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


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

Comment Re:The 6th gen was a spike above the normal trend (Score 1) 230

No, you are not. The idea that iPhones were "right-sized" was purely Jobs spin. Remember that Steve Jobs also said that people used email and no one wanted SMS (and certainly not MMS) when the fact was he simply didn't know how to text (and didn't even use a cell phone at the time). Jobs also said that no one wanted Apps on a cell phone and that they were a catastrophic security risk. This is the actual history of "right-sized".

Apple's string of success is as much to do with pure luck as it is excellence, as is generally the case. The circumstances that created that luck are gone now.

Comment Re:The 6th gen was a spike above the normal trend (Score 1) 230

The iPhone 6 was not a "spike above the trend", it was a catch-up design following a trend that had existed for years. The modern iPhone form factors were established by Apple's competitors first.

That's the root of the problem, of course. Apple once was at the forefront and now isn't. It's most popular upgrades have come from copying its competitors' offerings.

Comment Re: Nothing of significance (Score 2) 230

"Performant" is just the latest in a long history of made up words and phrases intended to differentiate. It doesn't mean anything new or special.

"Perform" and "Performance" don't literally mean "Fast" either, but a "performance car" would be assumed to be fast just as "performant code" would be. Should we now use the term "performant car"? Of course not; we don't need people in the auto industry to look smart doing the same old things. Coders need to be pretentious.

If "performant" is to mean "does it's function well" then all it really means is "doesn't suck". Personally, I have a higher bar.

Comment Re:Steve "the knife" Jobs (Score 1) 91

Motorola did not have Intel beat. Motorola had nothing.

Moto did the 88K as its replacement for the 68K. While some architects like the 88K, it was a market failure.

IBM derived the PowerPC from its workstation line, developed three initial processor families, the 601, 603/604, and 620, and the gifted this work to Motorola so that PowerPC could claim to be a consortium with multiple potential processor design houses. The PowerPC NEVER had "Intel beat", it was explicitly designed to provide performance parity at lower cost than Intel. That's why no one adopted it other than Apple. Apple wanted cheap and didn't need binary compatibility. No one else wanted UNIX workstations that performed worse than everyone else and that's what PowerPC delivered.

Motorola, after being revived from the dead with the gift of the new architecture, proceeded to squander it by failing to advance the platform in any meaningful way. There was essentially no adoption outside embedded so Moto focused its energies where its sales were. Late in the game, IBM reentered to game with the 970/G5 but it was too late and x86 was no longer a target that would be defeated so easily.

Motorola never had Intel beat, they were merely a proxy for IBM who might have but failed to. PowerPC is now dead, a result of IBM's short-sightedness, Motorola's incompetence, and ARM's dominance at the lower end.

Comment Re:Steve "the knife" Jobs (Score 1) 91

A whole lot of work went into this absurd analogy, none of it illuminating in any way.

The CISC/RISC argument in the earliest days revolved around CISC's inability to scale to higher IPCs. For a time, there were plenty of RISC processors that offered superior performance but none could overcome the x86 binary compatibility advantage. This compatibility provided investment that allowed Intel to keep x86 performance close, despite RISC predictions to the contrary, until Intel fully developed architectures that rendered the entire question moot. Once that occurred, CISC was nothing more than a ever-shrinking piece of the die. All modern processors are designed the same way, there is no CISC vs RISC.

Prior to the explosion of the PC, Intel's 32 bit strategy was RISC and the product line was the 960. The 286 was a product Intel did at IBM's insistence under IBM's direction (and it sucked). It was only when the PC's success became clear that Intel refocused on the x86 family and repositioned the 960, in fact killed it for a time, on embedded environments. Intel wasn't the disrespected old boxer, Intel fully agreed with the assessment of other processor companies and they were all correct, but Intel solved the hard technical problems with the x86 because it had an enormous business advantage in doing so.

I did enjoy comparing Jobs to the ginsu knife salesman. At least that was an apt analogy.

Comment Re:Well, let's discuss ethics then (Score 0) 219

"The correct thing to do isn't as clear as you might suppose. Morally, it may be more correct to pirate their content then buy a t-shirt or something from them, because they'll see most of that money."

Morally it's quite clear, you simply don't consume the content. Justifying theft because of (supposed) shady business practices is not remotely moral.

"I'm not saying what to do, what not to do, or what I do - I just want you to think about it a bit before tossing out moral absolutes."

His "moral absolutes" are a lot more absolute than yours. Did your mom ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Comment Re:"Allow apps" from only "sanctioned" sources now (Score 3, Interesting) 202

"You just can't (easily) set it to the default.. which is a good thing."

I see no reason why this is a good thing.

"Easy peasy."

Not really. Certainly not "intuitive", definitely not "it just works".

Once upon a time computers could be used to run the software of your choice. This is yet another step away from that. Not a good thing.

Comment Re:Apple CPU design (Score 1) 324

"Also wondering if Apple is moving toward at least a dual-CPU (x86 + A10, say) design for the next generation of Macintosh."

No. How would that be useful? If Apple could produce an ARM design that could outrun x86 then MAYBE they could consider a transition. That seems unlikely.

Apple would be more likely to be "moving toward" NO next generation MacIntosh.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.