[geeks] Microsoft Surface...
lionel4287 at verizon.net
Mon Jun 4 15:52:15 CDT 2007
>From: Mark <md.benson at gmail.com>
>Date: 2007/06/04 Mon PM 01:49:09 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Microsoft Surface...
>On 3 Jun 2007, at 21:20, William Kirkland wrote:
>> Sun also has a much better tendency to invent rather than acquire
>If anything Sun are way better at it than Apple even. They tend to
>forge alliances to innovate and (unlike Apple and IBM) produce
>significant and exciting results (well, they are if you're a
>geek ;) ). I'm sure even they have acquired technology though. The
>fact is everyone operates on the 'if we can't invent it we'll buy it'
>policy - the difference between one company and the next is how much
>they are willing to try and innovate before they give up and acquire.
Didn't Sun acquire some technology from Cray, around the time they started
selling "mainframe class" systems?
<mouse bits snipped>
>> Oh, what about SCSI ... that was such a nice decision to go with
>> IDE ... today, we are still limited to two disk drives on each bus.
>I just got 2 new PCs at work an neither have PATA. It's dead. Forget
>about it. SATA2 and SAS has blown it away. SATA is still not SCSI
>(but SAS is, but enough confusing the issue!) but it's reduced
>interrupt levels and cabling hassle to more than acceptable levels.
I don't think MS "choose" IDE, but they did support it, and enabled Mfg. to
use this lower-cost technology... The last PC that MS specified like that was
the ill-timed MSX machine, which was popular in Asia, but not in the US...
The only real specifications I've seen from MS involve things like "Vista PCs
require a DVD drive to install OS" or their various "MPC" certification
levels (typically involving video display, sound and CD-ROM specifications),
not the specific technology inside the machine (aside from, you know, x86-
>> Microsoft chose IDE because Apple was suggesting SCSI. The only
>> reason that IDE is cheap, compared to SCSI, is the quantity of sales.
>> *IF* Microsoft would have shifted when they saw their decision to be
>> less than optimal, we could have 256 devices on one SCSI bus,
>> including the use of multiple computers on that same bus.
>I can get you're point, but at the same time SCS is harder to
>configure, it has gremlins that give even seasoned SCSI veterans like
>myself a headache. If you think educating people in how to set 1
>Master/Slave jumper is hard, try explaining setting up SCSI buses and
>using Binary ID codes to them. That's ASKING for them to glaze over :o).
IDE termination/cabling is much easier than SCSI - no one ever had to
sacrifice a chicken to the gods of IDE ;^)
More information about the geeks