8 posts • joined 6 Feb 2011
If you want a card slot...
The Nokia 820 has one too - unfortunately the 920 does not :-(
Eric Schmidt never worked for Apple?
Perhaps this might change your opinion:
XP won't run...
Which is nothing to do with Secure Boot...
XP needs a BIOS
UEFI *replaces* the BIOS
Vista was the first Microsoft OS that would boot on a UEFI system
(Note: Apple's bootcamp and similar systems *emulate* a BIOS on UEFI hardware to allow booting of operating systems such as XP)
Interesting name, given mine :-)
Anyway... Don't look at Macs, look at iPhones, iPods and iPads - actually a far larger percentage of Apple's revenue than Macs.
@James Hughes 1
I'd love to see where you got the stats from...
The stats I've seen agree with the supercomputers (top 500 is the definition I use here), but the other info I've seen comes nowhere close to the other numbers you recite.
I take it you are referring to malware like this...
Before attempting to infect the document, it displays this message:
Shall I infect the file ?
Take a look at the specs...
For those of you who haven't yet looked, you should take a look at the w3c site for HTML5
I wouldn't recommend actually *reading* it unless you're a masochist or being paid to do so - it's very dense, and absolutely massive!
However... When you think about a spec as large as this one, where different parts of the spec are owned by different people (as it has to be in order to have any sort of realistic timetable) it's not surprising that there are lots of incompatibilities at the moment - it's still not expected to be signed off for another 3 years!
So - if you look at page x of the current spec, you can implement your code so that object A always appears in front of object B - and of course you claim you are HTML 5 compliant!
Unfortunately on page y of the spec it says that object *B* should be the one at the front - so if you're a different vendor you can then claim that *your* browser is compliant!
It's gonna take some time :-)
Virtualisation is the problem... as well as the solution
I would guess that Matt is trying to point out that many end users are *already* using virtualisation on x86 hardware... And this is the problem for Cisco.
If you have a physical box running 10 VMs, all of which are talking to one another - how does Cisco manage to monitor that traffic?
All of this traffic remains inside the one physical server - it never goes out to the "real" network - and admins still need to be able to monitor this traffic - hence they are likely to install a VM from this vendor (or another) given that forcing the VMs to send network traffic "off box" is significantly slower.
This then means that the admins have to have *two* sets of management tools/consoles etc - one for their Cisco, and one for this.
Some smaller shops may then choose to drop Cisco, and just go for a virtualised network stack
If this *is* the case then Cisco either has to a) Create their own VM that works with their existing tools and risk cannibalising some other sales or b) Modify their management tools so it will handle this vendor's stack as well as their own
or c) come up with another business model that I can't think of right now :-)
- JLaw, Kate Upton exposed in celeb nude pics hack
- Google flushes out users of old browsers by serving up CLUNKY, AGED version of search
- GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? If you think 3D printing is just firing blanks, just you wait