Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TechEBlog)   Apple: "Wait, you mean people can charge their iPhones with an iPod cable? We need to end that"   (techeblog.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, iPhones, ipod cables, PC World  
•       •       •

12877 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:02 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-28 05:26:09 PM  

Dinjiin: And 640KB is enough memory for any desktop, right? You personally may not see a need for more than 16GB, but that doesn't mean others will share that feeling. If you use your smartphone more like a PDA or portable media player, you're going to chew through storage fairly quickly.


The infamous 640K thing was built into the PC architecture, and there was no way to change this without breaking compatibility with everything else that had been made for the PC. If you don't want the 16GB limit, get a 32 or 64GB model -- there is nothing, technologically, preventing this.

I understand your sentiment, but comparing it to the early x86 640K limit is misleading at best.
 
2012-02-28 07:17:27 PM  
BohemianGraham: I know there are others who require more storage, that's why they shouldn't buy a freaking iPhone if they require more than the maximum storage capacity the phone comes in.

You appeared to imply that people who required more than 16GB of storage on their phone were crazy because it was just a phone. I was simply saying that some people might need more storage and that you should never underestimate the amount that people may utilize, especially in the future. I agree that people who probably need more storage are wrong to purchase devices with fixed amounts of non-removable storage.


BohemianGraham: As for my music, you assume wrong. My music is a mixture of lossy and lossless, in a wide varieties of formats. It's a collection I've built up over 15 years.

I know I'm stating the obvious, but that's a farkton of music.


theurge14: That's why they kept (keep?) the iPod Classic line around, for those out there who need to keep their entire media collection on them at all times. That way they can still please the dwindling amount of customers out there who demand more than the 64GB offering they have on the largest iPhone 4S without having to subject everyone else to having to make room for a removable drive on everyone else's devices.

I don't think that customer demand for capacities over 64GB is going down. Instead, the trend for customers to move to a single device for all their needs is going up, and that has been taking precedence. Plus, the ability to swap media somewhat sidesteps the lower capacity of flash cards. But I agree in that you are right about manufacturers not installing microdrives in a standard sized smartphone because of size contraints. I am rather surprised, however, that the new Samsung Galaxy Note didn't come with a microdrive option.


Thrakkerzog: The infamous 640K thing was built into the PC architecture ... I understand your sentiment, but comparing it to the early x86 640K limit is misleading at best.

You're reading too deep into it. I used the misquote* because it is folly to suggest that any amount of storage is ever enough for the foreseeable future. I was getting the impression from BohemianGraham that he thought it silly that you'd need more than 16GB for a smartphone.


/* Gates denied ever saying it
 
2012-02-28 08:08:51 PM  

Dinjiin: BohemianGraham: I know there are others who require more storage, that's why they shouldn't buy a freaking iPhone if they require more than the maximum storage capacity the phone comes in.

You appeared to imply that people who required more than 16GB of storage on their phone were crazy because it was just a phone. I was simply saying that some people might need more storage and that you should never underestimate the amount that people may utilize, especially in the future. I agree that people who probably need more storage are wrong to purchase devices with fixed amounts of non-removable storage.


BohemianGraham: As for my music, you assume wrong. My music is a mixture of lossy and lossless, in a wide varieties of formats. It's a collection I've built up over 15 years.

I know I'm stating the obvious, but that's a farkton of music.


theurge14: That's why they kept (keep?) the iPod Classic line around, for those out there who need to keep their entire media collection on them at all times. That way they can still please the dwindling amount of customers out there who demand more than the 64GB offering they have on the largest iPhone 4S without having to subject everyone else to having to make room for a removable drive on everyone else's devices.

I don't think that customer demand for capacities over 64GB is going down. Instead, the trend for customers to move to a single device for all their needs is going up, and that has been taking precedence. Plus, the ability to swap media somewhat sidesteps the lower capacity of flash cards. But I agree in that you are right about manufacturers not installing microdrives in a standard sized smartphone because of size contraints. I am rather surprised, however, that the new Samsung Galaxy Note didn't come with a microdrive option.


Thrakkerzog: The infamous 640K thing was built into the PC architecture ... I understand your sentiment, but comparing it to the early x86 640K limit is misleading at best.

You're reading too deep into it. I used the misquote* because it is folly to suggest that any amount of storage is ever enough for the foreseeable future. I was getting the impression from BohemianGraham that he thought it silly that you'd need more than 16GB for a smartphone.


/* Gates denied ever saying it


And phones do not cost $5k like the 8088s did.

Most people don't give a rats ass about external storage these days, especially given the networking capabilities of modern phones.
 
2012-02-28 08:24:35 PM  

Dinjiin: BohemianGraham: I know there are others who require more storage, that's why they shouldn't buy a freaking iPhone if they require more than the maximum storage capacity the phone comes in.

You appeared to imply that people who required more than 16GB of storage on their phone were crazy because it was just a phone. I was simply saying that some people might need more storage and that you should never underestimate the amount that people may utilize, especially in the future. I agree that people who probably need more storage are wrong to purchase devices with fixed amounts of non-removable storage.


BohemianGraham: As for my music, you assume wrong. My music is a mixture of lossy and lossless, in a wide varieties of formats. It's a collection I've built up over 15 years.

I know I'm stating the obvious, but that's a farkton of music.


theurge14: That's why they kept (keep?) the iPod Classic line around, for those out there who need to keep their entire media collection on them at all times. That way they can still please the dwindling amount of customers out there who demand more than the 64GB offering they have on the largest iPhone 4S without having to subject everyone else to having to make room for a removable drive on everyone else's devices.

I don't think that customer demand for capacities over 64GB is going down. Instead, the trend for customers to move to a single device for all their needs is going up, and that has been taking precedence. Plus, the ability to swap media somewhat sidesteps the lower capacity of flash cards. But I agree in that you are right about manufacturers not installing microdrives in a standard sized smartphone because of size contraints. I am rather surprised, however, that the new Samsung Galaxy Note didn't come with a microdrive option.


Thrakkerzog: The infamous 640K thing was built into the PC architecture ... I understand your sentiment, but comparing it to the early x86 640K limit is misleading at best.

You're readi ...


I'm a girl. Also, I think that people should focus more on their phone being able to make phone calls, and storage should be a secondary concern.

I think that microdrives would cause more problems, because I remember having a microdrive based MP3 player as my first player, and it couldn't handle the use and abuse most people put their phones through.
 
2012-02-28 08:43:39 PM  

Thrakkerzog: Most people don't give a rats ass about external storage these days, especially given the networking capabilities of modern phones.


I sort of wonder if massive availability of digital music and the slow extinction of the unlimited wireless data plan is going to change that. I guess there's always wi-fi?
 
2012-02-29 03:14:48 AM  
Thrakkerzog: And phones do not cost $5k like the 8088s did.

The i8080 never cost $5000. Maybe you meant the systems they went into, and even then, you're a few thousand off.

Besides, what's your point? The Intel engineer who lead the decision to use 16 byte segment offsets in the i8086 has already stated that in hindsight that it was a shortsighted decision. Had they used larger 256 byte segment offsets, the i8086 would have had a sixteen-fold increase in address space for only a marginal increase in die size and cost. The upper four address lines would have been unavailable in a standard DIP40 package, but would have been exposed in a DIP48 (or larger) package, which didn't cost much more. The main cost would have been extending an additional four address lines across the motherboard and peripheral slots, but again, that'd be a fraction of the total system cost.

Instead of "who needs more than 640KB?", it would have been "here's 16MB - go broke trying to fill it".


Thrakkerzog: Most people don't give a rats ass about external internal storage these days, especially given the networking capabilities of modern phones.

That's not true at all. Hitting the home DLNA or SMB server to stream media over Wi-Fi takes a huge hit on battery life. Same goes for hitting a cloud service over a 3G or 3.5G cellular network. Not to mention the cellular network charges you'll need to manage if you hit your cloud service hard. It is a heck of a lot easier to just pop a microSD card into your PC's reader and copy the files over.


BohemianGraham: I think that people should focus more on their phone being able to make phone calls

It isn't difficult to manage your battery life with a modern smartphone. If you do plan to hit the battery hard, just keep a charged spare on your person. If that's too difficult to manage, they make mobile phones for seniors that have limited features.


BohemianGraham: I think that microdrives would cause more problems, because I remember having a microdrive based MP3 player as my first player, and it couldn't handle the use and abuse most people put their phones through.

It would depend on how much more impact resistant and reliable the latest generation of 1" and 1.8" SATA drives are over their older ZIF counterparts. But you do bring up a really good point.
 
2012-02-29 04:46:58 AM  

Dinjiin: Thrakkerzog: And phones do not cost $5k like the 8088s did.

The i8080 never cost $5000. Maybe you meant the systems they went into, and even then, you're a few thousand off.

Besides, what's your point? The Intel engineer who lead the decision to use 16 byte segment offsets in the i8086 has already stated that in hindsight that it was a shortsighted decision. Had they used larger 256 byte segment offsets, the i8086 would have had a sixteen-fold increase in address space for only a marginal increase in die size and cost. The upper four address lines would have been unavailable in a standard DIP40 package, but would have been exposed in a DIP48 (or larger) package, which didn't cost much more. The main cost would have been extending an additional four address lines across the motherboard and peripheral slots, but again, that'd be a fraction of the total system cost.

Instead of "who needs more than 640KB?", it would have been "here's 16MB - go broke trying to fill it".


Thrakkerzog: Most people don't give a rats ass about external internal storage these days, especially given the networking capabilities of modern phones.

That's not true at all. Hitting the home DLNA or SMB server to stream media over Wi-Fi takes a huge hit on battery life. Same goes for hitting a cloud service over a 3G or 3.5G cellular network. Not to mention the cellular network charges you'll need to manage if you hit your cloud service hard. It is a heck of a lot easier to just pop a microSD card into your PC's reader and copy the files over.


BohemianGraham: I think that people should focus more on their phone being able to make phone calls

It isn't difficult to manage your battery life with a modern smartphone. If you do plan to hit the battery hard, just keep a charged spare on your person. If that's too difficult to manage, they make mobile phones for seniors that have limited features.



BohemianGraham: I think that microdrives would cause more problems, because I remember hav ...


You missed the point, but whatever. Battery isn't the issue I was talking about with the phone. It's great smartphones can do all this shiat, but can they actually make phone calls, hear the other person on the other end, and hold a signal? Or are people more interested in the other shiny features, and get a phone that you can barely make calls on. This can be due to the quality of the phone/and or what service provider you go with. If you're only buying a phone because SHINY!, without researching, you're choosing poorly.

Also, popping in and out MicroSDs aren't always ideal either, especially if they're in an awkward spot on the device. It's really no simpler than taking a USB cable and plugging it into your computer. Heck, some devices will even let you move stuff to the MicroSD via your computer too, because some machines don't have card readers, or they don't always work right.

As far as your home use, and going on about rapid battery discharge via streaming, wouldn't people, you know, plug their devices in if they were planning on using them a long time, in a dock of some sorts, and/or plug them in when they were done? Also, as far as I'm concerned, I'm pretty sure most people would watch streaming content on a proper sized screen, or perhaps dock their phone and hook it up to that proper sized screen.

A lot of phones are also coming with data capping features you can adjust yourself. The Galaxy Nexus, which again, doesn't have expandable storage, has this feature, so it will shut off cellular data if you hit your cap.

Again, as you pointed out to me several posts ago, people use their phones differently. You keep trying to enforce how you use your phone onto people, and imply that they are "senior citizens" because they use a phone different than you do.
 
2012-02-29 08:21:35 AM  

Dinjiin: Thrakkerzog: And phones do not cost $5k like the 8088s did.

The i8080 never cost $5000. Maybe you meant the systems they went into, and even then, you're a few thousand off.

Besides, what's your point? The Intel engineer who lead the decision to use 16 byte segment offsets in the i8086 has already stated that in hindsight that it was a shortsighted decision. Had they used larger 256 byte segment offsets, the i8086 would have had a sixteen-fold increase in address space for only a marginal increase in die size and cost. The upper four address lines would have been unavailable in a standard DIP40 package, but would have been exposed in a DIP48 (or larger) package, which didn't cost much more. The main cost would have been extending an additional four address lines across the motherboard and peripheral slots, but again, that'd be a fraction of the total system cost.

Instead of "who needs more than 640KB?", it would have been "here's 16MB - go broke trying to fill it".


Your memory is off. Early 8088 systems were in the $4-6K ballpark. Clearly I'm not speaking of just the CPU; I don't think that you could even purchase them as components.

My point still stands. You're suggesting that the size of the hard drive is similar to the architectural limit of the 640K base memory which is set in stone and can't be changed in future models while remaining compatible.

Dinjiin: That's not true at all. Hitting the home DLNA or SMB server to stream media over Wi-Fi takes a huge hit on battery life. Same goes for hitting a cloud service over a 3G or 3.5G cellular network. Not to mention the cellular network charges you'll need to manage if you hit your cloud service hard. It is a heck of a lot easier to just pop a microSD card into your PC's reader and copy the files over.


Or, if you're home, just plug the phone in. Also, streaming audio data doesn't use as much WiFi as you think -- the audio is all buffered into memory and then the radio is pretty much idle. Video uses more simply because of the limitation on RAM.

And, when you're talking about video, the screen uses as much or more battery as the wireless.
 
2012-02-29 09:02:00 AM  
I should be clear. I'm speaking of the XT 5160 with the price up there. The price included 640K of RAM.
 
Displayed 9 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report