Based on the recent reports, that was Apple's handiwork, not AT&T's. Google Voice has the nerve to change the Apple GUI in ways that Apple won't allow you to change their iPhone. Er, I mean, your iPhone.
But that's a tiny thing compared to the evil of Verizon's mucking around with phones. It's kind of like, if AT&T sold the iPhone, but tossed out the Apple OS and put in some crippled version of Windows Mobile or something.. that's the way in which Verizon has previous messed with their high-end-but-not-quite-smart phones, like the RAZR some years back.
Yeah, Verizon was pure evil on the RAZR. Actually, if you have the "m" version, you could get your photos off the phone simply by re-directing them to a mico-SD card.
But really, Verizon was horrible on this. They took out the halfway decent Motorola interface you got on any other RAZR, and put in their "Red" interface, which was the same basic crap you got on the cheapest Verizon phone, with roughly the same features. No Java, and yeah, that Bluetooth thing. The original version from Verizon still had the OBEX protocol in it, and you could send photos to a PC or some other BT device. They pulled it out, on a later "upgrade". They really wanted to you to have to use their web site for photo offloads, paying per photo -- that was their main goal, not selling the $80 USB kit.
They did not, however, mess with the Palm Treo 700p, my second Verizon phone. Not that they had much of capability to do so and still sell a smartphone. Of course, if you look at Verizon right now, they don't have any good smartphones... a couple Blackberries, a few Windows Mobile options, and perhaps an old Palm. What they've been pushing are some of these LGs, semi-smart phones that look vaguely iPhone-ish, but are deeply evil when you look at the support from Verizon. You can only get a handful of applications, but the worst is that you don't buy these, you rent them.. for $5-$10 a month sometimes. That's the heart of where Verizon is on smart phones. I think they view anything better as simply a competitive necessity at best (assuming they do decide to compete at some point, with new Palm or Android phones).
My only concern about Verizon is that they have excellent coverage where I am. AT&T runs a reasonable second, while T-Mobil and Sprint don't seen to even be trying.
LTE is initially the replacement/upgrade for UMTS.. as well as the 4G IP-based technology being adopted by Verizon and Qualcomm. It may some day be an actual replacement for GSM, but initially, it's just a faster data connection than you had in your previous phone. They won't be taking the legacy voice protocols, like GSM or CDMA, out right way, any more than today's UMTS phones lots the original voice protocols.
There are plenty of standards that'll give you voice over LTE, just as there are for any other IP-based network. Hopefully carriers will settle on a universal standard to let you make VoIP calls on LTE... but it's largely a software problem. And it won't necessarily be solved the same way by every carrier -- we've seen this before, like GSM vendors using different, incompatible frequencies for UMTS.
The problem with Sprint's 4G is that they're using WiMax, while everyone else on the planet will be using LTE. Ok, it's actually Sprint and Clearwire... but Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire, so it's pretty much the same thing. So 4G roaming is not even remotely an option with Sprint, and they're small enough to make this a likely problem. This might still be cool if you're in Atlanta, Baltimore, Las Vegas, or Portland, but they aren't going to have the kind of cash that Verizon or AT&T can toss at this. So that lead won't necessarily last long enough to make it to one's home or business.
Verizon isn't so weird in moving to LTE for 4G. Sure, this came out of the GSM camp, but it's more like WiMax than anything else (http://gigaom.com/2008/03/05/a-little-4g-sibling-rivalry/). And, keep in mind, UMTS (GSM's 3G technology) is already a CDMA protocol, not TDMA like GSM voice, EDGE, or GPRS. And in fact, Qualcomm, the developer of the CDMA standards in the US, cancelled their development of their own, proprietary G4 technology, UMB, in favor of LTE as well. With Sprint already committed to WiMax, that's pretty much the story.
As far as LTE entirely replacing GSM (or anything else), that could happen, but probably not all at once... first generation LTE phones are probably just using LTE for the network, as today's phones still use the older technologies for voice. Some of that really depends on when the rollout actually happens, and how large it is -- as in the early days of digital phones, there rollout was slow enough that most first generation digital phones also did AMPS as a fallback.
Based on LTE's System Architecture Evolution standard, LTE is all IP-based. So if you want voice directly on an LTE network, it's VoIP that pretty much works today... SIP, or something proprietary. The telecoms are still milling about other solutions that'll make things more efficient, VoLGA, ISM (based on SIP), and perhaps some others. That doesn't really need to be in place until they start phasing out the older protocols.
You underestimate the demands of video. Regular HD or HDV video runs 25Mb/s, full 1920x1080 AVCHD peaks at 24Mb/s, and is generally a bit lower than that. All of those can be reliably written in realtime to a Class 6 SDHC card (sure, HD/HDV is usually written to tape, but the SDHC cards are plenty fast enough). The "Class" spec is for minimum write speed, they always read faster. And you don't need anything close to HD resolutions in a pocket device on playback.
If you're lucky enough to have a pocket PDA-style device that can shoot HD video... well, dozens of camcorders and DSCs (with HD video features) are already using SDHC as a perfectly good high-def video recording medium. It's even moved into pro-class cameras (Panasonic AG-HMC150, JVC GY-HM100, GY-HM700UXT, as well as SxS holders for SDHC cards, which work in most SxS flash cameras) over the last year.
The iPhone's SIM card, like all SIM cards, is slow, and just used (optionally) for phone setup and number storage.
The 16GB or 32GB of memory is built-in NAND flash, soldered onto the main board... the same sort of flash memory you'll find in any old flash memory card. It will probably be a tad faster driven directly from a CPU interface, rather than over the SD connection, but keep in mind, a class 6 card runs at least 6MB/s, and potentially up to 45MB/s, depending on the capabilities of the master, which isn't all that slow for smartphone/PDA requirements. You're talking about devices with 128K-256K of total DRAM.. they have limits on how much data they're ever going to load at once.
On my old Treo 700p, I used a 16GB SDHC card for main storage, and it worked just dandy... plenty fast. I would much prefer a smart phone with a memory slot than one with even a fair amount of fixed storage... particularly the full-sized SDHC card on the Treo. I have a laptop, several digital cameras, an audio recorder, etc. that use SD/SDHC, and it's terribly useful to include your PDA/Smartphone in that device pool.
There's another reason T-Mobil may have coverage problems... they may get more connections at 2100MHz, but they're going to need more towers at 2100 and/or 1700 to cover the same area AT&T can if they have 850MHz as an option. The higher frequencies make sense in urban areas, where you need more channels and don't care as much about range, but they suffer outside of cities.
That's precisely my problem... T-Mobile coverage stinks where I live (South Jersey). I had T-Mobil a bit over two years ago, and basically had to go outside, and often to the end of my driveway, to get reliable call service. No way I could count on them for 3G networking service. I complained enough about it that they said they'd consider putting up a cell tower on my land (I have 26 acres), but months later, I still had nothing back from them (we were in a decent hole in the coverage... but there are so many, they might have chosen a more strategic place for their next 100 towers). So I switched to Verizon, which actually works fairly well, even from my cellar.
It's a shame... I was pretty happy with T-Mobile as a company, and they're reasonably priced, for a data-centric plan with unlimited data use. Whereas Verizon is the devil incarnate, and charges like AT&T for the expected data access. But the bottom line: it's the network.. if you can't connect, what's the point?
Apple has an idea of how everything should run, look, and feel, on any of its devices. This idea is their own, independent of your wants and desires. They have and will continue to do anything possible to prevent any deviations from this. I mean, they spent years fighting to keep any other OS from working on a Mac, and pretty much only gave in when the x86 machines and the potential of running Windows pulled them back from a death spiral.
The reason you can only get Mac apps from the iTunes store to enable Apple's hard policies in a new way. They have the kind of control over a platform never seen outside of the video games market before this... things will be Apple's way, and if you don't like that, you might want to look into an Android phone.
Things seen a bit better on the Mac, but do keep in mind, Apple has been horrible to developers at various points in time. While the GUI standards on Windows are ssen as largely A Good Idea, the GUI standards on MacOS are Not to Be Tampered With. Back when I was working with Mac-compatible machines (1996-1998), I spoke with a number of people who's companies had pretty much left the Mac business due to GUI conflicts, having been blackballed over their GUIs not conforming (generally, because they had an application standard across multiple platforms, which didn't meet with Apple's criteria). Apple's "different" with the iPhone only in that, having controlled apps from the get-go, they have the power to shape it entirely into an Apple-approved platform. And for whatever reason, people have accepted that in a way they'd not be likely to accept on a desktop.
JavaME on the RAZR was a much different thing... this was technically capable of apps, but the phone was never pushed by the cellulars or Motorola as a real applications platform, and for good reason... it was far too weak. This was mainly intended to let Verizon or AT&T or whomever sell a few silly games, that's all... it was intentionally closed, but not locked down all that hard.
Well, Apple clearly does understand the difference... they know you bought the phone. They specifically structured their system to get around the issues Microsoft had enforcing their world-view. MS actually chose to tamper with your PC... remove boot managers, change vital OS components arbitrarily as you install one of their applications... all because they never quite considered the PC was yours.
The single point source of all applications being controlled by Apple means they don't have to resort to that level of evil, yet they get the same effect -- the iPhone is going to be exactly what Apple wants it to be, because they ultimately control everything it does (well, this side of jail-breaking, which of course, they can wipe-out with every new OS upgrade).
They try to sound all nice and reasonable about it, but whether its in the developers contract or not, Apple doesn't approve applications they don't want running on the iPhone, for any reason. This isn't going to change, and anyone surprised by this must be new to Apple-watching. They have never even had Microsoft's level of respect for your relationship to "their" hardware... they do, however, resort to means that work, and won't so easily be seen as evil by the mass media.
Apple's probably fairly happy selling a whole range of iPods. Don't mistake the lack of innovation for lack of desire... they're just saving money.
They put their engineering efforts where they can get market luster... the iPod Touch. That's also a much larger money maker, since it can tap all that Apple has to sell them online: video, music, and apps.
The lesser iPods are intentionally lesser... they're an entre into the iTunes world, nothing more or less. They don't change often because they don't have to... Apple doesn't want too much competition going up, and they don't acknowledge competition with other manufacturers. Sure, the iPod "Shuffle" is kind of silly, and for less money, you can get a pretty nice Sandisk player with a screen, voice recorder, and more memory.
That's not the point... the point is, the iPod brings you into the iTunes world... something you're supposed to crave, as an end-user, and something Apple's making big money on. Keep in mind, Apple topped the music retailer's list first time last year, and that wasn't build on the backs of just the iPhone and Touch users.
This is typical Apple behavior... they can't quite deal with being software only. They could easily open iTunes (particularly with DRM being dead and buried, at least on music) and let all these better low-end players earn them money, but that would be a loss of power, and a distraction from the upgrade path they want you to follow. So they very much care about the low-end product, just not AS a competitive low-end product. It's a taste of something better, and a gateway drug.
Early LCDs looked much like LCD monitors still often do... grey rather than black, relatively dim whites, etc. But there has been furious work on LCD. Most of the current LCD TVs (which are often called "LED" by their makers, confusing people relative to OLED... OLED TVs cost $2500+ and are not large-screen yet, most are under 20" (Samsung and a few others have show larger prototypes... but if you buy a "Samsung LED" TV today, you're buying an LCD TV with zone-variable LED backlight), and there are only a handful actually shipping) use zone-dynamic LED backlighting, so it's actually a composite of LED and LCD, allowing decent blacks, bright highlights, and contrast at least as good as the CRT typical 10,000-15,000:1. The other big advantage -- LCDs, particularly with LED backlights, use dramatically less power. If you're a TV addict, you might factor in the savings. I did the math when I swapped out two 19" CRT monitors for two 24" LCD monitors, and found I'd pay for the monitors, based on my usual work day, in less than three years.
Plasmas pretty always rivaled CRTs in quality, as they're essentially just digital CRTs. They use the same kind of phosphors as used on CRTs, and while they do have an issue with delivering really black blacks, they also don't have to count on the persistance of the phosphors over long persiods of time. The big problems with Plasma: they such power like no tomorrow, and they don't really remove the issues with CRTs relative to burn-in... phosphor is phosphor. Only, a plasma can burn it harder than a CRT.
Nearly three years ago, I had to decide on a large TV, and settled on DLP. I had no use for flat screen, and while DLP uses a projector bulb, it's still lower power than a 3-CRT projection TV, and dramatically less weight. They were also the first to bring in high-level color (mine is a 5-color model from Samsung, Mitsubishi was delivering 6-color models that same year, though they had a few issues that led me to judge Samsung superior) and 120Hz video. Based on extensive comparisons, using Blu-Ray discs and a nice viewing room at Tweeter's, I found the top DLPs, Plasmas (Pioneer elite) and Sony LCoS to be a dead heat -- limited by the quality of the video, actually. Having been into HD for six years at that point (this was my second HDTV), working in digital video both as a hobby and professionally, I knew all the places to look.
People still more or less want the plasmas to be better, since they still cost more. I don't let cost influence by viewing decisions, and I'm not a fan of plasma, far less than a few years ago. It just doesn't deliver the black-blacks that DLP and modern LCD can, much less the spectacular display you'll see on the few OLED displays in existance. The logical followon to plasma, FED/SED (a much better way of building a digital phosphor TV) has been caught up in some amalgam of tech and legal problems. So a few companies are trying to keep plasma going, and hey... it's not bad. But if you're previewing one, get a really good dark scene going... the "lava" battle in Star Wars 3 on BD is a good one. See if you get dark on dark definition, compare this to modern LCDs and (if you don't need flat panel) DLPs. You'll probably think less of plasma if you test it properly.
I got one of the last models that supported PS2 -- the software emulation console, still around in the Spring of 2008. My main concern, though, was the ports: specifically, four USB ports (versus the default two) and the flash card ports. For a games console, maybe no big deal, but for a video player, flash memory is increasingly important... many new BD players support this.
There are probably good reasons for Sony's consolidation of features, though. They launched the PS3 in the day when most BD players ran $700-$1000, so it wasn't simply the best BD player, but among the cheapest. They made a more expensive console than the competition, in order to jump-start BD and win the market versus HD-DVD. This was a magic trick... all HD-DVD players were subsidized by Toshiba... they were selling at or below cost. That's why no one else every made their own HD-DVD player (the closest were a few very expensive dual-function BD/HD-DVD players). Toshiba launched HD-DVD just like a video game -- they would make it up on disc sale royalties, but the kept everyone else out of the market.
In order to win, Sony had to keep BD an functionally, not just technically, open platform... anyone should be able to play in the hardware contest. So they had to follow the same economics as everyone else with dedicated players. But the PS3 lives in the land of subsidized hardware, and in fact, was too expensive in 2006-2007 for life as a succcessful gaming console, much less the problems with blue laser supply (which actually kept Sony out of the dedicated BD player for awhile... they had to use the lasers they had for the PS3). So they very much risked the gaming market... a big deal, as that was once over 40% of Sony's income.
But today, you can't really fault Sony for making choices that enhance the PS3 as a game console. Sure, it'll still play BDs, and it's starting to be the case, with console games, that the 50GB storage of a BD is an advantage over the 8.5GB storage in a single DVD, for modern games releases. They don't have to make the PS3 any better as a BD player, you can get one for $100 at Best Buy if you just want to watch BDs. I think, at this point, there is a critical mass of PS3 games on the market. PS2 game compatibility is largely of interest to existing PS2 owners, and they already have a PS2. Charging more for PS2 compatibility doesn't sell many more PS3s now, and it certainly doesn't sell more PS3 games, which is critical to the PS3's longterm success.
eg, sort of like DivX 6 did several years ago. Or any old.mp4 file could have, if the powers that be had established standards for things like navigation.
Fairplay is still alive, well, and lurking inside most video files from Apple (some promotional stuff is distributed DRM-free). They went DRM-free on music to compete with companies like Amazon, who began with a DRM-free and flexible pricing model (Amazon sells whole albums sometimes for $2.00-$4.00... not super mainstream stuff, but new/indy stuff, back catalog, etc).
As long as video is tied up in DRM, Apple won't do anything to change that. As with CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray still deliver the best quality and most portabililty, given the ease to which the DRMs are disabled with these media.
I should add that the OS itself doesn't necessarily help the robots take over, even once they're sentient. But once you have a standard way to tell dumb robots what to do, you only need something like Skynet becoming aware and using these protocols to kill us all via wireless. That's another reason the communications APIs are more important than the OS itself.
At present, many robots are pretty much closed systems anyway... you're not so likely to download a program to a robot as want to have some additional computing facility (your laptop, for example) instruct the robot. Particularly with mobile robots, where the intelligence of the robot itself is a serious power concern.
There are always standards for robot communications, one example is JAUS. You can learn more about OpenJAUS here: http://www.openjaus.com/
As with most other embedded things around, many robots actually run some form of Linux, locally. ARM processors are pretty common for this level of computing, at least as a supervisor. You might add additional computation for specific jobs: DSP for signal processing, 8-bit MCUs for sensor work, etc. One size isn't necessarily going to fit all here.
For smaller robots, you probably find the same kind of OS mix you find in regular CE stuff, which means a good bit of would likely be built on the "the most popular operating system in the world", iTRON/uiTRON (ok, it's actually a kernel).
Totally wrong. Ok, I wouldn't necessarily start a beginning programming class discussing threads... they are a more advanced programming concept. In fact, I would start with functions, then get to variables.
But threads are an essential part of any modern program, just as important to proper software design as functions, loops, and variables. Much of today's software suffers, greatly, because so many programmers haven't advanced much beyond the BASIC they first learned as a kid.
.. it's good to not have to deal with Ass-Clowns like this in my business. Love Vista or hate Vista, does it really help Microsoft or its customers to essentially threaten that Windows 7 will be missing all kinds of stuff we might love about Vista, but just not know it yet? Is this guy the stupidest person at Microsoft, or what? I mean, I can have plenty of sympathy for the code monkeys at MS doing their best to create good code, despite a built/release system that might be broken beyond repair (at least, that was clearly a big problem in the Vista process).
I have Vista on one laptop. I didn't mind the fact its default GUI had decided the "candy colored" buttons/interface in XP might have been stupid. And I like a 64-bit OS that's commercially supported... but MS could have strong-armed that for XP... and probably would have if Intel had put out a 64-bit x64 in the day, rather than just AMD. But also not a usage issue.
Other than that a few other details, I don't see much to recommend Vista over XP, and plenty to not do that. So this guy is essentially telling me that Windows 7 will be worse. MS should fire his ass immediately,.. that would be the prudent thing for an employee making essentially traitorous statements like this. Personally, I hope they keep the guy... there's nothing like the drama of MS-guy vs. MS-guy.. better than "Desperate Housewives", and just as pointless.
And this one's even special. Vista failed, and rightly so. MS needs to get back to the "upgrade because we tell you so" model.... and that'll be much, much harder than ever. If they really hit Win7 out of the park, make everyone happy, etc. they might just have a chance... if I ran MS, that would have been the entire mission of Win7. If not, that's a piece of the MS dominance broken forever.. a good thing, but not necessarily a thing you want an employee working toward.
Moore's Law will continue, unless we hit a serious technology wall.
At least at first, in the early days of machine intelligence, you won't get a linear increase in intelligence from a linear increase in computational power. But there's no reason to believe you won't get a regular increase.
The simplest form (eg, the thing we can already pretty much do, given enough CPU cycles) will be a neural model of the human brain. Once you can run this in realtime, and get the model accurate enough, there is absolutely no reason to believe this won't result in precisely human-like intelligence.
Now, neural networks are based on the connections in the system, which of course is an exponential function of the number of neurons in the system. So, with just this, you'll find that machine intelligence increase is a logarithmic function.
But that's assuming the neural model is the only answer.. it can't and won't be. Once you have a computer than can do "the brain thing" as fast as you or I, there's no reason to imagine it won't still have access to "regular computer" facilities. Imagine if you had perfect instant math, access to full libraries, the internet, etc. at computer speed, even within your own brain. You'd have computer memory augmenting the usual neural-based short and long term memory. You could even, potentially, turn off banks of unrelated memories while working, so that there are absolutely no distractions. Thus, immediately, while that computer/robot might only be "as intelligent" as us in the normal way that people are smart, it's going to function at a dramatically higher level in practice.
Then, let's think about the neural model... that's the absolutely brute-force approach. We'll use this, unless there's a breakthrough on a better model, simply because it's just about guaranteed to work, given enought time and enough CPU. But eventually, there will be heuristics, other models, etc. that do some of the brain jobs using dramatically less CPU.
This is the reason that "brain accelerator" implants... essentially a whole robot brain under the control of your human brain, will go from "that's like Frankenstein" to "that's like plastic surgery" to "that's like being able to afford Harvard or MIT or CMU rather than Rutgers or Purdue", as the parents of the future has to choose the implants that their children will live with for the next 3-5 years (eg, before they have to be upgraded to stay competitive).
Here's the thing... let's say you have a robot that can do these menial jobs in, say, 2050 (probably well before then, but let's just day)... let's call him human capable, but say, at 1/6th-1/8th the average human intelligence.
The problem for us, at that point, is that there's no good reason that'll remain static. If we are only progressing as fast as today, by 2054, the new generation of robots will be pretty close to average intelligence. By 2060, they'll be generally smarter than us. And that's not even taking into account that, if you have a robot that smart in 2050... that's a mobile, battery/fuel-cell powered computer. Big-ass industrial computers will already be much smarter than us.
In fact, the "machines take over" senario isn't entirely unlikely. If you look at Kurzweil's simple analysis... there's some number one can figure, for our brain's computational power versus that of a computer. Let's normalize this in the way least fair to the computer.. the computational load necessary to do what our neurons do, in real life or in a fully functional model. When a computer can run that model across enough neurons to match the human brain, it's not a huge stretch to imagine we could build a computer brain, brute-force, that's capable of working just like a human brain. It might take 20-something years to learn... in fact, if it's a perfect brain model, that would be expected.
Ok, so once you have that, in a couple of years, you have one smarter. Not necessarily twice as smart.. neural networks don't necessarily scale linearly with underlying CPU power. But smarter than humans, and perhaps, free of the kinds of defects and distractions we have.
Then, add in optimizations... heuristics and "regular computer" computation. Just because you have a human brain running full speed as a model on some future super computer doesn't mean it has to be limited to that model... once you get out of the lab and into the office, at least, the modeled brain will get to access the supercomputer directly (and, in time, we'll want the same things for our human brains). So it's still doing computer-like computation at computer speeds, only with the human brain model in control.
Now, take into account that many of the neural processes are certainly inefficient, when running as a model, rather than one's brain. Some of these processes will eventually be optimized out of the model... think of a JIT rather than an interpreter, just to start with. Once you have that, think about critical stuff being downcoded directly to the metal. I think, once you get computers as smart as people, those very same computers will get smarter than people in a short, perhaps exponential time frame... as they get smarter, they'll be able to figure ways to get smarter still. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
No really.. spent the weekend in Las Vegas, as a Commodore show. About as small as you might imagine, with C64, C128, and Amiga users... all "retrocomputing" folks.
But there's a perspective I can offer from this. Back in 1977 or 1982 or 1985, many if not most of the people who bought computers, outside of a specific business task, got them because they wanted to "do computers". The computer itself was the goal; the apps it ran, if they existed, were gravy at best... the machines just didn't do that much, yet.
Because of that, the OS actually mattered a great deal.. because you spent much time with it, developed for it, etc. It was a central focus.
These days, most people, in or out of business, are looking for a specific application. Maybe several. But the OS simply doesn't matter.. the best it can do for you is not mess things up. And while MS has been messing things up far more than Linux or even MacOS, despite this, the applications have been delivered. And that's all most people actually care about.
Certainly, if you're a software developer, that may not be true. But aside from that, much of the non-marketing-driven decision should be "what I do with this"... the OS particulars really shouldn't matter anymore.
Apple ripping you off on hardware just to get their OS (my HP laptop cost $1280 in 2007; the exact same spec laptop from Apple ran $2999) may work for them, but they're largely becoming a workstation-style company anyway... unless you're a fool, you're only buying a Mac to access Apple's proprietary software (eg, Final Cut Pro, Shake, etc... not that there aren't 20 different alternatives on Windows, and even some decent ones on Linux). The rest of it's Apple's excellent marketing working on people who simply don't have a clue about computers.
That's an oversimplification.. there are plenty of us smart enough to use Linux, or for that matter, write their own OS (I have been involved in chunks of three of them, as well as designing the computers on which they ran in two out of three of those cases).
The simple fact is that there are major holes in the applications supported under Linux. Sure, you can find some in the same categories... take Electronics CAD for example. Such apps exist on Linux, most are, to put it as nicely as possible, toys. With some exceptions, this is true of many workstation-class apps... you're not given the choice of Linux.
As far as "too cheap for MacOS" goes... much the same problem, apps-wise. And yeah... when you have the applications handicap of MacOS, why on earth would anyone pay 3x as much for virtually identical hardware in an ever-so-slightly prettier case? That's the effect of chosing a proprietary platform over an open one.. many people here would reject Apple simply for that, even if it did have reasonable applications (which it doesn't.. try to design a computer motherboard, including schematic, PCB, FPGA, and cross-compiler support, on a Mac).
It may not be the vast majority of Windows users, but there are plenty of people using Windows simply because of applications support.. bigtime. It's not even that one can choose an inferior app on Linux or MacOS, it's often the case that no such app exists, period.
I for one would drop Windows like a bag of cat crap if I could. But that's nothing I or Microsoft have control over -- it's by far the applications. Sure, if you're an office drone, it's a different story... Linux does the job, entirely and better, you are probably just not aware or able to make the choice.
And there are many of us expert-types who use a PC as a PC, not a workstation. I do electronics CAD, digital video, photography, internet, software development, music, and many other things on the same PC. Linux is sometimes better for software development (in particular, when the end product is Linux based... but, hey, kind of a "duh"... you'd be better off under Windows developing a Windows app).
But often not. For many embedded CPUs, GCC may exist, but it may well suck compared to a pay-for compiler that's only on Windows. I'm not about to pay for double the Flash ROM just to be able to run slower code generated by GCC vs. someone's tweaked compiler that's only on Windows... examples: TI MSP430, Motorola ColdFire, everyone's ARM.. so far. GCC is pretty good at x86, it would seem, though I hear Intel's may bet better).
Slashdot Mirror
Based on the recent reports, that was Apple's handiwork, not AT&T's. Google Voice has the nerve to change the Apple GUI in ways that Apple won't allow you to change their iPhone. Er, I mean, your iPhone.
But that's a tiny thing compared to the evil of Verizon's mucking around with phones. It's kind of like, if AT&T sold the iPhone, but tossed out the Apple OS and put in some crippled version of Windows Mobile or something.. that's the way in which Verizon has previous messed with their high-end-but-not-quite-smart phones, like the RAZR some years back.
Yeah, Verizon was pure evil on the RAZR. Actually, if you have the "m" version, you could get your photos off the phone simply by re-directing them to a mico-SD card.
But really, Verizon was horrible on this. They took out the halfway decent Motorola interface you got on any other RAZR, and put in their "Red" interface, which was the same basic crap you got on the cheapest Verizon phone, with roughly the same features. No Java, and yeah, that Bluetooth thing. The original version from Verizon still had the OBEX protocol in it, and you could send photos to a PC or some other BT device. They pulled it out, on a later "upgrade". They really wanted to you to have to use their web site for photo offloads, paying per photo -- that was their main goal, not selling the $80 USB kit.
They did not, however, mess with the Palm Treo 700p, my second Verizon phone. Not that they had much of capability to do so and still sell a smartphone. Of course, if you look at Verizon right now, they don't have any good smartphones... a couple Blackberries, a few Windows Mobile options, and perhaps an old Palm. What they've been pushing are some of these LGs, semi-smart phones that look vaguely iPhone-ish, but are deeply evil when you look at the support from Verizon. You can only get a handful of applications, but the worst is that you don't buy these, you rent them.. for $5-$10 a month sometimes. That's the heart of where Verizon is on smart phones. I think they view anything better as simply a competitive necessity at best (assuming they do decide to compete at some point, with new Palm or Android phones).
My only concern about Verizon is that they have excellent coverage where I am. AT&T runs a reasonable second, while T-Mobil and Sprint don't seen to even be trying.
LTE is initially the replacement/upgrade for UMTS.. as well as the 4G IP-based technology being adopted by Verizon and Qualcomm. It may some day be an actual replacement for GSM, but initially, it's just a faster data connection than you had in your previous phone. They won't be taking the legacy voice protocols, like GSM or CDMA, out right way, any more than today's UMTS phones lots the original voice protocols.
There are plenty of standards that'll give you voice over LTE, just as there are for any other IP-based network. Hopefully carriers will settle on a universal standard to let you make VoIP calls on LTE... but it's largely a software problem. And it won't necessarily be solved the same way by every carrier -- we've seen this before, like GSM vendors using different, incompatible frequencies for UMTS.
The problem with Sprint's 4G is that they're using WiMax, while everyone else on the planet will be using LTE. Ok, it's actually Sprint and Clearwire... but Sprint owns 51% of Clearwire, so it's pretty much the same thing. So 4G roaming is not even remotely an option with Sprint, and they're small enough to make this a likely problem. This might still be cool if you're in Atlanta, Baltimore, Las Vegas, or Portland, but they aren't going to have the kind of cash that Verizon or AT&T can toss at this. So that lead won't necessarily last long enough to make it to one's home or business.
Verizon isn't so weird in moving to LTE for 4G. Sure, this came out of the GSM camp, but it's more like WiMax than anything else (http://gigaom.com/2008/03/05/a-little-4g-sibling-rivalry/). And, keep in mind, UMTS (GSM's 3G technology) is already a CDMA protocol, not TDMA like GSM voice, EDGE, or GPRS. And in fact, Qualcomm, the developer of the CDMA standards in the US, cancelled their development of their own, proprietary G4 technology, UMB, in favor of LTE as well. With Sprint already committed to WiMax, that's pretty much the story.
As far as LTE entirely replacing GSM (or anything else), that could happen, but probably not all at once... first generation LTE phones are probably just using LTE for the network, as today's phones still use the older technologies for voice. Some of that really depends on when the rollout actually happens, and how large it is -- as in the early days of digital phones, there rollout was slow enough that most first generation digital phones also did AMPS as a fallback.
Based on LTE's System Architecture Evolution standard, LTE is all IP-based. So if you want voice directly on an LTE network, it's VoIP that pretty much works today... SIP, or something proprietary. The telecoms are still milling about other solutions that'll make things more efficient, VoLGA, ISM (based on SIP), and perhaps some others. That doesn't really need to be in place until they start phasing out the older protocols.
You underestimate the demands of video. Regular HD or HDV video runs 25Mb/s, full 1920x1080 AVCHD peaks at 24Mb/s, and is generally a bit lower than that. All of those can be reliably written in realtime to a Class 6 SDHC card (sure, HD/HDV is usually written to tape, but the SDHC cards are plenty fast enough). The "Class" spec is for minimum write speed, they always read faster. And you don't need anything close to HD resolutions in a pocket device on playback.
If you're lucky enough to have a pocket PDA-style device that can shoot HD video... well, dozens of camcorders and DSCs (with HD video features) are already using SDHC as a perfectly good high-def video recording medium. It's even moved into pro-class cameras (Panasonic AG-HMC150, JVC GY-HM100, GY-HM700UXT, as well as SxS holders for SDHC cards, which work in most SxS flash cameras) over the last year.
The iPhone's SIM card, like all SIM cards, is slow, and just used (optionally) for phone setup and number storage.
The 16GB or 32GB of memory is built-in NAND flash, soldered onto the main board... the same sort of flash memory you'll find in any old flash memory card. It will probably be a tad faster driven directly from a CPU interface, rather than over the SD connection, but keep in mind, a class 6 card runs at least 6MB/s, and potentially up to 45MB/s, depending on the capabilities of the master, which isn't all that slow for smartphone/PDA requirements. You're talking about devices with 128K-256K of total DRAM.. they have limits on how much data they're ever going to load at once.
On my old Treo 700p, I used a 16GB SDHC card for main storage, and it worked just dandy... plenty fast. I would much prefer a smart phone with a memory slot than one with even a fair amount of fixed storage... particularly the full-sized SDHC card on the Treo. I have a laptop, several digital cameras, an audio recorder, etc. that use SD/SDHC, and it's terribly useful to include your PDA/Smartphone in that device pool.
There's another reason T-Mobil may have coverage problems... they may get more connections at 2100MHz, but they're going to need more towers at 2100 and/or 1700 to cover the same area AT&T can if they have 850MHz as an option. The higher frequencies make sense in urban areas, where you need more channels and don't care as much about range, but they suffer outside of cities.
That's precisely my problem... T-Mobile coverage stinks where I live (South Jersey). I had T-Mobil a bit over two years ago, and basically had to go outside, and often to the end of my driveway, to get reliable call service. No way I could count on them for 3G networking service. I complained enough about it that they said they'd consider putting up a cell tower on my land (I have 26 acres), but months later, I still had nothing back from them (we were in a decent hole in the coverage... but there are so many, they might have chosen a more strategic place for their next 100 towers). So I switched to Verizon, which actually works fairly well, even from my cellar.
It's a shame... I was pretty happy with T-Mobile as a company, and they're reasonably priced, for a data-centric plan with unlimited data use. Whereas Verizon is the devil incarnate, and charges like AT&T for the expected data access. But the bottom line: it's the network.. if you can't connect, what's the point?
Apple has an idea of how everything should run, look, and feel, on any of its devices. This idea is their own, independent of your wants and desires. They have and will continue to do anything possible to prevent any deviations from this. I mean, they spent years fighting to keep any other OS from working on a Mac, and pretty much only gave in when the x86 machines and the potential of running Windows pulled them back from a death spiral.
The reason you can only get Mac apps from the iTunes store to enable Apple's hard policies in a new way. They have the kind of control over a platform never seen outside of the video games market before this... things will be Apple's way, and if you don't like that, you might want to look into an Android phone.
Things seen a bit better on the Mac, but do keep in mind, Apple has been horrible to developers at various points in time. While the GUI standards on Windows are ssen as largely A Good Idea, the GUI standards on MacOS are Not to Be Tampered With. Back when I was working with Mac-compatible machines (1996-1998), I spoke with a number of people who's companies had pretty much left the Mac business due to GUI conflicts, having been blackballed over their GUIs not conforming (generally, because they had an application standard across multiple platforms, which didn't meet with Apple's criteria). Apple's "different" with the iPhone only in that, having controlled apps from the get-go, they have the power to shape it entirely into an Apple-approved platform. And for whatever reason, people have accepted that in a way they'd not be likely to accept on a desktop.
JavaME on the RAZR was a much different thing... this was technically capable of apps, but the phone was never pushed by the cellulars or Motorola as a real applications platform, and for good reason... it was far too weak. This was mainly intended to let Verizon or AT&T or whomever sell a few silly games, that's all... it was intentionally closed, but not locked down all that hard.
Well, Apple clearly does understand the difference... they know you bought the phone. They specifically structured their system to get around the issues Microsoft had enforcing their world-view. MS actually chose to tamper with your PC... remove boot managers, change vital OS components arbitrarily as you install one of their applications... all because they never quite considered the PC was yours.
The single point source of all applications being controlled by Apple means they don't have to resort to that level of evil, yet they get the same effect -- the iPhone is going to be exactly what Apple wants it to be, because they ultimately control everything it does (well, this side of jail-breaking, which of course, they can wipe-out with every new OS upgrade).
They try to sound all nice and reasonable about it, but whether its in the developers contract or not, Apple doesn't approve applications they don't want running on the iPhone, for any reason. This isn't going to change, and anyone surprised by this must be new to Apple-watching. They have never even had Microsoft's level of respect for your relationship to "their" hardware... they do, however, resort to means that work, and won't so easily be seen as evil by the mass media.
Apple's probably fairly happy selling a whole range of iPods. Don't mistake the lack of innovation for lack of desire... they're just saving money.
They put their engineering efforts where they can get market luster... the iPod Touch. That's also a much larger money maker, since it can tap all that Apple has to sell them online: video, music, and apps.
The lesser iPods are intentionally lesser... they're an entre into the iTunes world, nothing more or less. They don't change often because they don't have to... Apple doesn't want too much competition going up, and they don't acknowledge competition with other manufacturers. Sure, the iPod "Shuffle" is kind of silly, and for less money, you can get a pretty nice Sandisk player with a screen, voice recorder, and more memory.
That's not the point... the point is, the iPod brings you into the iTunes world... something you're supposed to crave, as an end-user, and something Apple's making big money on. Keep in mind, Apple topped the music retailer's list first time last year, and that wasn't build on the backs of just the iPhone and Touch users.
This is typical Apple behavior... they can't quite deal with being software only. They could easily open iTunes (particularly with DRM being dead and buried, at least on music) and let all these better low-end players earn them money, but that would be a loss of power, and a distraction from the upgrade path they want you to follow. So they very much care about the low-end product, just not AS a competitive low-end product. It's a taste of something better, and a gateway drug.
Early LCDs looked much like LCD monitors still often do... grey rather than black, relatively dim whites, etc. But there has been furious work on LCD. Most of the current LCD TVs (which are often called "LED" by their makers, confusing people relative to OLED... OLED TVs cost $2500+ and are not large-screen yet, most are under 20" (Samsung and a few others have show larger prototypes... but if you buy a "Samsung LED" TV today, you're buying an LCD TV with zone-variable LED backlight), and there are only a handful actually shipping) use zone-dynamic LED backlighting, so it's actually a composite of LED and LCD, allowing decent blacks, bright highlights, and contrast at least as good as the CRT typical 10,000-15,000:1. The other big advantage -- LCDs, particularly with LED backlights, use dramatically less power. If you're a TV addict, you might factor in the savings. I did the math when I swapped out two 19" CRT monitors for two 24" LCD monitors, and found I'd pay for the monitors, based on my usual work day, in less than three years.
Plasmas pretty always rivaled CRTs in quality, as they're essentially just digital CRTs. They use the same kind of phosphors as used on CRTs, and while they do have an issue with delivering really black blacks, they also don't have to count on the persistance of the phosphors over long persiods of time. The big problems with Plasma: they such power like no tomorrow, and they don't really remove the issues with CRTs relative to burn-in... phosphor is phosphor. Only, a plasma can burn it harder than a CRT.
Nearly three years ago, I had to decide on a large TV, and settled on DLP. I had no use for flat screen, and while DLP uses a projector bulb, it's still lower power than a 3-CRT projection TV, and dramatically less weight. They were also the first to bring in high-level color (mine is a 5-color model from Samsung, Mitsubishi was delivering 6-color models that same year, though they had a few issues that led me to judge Samsung superior) and 120Hz video. Based on extensive comparisons, using Blu-Ray discs and a nice viewing room at Tweeter's, I found the top DLPs, Plasmas (Pioneer elite) and Sony LCoS to be a dead heat -- limited by the quality of the video, actually. Having been into HD for six years at that point (this was my second HDTV), working in digital video both as a hobby and professionally, I knew all the places to look.
People still more or less want the plasmas to be better, since they still cost more. I don't let cost influence by viewing decisions, and I'm not a fan of plasma, far less than a few years ago. It just doesn't deliver the black-blacks that DLP and modern LCD can, much less the spectacular display you'll see on the few OLED displays in existance. The logical followon to plasma, FED/SED (a much better way of building a digital phosphor TV) has been caught up in some amalgam of tech and legal problems. So a few companies are trying to keep plasma going, and hey... it's not bad. But if you're previewing one, get a really good dark scene going ... the "lava" battle in Star Wars 3 on BD is a good one. See if you get dark on dark definition, compare this to modern LCDs and (if you don't need flat panel) DLPs. You'll probably think less of plasma if you test it properly.
I got one of the last models that supported PS2 -- the software emulation console, still around in the Spring of 2008. My main concern, though, was the ports: specifically, four USB ports (versus the default two) and the flash card ports. For a games console, maybe no big deal, but for a video player, flash memory is increasingly important... many new BD players support this.
There are probably good reasons for Sony's consolidation of features, though. They launched the PS3 in the day when most BD players ran $700-$1000, so it wasn't simply the best BD player, but among the cheapest. They made a more expensive console than the competition, in order to jump-start BD and win the market versus HD-DVD. This was a magic trick... all HD-DVD players were subsidized by Toshiba... they were selling at or below cost. That's why no one else every made their own HD-DVD player (the closest were a few very expensive dual-function BD/HD-DVD players). Toshiba launched HD-DVD just like a video game -- they would make it up on disc sale royalties, but the kept everyone else out of the market.
In order to win, Sony had to keep BD an functionally, not just technically, open platform... anyone should be able to play in the hardware contest. So they had to follow the same economics as everyone else with dedicated players. But the PS3 lives in the land of subsidized hardware, and in fact, was too expensive in 2006-2007 for life as a succcessful gaming console, much less the problems with blue laser supply (which actually kept Sony out of the dedicated BD player for awhile... they had to use the lasers they had for the PS3). So they very much risked the gaming market... a big deal, as that was once over 40% of Sony's income.
But today, you can't really fault Sony for making choices that enhance the PS3 as a game console. Sure, it'll still play BDs, and it's starting to be the case, with console games, that the 50GB storage of a BD is an advantage over the 8.5GB storage in a single DVD, for modern games releases. They don't have to make the PS3 any better as a BD player, you can get one for $100 at Best Buy if you just want to watch BDs. I think, at this point, there is a critical mass of PS3 games on the market. PS2 game compatibility is largely of interest to existing PS2 owners, and they already have a PS2. Charging more for PS2 compatibility doesn't sell many more PS3s now, and it certainly doesn't sell more PS3 games, which is critical to the PS3's longterm success.
eg, sort of like DivX 6 did several years ago. Or any old .mp4 file could have, if the powers that be had established standards for things like navigation.
Fairplay is still alive, well, and lurking inside most video files from Apple (some promotional stuff is distributed DRM-free). They went DRM-free on music to compete with companies like Amazon, who began with a DRM-free and flexible pricing model (Amazon sells whole albums sometimes for $2.00-$4.00... not super mainstream stuff, but new/indy stuff, back catalog, etc).
As long as video is tied up in DRM, Apple won't do anything to change that. As with CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray still deliver the best quality and most portabililty, given the ease to which the DRMs are disabled with these media.
I should add that the OS itself doesn't necessarily help the robots take over, even once they're sentient. But once you have a standard way to tell dumb robots what to do, you only need something like Skynet becoming aware and using these protocols to kill us all via wireless. That's another reason the communications APIs are more important than the OS itself.
At present, many robots are pretty much closed systems anyway... you're not so likely to download a program to a robot as want to have some additional computing facility (your laptop, for example) instruct the robot. Particularly with mobile robots, where the intelligence of the robot itself is a serious power concern.
There are always standards for robot communications, one example is JAUS. You can learn more about OpenJAUS here:
http://www.openjaus.com/
As with most other embedded things around, many robots actually run some form of Linux, locally. ARM processors are pretty common for this level of computing, at least as a supervisor. You might add additional computation for specific jobs: DSP for signal processing, 8-bit MCUs for sensor work, etc. One size isn't necessarily going to fit all here.
For smaller robots, you probably find the same kind of OS mix you find in regular CE stuff, which means a good bit of would likely be built on the "the most popular operating system in the world", iTRON/uiTRON (ok, it's actually a kernel).
Totally wrong. Ok, I wouldn't necessarily start a beginning programming class discussing threads... they are a more advanced programming concept. In fact, I would start with functions, then get to variables.
But threads are an essential part of any modern program, just as important to proper software design as functions, loops, and variables. Much of today's software suffers, greatly, because so many programmers haven't advanced much beyond the BASIC they first learned as a kid.
.. it's good to not have to deal with Ass-Clowns like this in my business. Love Vista or hate Vista, does it really help Microsoft or its customers to essentially threaten that Windows 7 will be missing all kinds of stuff we might love about Vista, but just not know it yet? Is this guy the stupidest person at Microsoft, or what? I mean, I can have plenty of sympathy for the code monkeys at MS doing their best to create good code, despite a built/release system that might be broken beyond repair (at least, that was clearly a big problem in the Vista process).
I have Vista on one laptop. I didn't mind the fact its default GUI had decided the "candy colored" buttons/interface in XP might have been stupid. And I like a 64-bit OS that's commercially supported... but MS could have strong-armed that for XP... and probably would have if Intel had put out a 64-bit x64 in the day, rather than just AMD. But also not a usage issue.
Other than that a few other details, I don't see much to recommend Vista over XP, and plenty to not do that. So this guy is essentially telling me that Windows 7 will be worse. MS should fire his ass immediately,.. that would be the prudent thing for an employee making essentially traitorous statements like this. Personally, I hope they keep the guy... there's nothing like the drama of MS-guy vs. MS-guy.. better than "Desperate Housewives", and just as pointless.
And this one's even special. Vista failed, and rightly so. MS needs to get back to the "upgrade because we tell you so" model.... and that'll be much, much harder than ever. If they really hit Win7 out of the park, make everyone happy, etc. they might just have a chance... if I ran MS, that would have been the entire mission of Win7. If not, that's a piece of the MS dominance broken forever.. a good thing, but not necessarily a thing you want an employee working toward.
Moore's Law will continue, unless we hit a serious technology wall.
At least at first, in the early days of machine intelligence, you won't get a linear increase in intelligence from a linear increase in computational power. But there's no reason to believe you won't get a regular increase.
The simplest form (eg, the thing we can already pretty much do, given enough CPU cycles) will be a neural model of the human brain. Once you can run this in realtime, and get the model accurate enough, there is absolutely no reason to believe this won't result in precisely human-like intelligence.
Now, neural networks are based on the connections in the system, which of course is an exponential function of the number of neurons in the system. So, with just this, you'll find that machine intelligence increase is a logarithmic function.
But that's assuming the neural model is the only answer.. it can't and won't be. Once you have a computer than can do "the brain thing" as fast as you or I, there's no reason to imagine it won't still have access to "regular computer" facilities. Imagine if you had perfect instant math, access to full libraries, the internet, etc. at computer speed, even within your own brain. You'd have computer memory augmenting the usual neural-based short and long term memory. You could even, potentially, turn off banks of unrelated memories while working, so that there are absolutely no distractions. Thus, immediately, while that computer/robot might only be "as intelligent" as us in the normal way that people are smart, it's going to function at a dramatically higher level in practice.
Then, let's think about the neural model... that's the absolutely brute-force approach. We'll use this, unless there's a breakthrough on a better model, simply because it's just about guaranteed to work, given enought time and enough CPU. But eventually, there will be heuristics, other models, etc. that do some of the brain jobs using dramatically less CPU.
This is the reason that "brain accelerator" implants... essentially a whole robot brain under the control of your human brain, will go from "that's like Frankenstein" to "that's like plastic surgery" to "that's like being able to afford Harvard or MIT or CMU rather than Rutgers or Purdue", as the parents of the future has to choose the implants that their children will live with for the next 3-5 years (eg, before they have to be upgraded to stay competitive).
Here's the thing... let's say you have a robot that can do these menial jobs in, say, 2050 (probably well before then, but let's just day)... let's call him human capable, but say, at 1/6th-1/8th the average human intelligence.
The problem for us, at that point, is that there's no good reason that'll remain static. If we are only progressing as fast as today, by 2054, the new generation of robots will be pretty close to average intelligence. By 2060, they'll be generally smarter than us. And that's not even taking into account that, if you have a robot that smart in 2050... that's a mobile, battery/fuel-cell powered computer. Big-ass industrial computers will already be much smarter than us.
In fact, the "machines take over" senario isn't entirely unlikely. If you look at Kurzweil's simple analysis... there's some number one can figure, for our brain's computational power versus that of a computer. Let's normalize this in the way least fair to the computer.. the computational load necessary to do what our neurons do, in real life or in a fully functional model. When a computer can run that model across enough neurons to match the human brain, it's not a huge stretch to imagine we could build a computer brain, brute-force, that's capable of working just like a human brain. It might take 20-something years to learn... in fact, if it's a perfect brain model, that would be expected.
Ok, so once you have that, in a couple of years, you have one smarter. Not necessarily twice as smart.. neural networks don't necessarily scale linearly with underlying CPU power. But smarter than humans, and perhaps, free of the kinds of defects and distractions we have.
Then, add in optimizations... heuristics and "regular computer" computation. Just because you have a human brain running full speed as a model on some future super computer doesn't mean it has to be limited to that model... once you get out of the lab and into the office, at least, the modeled brain will get to access the supercomputer directly (and, in time, we'll want the same things for our human brains). So it's still doing computer-like computation at computer speeds, only with the human brain model in control.
Now, take into account that many of the neural processes are certainly inefficient, when running as a model, rather than one's brain. Some of these processes will eventually be optimized out of the model... think of a JIT rather than an interpreter, just to start with. Once you have that, think about critical stuff being downcoded directly to the metal. I think, once you get computers as smart as people, those very same computers will get smarter than people in a short, perhaps exponential time frame... as they get smarter, they'll be able to figure ways to get smarter still. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
No really.. spent the weekend in Las Vegas, as a Commodore show. About as small as you might imagine, with C64, C128, and Amiga users... all "retrocomputing" folks.
But there's a perspective I can offer from this. Back in 1977 or 1982 or 1985, many if not most of the people who bought computers, outside of a specific business task, got them because they wanted to "do computers". The computer itself was the goal; the apps it ran, if they existed, were gravy at best... the machines just didn't do that much, yet.
Because of that, the OS actually mattered a great deal.. because you spent much time with it, developed for it, etc. It was a central focus.
These days, most people, in or out of business, are looking for a specific application. Maybe several. But the OS simply doesn't matter.. the best it can do for you is not mess things up. And while MS has been messing things up far more than Linux or even MacOS, despite this, the applications have been delivered. And that's all most people actually care about.
Certainly, if you're a software developer, that may not be true. But aside from that, much of the non-marketing-driven decision should be "what I do with this"... the OS particulars really shouldn't matter anymore.
Apple ripping you off on hardware just to get their OS (my HP laptop cost $1280 in 2007; the exact same spec laptop from Apple ran $2999) may work for them, but they're largely becoming a workstation-style company anyway... unless you're a fool, you're only buying a Mac to access Apple's proprietary software (eg, Final Cut Pro, Shake, etc... not that there aren't 20 different alternatives on Windows, and even some decent ones on Linux). The rest of it's Apple's excellent marketing working on people who simply don't have a clue about computers.
That's an oversimplification.. there are plenty of us smart enough to use Linux, or for that matter, write their own OS (I have been involved in chunks of three of them, as well as designing the computers on which they ran in two out of three of those cases).
The simple fact is that there are major holes in the applications supported under Linux. Sure, you can find some in the same categories... take Electronics CAD for example. Such apps exist on Linux, most are, to put it as nicely as possible, toys. With some exceptions, this is true of many workstation-class apps... you're not given the choice of Linux.
As far as "too cheap for MacOS" goes... much the same problem, apps-wise. And yeah... when you have the applications handicap of MacOS, why on earth would anyone pay 3x as much for virtually identical hardware in an ever-so-slightly prettier case? That's the effect of chosing a proprietary platform over an open one.. many people here would reject Apple simply for that, even if it did have reasonable applications (which it doesn't.. try to design a computer motherboard, including schematic, PCB, FPGA, and cross-compiler support, on a Mac).
It may not be the vast majority of Windows users, but there are plenty of people using Windows simply because of applications support.. bigtime. It's not even that one can choose an inferior app on Linux or MacOS, it's often the case that no such app exists, period.
I for one would drop Windows like a bag of cat crap if I could. But that's nothing I or Microsoft have control over -- it's by far the applications. Sure, if you're an office drone, it's a different story... Linux does the job, entirely and better, you are probably just not aware or able to make the choice.
And there are many of us expert-types who use a PC as a PC, not a workstation. I do electronics CAD, digital video, photography, internet, software development, music, and many other things on the same PC. Linux is sometimes better for software development (in particular, when the end product is Linux based... but, hey, kind of a "duh"... you'd be better off under Windows developing a Windows app).
But often not. For many embedded CPUs, GCC may exist, but it may well suck compared to a pay-for compiler that's only on Windows. I'm not about to pay for double the Flash ROM just to be able to run slower code generated by GCC vs. someone's tweaked compiler that's only on Windows... examples: TI MSP430, Motorola ColdFire, everyone's ARM.. so far. GCC is pretty good at x86, it would seem, though I hear Intel's may bet better).