Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:either integrated Intel HD Graphics 530 or a po (Score 1) 94

Will depend on the OS. The MacBook Pros have had this for some time and MacOS will use the dedicated GPU in certain situations. Depends on many factors - what the application requires, is the computer plugged in, how much battery life is available... Apple has more control of software and hardware so implementing this sort of solution is easier for them. I've heard some complaints but not too many. Do not know how Windows manages this. And Linux? Without capable hardware in the hands of developers one can not expect much progress. And considering the perpetual state of video drivers on Linux.....

But as far as the hardware goes, the integrated GPU is going to be available even if when the external GPU is present. It is likely Dell uses the same motherboard for both laptops - they just neglect to install the external GPU in certain models. This is how manufacturers typically approach this problem.

Comment Re:OS/X on A* CPUs? (Score 1) 213

Backwards compatibility is worth more then extra battery life. The A series CPUs are excellent and I am certain they cost Apple less then the Intel chips but adopting them for current products would cause too much grief. Intel is still improving their CPUs and not forcing Apple to switch architectures.

For new platforms, the A series CPUs are an obvious choice. I could see a version of MacOSX being ported to the latest large iPads. In time, the software ecosystem would develop to support the ARM CPUs and eventually, an ARM laptop could be viable. But this would take some time and would require Intel to drop the ball. I do not personally see it happening anytime soon.

Comment Re:FTFY (Score 2) 39

No, but the technology used to make a "swarm" work is required if you want drones to operate alongside regular aircraft - ex, Search and Rescue. Remember the fires in California where the water bombers had to turn away because drones were taking photos of the fires? It was not due to a lack of airspace - it was due to the inability to guarantee that the drones would not impact the water bomber. "Swarm" technology could provide that guarantee.

Comment Re:This is good. (Score 1) 60

Gas stations of the future will not exist unless they are selling gas. The demand for electric charging will not be great enough because the majority of people will charge at home. Competition from restaurants and other service providers will also be present since providing electricity does not require the infrastructure and safety certification required for selling gasoline - at least not if you are charging slow. Some fuel stations supporting fast charges will likely exist but they will not be common and will likely charge a premium for a charge due to the increased cost of the charging infrastructure. The desire to save money will cause people to adapt their driving / charging habits so that fast charges are not required.

Comment Re:ZFS (Score 1) 212

If you want per-application snapshots then you want the application to be in charge of the snapshots - not the file system. The file system does not know when an application is finished making changes to a file. Possibly many files must be changed - the file system does not know so it can not make any assumptions. Applications should be in charge of their own document snapshots using some form of version control. If one wanted they should script it so that a ZFS snapshot was generated - but you are better of using git.

With regards to ZFS, the snapshots are generally done at whatever frequency is defined by the administrator. 5min, 30min, 1day - whatever they decide. The snapshots are accessed from the root ".zfs/snapshots/named_snapshot" directory. There is no piecing together of files - the full file-system, as it was at the point in time it was captured, is available in the directory. The snapshots are immutable - the contents will never change so long as the snapshot exists.

Comment Re:Type C or mini B (Score 1) 106

It is more likely that Apple designed USB-C at the same time they designed the Lightning connector. They opted for the Lightning connector and decided to gift USB-C. It is in Apple's best interest for USB to have a good connector.

Looking at how horrible the USB3 connectors are, it all makes sense. USB 3.1 was announced far to quickly for it to have been planned at the time USB 3.0 was being specified. And there was no design debate - the new connector was basically just announced. Looks like someone delivered a fully developed USB-C connector to the USB standard committee and it was enough of an improvement to warrant a new version.

Comment Re:20% to 40% ??? No. Just no. (Score 2) 597

While you are correct, the article is likely talking about all conversions when powering common DC powered appliances. So 24VDC -> 120VAC -> 5VDC. In this scenario, the 20% to 40% could be realized. It all depends on how crappy the other power supplies are. By minimizing the change in voltage you allow the cheap DCDC converters to work more efficiently.

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." -- Mark Twain