PowerPoint isn't the problem, it's lack of understanding of how to use it well. PowerPoint is used as a crutch for poor teachers, in the hands of people who know how to use it, it's a very useful tool.
I suspect a lot of what they "loosing" in that section is huge CAPEX spending on their cloud data centers which is an investment in the future. You don't buy build somewhere like their Chicago data center for chump change. MS is one of the few companies with the money to build large scale economic cloud data centers (Google is another, Amazon less so) and I expect MS to be a major provider of cloud computing services at all levels.
What, unless I'm reading the chart wrong, Windows + Server & Tools generated about 7-7.5B of profit each in the last quarter. Even if I'm reading the chart wrong and it's about 7.5B between them, on what planet could the Games business be generating more?
If this is the case, then what I can't understand is why AMD hasn't made a huge public fuss about it in the past. Surely it would have been trivial for their engineers to discover this problem and make it widely known, yet it never came up before today!
The compiler identified the CPU and changed it's behavior to be unoptimized if not the "golden" part. This falsely caused publicly used benchmarks to show competitors parts to be slower.
Why on earth would AMD use Intel's compiler for benchmarks, it just seems like common-sense that they would want to control the compiler to ensure that it's output is properly optimized for their processor.
Heavy R&D spending, plus double the number of sales and support engineers is a lot of additional spending unless they can seriously eat into IBM and/or HP's UNIX business, I'll believe it when I see it.
yes I do get that to be robust, Blu-ray DRM probably needs OS-level implementation, but why the hell should Microsoft be Sony/Blu-Ray Consortium's bitch at the cost of the usability of their OS and more importantly, the freedom of their own customers to use the product they bought with their own hard-earned money?
I think its a reasonable expectation that I should be able to use a product I legally bought in any way I like. Who the hell are Microsoft to tell me how to behave? Especially when the DRM is actually stopping legal/legitimate use of my media too.
Perhaps because they had the astonishing idea that customers getting BluRay drives in systems might just want to play BluRay movies? You can make an arguement that the DRM system should have been an optional install, but I suspect the BluRay consortium doesn't allow that.
But since the DRM doesn't impact the playback of anything that doesn't have DRM I don't get the problem. If you don't like DRM content, don't buy it, don't play it.
I think the problem is that the way the BluRay DRM spec is written pretty much requires support in the operating system, otherwise it can be circumvented. The BluRay folks were paranoid about the so called "analog hole" and wanted to ensure that content stayed encrypted all the way from the disk to display device, and you can't ensure that without getting the OS involved.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of the BluRay DRM, the fact is that it exists and if you want devices to play the discs, then it's part of the price of admission so to speak.
I suspect Apple will have to do the same when it supports BluRay movie playback on Macs, though they'll have an easier time of it because of the control they exercise over the hardware platform
Blame the BluRay association for the DHCP problem, having it was the only way to get BluRay support into the OS. So you're alternative was either:
1. No Bluray playback
or
2. Bluray playback only on machines with the hardware necessary to support HDCP.
As to the surround question, not sure what your problem is, my media center PC is connected via digital optical to my receiver and delivers flawless 5.1.
Vista's DRM means it can't play MY media to ME. XP can play it without problem.
>
Vista's DRM means nothing of the sort, it plays back non-DRM media without any problems at all, I use a Vista machine in my home theater, and all it ever plays back is non-DRM media (mostly torrents). The only time the DRM system kicks in is when the media has DRM metadata, if you don't have DRM media you'll never know its there.
So Windows and Macs will run all the Win32 and Mac programs like Office and Photoshop and also run the same web apps that Chrome will run. That means Google Chrome won't have a Killer App, except for the UI, security and cost? So Chrome has to be THAT GOOD in order to make people switch from Windows since stuff like Gmail already runs well in browsers.
It's not just applications that will challenge Chrome OS, Joe conusmer pretty much expects that his camrea, cellphone, ipod, etc all just work (or close to it) when they plug them in, so Google has to persaude all those companies that manufacture stuff that plugs into Windows/MacOS hardware to support their new OS.
At least for some of the boards (the ones that support 384GB memory) Cisco has some of it's own IP on the board, but I very much doubt they manufacture the boards themselves, anymore than they do for other products.
How many "data files" will it make that are Windows 7 only, making return to XP impossible?
Unless you load new versions of applications along with Win7, there is no issue with incompatible data formats, except possibly with Windows Media Center recordings from Cable/OTA which I do believe have changed in Win7.
I'm running an Intel x25m as my boot drive, I've used the system with and without the SSD, you'll pry the SSD from my cold dead hands. The responsiveness when using the SSD is astonishing, apps just spring open as fast as you can release the mouse button.
This is going to be a much bigger problem on FAT32 and NTFS, than modern Linux filesystems because FAT32 and NTFS fragment after very little use.
If you're worried, increase your block size. That shouldn't be a problem if you're writing media to the disk (as opposed to a billion tiny files, in which case large blocks would waste extra disk... but still be able to withstand fragmentation...)
The fragmentation we are talking about here is not related to file system fragmentation. All the testing that has created this affect has been done with IO test programs like IOmeter that can create I/O patterns that are specifically designed to demonstrate the problem. So it will affect EXT3 or whatever LINUX file system you prefer just as much (or as little depending on your point of view) as NTFS or DOS
As I said, there are certainly applications that will not run, I was responding to the contention that "*everyone* who wants to run Windows 7 will be doing this with the a large number of their apps", which is just BS.
I suspect that Microsoft doesn't expect corporations to upgrade old Windows XP boxes to W7, they are more likely to go to W7 as part of a hardware refresh, and any system W7 enterprise/ultimate they buy after W7 ships will have the features in the hardware and the support in the BIOS. So this will prove to be just another "storm in a teacup" that websites love to pick up.
Slashdot Mirror
THe "18 DIMM" limit is true until tomorrow.
And what makes you think that other desktop hypervisors don't have similar vulnerabilities?
PowerPoint isn't the problem, it's lack of understanding of how to use it well. PowerPoint is used as a crutch for poor teachers, in the hands of people who know how to use it, it's a very useful tool.
I suspect a lot of what they "loosing" in that section is huge CAPEX spending on their cloud data centers which is an investment in the future. You don't buy build somewhere like their Chicago data center for chump change. MS is one of the few companies with the money to build large scale economic cloud data centers (Google is another, Amazon less so) and I expect MS to be a major provider of cloud computing services at all levels.
What, unless I'm reading the chart wrong, Windows + Server & Tools generated about 7-7.5B of profit each in the last quarter. Even if I'm reading the chart wrong and it's about 7.5B between them, on what planet could the Games business be generating more?
All I was asking for was a link, thanks for providing it.
Care to do better, you made the claim that this was public before the FTC announcement, so show me something.
OK, so point me to resources that discuss this issue prior to the FTC announcement
If this is the case, then what I can't understand is why AMD hasn't made a huge public fuss about it in the past. Surely it would have been trivial for their engineers to discover this problem and make it widely known, yet it never came up before today!
The compiler identified the CPU and changed it's behavior to be unoptimized if not the "golden" part. This falsely caused publicly used benchmarks to show competitors parts to be slower.
Why on earth would AMD use Intel's compiler for benchmarks, it just seems like common-sense that they would want to control the compiler to ensure that it's output is properly optimized for their processor.
Yes, but if you a requirement for 4-hour return service and they only give you an $800 budget, you should run screaming from the room ;-)
I have my doubts on both scores.
Heavy R&D spending, plus double the number of sales and support engineers is a lot of additional spending unless they can seriously eat into IBM and/or HP's UNIX business, I'll believe it when I see it.
So they plan to replace to nuclear power plants that have no greenhouse emissions with thousands of car engines, what a brilliant plan.
yes I do get that to be robust, Blu-ray DRM probably needs OS-level implementation, but why the hell should Microsoft be Sony/Blu-Ray Consortium's bitch at the cost of the usability of their OS and more importantly, the freedom of their own customers to use the product they bought with their own hard-earned money? I think its a reasonable expectation that I should be able to use a product I legally bought in any way I like. Who the hell are Microsoft to tell me how to behave? Especially when the DRM is actually stopping legal/legitimate use of my media too.
Perhaps because they had the astonishing idea that customers getting BluRay drives in systems might just want to play BluRay movies? You can make an arguement that the DRM system should have been an optional install, but I suspect the BluRay consortium doesn't allow that.
But since the DRM doesn't impact the playback of anything that doesn't have DRM I don't get the problem. If you don't like DRM content, don't buy it, don't play it.
You can argue the rights and wrongs of the BluRay DRM, the fact is that it exists and if you want devices to play the discs, then it's part of the price of admission so to speak. I suspect Apple will have to do the same when it supports BluRay movie playback on Macs, though they'll have an easier time of it because of the control they exercise over the hardware platform
1. No Bluray playback
or
2. Bluray playback only on machines with the hardware necessary to support HDCP.
As to the surround question, not sure what your problem is, my media center PC is connected via digital optical to my receiver and delivers flawless 5.1.
Vista's DRM means it can't play MY media to ME. XP can play it without problem.
>
Vista's DRM means nothing of the sort, it plays back non-DRM media without any problems at all, I use a Vista machine in my home theater, and all it ever plays back is non-DRM media (mostly torrents). The only time the DRM system kicks in is when the media has DRM metadata, if you don't have DRM media you'll never know its there.
So Windows and Macs will run all the Win32 and Mac programs like Office and Photoshop and also run the same web apps that Chrome will run. That means Google Chrome won't have a Killer App, except for the UI, security and cost? So Chrome has to be THAT GOOD in order to make people switch from Windows since stuff like Gmail already runs well in browsers.
It's not just applications that will challenge Chrome OS, Joe conusmer pretty much expects that his camrea, cellphone, ipod, etc all just work (or close to it) when they plug them in, so Google has to persaude all those companies that manufacture stuff that plugs into Windows/MacOS hardware to support their new OS.
At least for some of the boards (the ones that support 384GB memory) Cisco has some of it's own IP on the board, but I very much doubt they manufacture the boards themselves, anymore than they do for other products.
How many "data files" will it make that are Windows 7 only, making return to XP impossible?
Unless you load new versions of applications along with Win7, there is no issue with incompatible data formats, except possibly with Windows Media Center recordings from Cable/OTA which I do believe have changed in Win7.
I'm running an Intel x25m as my boot drive, I've used the system with and without the SSD, you'll pry the SSD from my cold dead hands. The responsiveness when using the SSD is astonishing, apps just spring open as fast as you can release the mouse button.
This is going to be a much bigger problem on FAT32 and NTFS, than modern Linux filesystems because FAT32 and NTFS fragment after very little use.
If you're worried, increase your block size. That shouldn't be a problem if you're writing media to the disk (as opposed to a billion tiny files, in which case large blocks would waste extra disk... but still be able to withstand fragmentation...)
The fragmentation we are talking about here is not related to file system fragmentation. All the testing that has created this affect has been done with IO test programs like IOmeter that can create I/O patterns that are specifically designed to demonstrate the problem. So it will affect EXT3 or whatever LINUX file system you prefer just as much (or as little depending on your point of view) as NTFS or DOS
I suspect that Microsoft doesn't expect corporations to upgrade old Windows XP boxes to W7, they are more likely to go to W7 as part of a hardware refresh, and any system W7 enterprise/ultimate they buy after W7 ships will have the features in the hardware and the support in the BIOS. So this will prove to be just another "storm in a teacup" that websites love to pick up.
How dare you apply logic and reason to an argument on Slashdot, isn't there something in the terms of service that forbids this!