7 posts • joined Friday 14th October 2011 00:30 GMT
I don't understand why no one gets this. They forced desktop user to use metro so those same desktop users would know how to use their tablets when they came out. The customer would have a choice, shall I buy a Microsoft tablet with a user interface I know from my desktop or shall I buy an iPad with a user interface I don't know. It using their dominance in the desktop to drive their tablet sales - they had no interest in "user experience".
The same with the Ribbon. They have patented the Ribbon so open office can create a look-alike word processor. it has nothing to do with "user experience".
Icon : because they are rifling through your expectations.
I'm at a US University and there is a huge population of researchers from China. Engineering is a challenging subject for a someone who has come through US schooling and if Congress bans Chinese nationals from NASA then there won't be any more rockets.
Re: Better img here actually...
Better IMAGES here actually. The minx in the thong is eye candy but the other images (click on the right image of the pair) are stunning photography.
Hodge said: " We're not accusing you of being illegal, we're accusing you of being immoral."
Surely it's Googles job to maximize value to the shareholders within the framework of the law. It is the governments job to ensure laws are enacted which penalize immoral acts.
The government is to blame if Google abides the law but doesn't pay tax. It seems only the HMRC comes out of this well.
Shoved down your throat
Windows 8 could have been a triumph for Microsoft generating an operating system for both the desktop and tablets. Instead, they have chosen to force desktop users to use the Metro interface which is simply not suitable for the desktop. They have done this so that sales of the desktop version will familiarize people with the metro interface so that they can now be confident on a Windows 8 tablet. They've chosen to annoy their primary user base to gain a second, most likely bigger, user base.I do not like being forced to change simply for Microsofts marketing reasons.
I laugh when some claim they will stick to Windows 7, try buying Windows XP - it's not possible. You are either going to change to Windows 8 or change to something else, but change is coming.
28nm Brazos, where are you?
AMD describes Brazos as "the most successful platform in AMD's history". I know, I own three and they do excel in the "good enough segment". So why don't AMD have a 28nm Brazos shrink? The power saving would give netbooks and laptops a 10 hour battery life at a compelling price point that would blow away the Atom and probably dent Intel's core iSomething market share due to the price advantage. AMD, what are you doing?
But the FX moniker always disappointed
In my memory, the FX51 and FX53 where dual socket 3GHz ish Athlon X2s which were competing against the first core 2 and the Intel "two-chips in a box mashup" quad cores (a technique finally taken onboard in Magny Cours). And they lost.
My favourite review was XBitLabs who compared the IPC of Bulldozer with Thuban and Sandy Bridge where it only had 1/2 and 2/3 respectively. I wonder how well it would have fared against an E350.
Bulldozer is a core designed for server loads not as a desktop where software is poorly threaded. It would be a gross mistake to replace the Llano core with a bulldozer core. If AMD wants to compete on the desktop it needs to throw as many transistors into its core as it can: double the FPU and get a 5% speed increase, double the integer units and get another 5% etc. Bulldozer takes intelligent transistors out of the core and replaces them with dumb cache transistors. Going from 65nm to 32nm, AMD could fit 4 original Phenoms onto their die with 16 cores and 8Mb L3 cache, and it would probably be faster.
Over the last decade I've bought about 20 AMD CPUs and 2 Intel CPUs.
Icon - AMD CEO.