Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Steve "the knife" Jobs (Score 1) 90

Motorola did not have Intel beat. Motorola had nothing.

Moto did the 88K as its replacement for the 68K. While some architects like the 88K, it was a market failure.

IBM derived the PowerPC from its workstation line, developed three initial processor families, the 601, 603/604, and 620, and the gifted this work to Motorola so that PowerPC could claim to be a consortium with multiple potential processor design houses. The PowerPC NEVER had "Intel beat", it was explicitly designed to provide performance parity at lower cost than Intel. That's why no one adopted it other than Apple. Apple wanted cheap and didn't need binary compatibility. No one else wanted UNIX workstations that performed worse than everyone else and that's what PowerPC delivered.

Motorola, after being revived from the dead with the gift of the new architecture, proceeded to squander it by failing to advance the platform in any meaningful way. There was essentially no adoption outside embedded so Moto focused its energies where its sales were. Late in the game, IBM reentered to game with the 970/G5 but it was too late and x86 was no longer a target that would be defeated so easily.

Motorola never had Intel beat, they were merely a proxy for IBM who might have but failed to. PowerPC is now dead, a result of IBM's short-sightedness, Motorola's incompetence, and ARM's dominance at the lower end.

Comment Re:Steve "the knife" Jobs (Score 1) 90

A whole lot of work went into this absurd analogy, none of it illuminating in any way.

The CISC/RISC argument in the earliest days revolved around CISC's inability to scale to higher IPCs. For a time, there were plenty of RISC processors that offered superior performance but none could overcome the x86 binary compatibility advantage. This compatibility provided investment that allowed Intel to keep x86 performance close, despite RISC predictions to the contrary, until Intel fully developed architectures that rendered the entire question moot. Once that occurred, CISC was nothing more than a ever-shrinking piece of the die. All modern processors are designed the same way, there is no CISC vs RISC.

Prior to the explosion of the PC, Intel's 32 bit strategy was RISC and the product line was the 960. The 286 was a product Intel did at IBM's insistence under IBM's direction (and it sucked). It was only when the PC's success became clear that Intel refocused on the x86 family and repositioned the 960, in fact killed it for a time, on embedded environments. Intel wasn't the disrespected old boxer, Intel fully agreed with the assessment of other processor companies and they were all correct, but Intel solved the hard technical problems with the x86 because it had an enormous business advantage in doing so.

I did enjoy comparing Jobs to the ginsu knife salesman. At least that was an apt analogy.

Comment Re:Well, let's discuss ethics then (Score 0) 219

"The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money."

Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.

"I'm not saying what to do, what not to do, or what I do - I just want you to think about it a bit before tossing out moral absolutes."

His "moral absolutes" are a lot more absolute than yours. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Comment Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now (Score 3, Interesting) 202

"You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing."

I see no reason why this is a good thing.

"Easy peasy."

Not really. Certainly not "intuitive", definitely not "it just works".

Once upon a time computers could be used to run the software of your choice. This is yet another step away from that. Not a good thing.

Comment Re:Apple CPU design (Score 1) 324

"Also wondering if Apple is moving toward at least a dual-CPU (x86 + A10, say) design for the next generation of Macintosh."

No. How would that be useful? If Apple could produce an ARM design that could outrun x86 then MAYBE they could consider a transition. That seems unlikely.

Apple would be more likely to be "moving toward" NO next generation MacIntosh.

Comment Re: Performance (Score 1) 324

LOL You have a grave misunderstanding of the Oracle vs Google issue.

Andoid doesn't use "Java" because the licensing agreement for "Java" was unacceptable and Java itself was open source. Google complied with the requirements in using the source while also respecting the requirement NOT to call the product "Java". Android uses Java technology in bulk (and does so legally), it's just not a Java product capable of running Java apps directly.

Regardless of the name, the comment you replied to is dead-on accurate. Android requires more hardware to run because it uses a virtual machine rather than a native application environment. It gets this because it is based on Java. Whether it is good or bad is a matter of perspective, but time will favor the Android approach.

Comment Re:Wrong Market (Score -1, Flamebait) 324

"See, this would impress Android users because they care about this stuff."

You say that like it's a virtue. iPhone users don't care about it because iPhone performance has always been adequate. Android has a history of performance issues and Android users, as a group, tend toward genital measurements driving their purchase decisions. Android has never been about engineering a whole product, iPhone has been.

Meanwhile, most users in both camps are how you describe iPhone users. Nerds constitute little of the population yet most everyone has a phone.

Comment Re:iPhone 7 = the new pet rock (Score 0, Troll) 324

"The processor benchmarks are pointless...Having a dual core CPU probably doesn't help either."

That really sets the tone.

"...what matters is how fast stuff actually happens and Android is generally faster at opening the same app etc."

Considering how much more Android has to do, that seems unlikely. It is also historically never been the case.

"Probably because Samsung flash memory is quicker or something,..."

Yeah that's probably it. No one has access to fast flash except Android.

"...or maybe it's just the massive amount of RAM in high end models....The 3GB of RAM is welcome, but I wonder if iOS can make optimal use of it."

Yes, perhaps Android is faster because it has more memory, but if iPhone gets more memory it can't make "optimal use of it".

"My GF has an iPhone 6 with a rather pathetic 1GB of RAM, and she is constantly "cleaning" by closing apps manually to avoid it getting slow."

No she's not. This does not benefit phone performance in any way.

"Considering everyone else's flagships are moving to 4GB and 6GB now, 3GB is still rather low for such an expensive device."

iOS requires less memory than Android because its applications are native. iPhones have always had less processor and memory but outrun Andoid anyway.

"It's going to be hard not to laugh the first time I see someone with that setup."

You won't because such setups aren't needed. First off, iPhone users will migrate away from headphones that require dongles and, second, phones don't commonly need to be plugged in to listen to music. When they need charging you stop listening.

You are a moron with an agenda.

Comment Re:No benefit other than losing the cord (Score -1, Flamebait) 311

This is an embarrassingly wrong perspective.

Architecturally, it's better for the amp to be closer to the load so that they can be matched and equalization can be applied. Having the external battery preserves battery life in the phone itself and it IS "theoretically" possible for Bluetooth headphones to "make better sound". Apparently you made quite a living talking about things in which you are poorly informed, Bruce Perens.

Slashdot Top Deals

No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.