Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The Windows Phone failed. (Score 1) 165

by UnknowingFool (#48189739) Attached to: Microsoft Gearing Up To Release a Smartwatch of Its Own

Thanks for the link! From that data, it looks like Windows Phone is close to parity with iOS when you look at the EU market.

Only if you can't read a chart. Even in the EU chart, iOS is about 2x WP.

The world IS larger than just the US, you know.

The world is also bigger than the EU. If you look at global numbers, WP looks flatlined compared to iOS.

Also check India [statista.com] where Windows Phone has a larger market share than iOS. It's actually succeeding quite well outside the US...

Can't see the chart but I can only assume you are ignoring the fact that Lumia phones are on huge discount in India and that Apple doesn't do any real discounting. Again for global numbers, it appears Android is dominant, iOS is present, and Windows is barely above RIM and Symbian. That is not success.

Comment: Re:Sorry. but you've got that backards mate (Score 1) 165

by UnknowingFool (#48186929) Attached to: Microsoft Gearing Up To Release a Smartwatch of Its Own

Apple (and later Samsung) simply got the polish and the marketing right, and made the devices "cool" (by riding the coattails of their own iPod's success in Apple's case).

I don't disagree that Apple polished the smartphone and the tablet. But few would not argue that Apple and Android also made them actually usable. I had a WM6 phone. It crashed randomly. Figuring out how to do anything required looking it up as everything was buried 3 menus deep. The problem for MS was their mindset of just putting Windows on a device and calling it done. Part of this was probably Gates who had an aversion to anything but Windows. There is a story that MS had an e-reader before anyone else but since it didn't use a Windows UI, Gates killed it.

This was the main issue with the tablets. There were expensive touchscreen laptops. They provided few real advantages over a much cheaper Windows laptop other than you could use touch. The UI was modified to add a pen. That was all the optimization done. Also at the time, there were not light by any means so carrying one was not comfortable.

Comment: Re:Maybe get one thing going before the NBT? (Score 1) 165

by UnknowingFool (#48186859) Attached to: Microsoft Gearing Up To Release a Smartwatch of Its Own

And then came Jobs. First he fires most everyone while personally interviewing new hires. Almost all ongoing projects were cancelled outright, even ones that maybe shouldn't have. Lots of utter trash, like OpenDoc and CyberDog, were thankfully killed, although people still lament HyperCard to this day. In any event, within ONE YEAR the iMac was introduced and by 2000 the Mac lineup was completely overhauled and greatly simplified. THEN they did iPod.

I don't remember all projects. Just most of them. There was the famous 4 quadrant chart where he focused Apple on only 4 lines of products.

Comment: Re:The Windows Phone failed. (Score 0) 165

by UnknowingFool (#48186533) Attached to: Microsoft Gearing Up To Release a Smartwatch of Its Own

If we measure success in terms of market share, Windows Phone was registering in the single digits as of January 2014. This is 4 years after the original WP7 released. So under 10% in 4 years is not a rousing success.

Financially success is probably not assured given such low market share. MS has not separated out their earnings and profits for Phone except recently: Q4 2014

Phone Hardware revenue was $2.0 billion, reflecting sales of Lumia Smartphones and other non-Lumia phones following the acquisition of NDS on April 25, 2014. Since the acquisition, we sold 5.8 million Lumia Smartphones and 30.3 million non-Lumia phones.

Phone Hardware gross margin was $54 million, reflecting revenue of $2.0 billion, offset in part by $1.9 billion cost of revenue, including amortization of acquired intangible assets and the impact of decisions to rationalize our device portfolio.

So gross margin is 0.054B / 2.0 B = 2.7% overall for phone. Note this is for all phones not just Windows Phone; however sales were only 5.8M. Financially that's terrible performance. If you compare it so Apple (and people will): 35M, $19B, (no margin reported).

Comment: Re:5K display (and computer) for $2500 (Score 2) 352

by UnknowingFool (#48163285) Attached to: Apple Announces iPad Air 2, iPad mini 3, OS X Yosemite and More

No. This is what I hate about these iMacs. And especially more since this high-res display. You get a good, expensive display, which you could easily keep for 10-15 years, but are forced to throw it away when you want to upgrade the computer, after say 2-8 years. A Mac mini duck-taped on the back of a monitor takes about the same space anyways.

Apple says you can use iMacs as displays. It requires Thunderbolt apparently.

Comment: Re:Low-end Mac mini (Score 1) 352

by UnknowingFool (#48162597) Attached to: Apple Announces iPad Air 2, iPad mini 3, OS X Yosemite and More
I assume this is the processor the new Mac Minis will use compared to the 2010 processor The clock speed isn't a much benchmark as it once was considering that the new CPU can ramp up to 2.7GHz. It's more of a powersave feature as the new processor has a 15W TDP as opposed to 25W. The newer chip uses a 2 x 256KB L2 cache and a 3MB L3 cache whereas the older chip only uses a 3MB L2 cache. The bus speed on the new chip is 5GT/s and the old one was 1.066 GT/s. The most important difference would be integrated graphics vs discrete graphics required on the older one.

Comment: Re:Wait... (Score 1) 174

by UnknowingFool (#48158503) Attached to: Apple Releases CUPS 2.0

I think Apple's aversion to GPLv3 is wrongheaded, as is Google's avoidance of GPL in Android other than the kernel. I'm not saying that it's evil, just a mistake.

Many companies have an aversion to GPLv3 for good reasons. Apple is fine with GPLv2 and BSD and Apache style licenses. GPLv3 with their restrictions puts Apple into a legal quagmire they don't want to be in.

Comment: Re:So confused (Score 1) 376

by UnknowingFool (#48157831) Attached to: Pentagon Reportedly Hushed Up Chemical Weapons Finds In Iraq

Other than the parts and pieces of chemical weapons factories were found in Iraq. It obviously wasn't in place in active production, but why does that matter?

It matters because that was one of the claims that the administration made. It matters because the effectiveness of the older stockpiles would decrease over time and it was a question whether their existing stockpiles could be used as they would be at least 30 years old by the invasion. It would be more like toxic waste at that point rather than an effective weapon. That's why Iraq would need to manufacture new ones.

Comment: Re:So confused (Score 1) 376

by UnknowingFool (#48157811) Attached to: Pentagon Reportedly Hushed Up Chemical Weapons Finds In Iraq

âoeWe do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons â" including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weaponsâ"including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.â -- Rumsfeld to Congres

Iraq did not have biological weapons. Iraq was known to have sarin and mustard gas. So what?

Powell:

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.

Your contention it was for already and new weapons is ludicrous. By the time of the invasion that gas that they already had was decades old and highly ineffective. That's why they needed to manufacture new ones.

You are attempting to revise history by claiming it was only for new ones. There are many, many quotes and papers stating they were also looking for stockpiles. Stop lying idiot.

So when the Bush administration found the chemical weapons, they were so vindicated that they trotted them out in front of Congress? Hell no. You know why? The weapons they found were of so little importance that they barely mentioned it. Why don't you stop spinning this, you coward.

Comment: Re:So confused (Score 2, Informative) 376

by UnknowingFool (#48154389) Attached to: Pentagon Reportedly Hushed Up Chemical Weapons Finds In Iraq

No sane person is going to think an "old" WMD is just fine and a "new" WMD is not.

You do realize that not all weaponry lasts forever right? Even nuclear weapons are retired because the components may not be as effective as when they were put into service. Since the Iran-Iraq War, the world knew Iraq had mustard and sarin gas. This is not news.

Old or new, if the basis for the war was that Iraq had WMDs in its possession, this fits the bill.

Not when the actual claim by Colin Powell and the administration was that Iraq was MANUFACTURING new chemical weapons.

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells. Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

It's irrelevant either way at this point, we left. There's no reason to spin it unless we're going to try and hold someone accountable for them being in Iraq. Are people so hateful of Bush that this kind of spin is even seen as worthwhile?

No, it's conservatives that are spinning these discoveries that Bush was right when in reality they are not. That's dishonest. That is spin.

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...