Posted on 03/08/2005 12:06:04 PM PST by r5boston
Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."
That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at macworld.com ...
Ok you may have a point - "over" could be construed as subjective. We did prove that the Ipod is much more expensive than the competition with the same specifications. If you want to have a semitics quibble over the term "overpriced" we can go with "Priced much higher than the competition"
Although it is at the perfect price as set by the market and not factually overpriced?
That is your opinion, not a fact.
First, it is not always wrong (read closely). Second, you have painted yourself into a corner again. Earlier you said we can not go with the published definition of "firmware" because these things constantly change now you arguing we must follow the published usage guideline as if these things never change.
Your logic is either faulty or it changes to meet your current need.
It is implicit to ANYONE who works with them. Contents being the definition are all over. For example, you can't call something chocolate if it doesn't have cocoa powder in it. It may look, taste, smell, cook and otherwise function like chocolate, but it isn't chocolate. Popular, uninformed usage can violate this, like when people say "white chocolate." But it still isn't chocolate.
If I order ROMs, I expect to pay a lot of money to have chips masked at the foundry. If I make PROMs, I expect to be able to burn them myself, one-time-only. If I make EPROMS, I expect to be able to reprogram them after erasing with UV light, unless I use OTP EPROMS because I need to some chips with PROM functionality but can't afford a separate PROM burner, and want to save money on my EPROMs.
BTW, notice we don't call an OTP EPROM a PROM, which it is in function. We call it an OTP EPROM instead of PROM because the technology in it is EPROM technology, not PROM technology. The technology defines the term.
You might want to read this from the Stanford usage guide:
"If the abbreviation uses periods or other internal punctuation to separate its letters, or if the use of s alone is likely to create confusion, use ’s to form both the plural and possessive. "
Stanford says it is not wrong (contrary to what you are claiming)
this should be 825
Yes, but I'm talking about further upthread, when it was alleged it cost $200 for Apple to replace the battery, that the battery could not be replaced by the consumer, that the battery was hardwired, etc. All false.
Ah yes, the victory dance.
Once again you are wrong, but you do enjoy doing victory dances
What I said about the warrenty was true, opening the Ipod voids the warranty.
My USB key is an EEPROM, but it functions like a floppy drive.
You should know that terminology sometimes comes about in strange ways, and this is one example. The only reason we have the term "ROM" in all of these is not because of the read-only aspect of the original ROMs. The really important feature of a ROM that these people were trying to extend with P/EP/EEP was the ability of a ROM to retain data absent any power.
This was very important to the Air Force when it had the original PROM technology developed. They needed a way to create a chip that could hold the missile targeting data without power, yet be programmable on the spot. They weren't interested that the data couldn't be changed, and probably would have liked EPROM abilities so they could change targeting data rather than burning a new targeting chip every time (still better than going to the foundry though).
I know "ROM" stands for "Read-Only-Memory," but substitute "can hold data with no current" when you read these other terms. Thus, a programmable chip that can hold data without current (PROM), one that can be erased by UV (EPROM), and one that can be electrically erased (EEPROM). ROM is the only one that's not a misnomer.
And to think I started that to try to agree with you in part, that firmware IS software.
Yet entirely inapplicable to the discussion of replacing batteries, because under warranty the battery is replaced free of charge by Apple.
It doesn't make much sense to worry about voiding an expired warranty, does it?
You do like sniping from the sidelines and you are too chicken to take a position but now you are too lazy to do the research so you are making false claims. Allow me to rub your nose in it:
"Apple, which introduced the iPod in 2001, received plenty of angry e-mail and negative publicity when the company first told customers to buy new iPods ($299 to $499) when their batteries failed. Apple said it would cost about $250, later lowered to $150, or half the price of a new iPod, to replace a battery. It since has lowered the price to $99"
Achilles' heel of MP3 players: batteries
by AMY SCHATZ
Cox News Service, 2005
source
Apple first stated that users should buy a new Ipod when the battery goes (that is why I first called the Ipod a disposable toy). Later it cost $250 to replace the battery - then $150, then $99. My statement was correct and once again you are wrong. Apple designed the battery to be hard-wired as in "not replaceable by the user". My statement was correct and once again you are wrong.
Clearly my statements are rooted in fact and you are a troll sniping from the sidelines.
That comment has nothing to do with the validity of my statement. My statement was and remains correct - your spin does not change the fact that opening the Ipod voids the warrenty.
Taken out of context, correct. Taken in context, woefully inapplicable to the discussion. You cannot correctly use "Opening it invalidates the warranty" in a discussion relating the need for opening the case to replace the battery, yet you did.
Funny, earlier I said EEPROM('s) are not Read-Only but they do funtion as Read-Only memory (you need to keep up). The application you site is one in which it is not used as Read-Only memory. When they are used as firmware they function as Read-Only memory. Keep up, I already addressed this issue. Within computer architecture, the bios is treated as Read-Only even if there are ways to change it.
And you can't change history. The debate was about whether or not Apple designed the Ipod for the user to change the battery. They did not - I was correct. I have no position on people playing McGiver and replacing their own batteries.
LVD, on the iPod:
#144: ...the ipod is an expensive disposable toy - when the battery goes you get to throw it away...
#150: Make that $200+ to replace the hard-wired battery...
#150: ...if you have any WMV files you are SOL
Then you must have skipped over the whole part about how the "ROM" in P/E/EEPROM has nothing to do with the read-only aspect of ROMs, only the ability to hold data without a current. So get over his "read-only" fetish you have. It doesn't apply.
The devices are technologically different and have no relation to each other except that they 1) hold data without current, and 2) reside on a chip. All of the uses and locations you describe with varying degrees of ease of writing have nothing to do with the issue, which is that a PROM is not just a programmable ROM, nor is an EPROM just an erasable PROM. A ROM cannot be made programmable, and a PROM cannot be made erasable -- they had to come up with completely new products with completely new technologies to accomplish that.
ROM != PROM != EPROM != EEPROM. EE/E/PROM is not a subset of the set ROM, EE/EPROM is not a subset of the set PROM, EEPROM is not a subset of the set EPROM, and none is derived from another. They are all distinctly different sets, although all are a subset of the set "chip that holds data without current."
You still haven't told me why we don't call an OTP EPROM a PROM, since the use is exactly the same.
Yes, you were correct. So why did you bring up the warranty thing?
Supporting evidence:
"Apple, which introduced the iPod in 2001, received plenty of angry e-mail and negative publicity when the company first told customers to buy new iPods ($299 to $499) when their batteries failed"
Achilles' heel of MP3 players: batteries
by AMY SCHATZ
Cox News Service, 2005
source
#150: Make that $200+ to replace the hard-wired battery...
Supporting evidence:
"Apple said it would cost about $250, later lowered to $150, or half the price of a new iPod, to replace a battery."
Achilles' heel of MP3 players: batteries
by AMY SCHATZ
Cox News Service, 2005
source
#150: ...if you have any WMV files you are SOL
Supporting evidence:
Apple iPod (40GB, 4th Generation) product specifications
Audio Formats: AAC, MP3, AIFF, WAV
source
Do you have a point or are you trying to help me prove all my statements were correct?
To support my position: Apple designed the Ipod battery to not be replaceable by the user.
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.