost revenue for Texas, and who knows what economic consequences at the federal level. Of course, those numbers of "lost revenue" increase substantially for certain states (Texas again being one) when tax revenue for manufacturing, processing, transport and wholesale sale of gasoline, and retail sales of diesel, and automobile repair taxes, etc, get taken into account.
Sorry, just grumpy I guess. I'm not really trying to blame the government about this current situation... I'm just frustrated that due to technological trends of earlier years, we've got an infrastructure and economy that cannot allow cheap, high range EVs to become commonplace "overnight" - it's just annoying knowing that an ever improving solution (that would work for 90% of the population) is there; but cant be used to any large extent for fear of the damage it will create in other areas.
various stuff
How can you compare a very limited range EV to a Tesla 300 mile range car?
Now... on to batteries. You do realize that the Tesla does not use NiMH? It uses Lithium Ion batteries. And you do realize that there is currently two major manufacturers who are mass producing a "special" variant of the Lithium Ion battery (uses iron in it as well I think) that is a little cheaper, and lasts longer (12+ years)?
You also realize that supercaps are already in use in certain EVs? Only to a limited extent, but that extent has been increasing as the technology matures. And of course you realize that silicon based batteries, though not in mass production, are already being tested by two different groups?
I believe that you, sir, are behind the times in your knowledge of the situation.
As for me, I am actually interested in a hybrid (of my own design) that can manage 300 miles on a charge, yet go longer by switching to "hybrid" mode. Inotherwords, take something like a Tesla Model S, drop in a genset unit and small gas tank, and use it to extend range for the "ultra long" trips.
Before you write such an extremely long rant, expend a little effort to get your facts straight. EV1 was a GM project, not a government one. Of course, it was designed to fail (in order to "prove" that there was no market for electric cars) but that's not on the government either.
I did. You didnt. While GM designed and built the EV1, it was due to government pressure and more importantly, funded largely by the government:
GM stated the cost of the EV1 program at slightly less than $500 million before marketing and sales costs, and over $1 billion in total; a portion of this cost was defrayed by the Clinton Administration's $1.25 billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. In addition, all manufacturers seeking to produce electric cars for market consumption also benefited from matching government funds committed to the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.
There ya go! $1.25 BILLION guaranteed to the program, PLUS matching funds on other monies spent by GM and others. Should I go into tax incentives as well? Or additional funding from other initiatives and on the local level (California)?
I'm pretty sure that the environmental impact of the current generation of electric cars is actually more than petroleum ones, just much better hidden.
And I'm pretty sure that's wrong, because:
The electricity that's used to make and power them today is coming mostly from burning fossil fuels in 30 year old power plants. That might change in 10 years time, but it's not 10 years time, it's now.
While that is true, it's a sad fact that a 30 year old fossil fuel burning power station is STILL greener than the ICEs in most of the cars on the road on a power-generation to output-of-bad-stuff comparison...
Plus of course, a small amount of power generation DOES come from greener sources, and this will be used equally along with the non-green sources. As green sources increase, that automatically makes all these cars greener without being changed. Unlike ICE vehicles which remain equally as non-green no matter what you do to processes external to them.
To add to this statement, (nicely done, btw), many of the most highly populated metro areas in the US (NYC, San Fran, LA) get very large amounts of their power from "greener" sources: hydro, nuclear, natural gas. That's (just including those metro areas) what... 40 million people(?) who will be recharging their cars from power generated largely via cleaner methods? NYC and Long Island, for instance, even though having some "dirty coal" plants, get a bunch of their power "shipped in" from hydro plants, and nuke plants - as well as from a variety of local natural gas fired plants.
Also, as more coal plants are converted to natural gas or another cleaner source; or have their pollutants collected and re-harvested for other purposes - or outright replaced; each EV will be thus "generating" even less pollution during recharge.
Why is that statement so important? Simple. Most people buy a car. Ooops... that's it. No "gee, this new engine produces less pollutants and gets better mileage, lets change my engine!" Power plants, on the other hand, do get replaced and/or upgraded to work more efficiently and cleaner.
What? You think the $465 million government loan Tesla got doesn't count as help?
(1) You have no idea how much a production facility costs apparently
(2) You forget that half a billion is a LOT LESS than GM's and other's recent MULTI-BILLION dollar bailout.
(3) You obviously have no idea how much was wasted on the EV1.
In comparison, that makes their efforts with Tesla seem like "no real interest"
Tesla, to me, seems to be the same old inefficient car bodies with a bunch of batteries squeezed into it. Batteries where the elements come from strip mining and other nasty things, so the environmental impact is just shifted and reduced a bit, but not a lot.
OTOH, Aptera, to me, represents a new way of thinking.
Really? Is Panasonic that bad? I wonder if that applies to their laptop batteries as well... good to know.
I figured Tesla's new choice of battery manufacturers would have considered such horrendous environmental practices.
>>>If we want to move to 100% electric cars
I don't think pure electric cars have a future. People don't want to be limited to a 300 mile radius when they travel. When GREET performed a study several years ago, they found the most efficient car (least energy used) was actually an electric-diesel hybrid, where the electric was the primary motivator and the diesel engine provided a backup for the battery.
They ranked a pure diesel car as the second most efficient, as evidenced by the almost 90mpg Lupo in Germany (or the 250mpg prototype).
The Tesla, based off Scientific American's price per mile calculations, and using those prices as comparison, gets 120mpg equivalent (75 cents per gallon equivalent of miles driven instead of $3).
Additionally, Tesla has already designed their new models with 5 minute battery replacement in mind. Yes, the infrastructure doesnt yet exist, but the more of these cars that sell, the more likely such an infrastructure will come into existence.
On top of that, when it comes to road trips, most people stop in 5 or less hours (within the vehicle's range) for 45 minutes to an hour. A quickcharge station (ie:45 minute charge) is something very easy to install at most rest stops and Interstate located gas stations. Again, no infrastructure yet, but this one is a very easy infrastructure to install.
Additionally, for those who do go on road trips, the gas savings each year should (generally) easily cover the cost of a rental car and leave money left over.
So, for the vast majority of drivers who do not go on long road trips, this vehicle makes a lot of sense. Eventually, this means an increase in demand, and increase in infrastructures (battery replacement and/or quickcharge stations).
Additionally, there is no reason why, through sales of these vehicles (or other methods of justifying it) that Toyota and Tesla cannot come up with a 300 mile on electric range car that supplements battery charging with a small motor for "enhanced range" mode.
On top of all of that, there are new technologies (either now going into mass production, or soon to go into mass production) that provide either (a) cheaper batteries with longer life (the silicon based ones) or (b) batteries with greater storage capacities in the same size (various new lithium ion technologies that use other elements in their design, as well as promised breakthroughs in supercap technologies). As with all technology, I expect these improvements, especially with a growing (albeit slowly) market emerging that needs them, will help push the technology (electric cars) into something more people are interested in. There's always gotta be the first effort to get things to that point. Just like the original IBM PC. As much of a success as it was, it pales in comparison to the situation today, where "everyone" owns a computer - or two or three, and prices have dropped to make them a commodity item.
Most people didnt think that the automobile would take off either. Or numerous other technological advances.
I suspect that this tradeoff will be a lot more attractive in areas of the world where gasoline/petrol is $7 ($us) a gallon, but here where the price is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that, I'm guessing that the loss of freedom and spontanity is not worth meager price savings.
I disagree. It will also be attractive to those who have decent length commutes. First, the Teslas (fully outfitted) can go 300 miles a charge. That is a lack of spontaneity for very very few people (those who do cross country road trips or very long road trips - it's 5 hours of driving without stopping). Secondly (on the gas price bit), per Scientific American, it costs about 75 cents per gallon equivalent of gas. Even at $3 a gallon in the US, that's a massive savings. I used to drive 40,000 miles a year (or roughly 1600 gallons in gas; 120 miles a day round trip 5 days a week for work, plus driving "here and there" during non-work time) - meaning for me, it's either $4800 in gas, or $1200 in electricity. $3600 a year isn't bad in savings. In ten years (expected battery life with the newer battery series that Panasonic is supposedly going to be selling them), that's a $36,000 savings.
Now of course, many people replace cars sooner than that. But in today's economy, I think that situation is changing as well. I for one always drove my car into the ground before replacing it. Well maintained, I've had 5 cars (old and newer ones) that have well exceeded 300,000 miles (one of which well into the 500,000 or more range - a 1963 Chevy - coulda been more, but that was as many odometer rollovers as we counted).
no no, I understand this point, but in 49 states of this country, people are still much more likely to say "screw it, i'll buy a comparable regular car for $20,00 - $30,000 less"
I suppose it's ironic that they're basing the plant in the one state that people WILL buy with idealism instead of sense.
Yes, those fall into two categories...
(1) The people who dont have the extra $20K-$30K
(2) The people who DO have the extra money, but cant do math (or dont care about saving money in the long run)
This is an excellent start. For a couple reasons:
One, other car companies will soon no longer be able to play the (erroneous) "electric cars cant get decent mileage - buy ours that only gets 50-120 miles on a charge and takes all night to recharge"
And two, as more get produced, (ie: getting towards mass production and sales volume), they will get cheaper (meaning we may see things like the proposed far cheaper Tesla Bluestar).
Like many others have said, "we've gotta start somewhere" - much like when cars first came out. It took a while before everyone switched from their cheaper horse and buggies to cars. Nowadays, it's not often I see a horse and buggy anymore (yes, I have seen a few though... maybe 4 total outside of "Amish-ville").
This is the "boon" Tesla has needed. While "Big Government" is willing to either give away (like for the EV1 projects) or loan (recent bailout) millions or billions of dollars to the big automakers, they seemed to have no real interest in helping Tesla (contrary to what goals their clean energy and reduced emissions agendas would lead you to think they'd do). So now, bereft of any real help or financing from the government, they've finally found a partner with the financial, manufacturing and marketing muscle to go into "real" production (ie: assembly lines and such) - and can benefit from the Toyota name, which far more people know than those who know the Tesla name. (sure, insert car brakes joke here - but that fiasco aside for whatever reasons, Toyota still has massive customer loyalty, great brand recognition and a brand name that most people equate with reliability and quality).
Think of it as the holodeck of your brain using some spare cycles to make a construct.
It may be able to draw conclusions that your conscious mind is not able to at the moment.
LoL! I think I watched that episode too!
Shatnerology.
LoL! I was pretty sure that Shatner was the deity in that religion.
I'd mod you "+10 Hell Fucking Yeah!" but I dont see that option. Guess that's why I rarely use my mod points. :-(
See? Microsoft made a PM clone (in look only) while IBM continued PM development using their paradigm to be able to layer the WPS on top of it. (Just in case I didnt state that correctly in my most recent post).
To further support your point...
Yup! And thank you. :-)
"Presentation Manager was codenamed Winthorn and developed primarily at the IBM Hursley Labs in UK (with substantial input from Redmond). It was a cross between Microsoft Windows and IBM's mainframe graphical system (GDDM)."
IBM wanted to extend it into a real desktop environment, as they realized it's limitations. Thus, the WPS was born. Microsoft, on the other hand, was happy with it, thus NT and Win3.1 continued to use the Windows version of it. This was one of the big divergences of opinion on the matter. Later (Windows 95), Microsoft realized they needed something better and released the Win95 shell. Various internal IBM and Microsoft emails (see DOJ case and IBM/MS breakup agreement and docs related to that) show all of this.
WPS runs on PM, but handles all GUI tasks. Keep pulling references - as many as you want... but I have actually programmed for PM and WPS and SOM.
First you said this: "OS/2 2.0 written by IBM and... oh... just IBM... "
Now you're saying this: "Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x"
So excuse me a minute while I question your credibility.
Do you just like arguing?
Let me try again. OS/2 Version ONE POINT X was written by MS and IBM. OS/2 Version TWO POINT X was a massive rewrite by IBM without collaboration with Microsoft. Microsoft had long since abandoned OS/2 development to work on NT, while IBM, fed up with Microsoft's programming and design deficiencies (like the presentation manager interface that was duplicated for NT and Windows 3.x and earlier) - and due to the OS being moved to a 32bit 386 and better platform decided/needed to take over the development to create the 32 bit version of OS/2 known as OS/2 2.0 (and higher) - which was the replacement for the MS/IBM 16bit OS/2 1.x
The WPS and SOM (which was the topic of discussion) came out with OS/2 TWO POINT X and above - and was written by IBM.
Now do you understand? The key point is, IBM wrote SOM. IBM designed SOM. SOM was designed because the Windows 3/2.x Presentation Manager interface that MS kept pushing was pathetic, antiquated and limited in capabilities. Thus, SOM and WPS were born.
"is a 32 bit operating system" is not "Is the first 32 bit operating system".
That was your claim. And Win95 was a 32 bit OS as much as OS/2 was (you do know that OS/2 had 16 bit underpinnings as well, right?)
Windows 95 was DOS, 16 bit Windows 3.1 and a few 32bit extensions and workarounds. The second/updated release of Windows 95 improved that to some extent.
OS/2 version 2 onwards was a 32bit operating system that incorporated 16bit code for backwards compatibility for OS/2 1.x programs and certain drivers. It was not a 16bit (heh, 32bit? what was MS smoking) GUI thrown onto a 16bit DOS, using a 16bit memory subsystem with kludges added on for semi-32bit memory access and claimed (but false) 32bit disk subsystem (what parts were, were once again workarounds that tried to bypass DOS whenever possible - which wasnt all the time).
The thing most people forget about Windows 95 was that OSR2 is what finally lived up to the claims of being closer to a true 32bit operating system - NOT the first Win95 release.
Microsoft never claimed Windows 95 was the first 32 bit operating system.
There are marketing materials out there - sorry I did save them the last 15 years.
Also, while Microsoft did claim that Windows 95 no longer ran on top of DOS very early in it's development, that was the plan.. things changed, and compatibility became more important, which necessitated a real DOS subsystem.
Yet they still claimed it even after Win95 was released. This can be seen in "articles" (Microsoft provided press kits with some random author's name attached for publication) and other documents.
It's still a matter of semantics as to whether or not it "ran on dos" because in reality, Windows 95 took over and ran the DOS session in it's own process, then routed various interrupt routines through it. Although this was not that much different from what programs like DesqView did.
While you certainly *CAN* hold Microsoft or any company responsible for claims they made about a product 3 years before it shipped, doing so is rather pointless. Products always end up different from the original plans. And not just Microsoft has that problem.
True... but (1) Microsoft continued to make many of those erroneous claims during and after the release date. (2) Microsoft does such things to try to prevent others from buying competing products while Microsoft's promised product is still in vaporware status or completed with less features. (3) Microsoft was found guilty in a court of law of those practices (multiple courts of law... DOJ Antitrust case, EU antitrust case and others).
So, while other companies indeed do such things, the big difference is Microsoft, in the past and recently, have done so intentionally, in violation of the law, and with various nefarious motives driving such behavior.
http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history/pr/87apr_m3592.html
Let me clarify, as I thought this was a topic that everyone understood.
Microsoft and IBM worked jointly on OS/2 1.x - which is what the press release you point to is discussing.
Microsoft backed out of OS/2 development to work on Windows NT. IBM rewrote massive (ie: most) portions of OS/2 without Microsoft's work or input for OS/2 version 2.0 and onwards. Remaining pieces of code were in areas such as HPFS, virtual FAT (in kernel), vDOS and of course Win3.x support (with even large sections of that to be rewritten for OS/2 desktop based sessions where OS/2 controls and folders were used and simply redressed as Windows ones (a reason they use OS/2's frame and border settings as opposed to whatever is defined in the full screen Windows sessions). Many other key areas were written from scratch (ie: never in OS/2 v1.x) such as the WPS, SOM, DSOM - or largely rewritten (such as the new kernel designed for 386 machines an up - to replace the 16bit 286 kernel from OS/2 1.x).
WPS and SOM were IBM inventions for OS/2 2.0 and onwards.
Now, does that make sense?
Switching topics for a second: why do you think companies fund research in universities? For shits and giggles?
No, I dont. But that doesnt mean the company innovated - it oft times means that they paid someone else for their innovation. Microsoft has a bigger track record of buying innovations, or finding people who are innovating and funding them in a fund/procure process than they do with coming up with ideas and paying someone else to create their (Microsoft's) innovations. The list includes (very short version) WoW and IE's protected space derived from Citrix's VM technology, DOS (well, they didnt buy it... IBM did and gave it to them), DOS 6.22 disk compression (ok, they didnt buy it... they stole this one, but you get the point), Internet Explorer (Spry Networks I think), the desktop enhancements and themes for XP (and earlier and later versions) from SDS and others... and too numerous more to list. On the aquisition front, here's a short list: Wikipedia: MS Acquisitions - and that does not even cover products bought, licensed or stolen.
The point is this. If Company X produces Innovation Y, and then Company Z buys/acquires/steals Innovation Y to use as is or to incorporate into their products (unless the incorporation method in itself is novel), then it is Company X that innovated, and Company Z who was acting intelligently by acquiring Innovation Y.
Thus, in many cases, Microsoft did not innovate - they acquired the innovation. In other cases that the OP listed, they were simply not first - being second or third or fourth (ie: copying someone else's idea) is not innovation.
And again, I am sure that Microsoft does have innovations... others here (including me) have pointed out a few. Those innovations though, simply do not include the ones listed by the OP.
Sure, I am sure Microsoft innovated something... the KIN being one possibly (never seen more than the commercials and a few online reviews, so I am not sure about that one, but it seems a pretty innovative way of integrating many smartphone and other electronic device features in a novel way)... but the stuff you mention does not fit the category. Nor is the "first 32bit PC operating system" claim Microsoft used to make for Windows 95. Or "their" creation of an improved interface for Windows XP (and 95)... oh wait, they licensed that from SDS. Stop believing marketing hype and actually research what you talk about.
Microsoft Bob. Gates was so impressed with the innovation that he married the project manager, Melinda French (now Melinda Gates) in order to produce Gates 2.0. She also was behind Microsoft Encarta, but Encarta was just a cheap copy of Encyclopedia Britannica which existed at the time in electronic form.
LoL! As much as I would like to blame that "innovation" on Microsoft (1995), Packard Bell and others came up with the idea first. Packard Bell Navigator (1993), Apple At Ease (1992) and probably others.
Nope. edlin is a lot like "ed", which is a very very old unix editor.
Ah well... I tried... ;-)