Fair enough. You are still orders of magnitude worse off than a decent SSD, which is the relevant point.

There's no particularly good reason to believe that its bug count per line is any higher than any subsequent, later version of Windows. One million is pretty small, Did you mean 40 Million?

It's tough, going to work and doing boring stuff but the $250,000 pay scale overcomes an awful lot of developer resistance...

Yes Yes yes! SSDs are a God-send for performance issues!

Database servers? Check!

Caches? Check!

Session Managers? Check!

Load Balancers? Check!

As stated by Reddit: Think of SSDs as cheap RAM, not expensive disk.

IOPs are anything but meaningless. For any kind of performance computing, they are one of the most commonly unrecognized bottleneck.

IOPS is simple: how many random seeks can your storage device perform? If you can scootch your heads to the starting sector once per second, you have 1 IOP. Divide the rotational speed of your drive by 60. EG: 7200/60 = 120. That's the literal maximum number of seeks you can get out of your hard disk heads assuming that there is no seek time.

The "k of operations" is irrelevant when discussing IOPS.

How an idea so simple could be so commonly misunderstood is beyond me. It's true that IOPS won't matter if you are streaming a single, large media file. It's equally true that you can't serve more than about 120 random seeks in a second on a 7200 RPM drive. This is disguised a bit because your OS will try to minimize the seeks and aggregate seeks that are similar and/or close together.

SSDs are now only about 5x the cost of HDDs in many cases. In past years, it's typical to have, multi-disk arrays solely to improve performance. In these cases, a single SSD can be not only dramatically faster, but significantly cheaper to boot.

Perhaps it's an ad, but it's one that interests me. I come here to find out the latest developments in tech, and the continuing advances of SSDs is something I find interesting.

HDDs have become so huge that the biggest problem isn't storage capacity, or even bandwidth: it's IOPS. It's pretty lame that I can store literally many millions of documents in a hard disk cluster that can only delivery a few hundred IOPS per second. Do the math. It takes forever to get your data out, especially if they are small documents!

SSDs don't have this problem. 50,000 IOPS is "no big deal" for an SSD, meaning that even if you have 40 million tiny 10k documents, you can still saturate your 6 Gbit SATA interface with sweet, sweet data.

We switched our DB servers to SSDs and saw over 90% reduction in average query latency. Next up is our file stores, which use ZFS. Our next step is an SSD cache for ZFS, and then as prices continue to tumble, we'll switch to all SSDs everywhere.

Microsoft doesn't want to produce a new version of Windows; they want to make money and selling new releases of Windows is how they accomplish this.

I truly do not understand why they are nixing Windows XP. The money making opportunity is tremendous: Take 1/10th of their O/S development team, and have them work on bug fixes for Windows XP. Pay them by charging subscriptions for XP support. It wouldn't have to be much: maybe $10 to $20 per year would be more than enough, and those still hanging on to Windows XP would very likely be completely happy to pay $12.95 per year to to have to mess with their obviously working system.

If you assume that the $25 or so that MS gets for a OS license from vendors covers 3 years, then $12.95 per year is at least 100% to 200% more per year, from customers that don't demand or want new features. It's like shooting fish in a barrel! If it's true that 30% of computers are still running Windows XP, this would easily become one of the most profitable divisions of MS in the near future.

Strange. To this day I've only had to search for things like how to hard power down a specific model of phone; I've been using Android since 2.0. I will admit that I found the icons in 4.x a bit confusing for a little while. (Is that the icon for copy? Paste? Delete?)

I partly agree. Windows 8.1 isn't as tragic as it seems at first. But they've forgotten one of the primary goals of a UI: discoverability.

I'm a Linux geek, so I'm used to typing arcane commands into shell prompts. I can find whatever I need in a Google search if I don't know it already. Command line interfaces require you to specify what you are looking for. It's expected that you should know in advance what you want and how to ask for it. This is somewhat less true for the double-tab interface in bash, but still, the basic idea is to specify.

What made Windows and MacOS such a big deal back in the day is that they were "discoverable" - you could figure out what options you had available by reading the menus and picking one, with the basic expectation that, if there was an option or command to run, there'd be a menu entry in a hopefully sensible place to allow it. Thus, anybody could "use" a computer by finding the obvious start button.

Windows 8.x tosses discoverability to the wind. You just have to know in advance which combination of swipes and from which side in order to get what you want. Because of this, it's not discoverable. What makes Windows 8 so damning and frustrating for the new user is that stuff happens and there's no obvious reason why.

With this recent statement, Microsoft has made clear that they're going to try to double down on the Metro Interface, and hope that by promising it at some distant, future date, the haters will shut up long enough for people to get used to the not-discoverable Windows 8 interface.

I have mixed feelings about this.

I don't see this as a problem at all. This is the type of thing that screams for a dedicated processor, not a GP chip, and it's typical to see a 99% reduction in power consumption when you go this route.

If you are going to cut cost, Bluetooth isn't a terrible place to start. Especially if you have 1 or 2 USB ports. (I didn't see that in the article)

GPS is also not so meaningful in a tablet; in a car you'll more likely use your phone.

I remember well when Honda was the butt of similar jokes in the Late 70's and/or early 80s. Nobody makes these jokes anymore.

Most times, market disruptions occur when previously expensive or inaccessible technology is provided at low cost. Sometimes, this happens when a high-end provider streamlines their processes and deliver their wares at new, lower cost. Far more often, however, it happens when a profitable, low-end provider moves upscale and discovers that they can deliver higher end wares at lower cost.

There are significant odds that your kids will drive Tata cars and love 'em, if they are, in fact, still driving them.

Stale thread is stale. But I bought a bluetooth keyboard for my phone and love it!

If I want to type srs bsns then I unfold the keyboard, which casually fits in my shirt pocket. Unfortunately, this model of keyboard is no longer manufactured and the price appears to have ballooned as a result. (When I bought mine a year or two ago, it was $40)

Even if they could review the source, there's no assurance that the binaries provided actually come from said sources. Further, there's no assurance that the "NSA bullshit" is in any way obvious. It could be as simple as an exploitable memory leak which can be tripped in certain, very rare conditions that would have no indication at all of being exploitable or "NSA bullshit".

My guess is that China wants to start pushing their "Red Flag Linux so that they can at least have a chance at knowing when their security is compromised.

I'm sitting in front of my $2500 laptop while a $50 TV stick smoothly plays Netflix on my bedroom TV. This "TV stick" is a fully functioning Android computer with all that implies. This is the "desktop equivalent" to the laptop, which in this case is a mobile phone device.

My point is that what "is a computer" is so cheap that the market is about to be tripped, completely. My phone now represents the majority of my interaction with the Internet in a personal context, and I do Internet development professionally.

That there are as many active mobile devices as there are people doesn't mean that everybody has a mobile device. And the reality is that mobile devices actually are ubiquitous, and the 7.1 billion number understates their ubiquity, since many devices are wifi only.

I type this on my Linux laptop that I use for work, but outside of some gaming, mobile devices have taken the crown for personal use. Mostly, I browse on my smart phone. I schedule on my smart phone. I email on my smart phone. My "TV" is actually a Google TV Stick running android. I frequently take a tablet with me when I travel, just so I can plug the hotel room HDMI into it and watch what I want, rather than "what's on".

Mobile devices are everywhere, and still growing fast, and have completely up-ended the computer marketplace. This trend will continue and even if you knock the number in half, it still stomps the every loving *!@#$* out of the classical desktop "computer".