Posted on 10/21/2012 7:52:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I have no idea about the personal issues between Dr. An and his son. All I know is that his son exhibited very poor leadership and was far too interested in the trappings of being CEO (the high, corner office with lots of glass, the nice cars, etc) than actually doing the work. The son was also not a technical guy at all. All sales and marketing.
It’s not terribly different than what we see with Obama. Obama loves the trappings of being POTUS. He doesn’t really like to do the actual work of the job, tho.
Cloud computing is great when it works but let the cloud go down or get hacked, then not so much.
Relying on the cloud is epic fail.
Jobs was always just a salesman.
“the cloud” is the biggest BS marketing gimick in computing.
the cloud is just bs for “your personal data on out servers”
Why is everyone so anxious to boldly predict the future? I’ll tell you why: we are living in the age of unaccountability.
No you won’t be the only one. I hate the concept.
Not quite.
Jobs was an internal cheerleader as well as a goal-setter. Jobs got personally involved in product design from the standpoint of having a vision and insisting that it be carried out.
Sony used to have the same kind of CEO - in the 80’s, when Sony was riding high in consumer electronics, their CEO would invest himself into product parameters much as Jobs did. The “Discman” CD player? Sony’s CEO whittled one out of wood, put his hack mark on it (these stamps that the Japanese use instead of signatures) to prevent the engineers changing it and said to the engineers “This is your required product size. It can be no bigger than this. Find a way.”
Setting hard parameters and requirements like that can sometimes be very important.
Actually, you're not that far off the mark. "Everything old is new again!"
We started out with batch processing on centralized computers, formerly known as minicomputers or mainframes. Technology got more and more powerful, allowing the switch from tape and card readers to dumb terminals, allowing for "time sharing systems." As technology advanced, new devices designed to handle the communications between the end users and the central computer (front end processors) freed up even more processing power on the central system. Eventually the processors got powerful enough to allow multiple individual systems to run as "virtual machines" on these mainframes, and shortly thereafter the PCs began to hit the market.
The march of technology REALLY exploded in the PC type systems, going from 8 bit (Intel 8086/8088 @ 4.77MHz) to 16 bit (Intel 80286 @ 8MHz) to 32 bit (Intel 80386 @ 16MHz) to 64 bit, multi-core (as many as 8 cores) processors running at speeds faster than 3GHz! This new computing power allowed for the demise of the older centralized computing, putting incredible power directly on the desktop, allowing distributed computing.
Eventually those processors go so powerful that we're now moving back to centralized computing, using virtualization similar to the original methods used on mini-computers and mainframes! And now that's happening with desktop PCs, moving to the graphical equivalent of "dumb terminals" again!
Mark
Idiot. I love my tablet and smart phone as productivity devices...to a point. But 60-70% of what I do on my workstation I can’t do on them, including most Office document creation, which is maddening on either tablet or phone, image/video editing, spreadsheets, etc.
Predicted in my presence by an old IT hand 20 years ago. The dumb terminals are coming back only this time in Technicolor with Etch-A-Sketch features. The same man mocked so-called object based computing around the same time at a professional conference we both attended, asking what is the difference between it and the old IBM code libraries and never receiving a satisfactory answer.
Just bluster...
I wouldn't go THAT far... However, they did one of the original ports of Unix to the Intel platform, as the original Xenix, and while Microsoft really didn't do much with it, they did license it to number of companies, like Altos and Tandy, as well as the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO, back when it was actually a software company), and it was pretty darned successful.
The reason it really never took off was simply due to the fact that there really wasn't powerful enough hardware at that time - though Altos did a lot of really cool things, like implementing real 16bit memory addressing on the 8086 based Altos 586, and designing REAL hardware memory management for the 80286 based Altos 2086, bypassing the stupid way the processor switched between operating modes.
Mark
Perhaps. There is only one minor snag: they need to convince people to buy those handhelds. The catch is that if they run on x86 then these beasts are expensive and heavy; and if they run on ARM (Win8 RT) then there is no advantage in running Windows. You would actually be better off buying Apple or Android because their app stores are full of useful stuff, unlike MS stores. MS had nothing to even showcase on Win8 prereleases! MS's own Office is not Metroified yet (probably impossible to do anyway,) which means that you can't run your Outlook on an x86 tablet in Metro mode. But Apple and Android already have mail clients that connect to Exchange and work full screen.
If you are a business person in search of a tablet or a smartphone, why would you pick the first release of a new product from a company that repeatedly failed with tablets? Are you insane? Perhaps you would grab one that is made by a company that already sold millions of units and has great reviews? Remember, in this scenario you are a consumer, not a geek - you don't care for Apple or Google or MS, you just want a product that works for you. MS tablets will be sold in some quantity, of course - MS can sell probably 100K units just into their own sales channels. But who in the end will buy them? I personally have no interest, though I have an Android tablet here.
You bring to mind a scene from "The Big Bang Theory!"
[Usual gang and Priya are gossiping about Sheldon]
Howard Wolowitz: Raj, did you ever tell your sister about the time Sheldon got punched by Bill Gates?
Priya: Oh, God! You're kidding?
Raj Koothrappali: Nope. Gates gave a speech at the university. Sheldon went up to him afterward and said, "Maybe if you weren't so distracted by sick children in Africa, you could've put a little more thought into Windows Vista."
[all laugh]
Leonard Hofstadter: Bam! Right in the nose. Made me proud to own a PC.
Mark
From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632232/quotes
Don't forget SCO (back when they were a software company), Novell, and Sun Microsystems.
Mark
What is it that I wrote, that is in any way negated by what you wrote? You included ancillary products produced by Wang. That is the only difference.
A two sentence reply hardly constitutes a “technical analysis,” by the way. It was exactly as it was intended to be, provided to another FReeper as an explanation of the original reply.
no will ever ask a proprietary OS to control stuff is is not certified to control. Wind River and Green Hills do that.
“MSFT is having the same problem so many computing companies that were started by techies have had: They handed the control over to a salesman.”
Amen to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.