Sunday Shortbread

Eight is Enough

  1. Fudzilla: Intel to get into foundry business and

    Nvidia mobile chief Mike Rayfield resigns

  2. Ars Technica: Google blocked Acer’s rival phone to prevent Android “fragmentation”
  3. PCs no longer consume majority of DRAM chips: IHS iSuppli
  4. PCPer: AMD’s Radeon HD 7000 series graphics cards reportedly

    receiving price cuts soon (Update: AMD denies further price cuts)

  5. AllThingsD: Phil Schiller on why the iPhone 5 has a new connector but

    not NFC or wireless charging and Apple discontinues iPhone 3GS

  6. AnandTech on the iPhone 5’s A6 SoC: Not A15 or A9, a custom Apple core instead
  7. Samsung’s “It doesn’t take a genius” ad – Phandroid
  8. Ars Technica: Do Not Track support added to Chrome, arriving by the end of the year


Sunday

  1. Legit Reviews covers IDF 2012: Intel’s wireless charging technology
  2. ASRock’s Formula OC begins: World’s Intel “Ivy Bridge” overclocking record set

    and SK Hynix introduces DDR3L memory with reduced standby power consumption

  3. Breaking the SATA barrier: SATA Express and SFF-8639 connectors – AnandTech
  4. Engadget: DisplayLink shows off adapters and docks

    from hp, Lenovo, EVGA, and Targus at IDF 2012

  5. Google Maps show how we spent summer 2012

Mobile

  1. Android warning: 50% of devices need patching – InformationWeek
  2. All About Microsoft: Microsoft said to have finalized Windows Phone 8 OS
  3. Microsoft patent: How to silence your device by whacking it off – Patent Bolt
  4. Engadget: Microsoft announces new entertainment and

    game studio focused on Windows 8 tablet development

Software and gaming

  1. Adobe on Photoshop and Windows XP
  2. TNW: Google kills Internet Explorer 8 support in Google Apps
  3. Softpedia: Ubuntu GNOME Remix 12.10 Alpha 2 released
  4. Ars Technica’s hands-on with Windows Server 2012 Essentials
  5. Jagged Alliance Online is final
  6. Engadget: Valve taunts us with prospect of official Portal 2 sentry turret replica (video)

Hardware

  1. Technic3D reviews Shuttle XPC SX79R5 and SZ77R5 (in German)
  2. Rbmods on 60GB OCZ Agility 3 SSD
  3. KitGuru’s Sparkle GTX 650 OC Dragon series review
  4. TestFreaks review Crumpler CC 55 digital compact camera case
  5. NikKTech’s Sandberg pocket Bluetooth speaker review
  6. Techreaction’s Antec P280 case review
Comments closed
    • xeridea
    • 7 years ago

    If Apple is changing the connector on the iPhone, why don’t they just use the standard microUSB (or miniUSB, easily adapted), that virtually every other device of any kind use (not just phones), and you are going to have anyway? Oh yeah… they couldn’t charge everyone $30 for it, they would rather continue to inconvenience millions of users.

    • Voldenuit
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Adobe on Photoshop and Windows XP[/quote<] Interestingly, Adobe says that Photoshop CS6 does not support Vista, but my wife's Vista laptop runs it just fine. I haven't asked if the Blur Gallery and Lighting features work on it, though.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      “Does not support” and “does not run” are different things. Microsoft no longer supports Windows XP. Did it stop working?

      (Sadly no.)

        • BIF
        • 7 years ago

        I thought XP was “mostly” still under support for another year or two. ?

          • Meadows
          • 7 years ago

          No, it only receives critical security updates now and nothing else. (And if you’re a business customer, you can still have it supported but for a price.)

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Ars Technica: Google blocked Acer's rival phone to prevent Android "fragmentation" [/quote<] Google: "Here is an 'open source' OS for mobile devices. Feel free to do what you wish with it and use it. Just don't fork it or offer an alternative even if the alternative is open as well. We dictate what you will use and right now that is only our offering. Did we forget to tell you that we offer 'greater openness in the mobile ecosystem'."

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      yep.

      • jpostel
      • 7 years ago

      I am not really seeing anything in this that doesn’t make Google look bad.

        • designerfx
        • 7 years ago

        then you’re not reading the article.

        ars was one of the shoddy publishers who did not fact check.

        [url<]http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/technology/google-alibaba-acer-android-aliyun-china-292615.html[/url<] = real story. as covered by PJ of groklaw: [PJ: I rest my case. This, by the way, if confirmed raises the question: is Alibaba in violation of the GPL as well by not providing source or any way to know how to get it? See Red Hat's new counterclaim against Twin Peaks here. How did I know from the first headline this was what it turned out to be? Because I've analyzed the smear campaign against Google in some detail, so when a new "Google is evil" headline surfaces, I don't believe it until I see real evidence, and a single source in journalism isn't proof. That is particularly true in situations with a legal component. So I wrote nothing at all, until I could find out enough to figure out what was and wasn't true. Meanwhile, what I knew for sure was that Amazon is using a forked version of Android with no objections from anyone at Google. And that is because they are not members of the Open Handset Alliance, so there is no contract involved. They are free to do what they do. So I knew, absolutely knew, that there had to be more to this story, since Acer is free to do what Amazon is doing. When a headline doesn't make sense, you don't publish it as if it's true on the basis of a single source. Period. What made Woodward and Bernstein worthy of a Pulitzer was that they *never* published rumors, never published without two sources. It's what journalism is, trying to figure out what is as close to true as you can get. And that is what Epoch Times did -- check the story by having Chinese speakers validate one way or the other, and that is journalism.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      Except Google didn’t say anything like that in the article. Did you even read it? First, Acer willingly signed on to the Open Handset Alliance and if they wanted to make this Aliyun OS handset they could, they would just have to leave the alliance. Second, the Aliyun OS can run Android software but doesn’t meet the Android compatability program requirements, and it wouldn’t have Google Play access anyway so it would have been at a big disadvantage anyway. Acer wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

      Other companies have forked Android and are free to do so countrary to what you said. They just can’t be part of the voluntary OHA at the same time. Amazon is one example, and Acer isn’t Amazon – they don’t have the pull to make a successful go with their own forked Android.

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        That is what is wrong with it. They are dictating what they must offer. It isn’t like they were replacing Android, they were offering an additional option. Google isn’t respecting the freedom of choice.

        It isn’t even a case about if the alternative OS is open or not. Google should just rename it the Android Alliance as it has nothing to do with a handset is open or not.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 7 years ago

          Herpderp?

          [quote<]First, Acer willingly signed on to the Open Handset Alliance and if they wanted to make this Aliyun OS handset they could, they would just have to leave the alliance.[/quote<] The OHA is voluntary and not necessary to use Android source. Acer signed on to follow the rules of the alliance and then wanted to break those rules. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that. Just because you have a misperception about Android doesn't make it so. It's like any other business agreement that has terms and conditions. iOS devs sign are subject to an agreement as well, they can choose to follow it or choose to not develop for iOS. This reminds me in a way of people who rant about the evil, money-grubbing record labels who abuse artists...artists who willingly signed and wanted those record deals.

            • blastdoor
            • 7 years ago

            So what if Google decides to say that in order to be in the voluntary OHA, you can’t sell Windows Phone devices?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            That’s a hypothetical and different from what’s going on here.

            Aside from anti-competitive issues, companies probably would not join the alliance then and that would ultimately hurt Google which is why they don’t do that.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            the fact that its even BASED on android is not confirmed. google claims it is, alibaba says it isn’t. the real issue is the fact that people have uploaded google apps to the store, and so are infringing on google’s closed source code. the code for aliyun hasn’t been released yet, so google’s stance is really questionable, as the OHA is for ANDROID, and alibaba claims this is linux based. Google says they use the runtime, and so are too “androidy”. it’s a complicated situation.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            So if it uses part of Android, the runtime, they are still bound to the OHA agreement. If not, they aren’t?

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            that’s the confusing part. google thinks they are, acer/alibaba don’t. it doesn’t seem to be clear. it sounds like it supports the android runtime, but doesn’t necessarily need it. it’s not clear at this point.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            Well, at least that’s some useful information.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Lol, and that is completely hypocritical. “Offering another derived os is bad but offering a closed OS offering is OK”. Could you imagine if the linux foundation said “you can only be a partner if you only offer linux support and not support any other open platform.”

            Google is a wolf in sheeps clothing. At least with MS you are dealing with the devil you know and with Apple they dictate what is done with their own product.

            “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” fully applies here.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 7 years ago

            It’s not hypocritical, that would be something like Google making their own custom forks but not letting anyone else do so – I don’t think you know what hypocritical means based on your example. Google has no say on those other operating systems that aren’t related to Android, however this one is, or may be. Allowing alliance members to use other OSes on other devices is merely Google not dictating how to run their entire business which the companies would balk at anyway, and would lead to fewer members in the alliance ultimately harming Google.

            It is expecting companies to abide by the guidelines of industry alliances they voluntarily enter. If it’s such a bad agreement why are so many companies part of it? If Acer found the terms to be too onerous they could leave the alliance and [i<]still use the Android source[/i<] like Amazon has done. Being able to do whatever they want with the source regardless of being in the alliance is pretty open. To put it another way [b<]Google is not limiting what anyone does with the Android source, only what members of a voluntary alliance do.[/b<] The only thing I can figure is 1) you hate Google (we know you love Apple) and 2) Following agreements doesn't mean much to you.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Google is not limiting what anyone does with the Android source, only what members of a voluntary alliance do.[/quote<] Not limiting anyone except supporters. Sorry but that is hypocracy at it's very definition.

            • blastdoor
            • 7 years ago

            Yup. Anyone who supports android out of some ideological preference for “openness” is going to be f-d in the azz by google, and they deserve to be.

            For google, “open” is just marketing, like the whole “don’t be evil” schtick.

    • green
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Intel to get into foundry business and[/quote<] i'd say this has been planned for a while intel has a lot of fabs. when they start transitioning over to 450mm wafers they should get a fair bit of spare capacity. after all, intel only has so many customers. they'd either need to drop their prices (and make it up in volume), or find another way to make use of the extra capacity generated by the large wafers. 450mm wafers are still a ways out. pretty sure i saw something say it was push back to 2018 (from 2015). but i'm pretty sure intel will want to start the groundwork for it soon er rather than later. i just hope tsmc and global foundaries can catchup to intel's shrinks. so far intel has basically relied on being ahead in process node as opposed to efficient design. it's not to say their chips aren't fairly efficient, but that they could be doing better. at least one thing that came out of idf at least was the improved fine-grained voltage regulation. by the sounds of it the on-package vrm's they demo'd 7 years ago will be making their debut around 8 years on: [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/1770[/url<] [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6263/intel-haswell-architecture-disclosure-live-blog[/url<]

      • Rza79
      • 7 years ago

      Fuad is running behind facts again because Intel is already in the foundry business (albeit for not too long). Netronome, Achronix and Tabula are already foundry customers.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        [b<]Well[/b<] behind... more than usual. Achronix has talked about this almost two years ago: [url<]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4210263/Intel-to-fab-FPGAs-for-startup-Achronix[/url<] (EDIT: found an earlier link)

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          [url<]http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4236569/Intel-confirmed-as-foundry-for-second-FPGA-startup[/url<] " In October 2010, Achronix Semiconductor Corp. announced that Intel would build its 22-nm FPGAs. " So it seem Intel had manufacturing contracts since 2010...

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            yes, apparently

    • JohnC
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<] Engadget: Valve taunts us with prospect of official Portal 2 sentry turret replica (video) [/quote<] It looks like it's a decoration for Valve's own offices and it's highly unlikely it will be available for sale, especially considering that such things (Valve-approved Portal sentry models) are already being made and sold by [url<]https://www.gamingheads.com[/url<] (though their models are much smaller and less interactive).

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      I hope they have their turret replica’s hooked up to a PC just during development. Controllers for items like these are dead easy to make or alternatively use something like a Raspberry Pi (which in itself is overkill).

    • MadManOriginal
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]III.Microsoft patent: How to silence your device by whacking it off - Patent Bolt[/quote<] NOW we know why SSK loves Windows Phone so much! ...aaand first.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah, I can’t believe they used that phrase in connection with a device that many consider e-peen…

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 7 years ago

      Everyone, do the right thing. Don’t look. No matter how much noise they make. No matter how long they take. Just don’t look.

      • ULYXX
      • 7 years ago

      Im surprised we havent heard anything from him about this comment, yet.

        • dpaus
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]we havent heard anything from him...[/quote<] Maybe his beloved Windows Phone returned the favor and silenced him?

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          no, been to busy today. i have a group of kids i instruct sunday mornings. Yes, it’s true, i teach non-denominational/religion specific childrens classes. just talk about virtues and stuff. it’s pretty fun. anyway, I lolirl at MMO’s post. now we know why he’s ordering a 920!

      • designerfx
      • 7 years ago

      seems like a patent on breaking your devices – can you imagine how much harder than intended someone might hit their devices?

      • CuttinHobo
      • 7 years ago

      Definitely poorly worded, (or properly worded for getting lots of traffic!), but I like the idea of giving a pocket a quick slap if the phone rings a an inopportune time. Faster than digging for it and finding a button.

      +1 for the ability to “whack off” in public without getting arrested!

      • TheMonkeyKing
      • 7 years ago

      First…let’s get the Beavis and Butthead out of the way…

      Uhhh huhhuh huuuh. He said “wacking it off.” Huuuhhh huh huhhh huhh

      Don’t we already have an alarm clock that shuts off when it experiences impact? Oh yeah, right here:

      [url<]http://www.tennisgifts.com/alarmclock_throw.htm[/url<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This