or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by afrodri

 Currently, no. But with some changes (bigger screen, split screen) it could satisfy at least some 'power' users. For me, I do a lot of code development, but I tend to compile & run the code on a remote server / cluster so I don't really need a lot of local processing or memory. I'd like a larger iPad to use as a 'dumb' terminal and save a bit of weight when on travel. Again, this is not everyone's use case (and is not even my only use case), but you asked why someone...
 So you can use your tablet more like a laptop/desktop. I generally have lots of applications running & visible on my laptop:  – terminal (remotely accessing a server)  – web browser (reading an API spec)  – email / message  – video (watching a movie in the background) If I could do this on a tablet, it would be handy. Of course, my use case is not the one everyone uses, but not everyone just wants one or two apps running.
You are correct that the size reduction is about the same, but the _impact_ of that size reduction is less. You almost never design a chip with all transistors at the minimum feature size. As we have moved to smaller process nodes the number of 'effective' transistors you can get and the potential power savings has been less than the minimum feature size would indicate. 
 While we certainly haven't hit the limit, we have reached a point of diminishing returns on the number of 'practical' transistors per chip and the impact this has on performance and power (i.e. the impact of moving form 90 to 65nm was far greater than 14 to 10nm will be). Already Moore's law seems to be slowing. For the practical limits of CMOS it is hard to say. Industry folks and the ITRS roadmap seem to get somewhat hazy after 5 or 7nm, though some might push it...
 No, The UBS report said Apple "...is favoring sole-sourcing for "many components." – "many components" implies more than one, "each component" would imply that all components are single source, which is not the case, nor has UBS said so.
 For many components, it is as simple as dissembling the watch and reading the logo on the side of the component. Other times you may have to decipher a part number on the package or even remove the chip's package and look at the silicon to know. Do this with enough watches and if you get the same supplier each time you can build up a statistical probability that they are the sole source.
Strange article. "Software without a firm release date is 'delayed' due to technical problems."   Pretty much every software project ends up taking longer than initial estimates. Particularly software which has to interact with dozens of often poorly defined protocols, random devices, and different partners.
 What, you don't add the customary 15% tip on your taxes???? /s
 Umm... definition #5 that you posted seems to indivate that "very unique" is acceptable. What were you trying to prove?
 Until Moore's Law runs out... :-)
New Posts  All Forums: