Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Intel is a paper tiger (Score 1) 54

And ARM has one huge advantage over Intel - everybody else except Intel has their own ARM SOC these days, so designers can shop around to get the chip they want, from the supplier they want. And they can easily switch to a different supplier without having to throw out their entire investment into the architecture.

Not really. The ARM part is pretty similar currently between all of them. With the exception of Marvell's line, they're all either stock ARM designs or slight tweaks (e.g. the improved floating point pipeline on Qualcomm's offerings). If one SoC vendor offers something better than another, it will typically be in terms of other cores on the SoC, and these are generally not compatible between vendors.

This is something that ARM is trying to fix with ARMv8. They intentionally delayed the release of the ARM-designed cores to allow a few other companies to have independent implementations arrive on the market at about the same time. This means that integrators will be able to shop around for ARMv8 cores that match their exact requirements.

Comment Re:Intel is a paper tiger (Score 3, Interesting) 54

Intel does currently have two big advantages over ARM. The first is that they are typically a generation (or, at least, half a generation) ahead of other fab owners. This is the same advantage that allowed them to compete with superior designs from AMD for the late '90s: they could get higher clocks at the same power, and more chips per wafer (meaning lower cost). The other advantage is that they are a much larger company and so can afford to make half a dozen guesses about the state of the market at the end of the five-year chip design cycle. They can then have different teams working on chips for those market predictions and only actually ship one or two of the final microarchitectures. In contrast, every ARM chip has to be a success, often for several generations (for example, the new A7 is an A8 with a number of refinements and a lot of tweaking for optimisation and some slight ISA tweaks to make it instruction-set compatible with the A15).

Comment Re:When did I defend Union Bosses (Score 1) 467

The odd thing is, what you've described is how unions work in much of the world. For example, in the UK if a union negotiates a better compensation deal for its members, then this deal must also be offered to all non-union staff. Companies are not allowed to discriminate either for or against union members, which means that you can't be required to join a union to work somewhere and unions can't enforce union-only shops. In many professions, there are multiple unions that compete for members.

Comment Re:Poor premise (Score 1) 229

The slowest PowerPC Apple sold was about 50% faster than the fastest m68K they sold. The slowest x86 chip the sold was slower than the fastest PowerPC, but most of their sales at that time were laptops and the Core 2 that they introduced in the second generation (when it actually made sense to by an Intel Mac) was around 2GHz and dual core, replacing a 1.5GHz (1.67GHz on the really top end) PowerPC G4 (which, clock for clock, was slower than the Core 2 and was crippled by poor memory bandwidth). When I switched, I forgot that I was running a PowerPC build of VLC: it was using about 80% of one core when running emulated, where previously it had been using about 50% when running native on PowerPC - it was slower, but not enough that it was noticeable. And when I installed a native version, the CPU load dropped to about 20%, making it much faster than it had ever been on PowerPC.

Switching on mobile chips would not give them anything like this level of performance differential, and so emulated code would be slower. It might not be noticeably slower, if the performance-critical parts are all in CoreAnimation or OpenCL / GLSL, but slower in a mobile device means lower battery life, and that's a much more serious constraint.

Comment Re:and still no "normal view" (Score 1) 211

LibreOffice refers to this as "web layout", and its right there in the view menu.

No. LibreOffice's "web layout" is the same as Word's "web layout", which is different from Word's draft/normal view. And (at least IMO) it's even worse than page layout.

Page layout displays the page to too great of fidelity, because the top and bottom margins break up the flow of text. Web layout goes too far in the other direction, completely reflowing the text to the width of the window.

Comment Re:and still no "normal view" (Score 1) 211

Displaying page boundaries, headers & footers, etc is of exactly zero benefit while one is composing the text of the document.

I beg to differ, sir!

It is not exactly zero benefit. It is actively distracting, and hence of negative benefit.

Incidentally, there's an 11-year-old bug report with 281 votes (there are only two bug reports with more votes) if you want to add your voice. I rarely use word processors (Latex here, as much as I hate it there's not really anything better for what I need), but if I did, I'd use Word almost on account of the lack of a normal view alone.

Comment Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (Score 1) 217

Films are shot with widescreen in mind because that's what everyone watches.

I disagree. Nearly all* films were widescreen before 16:9 monitors and TVs were really offered, and even now most are significantly wider than 16:9.

That's not quite what you said, but IMO them main reason widescreen became popular in the first place is because of what I said before: it's just better. There's much less reason to make them taller than there is wider. A taller screen means you can see more sky or ceiling. A wider screen means you can see more people around the room. I guess with a taller aspect ratio you could have people closer to the camera without them getting cut off.

* [citation needed] really, but it's an informal observation. I did look at the IMDB top 100 list, and looked at the top 10 movies created between 1985 and 1995 inclusive (a range I selected from after TVs were common but stopping well before 16:9 were even commonly sold, IIRC). Three of the movies were shot in 1.85:1, and the other seven were shot in 2.35:1.

Comment Re:Achievement Unlocked (Score 1) 287

Configure all of your devices to proxy HTTP and HTTPS traffic through that intercepting proxy.

If your device does not complain about your self-signed certificate enabled HTTPS proxy, then there is something seriously rotten security-wise

If you can load your self-made CA cert onto the device and explicitly tell it to trust any cert issued by that CA, then everything is fine. Obviously if you don't do that, a MITM attack should cause scary warnings. :-)

Comment Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score 1) 217

And now you've lost your extra height. :-) Anyway, I find myself using the full height of the console a ton. This may be me just not being as good at doing stuff in emacs as I should be*, but things like compiler error messages (especially in C++, it's common for a single error to take several lines even before wrapping) or the result of a recursive grep are way harder to scan over if you can only see a few lines at once.

* OTOH, this doesn't really make a difference. I'd still rather have compiler messages displayed side-by-side regardless of what it's displayed in.

Comment Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (Score 1) 217

Actually I think 22" in portrait mode is pretty good if you want a single-width thing with lots of height, though I'm not sure what you mean by "document production" (I code).

Again, I guess this just boils down to preference. But personally, I think that the benefits of 4:3 are overrated. It would be nice if there were more options there though.

Comment Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score 1) 217

I agree code wrapping is annoying, but that's when you simply overlap windows (or use tabs) and get more vertical view for each window.

I guess this comes down to preference. You say "simply overlap windows"; I say "simply scroll". I'd rather have an editor and console open side-by-side than I would a few extra lines of text.

Comment Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score 1) 217

You can still make things narrower (or overlap) to fit side by side, you can't fix height cropping.

If you make things too narrow, they crop or wrap annoyingly. Things like code especially suffer, as if you get narrower than 80 characters it becomes almost unreadable.

Personally, my viewpoint on "you can't fix height cropping" is that in some ways the fact that text scrolls naturally vertically almost makes it better to crop that way. If I had to choose vertical cropping (within reason, e.g. the difference between 4:3 and 16:9) or horizontal cropping, I'd choose vertical in an instant and never regret it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Vax Vobiscum

Working...