Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Beware of upcoming Windows 8  (Read 19798 times)
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2011, 12:24:51 PM »

Read up on IBM's Watson being able to play Jeopardy and win. It took them a few years of additional programing to get to to win. It had trouble with logic for correct choice and understanding questions but they whipped it but it still does not "think"

I am familiar with Watson's underlying technology. It is based on search; the next time Jeopardy reruns the Watson episode, try typing each question verbatim into Google and see what happens. Search is a task that falls into the category of embarassingly parallel, which is why machines can be made to excel at it. While recall is certainly necessary for sentience, it's far from sufficient.
Logged
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2011, 12:29:39 PM »

Oh, I see. Since you don't understand how Microsoft could use MinWin to enable Windows 8 to target tablets, you conclude that they must have started from scratch.

New every two. It will be a major overhaul like 2000 and Vista was.

Your original position was "It's a new OS". Now you're describing it as a "major overhaul". Do you not understand the difference between these two characterizations, or have you changed your position?

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6482




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2011, 01:31:37 PM »

Oh, I see. Since you don't understand how Microsoft could use MinWin to enable Windows 8 to target tablets, you conclude that they must have started from scratch.

New every two. It will be a major overhaul like 2000 and Vista was.

Your original position was "It's a new OS". Now you're describing it as a "major overhaul". Do you not understand the difference between these two characterizations, or have you changed your position?



No, major overhaul is basically a new OS and spin on things. Because of backward compatibility OS can never be 100% new as some parts must be maintained but it can get a serious overhaul and get a new kernel.  Win2000 was new concept, XP a tweak. Vista was a new direction but retained some old parts for compatibility only. 7 has a new GUI and a few tweaks to make better use of memory but it is basically Vista and while Vista mostly shipped in 32 bit flavor, Win 7 mostly shipped in 64 bit flavor. Cycle repeats and time for a major overhaul or "new" OS for new ever 2.   
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2011, 03:08:07 PM »

Oh, I see. Since you don't understand how Microsoft could use MinWin to enable Windows 8 to target tablets, you conclude that they must have started from scratch.

New every two. It will be a major overhaul like 2000 and Vista was.

Your original position was "It's a new OS". Now you're describing it as a "major overhaul". Do you not understand the difference between these two characterizations, or have you changed your position?



No, major overhaul is basically a new OS and spin on things. Because of backward compatibility OS can never be 100% new as some parts must be maintained but it can get a serious overhaul and get a new kernel.  Win2000 was new concept, XP a tweak. Vista was a new direction but retained some old parts for compatibility only. 7 has a new GUI and a few tweaks to make better use of memory but it is basically Vista and while Vista mostly shipped in 32 bit flavor, Win 7 mostly shipped in 64 bit flavor. Cycle repeats and time for a major overhaul or "new" OS for new ever 2.  

You either don't understand the difference between a new OS and "a major overhaul", or you can't bring yourself to admit that Windows 8 is not "a new OS" as you have repeatedly claimed here.

Windows 8 is built on MinWin, like Vista and Windows 7. See this article, for example.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 03:19:04 PM by AA6YQ » Logged
K0JEG
Member

Posts: 672




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 06:18:33 PM »

Been doing some reading and it seems that Microsoft going to require a major BIOS change on all new PC's and Tablets certified for Windows 8 that will prevent the installation of another OS, even older version of Windows, on the PC. In effect locking out Linux too and tightening Microsoft's grip on PC market. Those holding out for Windows 8 for PC upgrades might reconsider. 

Just like cell phones, they'll be "rooted" and "jailbroken" in no time.

(begin rant) Seems to me the holy grail of product manufacturing is to do everything possible to keep the end user from being able to do any modifications to the product. Apparently the collective ego of the modern company is unable to cope with the backyard tinkerer. Have you looked at the modern automobile engine? There's two hoods (bonnets): The one that you open up to change the oil and the second one over all the metal parts. Two reasons for this: 1) they don't want you to touch anything 'lest you mess it up, and 2) They don't want you to notice how the engine block is the same casting as the '75 Caprice Classic you drove in high school.

When you look at the spaghetti code on top of spaghetti code that Windows has become, I think they really have to lock everyone out just because of embarrassment. Windows 7 is fairly good, but I don't have much of anything installed since I use Ubuntu Linux (with it's own set of problems... looking at moving on to Mint next) for everything except Win specific applications.

The one bright spot continues to be the chip makers. Mostly due to having real competition they just keep getting better and better, hiding all the bloat of modern software. Someone in the thread mentioned "Visa capable" vs "Vista ready" for a lot of the complaints, but when I have free OS that has a UI every bit as pretty as Aero Glass and can run circles on "Visa capable" hardware (that wasn't "capable" of running Aero), I have to wonder what is wrong with Windows, especially when we really aren't doing anything more with our PCs than we used to, except decoding Flash video...
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6482




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2011, 06:23:49 PM »

Just like cell phones, they'll be "rooted" and "jailbroken" in no time.

I am not rooting for Microsoft but this will be tougher than a cell phone to crack. I am sure they have done their homework.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
WA6MJE
Member

Posts: 71




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2011, 10:09:07 AM »

I think the MS slogan is "just when we get it right, throw it away and start over." I have experienced this over and over since windows 3.1.  I hate the thought of Windows 8, having been stuck with Vista for awhile.  If the MS focus is tablets, then good luck to them. I just bought a new ASUS transformer tablet with the Android OS and it is excellent. MS has to catch up with that.  I stick with Windows because there are some must have applications I cannot get on Linux.  My hope and dream is that as Android/Linux matures one day I can move away from MS forever.  I have no problems with Windows 7, I just hate having them abandon it after the pubic did five years of beta (or alpha) testing for them.  I just installed 7 on an old HP laptop that had Vista on it,  and 7 solved all the problems.  There was nearly a gigabyte of upgrades to the Win 7 on their website that took the better part of a day to download and install. With Windows 8 we start all over from square one.
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6482




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2011, 06:32:39 PM »

The major problem with Andriod OS (like Apple OS too) is that it cannot multitask. Actually Blackberrys QNX OS on playbook is only tablet OS that can right now.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2011, 08:27:13 PM »

The major problem with Andriod OS (like Apple OS too) is that it cannot multitask. Actually Blackberrys QNX OS on playbook is only tablet OS that can right now.

Android is a multi-tasking operating system. Here is a description from one of its developers. Google "Android Multitasking" for additional information on the topic.

When attempting to escape from a deep hole, W8JX, the first step is to stop digging.

   
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6482




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2011, 09:09:23 PM »

The major problem with Andriod OS (like Apple OS too) is that it cannot multitask. Actually Blackberrys QNX OS on playbook is only tablet OS that can right now.

Android is a multi-tasking operating system. Here is a description from one of its developers. Google "Android Multitasking" for additional information on the topic.

When attempting to escape from a deep hole, W8JX, the first step is to stop digging.
  

In "theory" it is but in current application it is not. Currently QNX is only true multitasking tablet OS. It was built as such from day one. Try running two or more separate video streams on a Andriod or Apple or have it play a HD video on TV while you use tablet for something else. (a Playbook with QNX can) I have used all tablet OSes and know their limitations. Also Android has another design weakness is that it is not easy to actually kill a task, you merely place it in a inactive state in background but memory foot print remains until you reboot. There is a few utilities out there to try to band-aid fix it but it is a design problem. Because Andriod was born as a phone OS it still has limitations. Granted Honeycomb is a attempt at helped but still has baggage. QNX was never designed for a smart phone at conception or the limitations of one. BlackBerry, which owns QNX now, will be porting it to a new generation of smart phones after first of year or so but its roots are in a tablet.

Before you accuse some one of digging a hole, take a closer look at one you are digging for yourself.

Also, Androids future is a little in question now because while it was open source it is owned by Google and now that Google is buying Motorola and getting directly into phone business, other phone and tablet maker will be looking to depend less on android in future and not butter Google's bread when they make phones too.  
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 09:13:30 PM by W8JX » Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #40 on: October 05, 2011, 12:47:02 AM »

The major problem with Andriod OS (like Apple OS too) is that it cannot multitask. Actually Blackberrys QNX OS on playbook is only tablet OS that can right now.

Android is a multi-tasking operating system. Here is a description from one of its developers. Google "Android Multitasking" for additional information on the topic.

When attempting to escape from a deep hole, W8JX, the first step is to stop digging.
  

In "theory" it is but in current application it is not. Currently QNX is only true multitasking tablet OS. It was built as such from day one. Try running two or more separate video streams on a Andriod or Apple or have it play a HD video on TV while you use tablet for something else. (a Playbook with QNX can)


The fact that two specific tasks cannot run simultaneously does not mean that Android does not support multitasking. Would you claim that Windows cannot multitask because it cannot simultaneously run two tasks that attempt to open the same serial port? Of course not. If a video task is so consumptive of resources that when that task runs, no other user task can run, does that mean that Android is not a multitasking system? Of course not.

Android is built on the Linux kernel, which clearly supports multitasking.

I have a Droid 1 (running Android 2.3), a Droid Bionic (running Android 2.3) and a Thinkpad Tablet (running Android 3.2). All of these systems include a task manager that displays a list of running tasks. Each can simultaneously update my moving position on a map, display my RSS feeds, sync my calender, and take a picture. Your claim above that Android cannot multitask "in current application" is ludicrous.

I have used all tablet OSes and know their limitations. Also Android has another design weakness is that it is not easy to actually kill a task, you merely place it in a inactive state in background but memory foot print remains until you reboot. There is a few utilities out there to try to band-aid fix it but it is a design problem. Because Andriod was born as a phone OS it still has limitations. Granted Honeycomb is a attempt at helped but still has baggage. QNX was never designed for a smart phone at conception or the limitations of one. BlackBerry, which owns QNX now, will be porting it to a new generation of smart phones after first of year or so but its roots are in a tablet.

Android is built on Linux, which was not "born as a phone OS". Its multitasking limitations are driven by the need to minimize resource and power consumption. As available memory continues to increase (the Bionic has 1GB of RAM!) and battery power density improves, these limitations will gradually disappear; IOS is on the same trajectory.

RIM will likely follow Palm into the ground; they have lost all momentum and credibility, and are unlikely to be saved by the QNX Hail Mary.

Also, Androids future is a little in question now because while it was open source it is owned by Google and now that Google is buying Motorola and getting directly into phone business, other phone and tablet maker will be looking to depend less on android in future and not butter Google's bread when they make phones too.  

Google bought Motorola to use their patent portfolio as a weapon in their escalating patent war with Microsoft; for that reason, Samsung, HTC, and other Android-using mobile handset manufacturers are publicly supporting the transaction. Yes, Google will have to be careful to not give Motorola an unfair advantage with respect to other manufacturers. However, those other manufacturers have no competitive alternative to Android in their competition with the iPhone and IOS -- unless you believe that Microsoft and Nokia can bring the Windows Phone OS back from the dead; as Jobs once said, tying two big rocks together makes them sink even faster...
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 12:52:31 AM by AA6YQ » Logged
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 439




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: October 05, 2011, 10:39:11 AM »

It's true that with Windows 8 Microsoft wants to replace the traditional PC BIOS with something they call UEFI - Unified Extensible Firmware Interface.
The biggest reason behind this change is to improve boot times. Using UEFI they can shave 20 seconds off the process and go from cold start to usable PC desktop in 10 seconds.
However, even Microsoft's own demos for UEFI show a "Choose an operating system" screen. Granted, it only shows WIndows 8 and Windows 7, but this a Microsoft demo we are talking about.
Bottom line, until Windows 8 moves beyond developer preview and closer to an actual release anything can happen, but I don't think there is going to be a 'lockout' of alternate OSes.

We'll see.

Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6482




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: October 05, 2011, 12:23:01 PM »

The fact that two specific tasks cannot run simultaneously does not mean that Android does not support multitasking. Would you claim that Windows cannot multitask because it cannot simultaneously run two tasks that attempt to open the same serial port? Of course not. If a video task is so consumptive of resources that when that task runs, no other user task can run, does that mean that Android is not a multitasking system? Of course not.

Android is built on the Linux kernel, which clearly supports multitasking.

I have a Droid 1 (running Android 2.3), a Droid Bionic (running Android 2.3) and a Thinkpad Tablet (running Android 3.2). All of these systems include a task manager that displays a list of running tasks. Each can simultaneously update my moving position on a map, display my RSS feeds, sync my calender, and take a picture. Your claim above that Android cannot multitask "in current application" is ludicrous.

No your attempt to claim it is pointless. I have a son in his mid 20'S and he is very hard core Android and is the first to admit it cannot multitask and is frustrated by it.  Your attempt to compare it to windows sharing a com port is very very lame. This is a virtual resource issue not a multitasking issue. Android may be based on Linux (as OS2 was too) but it did not take a lot of it's features forward because of lack or resources to use them and to keep code small. IT CANNOT MULTITASK. It can only do very very limited COOPERATIVE multitasking of a few select tasks. It cannot PRE-EMPTIVE (true multitask) apps. QNX is only tablet OS that can.

I have used all tablet OSes and know their limitations. Also Android has another design weakness is that it is not easy to actually kill a task, you merely place it in a inactive state in background but memory foot print remains until you reboot. There is a few utilities out there to try to band-aid fix it but it is a design problem. Because Andriod was born as a phone OS it still has limitations. Granted Honeycomb is a attempt at helped but still has baggage. QNX was never designed for a smart phone at conception or the limitations of one. BlackBerry, which owns QNX now, will be porting it to a new generation of smart phones after first of year or so but its roots are in a tablet.

Android is built on Linux, which was not "born as a phone OS". Its multitasking limitations are driven by the need to minimize resource and power consumption. As available memory continues to increase (the Bionic has 1GB of RAM!) and battery power density improves, these limitations will gradually disappear; IOS is on the same trajectory.

RIM will likely follow Palm into the ground; they have lost all momentum and credibility, and are unlikely to be saved by the QNX Hail Mary.

BB bought QNX over a year ago. They knew they needed to take a different direction with their OS to get into tablets and future phones. QNX will be used on several new phones after first of year and it has the "potential" to be a game change (does not mean it will but it will be most advanced OS on a smart phone) Also RIM is not out of game yet by any stretch and still has a business following and they have the ONLY tablet/OS made that passes government security certification. It is still the most secure smart phone out there. Some countries hate them because they are impossible to crack into and monitor without BB's help. Not so with Driod and IOS.


Also, Androids future is a little in question now because while it was open source it is owned by Google and now that Google is buying Motorola and getting directly into phone business, other phone and tablet maker will be looking to depend less on android in future and not butter Google's bread when they make phones too.  

Google bought Motorola to use their patent portfolio as a weapon in their escalating patent war with Microsoft; for that reason, Samsung, HTC, and other Android-using mobile handset manufacturers are publicly supporting the transaction. Yes, Google will have to be careful to not give Motorola an unfair advantage with respect to other manufacturers. However, those other manufacturers have no competitive alternative to Android in their competition with the iPhone and IOS -- unless you believe that Microsoft and Nokia can bring the Windows Phone OS back from the dead; as Jobs once said, tying two big rocks together makes them sink even faster...

Google screwed up and did not by patents it needed too a few months ago when a group containing MS, Apple, Intel and BB paid over 6 billion to share a very rich pro folio from a bankrupt company. Buying Motorola mobile is a weak attempt at damage control by Google and Motorola would not part with it if it had any real future potential.  I remember years ago when IBM sold its high rated hard drive unit to Hitachi (which recently sold it too). Many thought it a bad move. They saw writing on wall and that solid state drives will be a force in future and got out of HD's when it was worth something. Samsung and LG are now looking to migrate some away for Droid because they know its future is questionable.

On a side note I think Sprint made a very bad move with recent Iphone deal. It will bury them I fear. I look for Iphone to fade and fall prey to other phones in next year or two. Job's insistence to not support Flash (because they do not own it and they want you to buy their movies) has crippled its web potential and it will one day cost it the brass ring.  I think Apple knows it and why they were willing to sign a deal with Sprint who they have ignored for 4 years now. 25 years ago Apple had edge but held to its "ideals" too tight and we are a MS world today because of it.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 01:14:25 PM by W8JX » Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
AA6YQ
Member

Posts: 1807


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #43 on: October 05, 2011, 10:31:55 PM »


No your attempt to claim it is pointless.

I have a son in his mid 20'S and he is very hard core Android and is the first to admit it cannot multitask and is frustrated by it.  

The fact that you have a son in his mid 20's who is frustrated by Android multitasking is not evidence that Android does not support multitasking.

If Android doesn't support multitasking, as you claim with zero evidence, how do you explain the fact that my phone running Android 2.3 can simultaneously update my moving position on a map, display my RSS feeds, sync my calender, and take a picture?

Your attempt to compare it to windows sharing a com port is very very lame. This is a virtual resource issue not a multitasking issue.

Neither buzzwords nor unsubstantiated statements will get you out of this. COM ports are physical resources, not virtual resources. The fact that Windows won't allow two tasks that open the same COM port to run simultaneously doesn't mean that Windows can't multitask. Similarly, the fact that some Android phone you tested can't display two video streams simultaneously doesn't mean that Android can't multitask. All multitasking systems must respect resource limitations.

Android may be based on Linux (as OS2 was too) but it did not take a lot of it's features forward because of lack or resources to use them and to keep code small.

Torvalds began working on Linux in 1991. OS2 development began in 1985, and was first released in 1987 - a full 4 years before Linux development first started. OS/2 was not based on Linux, as you claim above.

IT CANNOT MULTITASK. It can only do very very limited COOPERATIVE multitasking of a few select tasks. It cannot PRE-EMPTIVE (true multitask) apps. QNX is only tablet OS that can.

The familiar pattern repeats: you make a blatantly false statement, e.g. "Windows 8 is a new OS" or "Android doesn't support multitasking". You ignore the the independent citations showing your statements to be false, substituting bluster for logic. But at some point, you try subtly altering your claim in hopes that no one will notice. Your claim that Android doesn't support multitasking is blatantly false, and your attempt here to claim that multitasking without pre-emptive scheduling isn't multitasking is as ludicrous as the original claim. As I suggested earlier, the first step in escaping from a deep hole is to stop digging.

How will you retroactively "fix" your ridiculous claim that OS/2 was based on Linux?

Google screwed up and did not by patents it needed too a few months ago when a group containing MS, Apple, Intel and BB paid over 6 billion to share a very rich pro folio from a bankrupt company.

The bankrupt company to which you're referring is Nortel. Without knowing the name of the company, how can you possibly know whether its patent portfolio would have been useful to Google?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way. You obviously don't check facts before making pronouncements; otherwise, you'd know that Windows 8 is not "a new OS", but rather is built on the MinWin kernel just like Vista and Windows 7, you'd know that multitasking does not require a pre-emptive scheduler, and you'd know that OS/2 could not possibly be based on Linux.

Buying Motorola mobile is a weak attempt at damage control by Google and Motorola would not part with it if it had any real future potential.

Motorola did not sell Motorola Mobility to Google. Motorola split into two companies -- Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions -- early this year, completing an action announced in 2008. If the deal goes through, Google will buy Motorola Mobility from its shareholders, not from the no-longer-existent "Motorola" as you claim above. Wrong again!



« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 01:46:28 AM by AA6YQ » Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 6482




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2011, 08:46:21 AM »

If Android doesn't support multitasking, as you claim with zero evidence, how do you explain the fact that my phone running Android 2.3 can simultaneously update my moving position on a map, display my RSS feeds, sync my calender, and take a picture?

Those are all cooperative tasks. You are NOT undating RSS feeds will syncing and such it is switching between them. Can you play a HD video via HDMI and then take a picture, surf web to email and such with your Droid. No because it cannot really multitask. Neither can IOS. QNX tabets can

Neither buzzwords nor unsubstantiated statements will get you out of this. COM ports are physical resources, not virtual resources. The fact that Windows won't allow two tasks that open the same COM port to run simultaneously doesn't mean that Windows can't multitask. Similarly, the fact that some Android phone you tested can't display two video streams simultaneously doesn't mean that Android can't multitask. All multitasking systems must respect resource limitations.

Actually it is not as you claim. Any PC that does not have a serial port on board makes one via a virtual one using a USB adapter. And as fars as respecting resources. When you use Virtual PC and visualize/run more than on OS at a time on PC CAN share the virtual com port between OSes. ANd again, being able to share a com port withing a OS is not a sign of multitasking. Actively running several apps preemptively is. MAYBE one day Andriod will do it but not now. It sure has you fooled though.

Torvalds began working on Linux in 1991. OS2 development began in 1985, and was first released in 1987 - a full 4 years before Linux development first started. OS/2 was not based on Linux, as you claim above.

There was two developments of OS2. First it was a joint action with MS. They then split and IBM went it alone. If you had ever used OS2 as I have in past you would know that command line queries and response are very Linux like. Bases of it or copied/followed some of its structure it has a link to Linux

The familiar pattern repeats: you make a blatantly false statement, e.g. "Windows 8 is a new OS" or "Android doesn't support multitasking". You ignore the the independent citations showing your statements to be false, substituting bluster for logic. But at some point, you try subtly altering your claim in hopes that no one will notice. Your claim that Android doesn't support multitasking is blatantly false, and your attempt here to claim that multitasking without pre-emptive scheduling isn't multitasking is as ludicrous as the original claim. As I suggested earlier, the first step in escaping from a deep hole is to stop digging.

WIN8 is a new OS for MS and it is focused on Tablets. MS (un like you) realizes that tablet will take over for laptops soon and they want in on it. WIN8 is built to start moving into that platform. Failure to do so will cost them dearly. And on multitasking, every recent (since year 2000) true multitask OS I have used has had a task or priority scheduler in it. Even QNX has one too.  Never find that on a Driod because it cannot support it. Maybe some day but not yet and several active flavors or versions of Andriod being used does not help this either. Andriod needs a major upgrade and consistent version level across platform with new devices. MS wants to do this too, IOS mostly does this and BB will be too after first of year or so. In this tech world OSes can fall as fast or faster than they rose. Androids future is far from assured.


How will you retroactively "fix" your ridiculous claim that OS/2 was based on Linux?

Nothing to fix explained above


The bankrupt company to which you're referring is Nortel. Without knowing the name of the company, how can you possibly know whether its patent portfolio would have been useful to Google?

I was well aware of Nortels assets and how Google flubbed the bidding on it big time with silly bids. I was watch the auction to see who was going to get it because it was a high value item. It was a long awaited sale.  Do you think that Apple, MS, Intel and BB would have teamed up if it was not a high value item.  Never would have happened. There were going to make sure Goggle did not get it.

That's a rhetorical question, by the way. You obviously don't check facts before making pronouncements; otherwise, you'd know that Windows 8 is not "a new OS", but rather is built on the MinWin kernel just like Vista and Windows 7, you'd know that multitasking does not require a pre-emptive scheduler, and you'd know that OS/2 could not possibly be based on Linux.


You have a big problem with new OS thing don't you? Unless it is ALL NEW code you do not considered it a new OS even if it is a major upgrade/change. Like a said before new every 2. Every 2 releases MS has a major change/upgrade  Win2000 major, WINXP minor tweak, Vista major (and 64 bit main stream support too) and WIN7 a tweak of Vista. WIN8 is another major upgrade/change. Wishing and saying it is not does not change what it will be. MS must move away from Desktop as main focus and that requires a major code change. A WIN7 tweak or clone will not work here

Motorola did not sell Motorola Mobility to Google. Motorola split into two companies -- Motorola Mobility and Motorola Solutions -- early this year, completing an action announced in 2008. If the deal goes through, Google will buy Motorola Mobility from its shareholders, not from the no-longer-existent "Motorola" as you claim above. Wrong again!

Motorola would not have split off phone division unless it knew it was a loosing prospect in future. If it was viable and had a great future it would have not split it off. Many company spin off weaker parts to sell them and focus on core. Google had not choice but to try to buy it at any price because they are hurting. It will give them some patents and manufacturing for phones but not the brass ring than Nortel patents would have been to it. Google is a in a Damage control mode and likely shot themselves in foot because it will turn their one time allies (Samsung, LG and such) that focused on Droid phone to look to other platforms in future because they do not want to help Google succeed in marketing Android when Google will be making phone too. They will not drop Droid in near term but they are looking for other platforms for late 2012 and into 2013 and they will be watching QNX too to see how it develops.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!