Yay
More supply chain issues to worry about.
217 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Feb 2007
Maybe I'm being really thick (which wouldn't surprise me given how ill I am at the moment), but I'm not sure your figures are right.
Your calculation appears to be: 51678.72 * 47 / 1000000 = 2.429MB
So this is in fact assuming 1 byte per colour, not one bit - Which makes more sense given you previously stated a colour depth of 8. Although it's not clear if that is a depth of 8 bits or a depth of 8 colours.
That aside, shouldn't the calculation be: 51678.72 * 47 * 47 / 1000000 = 114.16MB?
The resolution is 47 dots per inch and therefore 2209 dots per square inch.
If there was a need for this kind of crap, we'd have it by now. What is the point in controlling/monitoring your washing machine/dishwasher remotely when you still have to walk up to it to put the clothes/dishes in and take them out?
In any case, what on earth does an x86 bring to this application that a much cheaper, much simpler ARM7/ARM9/Cortex-M3 does not? Hell, a 6502 would be more than adequate in most cases!
..the hell Android went down the whole Java/Dalvik route in the first place is beyond me. If app developers are willing to write for the iPhone using the train crash that is Objective C, they are clearly willing to write in anything. In that case maybe Android should move towards properly supporting Google's own Go programming language, especially given that mobile phone processors are becoming increasingly multi-cored. Put those processor cycles and amp hours to proper use instead of wasting them on crappy VM shenanigans!
Since when has it not been a given that NAND Flash is inherently unreliable?
That's the trade-off between NAND vs. NOR Flash - High density, low cost, low reliability vs low density, high cost, high reliability.
ECC and wear-leveling can only go so far and it'll probably be a long time before a NAND flash chip can take the same hammering as a hard-drive. Who knows, maybe memristors will take off before then.
Is the technology fast enough to provide a responsive UI and do video, like Qualcomm's Mirasol display tech?
I'm personally looking forward to e-ink type tablets appearing on the market (preferably running Android) so that I can have all the advantages of a non-retina-burning e-book reader combined with the more fun aspects of a tablet device (video, apps, *decent* annotation and web browsing capabilities).
Why do we still rely on carbon copy paper? Surely this dates back to a time of no printers, or printers which were too slow to print everything out twice. Is there some antiquated law which dictates that carbon copy paper must still be used for certain things? If so, it's about time it was rescinded.
I suppose there is the case where you might require two copies of one signature. But then there has been plenty of times when I've had to sign certain paperwork multiple times.
The reality is, the only viable long-term solution to our energy problems is nuclear fusion. In the meantime, we may as well convert our transport infrastructure to all electric so we're ready when the reactors finally come online.
My preferred vision of the future is for vehicles to use electric motors, running from hydrogen fuel cells, generated by electrolysis powered by nuclear fusion.
..who is bothered about reading things on an LCD for any extended period of time? I'm sure the iPad is incredibly responsive and can do all sorts of wonderful things, but one thing I would prefer it would not do is burn the image of whatever I'm reading into my retinas.
E-book readers are not supposed to be personal organizer, app running, music playing, multimedia extravaganzas, they're supposed to be the electronic equivalent of a BOOK! These things should be dirt cheap, as simple as possible and not bound to any lame subscription services. Unless OEMs and display patent holds grasp this, I'm sad to say the standalone e-book reader market has no future.
...usually has something to hide.
And why Intel feels the need to spread its 'platform' across multiple chips, when most ARM implementers manage to cram most functionality into a single SoC, goodness only knows. It makes sense to do this in PCs and laptops where power dissipation and modularity might be an issue, but not in a smart phone. An SoC results in a far simpler (cheaper) PCB layout, fewer solder joints and higher reliability given the dubious techniques used to mass produce mobile phone hardware.
Don't get me wrong, I quite like the Intel Atom, but it has its place. Has to be said, as a designer of ARM-based hardware, I'm a bit biased though.
There seem to be some conflicting messages regarding the new GUI look and feel. Some bloggers claim the new theme will be similar to Windows's Aero, citing Gnome 3 (which is no where near release yet) and RGBA enhancements, this article suggests it will be 'more agreeably blue and Windows and Mac like'. Yet, as far as I can tell Lucid will ship with Gnome 2 and the default Gnome/GTK+ theme is going to be some sort of dull gray monstrosity. What am I missing here?
'If iPad users do decide e-ink is unnecessary for reading books then we can expect to see everyone dropping the technology pretty quickly'
Contrary to what some people believe, the world doesn't actually revolve around Apple. If people did not have a problem reading from TFT/OLED displays for long periods, e-paper technologies would not have got as far as they already have.
Various manufacturers have been developing colour e-paper displays and several are almost ready for prime-time, so they're not far off. With the number of organisations jumping on the band wagon, this class of technology is clearly not disappearing any time soon.
The same can't be said for tablet computers. It seems to me, what with Steve Job's unjustified and nonsensical netbook bashing, that actually Apple are scraping the barrel for a way to justify the iPad's existence. The technologies needed to develop a tablet computer or TFT e-reader have been around for years now. They'd have taken off ages ago if anyone had really wanted/needed them.
Do you think Apple keep confusing the U.S. patent office for the FCC? This looks more like a product registration than a bloody patent!
I don't see anything remotely innovative or non-obvious in that patent application... I bet it still gets granted though. Good old U.S. patent system.
I find the whole idea of the iPad being touted as an e-reader laughable. I thought the point of an e-reader is that it is easy on the eye (which neither OLED nor TFT are for any prolonged period), has an ultra-long battery life and can be read easily in outdoor lighting conditions.
Trying to force the iPad onto us as an e-reader just seems like a desperate attempt to find an application for an otherwise pointless device. I just hope tablet computers don't inadvertently destroy the market for proper e-ink based readers.
Given that there is rarely any need for a touchscreen to be anything but rectangular, I think it is fairly safe to assume most touchscreen devices are going to look like a rectangular screen in a box. They all look the same!
Now if 'Shenzhen Great Loong Brother' had developed XP and for some inexplicably insane reason Apple had decided that XP's UI was worth ripping off, then they might have had a case. Of course SGLB didn't develop XP and Apple didn't rip it off, so this is all nonsense.
I don't really see how pushing 10-inch netbooks downmarker will fend off ARM based systems. Firstly ARM-based motherboards will be cheaper anyway as they will require less components (ARM SoCs tend to be highly intergrated, more so than Intel's current offerings, as far as I can tell).
What's more, there are already several off-the-shelf ARM SoCs capable of driving HD displays with decent 3D acceleration on top of that (e.g TI's OMAP3 and OMAP4 Cortex-A8/A9 based families), so that's not a barrier either.
Because ARM-based systems draw less power than Atom-based systems, manufacturers can either advertise longer-battery life, or match that of Atom-based systems and save money by using smaller batteries.
I don't think the move to 12in has anything to do with fending off ARM. Its not clear what benefit manufacturers would get from doing that anyway. The only company to gain from fending off any ARM based system is Intel.
I think the problem there isn't just limited to Firefox. With compiz, clutter and pretty reasonable graphics card drivers, Linux has loads of potential for implementing really flashy, modern UIs/desktops these days. Yet the default themes used by most distros still look very plasticy and dated. Given the average non-techie user thinks of an operating system as just the pretty bits you see on the screen, the current ugliness of Linux isn't really helping its uptake amongst general consumers.
I do not understand why car manufacturers are so hell-bent on making all these leccy cars look as unappealing as possible? Okay, there's the Wrightspeed X1 and the Tesla Roadster, but they're not exactly family 5-door.
I say it is all a conspiracy funded by the fossil fuel industry! Make the cars ugly, hurt uptake, keep us at the pumps for as long as possible.