or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by afrodri

The thing that struck me was the prediction of 17 Million QNX-based systems. Is someone one other than RIM building QNX-based systems? Have Playbook sales really been that good this year to justify projections of 2.6M?
Are we reading the same stock symbol? RIMM's price nosedived in 2008 and has been dropping ever since, even in years when their sales went up. It seems like Wall Street realized that they were in trouble and has really given up in the last year or so.
I'd be wary of IDC. They also recently announced that x86 is going to overtake ARM in the embedded space: "According to IDC's figures, ARM had 71 per cent of the processors in embedded systems last year, but by 2016 this share will nearly halve to 38 per cent. By contrast, x86 systems, which currently have 8 per cent of the market, will grow to 41 per cent..."While its not impossible that ARM will overtake x86 for non-embedded systems, and x86 to simultaneously overtake...
Yes, a server would be. But, there are still some of us who miss our Mac Servers - they had a lot of nice things going for them. And an ARM-based server has much to recommend it (lower power, high density, etc...). Unlike the consumer space, recompiling for a new architecture (ARM vs x86) is not as much of an issue. The biggest problem for such a server (right now) is that ARM is currently 32-bit, which limits its effectiveness in many areas. This should be changing over...
Perhaps from the >$20B annual profit they seem to be managing. And their revenue overall is not declining: 2009: $58B 2010: $62B 2011: $69B Their profit has also increased over this time frame. (source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual). A 18% revenue increase over two years (when the world economy is still not very strong) is nothing to scoff at. So, don't count them out just yet. They do not have a clear strategy, but a pretty huge war chest and a steady...
Because they are measuring at different points, after stressing the processor in different ways and with the iPad in different positions. In all the cases (even the CR test) the qualitative result was the same - its warmer, but not too bad.
I'm a little confused as the anger directed at CR for this article. All they did was point out that the new iPad gets warmer than the iPad 2 (something which others have reported and which is really not surprising) and they specifically said :and Why is everyone getting defensive?They said it is warmer, but that's not a big deal, and overall it is a great device. This is bad?
There is more to a computer than the processor. Apple increased the DRAM, the display, and the battery, so the device as a whole (the computer) dissipates more power, even if some individual components consume less power.
Intel has made some vague pronouncements on this, but they are far from being a turnkey fab like TSMC or Global. From what I've seen, they've opened up to some FPGA makers, but doing that is common for fabs to fine-tune their fab line (nice regular structures to test new fab processes on). The margins on fab-for-hire are much lower than if you design the chip as well. Intel will be wary against giving that up, and they certainly don't want to do it for an architecture...
I'd also add the larger potential DRAM capacity of the current Pro over the Air. Having the option to get 8GB is very nice and makes a laptop a feasible development platform, 4GB gets a little tight at times.
New Posts  All Forums: