Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 64

Thread: Canonical Lowers Ubuntu Edge Pricing

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDF420 View Post
    Its weird the Nvidia site for razer edge pro says NVIDIA GT 640M LE (2GB DDR3, Optimus Technology)

    however the GT 640M LE specs are Memory Size:2048 MB Memory Type: GDDR5 Memory Bus: 128 bit Bandwidth: 50.2 GB/s
    One is built for a phone, the second built for laptops.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akincer View Post
    Unless Canonical makes a strategic shift, you will NEVER be able to get one on a carrier subsidy. They are only making a limited number and will ship directly to consumers. This is your only guaranteed way to get one. They have indicated they MIGHT do this again in the future if the effort is successful, but no guarantees.
    That's for the initial prototype. If they actually want to go mainstream, guess how common folk usually buys a phone.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by akincer View Post
    And I know people that have destroyed many laptops due to dropping, spilling drinks and lots of other unexplained damage.

    "No, I don't know how that screen got shattered."
    "You mean I shouldn't spray Windex directly onto the keyboard?"

    Yes, I've heard those and many like them quite a few times.
    Yes, so what? No one claimed laptops are indestructible or anything. People manage to break things, that's not news and it's beside the point. Do you dispute the fact that phones, which fit in your pocket, get lost/stolen much easier than laptops? Not to mention desktops computers? Especially, desktop computers that never leave your home?

    And if you are terribly worried about data loss, you can back your data up to a hard drive at night with an Ubuntu phone.
    But that only solves one problem and, it doesn't get you any kind of advantage vs. having an actual desktop computer in which that hard drive is connected to. Even so, if your phone gets lost, you then have... a hard drive. Can you use the hard drive to connect online or to run your daily business and errands? No, it's just a hard drive, and until you get a new phone or computer to connect it into, it's useless.

    Someone doing something extremely CPU intensive is probably not a good candidate for a product like this. I don't think they're trying to market it as a replacement for ALL desktops. But some? Absolutely. The only question is to what extent the candidates for replacement extend.
    But why would you want to use your phone specifically as a desktop replacement (or even a tablet)? To really do desktop computing, you need at least a screen, a keyboard, and preferably also a mouse. Let's say you get all those things, and then you need a CPU to connect them to. You could use your phone, in which case you also probably need a dock for your phone, and then you have to choose if you want to use a phone or your computer, and you have to go through the trouble of switching it between these two modes. Or, you can just get some kind of cheap minidesktop that probably costs less than your fancy "convergence phone", and just use that for your desktop CPU, and use your phone as a phone, and then you get to use them both at the same time, and you get all the benefits of "convergence" with none of the drawbacks.

    That's the problem there, I can't really see a situation where this "convergence phone" would be advantageous.

    I have. For whatever reason you've tried (terribly) to say they aren't good reasons. I could introduce you to quite a few people I know that would LOVE to have a true convergent device that would fit their computing needs. And they don't do anything CPU intensive. These are very stereotypical people I'm talking about, so I know they aren't anomalies. What percentage of end users to they represent? 5%? 10%? I don't know, but once we have a device that fits the bill, we'll find out.
    Well, it's already been tried, several times, and it just hasn't taken off. And no, I haven't really heard any good reasons. You've given reasons why it could, in some cases, work as well as having a separate desktop + phone. But I haven't seen a single advantage, what good is this convergence for? What specific need does it fulfill?

    It's probably worth pointing out that people thought the Galaxy Note would never sell. You sound a lot like those people in your arguments.
    And it's probably worth pointing out that people thought virtual reality and voice-control UI would become the next big thing. They never did. It's easy to point at innovations that have made it big, because we tend to forget all the bad ideas that didn't make it. And it's understandable, because... well, they're bad ideas, they didn't make it, they came and went - and we're more excited about the next big hype. Yet, it's good to bear in mind that not every innovation is a success. Sometimes it's because it's ahead of its time, sometimes it's because it's just executed poorly at first (and it may succeed when someone does it again properly), and sometimes, it's just a plain bad idea that doesn't work.

    So what category is phone/desktop convergence? Remains to be seen, maybe it will be feasible sometime in the future. Maybe if consumer CPUs become small and powerful enough that even workstation-grade CPUs can fit inside your fingernail, and at that point it wouldn't matter where the CPU is - maybe it's even implanted under your skin and it just transmits the UI to a touchscreen that basically acts as a dumb terminal. Or maybe there will be nanomachines floating around all over the atmosphere, providing us with all the distributed computing power we'll ever need - streamed straight to our brains, if needed.

    However, I very much doubt it will be succesful today or in the next few years.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    What's the difference? SSD's use flash memory anyway.
    Terminology usage, mostly... it might not be a strict definition, but "SSD" usually implies a physically separate unit, even if the chips are the same ones that would be used onboard...

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Terminology usage, mostly... it might not be a strict definition, but "SSD" usually implies a physically separate unit, even if the chips are the same ones that would be used onboard...
    And onboard means harder migration in the future. Which is a non-problem if your phone is just meant to be your phone, but if it's supposed to be your main computing platform, this is a problem. So, it's said if it will be an SSD or a flash? Or all versions are just assumptions?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    And it's probably worth pointing out that people thought virtual reality and voice-control UI would become the next big thing. They never did. It's easy to point at innovations that have made it big, because we tend to forget all the bad ideas that didn't make it. And it's understandable, because... well, they're bad ideas, they didn't make it, they came and went - and we're more excited about the next big hype. Yet, it's good to bear in mind that not every innovation is a success. Sometimes it's because it's ahead of its time, sometimes it's because it's just executed poorly at first (and it may succeed when someone does it again properly), and sometimes, it's just a plain bad idea that doesn't work.
    Or for another example, touch-oriented interfaces. They work great on mobile devices like tablets and phones, and for specialized things like info kiosks, but every now and then, someone has another go at pushing it for desktop hardware. And that really doesn't work very well, because people quickly find that their arms get sore after a few minutes of use...

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Terminology usage, mostly... it might not be a strict definition, but "SSD" usually implies a physically separate unit, even if the chips are the same ones that would be used onboard...
    To me, SSD means a fast flash based disk whereas flash based storage to me would mean something along the lines of under 30MB/sec

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caledar View Post
    To me, SSD means a fast flash based disk whereas flash based storage to me would mean something along the lines of under 30MB/sec
    That's not the definiton of a SSD and there's no reason on board flash can't be faster than a SSD (in fact it's the other way around as a SSD is glued to SATA, so you can't go faster than the SATA bus speed).

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAXI View Post
    in fact it's the other way around as a SSD is glued to SATA, so you can't go faster than the SATA bus speed
    Not necessarily... the term SSD also is applied to devices that attach directly to the PCI bus, bypassing traditional drive controllers. They're horribly expensive, though...

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    tl;dr;
    It's pretty clear that you just don't see the value in convergence. That's fine. I do. So does my wife. So do other people I know. You don't *have* to buy convergent device. The market will decide since that's all that really matters anyway. Whether or not it makes sense to you is totally immaterial.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •