Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:PARC monument (Score 1) 114

by UnknowingFool (#48206367) Attached to: Xerox Alto Source Code Released To Public

I would add "And then refined them."

There is no doubt that Xerox was instrumental in GUI development. However Apple will be remembered because they brought it to the masses. While Xerox had great ideas about GUI, it lacked some refinement. They may have done it if the company had backed the researchers and fully embraced the idea of computers. Instead management was stuck on being a copier company.

Comment: Re:Recognition (Score 2) 148

by UnknowingFool (#48199609) Attached to: 'Microsoft Lumia' Will Replace the Nokia Brand
Except MS didn't get Nokia IP. MS is licensing Nokia patents.

Microsoft Corporation and Nokia Corporation today announced that the Boards of Directors for both companies have decided to enter into a transaction whereby Microsoft will purchase substantially all of Nokia’s Devices & Services business, license Nokia’s patents, and license and use Nokia’s mapping services.

Comment: Re:The Windows Phone failed. (Score 1) 171

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 [] 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) 171

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) 171

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) 171

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) 353

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) 353

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.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?