Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:1993 just called, they want their codec back. (Score 1) 140

No, it's not. Not when you can trivially have access to your entire collection and don't have to predict what you will be in the mood for. Not when you can avoid having to periodically swap out what subset of music you have on your phone at any given time. Not when you can leave more room for other content.

Of course copying all that data to the phone in the first place is kind of daffy. That's what cloud storage is for. Compressed formats still make sense for cheaper, faster streaming though.

Comment Re:Microsoft? (Score 1) 127

You are misinformed. The Surface 3 uses an Intel chip and a full version of Windows 10, with all the compatibility that implies. You are thinking of the original Surface and Surface 2 models.

The primary difference between the Surface 3 and Surface Pro 3/4 is a smaller screen, different processor line (Atom SoC vs Core), fixed position kickstand, and no facial recognition. Aside from that they are largely similar. Both have a touchscreen and digitizer, both use the same pen, they use the same contacts for the keyboard (because they have a different form factor they have separate models, but a Pro 4 keyboard can work on a 3; it just looks silly.), and they would both work with the new Surface Dial accessory.

Comment Re:Uh..... the price tag?! (Score 1) 197

$200 more for 2016 tech instead of 2013, a 28" high DPI, color accurate touchscreen and digitizer... Yeah, what a rip-off. Sure, it's a Xeon, but as the Apple fans have pointed out, single core performance of a processor that old is actually lower than the iPhone 7 offers.

Looks like Apple is finally refreshing though, since their store page for the Mac Pro is now a teaser. Will be interesting to see what they offer.

Comment Re:Still trying... (Score 1) 124

It works surprisingly well. Recognizes me with or without a full beard, with or without glasses, with bed head, in pitch dark, etc. The feature depends on a dedicated camera and projector to do near IR mapping of facial features:

Comment Re:A real Windows (Score 1) 177

Hence Continuum.

But beyond that, UWP apps are far friendlier on smaller screens. Different screen sizes certainly demand different sizing and presentation of UI elements, but that does not mean you cannot serve different form factors with a common code base. Writing a ground up application for a handset is a much different proposition than doing a marginal amount of coding to make an existing one work on different screen sizes (especially since apps need to do that to work well in windowed or tiled mode anyway).

Comment Re:Courage (Score 1) 761

Once upon a time they got rid of two proprietary* standards (ADB and their mini-DIN8 RS-422 serial port) with a cross-platform standard. Now they're removing a standard port and offering two proprietary standards instead (Lightning and W1 wireless). Not quite parallel.

* Neither RS-422 signalling nor the mini-DIN8 connector are proprietary in and of themselves, but that particular configuration was, to my knowledge, exclusive to Apple. Sun also used mini-DIN8 on machines like the IPC, but the pinout was completely different.)

Comment Re:Slashvertisement (Score 1) 133

You seem awfully hung up on the initial characterization of Intel's announcement. They are not discontinuing existing SKUs. They are not discontinuing the Atom microarchitecture. They are not discontinuing the Celeron and Pentium lines that are already used in sub-$200 devices. They are not even discontinuing the Atom brand as it turns out; they just demoed the new line at the Developer conference this week:

And while Microsoft may or may not decide there is enough market for a cheaper Apollo Lake based Surface, HP has already leaked details about an Apollo Lake based Pavilion x360.

Comment Re:Slashvertisement (Score 1) 133

Actually, I specifically talked about the "Surface line" and the "form factor", rather than the Surface 3 itself.

Likewise, the statement I was responding to did not reference the particular chip, but argued against the interface, the form factor and what you deemed to be unnecessary compatibility with the x86 ISA:

"I never saw the point in Surface as I found the Win8 interface unwieldy (and _unwelcome_ on my laptop), x86 compatibility unneeded in a tablet and the whole package expensive compared to tablets that did what I needed them to do (& not what Microsoft thought I should be doing with them).

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.