I'd enjoy an "instant-on" version of Windows if they focused it on productivity software and casual access to the internet. I'd also need to see it improve laptop battery life by a fair amount. Let's speculate: if this version of Windows allowed you to run Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer (with overhead plugins turned off, such as FlashPlayer) and gave you access to file servers (FTP, SSH, etc.) and sported a 50% battery life improvement, I'd use it! This is a perfect setup for what I need from my laptop when I'm going about my day from classes and meetings.
So it's basically like our words for "a couple" (1-4) and "a few" (5-6), but slightly more defined. (Ours are extremely subjective to the speaker and the interpreter.) Learning language concepts like this is very fascinating, for example, the Thai language (as far as I know, any way) doesn't have seperate words for eating and drinking... rather, they use the same word "gin" (guh-in) for both actions... so it's similar to our word "to consume."
No one will ever need more than 64kb of RAM either... or something like that, I don't remember the quote exactly. But the point is still there, don't fight progress. Maybe we don't need 8 cores now, but we don't have 8 cores now any way. If four cores is coming in the next 3 years, and six cores in the 3 years after that, eight cores won't be here until 2015. By then, we might be able to use them. After all, a true multitasking computer is never a bad thing - even a dual core computer is limited to running two processes concurrently. (one for each core - all other forms of multitasking is software/hardware-simulated) Yea, technically, that is multitasking, but it's not the kind of multitasking that most power users do. Who here honestly doesn't try to run at least a half dozen of applications that would benefit from true concurrency to all of them? I know I do. (ie, AIM, P2P, MediaPlayer, FTP Server, Internet Explorer, etc, etc etc.)
Alex~
Slashdot Mirror
I'd enjoy an "instant-on" version of Windows if they focused it on productivity software and casual access to the internet. I'd also need to see it improve laptop battery life by a fair amount. Let's speculate: if this version of Windows allowed you to run Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer (with overhead plugins turned off, such as FlashPlayer) and gave you access to file servers (FTP, SSH, etc.) and sported a 50% battery life improvement, I'd use it! This is a perfect setup for what I need from my laptop when I'm going about my day from classes and meetings.
So it's basically like our words for "a couple" (1-4) and "a few" (5-6), but slightly more defined. (Ours are extremely subjective to the speaker and the interpreter.) Learning language concepts like this is very fascinating, for example, the Thai language (as far as I know, any way) doesn't have seperate words for eating and drinking... rather, they use the same word "gin" (guh-in) for both actions... so it's similar to our word "to consume."
No one will ever need more than 64kb of RAM either... or something like that, I don't remember the quote exactly. But the point is still there, don't fight progress. Maybe we don't need 8 cores now, but we don't have 8 cores now any way. If four cores is coming in the next 3 years, and six cores in the 3 years after that, eight cores won't be here until 2015. By then, we might be able to use them. After all, a true multitasking computer is never a bad thing - even a dual core computer is limited to running two processes concurrently. (one for each core - all other forms of multitasking is software/hardware-simulated) Yea, technically, that is multitasking, but it's not the kind of multitasking that most power users do. Who here honestly doesn't try to run at least a half dozen of applications that would benefit from true concurrency to all of them? I know I do. (ie, AIM, P2P, MediaPlayer, FTP Server, Internet Explorer, etc, etc etc.) Alex~