Windows 10 upgrade installing automatically on some Windows 7, 8 systems - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/10/windows-10-upgrade-installing-automatically-on-some-windows-7-8-systems/ <comment><USER2> Relevant followup article. [http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/15/microsoft-stops- automatic-...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/10/15/microsoft-stops-automatic- windows-10-upgrades-says-default-checked-update-was-a-mistake/)

TLDR: It was a mistake and Microsoft stopped it.

<comment><USER3> They say it was a mistake. Do you believe them? Was anyone at Microsoft fired? Did Microsoft offer a way to undo an unwanted install of Windows 10?

<comment><USER4> > Was anyone at Microsoft fired?

As a tech worker, I don't want to live in a world where tech workers are fired because they make a small, fixable mistake.

> Did Microsoft offer a way to undo an unwanted install of Windows 10?

Yes. You can downgrade Windows 10 to whatever you installed it on top of. I think this has been possible since the Vista -> 7 upgrade.

<comment><USER5> _As a tech worker, I don 't want to live in a world where tech workers are fired because they make a small, fixable mistake._

The quality of work coming out of the Windows Update group has been seriously problematic lately. It's _well_ past time to fire some people.

<comment><USER6> For the past 2.5 years, I've been working as sysadmin / helpdesk monkey at a mostly-Windows shop.

On Debian or CentOS, updates are simple - if any updates are available, you install them. End of story.

On Windows, as I have learnt the hard way, simply installing all available updates is pretty much begging for trouble. During my training at Deutsche Telekom, when I heard that they had a whole team whose only task was testing Windows updates, I thought they were being wussies. Now, I envy them. The reality for me is more like checking online discussion boards to see if anyone was dumb enough to just install all the updates, yet smart enough to figure out which ones caused them trouble, then only approving those updates nobody has complained about. It is kind of like playing Russian roulette.

As as Unix-person looking at the Windows world from an outsider's perspective (kind of), I am kind of shocked that this is the OS powering approximately 90% of corporate desktops. Imagine if, following the end of the Cold War, Western car companies had been driven out of business by the Trabbi. That is pretty much what has happened in the PC world.

And, yes, I get that Windows is tortured by more combinations of hardware and software than anyone wants to imagine, and QA for their updates must be a living hell. But IIRC, Microsoft also made something like 20 _billion dollars_ in profit last year, so they could easily spend one billion on making Windows update not suck - or at least suck slightly less - and still be disgustingly profitable.

The worst thing is that people who have known no other OS but Windows all their lives fail to see how utterly wrong this is. Either they just don't know any better, or it's a massive case of Stockholm syndrome...

(Sorry, but I've had that on my mind for a while, and since it was patchday this week, I hope you can understand my need to vent a little...)

<comment><USER4> > _simply installing all available updates is pretty much begging for trouble_

I've done this since Windows 95. It hasn't caused me a problem since Windows XP SP2. I actually love Windows update and missed it when I was on Linux. Ubuntu's kernel upgrades would randomly break sleep, audio, special keys on my keyboard, or other weird stuff.

<comment><USER6> Mmmh, point taken. I only had problem with updates on Linux when I was using Gentoo and lived on the unstable branch (and unstable, of course, implies that such problems are to be expected).

There is a difference between administrating a single machine at home, or maybe a handful, or taking care of a company network of (in my case) about 80 machines (and that is still a tiny network, I suppose). Problems that a typical user only sees once in a couple of years become disturbingly common as the number of machines grows, and I guess that is true regardless of the operating system being used.

Having said that, I have encountered some rather strange and frustrating problems with Windows updates. One time, a Windows update would somehow not successfully register itself as being installed, but it did require a reboot. So after installing the update, the user rebooted her system, finding yet another update (the very same, in fact) available, install it, reboot, find another update... For some reason, only two machines in our network were affected by this problem, and I have no clue why it was these specific machines. One time, an update to Office 2013 overwrote some VB script that Autodesk Inventor happened to depend on, causing it to crash while displaying the splash screen; reinstalling Inventor hepled with that, but now Outlook would crash when trying to write an email. Another time, an update caused a few machines to hang while booting. There was an update to Windows 8.1 that was not called a Service Pack, but for all intents and purposes, it was, and Microsoft said that without this update installed, 8.1 machines would no longer receive updates; however, this update caused 8.1 in combination with a specific version of WSUS to no longer talk to the WSUS server - I think this is what people call a Catch 22.

And the list goes on and on. I have only a few years of experience taking care of a relatively tiny number of systems. Like I said, I understand now why large companies run labs where they test Windows updates - and updates by other software vendors, too, I suppose - against each and every combination of hardware and software being used on the corporate network.

Just because you did not run into problems does not mean there are none, just as my experience with updates on Linux and FreeBSD is not representative of what it is like to run dozens or hundreds of machines with these operating systems. However, currently the operating being used on the majority of company networks is Windows, and the company making billions of that is Microsoft.

Although, to be fair, in many cases where an update to Windows breaks a third party application, I suspect the third party is at least as much to blame. In my case, I have grown very weary of Siemens automation software (Simatic, WinCC, TIA), which is very sensitive with regards to updates, to say the least. So, to a degree, Microsoft has merely become a victim of its own success.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The Windows 10 upgrade process is what finally pushed me to Linux on the desktop. As with any upgrade, I figured I'd wait a while for the dust to settle (Ars' articles on the privacy-invasive nature of Windows 10 made me a little nervous, but I figured that'd get fixed with time).

Unfortunately, Microsoft have been extremely aggressive about getting users to move. The 8.1 update that encourages you to upgrade also downloads a copy of Windows 10 -- which, on a small SSD, was frustrating. So, I removed and blocked the KB-x update that added the upgrader.

Microsoft then added another, differently named KB-x update which preloaded Windows 10 -- even if you'd blocked the other one ([http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2015/09/micros...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2015/09/microsoft-is-downloading-windows-10-to-pcs-even-if-you- dont-reserve-a-copy/)).

Which, for me, was all a bit too much. Originally I figured I'd come back after some time, but the massively expanded Steam catalogue on Linux is making me question that too.

<comment><USER8> Well you want all that user data so you can mine if for advertisers don't you? How do you do that? Push people to Windows 10.

<comment><USER7> I'm not really willing to ascribe motive; I'm sure there are plenty of technical reasons to push people to an upgrade too (like reducing support burden).

But -- there's nothing like an unwanted OS upgrade (repeatedly) burning through your data cap and spare disk space to suggest that maybe you're not in control of your computer anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm glad they rolled it back, but getting an unintended system upgrade is such a big deal that I find myself wanting a bigger act of contrition.

This is a really big mistake to make with your flagship product.

<comment><USER10> _This is a really big mistake to make with your flagship product._

True enough. In this case, it looks like it might be particularly bad if it affects systems where someone has actively chosen not to move to Windows 10 for their own reasons. That seems to be the case for a lot of "power users". Also, while enterprise-scale businesses with full-time professional admins may well be using WSUS and Enterprise versions of Windows, smaller businesses will often be running Pro versions and handling upgrades in other ways, and could be affected too.

Even if the arguments about forced updates and privacy don't seem to concern a lot of typical home users, whether through apathy or ignorance, Windows seems to be losing the trust of the tech community who often do care about such things. That tech community both runs business IT and advises non-technical friends and family, and as a rule it does not take kindly to being bullied. Microsoft have now screwed this same issue up several times over within just a few weeks, and it's starting to look like they've lost control of both their product and their PR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> PSA: For people with Windows 10 installed, I've found the following tool quite useful in shutting down the large amount of information collected.

[http://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10](http://www.oo- software.com/en/shutup10)

<comment><USER12> Any idea how secure and effective it is?

Got to be honest, I'm pretty terrified at what Win10 lets them collect. They are pushing really hard to get people to install Win10 and the fact that they backported all the data collection stuff and crammed it into updates all the way back to Win7 is very telling.

<comment><USER11> You should be able to verify with wireshark.

I thought I had followed most of the best practices soon after release but this tool identified a whole bunch more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I had not switched to win10, but was told by others who did saying that win7 > win10 > win8, i.e. win7 is the best, is it true? I have a dual-boot win7 for tax-filing that I had not booted into since April, using linux daily. This news made me feel relieved a bit that it's good I did not have win7 running and got automatically "upgraded".

<comment><USER4> 8 was really, really similar to 7, except for the start menu. The start menu made little difference to me because I just create taskbar/desktop shortcuts or press the Windows key and type what I want. People bitched about the new start menu because they weren't willing to see that there were better ways to find their programs.

10 is really, really similar to 8 as well. The only noticeable difference is, again, the start menu. There are small things here and there (and a much nicer graphical design), but otherwise it's pretty much the same.

If you have enough storage, I'd suggest just trying Windows out as a dual-boot option. If you don't like it, you can always remove the Windows partition, no harm done.

<comment><USER14> > People bitched about the new start menu because they weren't willing to see > that there were better ways to find their programs.

What exactly was the better way though? I'm still on Win7 in my primary computer, having Win10 (and previously Win8) installed on my secondary.

On Win7 I press the start button and type the name of what I want to run (or find) - this lets me do what I want _very_ quickly with a minimum of interruption.

Win8 was similar, but it threw a jarring fullscreen slab of apps in my face. I say it was similar because it still let me start typing right away and get to the stuff I wanted with minimal hassle.

Win10 is a whole different beast, I feel. The search was decoupled from the start menu; but the start menu itself returned to most of its former glory (unintrusive, no jarring screen transition). The key factor here is that I can no longer just start typing to get to an app, and I have yet to invest the necessary time into seeing if it is at all possible since it's still my secondary machine.

Right now, amidst all of the anti-Microsoft scaremongering, I'm also finding it less likely that I'll keep going down the Microsoft path. Linux is starting to look more and more attractive, with OS X a strong second place contender. And not just for the start menu.

<comment><USER15> > The key factor here is that I can no longer just start typing to get to an > app,

Not sure what you mean; Windows 10 is exactly like Windows 7 and Windows 8 here. You hit the start button / start key, you start typing, and the things you want start popping up.

<comment><USER14> > Not sure what you mean; Windows 10 is exactly like Windows 7 and Windows 8 > here. You hit the start button / start key, you start typing, and the things > you want start popping up.

I can assure you, that is not the way it currently functions on my Win10 machine. For me the search bar is a magnifying glass next to the start menu, at a minimum, or a full-blown text field. Regardless of which state, I have to click it before being able to type and search.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> On a side note the 'get windows 10' update even if hid from the available 'important' updates will come back again to install. Disabled updates altogether, still not sure if that does the job!

</comment><comment><USER17> The fact that the possibility to make that "mistake" exists makes it a non- mistake. And rather something that was due to happen but maybe someone pressed the button too early.

</comment><comment><USER18> Inaccurate headline.

</comment><comment><USER19> Url changed from [http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/10/16/microsoft...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/10/16/microsoft- accident-forces-windows-10-onto-windows-7-windows-8/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER20> Right "Accident". I'm sure the ads on the W10 start menu were an accident as well. [http://betanews.com/2015/10/15/microsoft-now-uses- windows-10...](http://betanews.com/2015/10/15/microsoft-now-uses- windows-10s-start-menu-to-display-ads/)

I think Microsoft is trying to earn more money by forcing upgrades to Windows 10 and then displaying ads on the start menu and other places.

It is the pot of frogs in water, they slowly turn up the heat so the frogs won't notice until it is too late.

<comment><USER21> The "ads" are an opt-in recommendation feature of the Store and/or Cortana. They don't directly make money for Microsoft. (Microsoft still gets its Store cut if you actually buy one of the suggested apps, but it wants Suggested Apps to be a useful, personalized recommender, not a paid featured spot...)

If the forced Windows 10 upgrades were not an accident, it wasn't to make money. If anything it would be an attempt to save money and have fewer people on older operating systems that they need to support.

If there's a "grand conspiracy" afoot, it should be pretty transparent and obvious by now: Microsoft doesn't want people stuck on the same version of Windows for a decade again (XP).

<comment><USER22> _Microsoft doesn 't want people stuck on the same version of Windows for a decade again_

And a more evil conspiracy, I cannot imagine.

:)

<comment><USER21> Debian LTS, as one example, is Five Years. It's hard not to sympathize with Microsoft that historically maybe their support contracts have been _too_ friendly, compared with the competition. :)

I think most of us wish we can keep our tech debt/maintenance relationships below a decade. (At least, those of us that are not yet dinosaurs like IBM.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Do Enterprise Applications Suck? - <AUTHOR> http://www.michaelnygard.com/blog/2009/02/why_do_enterprise_applications.html

<comment><USER4> From my personal experience:

Enterprise Applications are built by committee. The committee's job is to put as many bullet points on paper as possible. The more bullet points they've put on paper, the more successful the committee was. The more complicated and long the documentation is, the more work the committee had to do and the more its people should be paid for being able to envision and document a system that is so complicated - without regard for whether that system had to be complicated or not.

Requirements get created for cases that no one knows exist or not. Partly this is because enterprise systems are sometimes thought to be write-once, run for a decade or so rather than systems that will see agile revisions. But partly it's also because, again, it's easier to talk about out of left field problems that will never occur than to actually tackle real problems.

Decisions are made random and arbitrary - but because those decisions are documented, they're fine. So, you want a way of storing that a bank account is closed? Well, we could just have a closed flag on the account when the customer closed it -OR- we could make the account no longer have a relationship to a person, have a zero balance in it and have it be more than 3 months since any activity happened in the account. Yep, that works. Then when a programmer says, but that's not a good way to do that, the question gets asked: _why can't it be done that way?_

That's the heart of the problem: _why can't it be done that way?_ Of course it _can_ be done that way. It just shouldn't. It's a terrible idea that only an idiotic committee would come up with because the more complicated the solution, clearly the harder the problem (and therefore the more money and adulation they should be paid). If it's simple, they're just doing their work, but if it's hard and requires an overly complicated solution, they deserve praise!

The worst part is that in all of those meetings, you constantly hear "we're building a 90% system" referring, of course, to not tackling outlying cases that may not come up. The problem is that, in the case of enterprise systems, it means tackling every outlying case imaginable while leaving the most common use cases with a terrible interface and sub-par reliability. And the worst part is that most of the outlying cases aren't imaginable so you haven't even solved that.

The problem is what gets rewarded in an enterprise environment and how non- techies see software. Something that is simple, reliable and gets the job done must be solving a really simple problem and took little work, right? In fact, I'm sure many of us have been approached and offered a few hundred dollars to create something just like (MySpace|eBay|Amazon|etc.) because they make the solution seem easy. So, the incentive is not to make something elegant, but to make something that shows exactly how difficult the problem really is - <USER2> fact, more difficult than the problem really is.

Likewise, the more features you can write down on a piece of paper, the more impressed your boss' boss will be with what you've been able to accomplish. "Elegant user-interface and code" doesn't take up enough space.

And we're left with crap.

<comment><USER5> It's even simpler:

Enterprise applications are a cost to the company, whereas commercial software applications are the product. All enterprise app development must be a give and take between functionality and cost. Businesses will differ in where they fall in that balance, but ultimately companies must reduce the cost as much as possible while maintaining required functionality.

Perfect enterprise applications are therefore by definition the fastest, cheapest software to get the job done. Anything else and the company is wasting money.

<comment><USER6> My (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is to the contrary. Enterprise applications are neither the fastest nor the cheapest solution (at least not as implemented in any of the "Enterprise" places I have worked).

I think generally the problem is twofold. First, as the GP pointed out, design decisions (both technical and aesthetic) are made by people who aren't programmers or end users. These people care more about documentation and 'The Plan' than solving the problem elegantly.

The second problem is that most 'technical' people doing in-house enterprise apps aren't that great. I know this sounds callous of me, and there are definitely still great people here and there, but the average ability level is pretty low. My 'enterprise architect' has never even used Java 5 (her excuse: she hasn't had any training for it yet). People like this aren't going to be confident enough to suggest (or even aware of) alternative implementations to those given them by the 'design committee'.

I just started a job doing 'Enterprise Java' (gotta pay the bills until grad school this fall) and they have me working on this project for the next 6-7 months. Once I finally parsed all the buzzword bingo documentation, I realized that what I'm implementing is basically a read-only ORM.

The design as I'm given requires 15+ lines of Java to get a single object back (you know, Post.find(:title => 'foo')) and requires the end user to know which table goes with which DAO goes with which business object, among other things. I'm slowly but surely getting changes approved by my 'architect', and hopefully will, in the end, have something a little more sane.

The fact that they are paying both me and her for six months worth of work to do something that really could be handled by an existing ORM definitely doesn't point to in-house 'Enterprise software' being the cheapest solution. Throw in some of the ridiculous design decisions and 'requirements of our company's standard architecture', and it's not really the fastest either.

As for the Enterprise software from vendors, I'd argue that the problem is that it's solving the problems of these in-house developers and managers, who only have the problems due to over-complexifying (not a word I know) what they do.

<comment><USER7> You're absolutely right about the quality of internal development. Corporations should take advantage of hard economic times like these to recruit good developers (for more than corporations are accustomed to paying, but less than good developers are accustomed to making) and assimilate them into the corporate culture. After a few years, many of those developers will be comfortable and will be more interested in their wives and children than in their careers. It's natural that some of the talent that goes to startups in boom times should shift to corporations in bad times.

<comment><USER8> Won't work. Companies like that don't tolerate competence and creativity. Good developers will be beaten down by insecure and technically incompetent managers, even worse when you involve same from other departments. Requirements documents, high level design, low level design, review by the barely computer literate, turf wars, budgets that dont include your tools, internal standards, methodologies, and consultants. Sometimes even food on the table isnt worth it. Moreover the recruiters will recognize that the good programmer will be gone in 6 months and that will be another recruiting fee down the toilet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They suck because:

1\. The people who build them are told it's fine that they suck. People who "own the process" (or whatever) don't know anything about software and discount programmer warnings -- "Don't worry, that's not a concern, we aren't here to worry about that." "It doesn't matter if the interface is confusing, because the users will be trained." "As long as there's a workaround, it doesn't matter." "If that button crashes the client, the users will figure out not to click that button."

Sometimes it's just basic stupidity. I know of one case where programmers on a data entry system accidentally implemented a use case that took ten minutes instead of twenty seconds. No problem; the fix was simple. However, they weren't allowed to fix it, because it wasn't "a primary use case." And it wasn't: the users were executing hundreds of use cases per day, and only about five would take ten minutes. So they deployed the software to dozens of hourly workers, who of course ended up spending almost an hour a day, on average, staring at their screen waiting for that use case to complete.

2\. Regardless of policy, requirements are almost always gathered from users' managers instead of from the users themselves. Many managers of hourly workers think they know every detail of the jobs under them, but they often don't know the latest details and policy changes. And that's the best-case scenario. A more typical scenario is that a manager comes in with a vague "management overview" idea of what her workers do and a condescending attitude that anything more specific is inessential.

Couple this with the tendency to keep enterprise programmers on a short leash, implementing only the features that were specified in the design process, and you get a result so incomplete that sometimes the only way to avoid rolling back a software release is to remake business processes and policies to fit the software. On the bright side, this can result in simplification and streamlining. On the not-so-bright side, you alienate customers because you suddenly can't serve them the way they've come to expect.

3\. The process is single-shot instead of iterative. There's no user testing, and not even any before-the-fact observation of users. Managers don't make any attempt to distinguish between legitimate user complaints and the normal, perennial "OMG something changed" office worker whining. This is especially true when the users are low-paid and not highly educated, which is a shame, because those are the ones who do simple mechanical jobs where their interaction with a software system can materially affect their productivity.

I know of one case where there was a "testing link" from one screen to another that had been accidentally left in the software by a programmer. It turned out to be crucial for workflow, and when it was removed in the second release of the software, productivity plummeted. The workers immediately alerted their manager, but they were ignored. Instead of asking for an immediate bugfix release, the manager waited until several months of metrics piled up demonstrating a massive uniform 20% productivity loss among her workers.

All these point to three problems:

1\. The software development process is controlled by people who don't understand software or don't take it seriously.

2\. Software developers have no credibility inside the corporation.

3\. The corporation always respects the pretense that managers know more (and better) than workers, especially low-paid, uneducated workers, even when this pretense is obviously false.

<comment><USER9> I was just going to say, "enterprise software sucks because the people who approve its purchase dont use them". This is a great elaboration of that point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Having spent the last 7 years working on enterprise systems for insurance companies (at a vendor, not internal IT), I can point out a few less sinister reasons. Sure, design by committee never helps anything, but there are just some fundamental difficulties around enterprise software.

* The developers don't understand the software they're using. Everyone uses e-mail, so it's pretty easy to know if you're making a crappy e-mail client. I'm not a claims adjuster, so it's much harder for me to understand if I'm building a claims system that makes the most common operations too difficult, or presents the data in a way that doesn't put the most useful information together. Sure, we've got product managers whose job is to figure that out, but they're not really users either, so there's always something lost in translation. Building software that performs a function you yourself perform is just way, way easier to "get right" than building software for a function you yourself don't understand.

* As is pointed out elsewhere, for internal development projects (which a lot of enterprise software is), the economies of scale work against you. It's difficult to build anything robust and functional for under a few million dollars, so most likely you'll end up with something not-so-robust and not-so-functional instead.

* On the flip side, companies make themselves very, very difficult to sell to, which provides a very high barrier to entry for vendors. Part of that is historical: they've been lied to so many times over the years that I can't really blame them. Most of them have a long history of failed implementations and IT projects, and they're naturally risk averse. On top of that, they have all the usual corporate red tape that commons with massive purchases, and since the market for most of that sort of software is often relatively small (compared to consumer markets, at least, or to more general-purpose tools), vendors have to charge a lot for their software if they want to stay in business. Unfortunately for their customers, that means that it's difficult to sell to them, which lowers the number of entrants in the market, which reduces competition on the vendor side, which leads to poorer quality software.

* Enterprise software is often boring to develop, you don't understand the use case, you can't show it to your friends or family or anyone else that will care, the deployment model often sucks, if you're a vendor you have to make things configurable (which makes it 10x as hard to develop, reason about test, etc.), and the companies you're selling to make the sales process incredibly difficult. And that's just working at a software company; obviously corporate IT in-house work is even less appealing. Understandably, the most talented developers often choose to work elsewhere. My impression these days is that the "you can't show it to anyone" bit is the most important for people; if you work for a company people have heard of or on a product people have heard of, you can take pride in showing that off, and not having that ability to show someone the cool stuff you're doing takes away a lot of the fun of software development.

* The small market and difficulty of deployment generally means that real user testing is difficult and costly, so people just don't do it. As a vendor, there's not much we can do (we can and do go watch people using the software, but there's not much we can do before we ship a version), and that's not a core area of expertise for the IT departments that are installing the system (or building one themselves). We can't just throw something out over the web and do A/B testing, or push a new version and roll it back if people report too many bugs.

* The market isn't yet there for hosted enterprise apps, so you're stuck with in-house deployments for now. I've commented on why that is earlier, but it comes down to both pricing, customization requirements on the customer side, integration requirements, and market valuations. It might work for certain types of enterprise applications that have large enough markets to make it scale, but for industry-specific systems where the target market is in the 1000's of companies, the math doesn't really add up.

There's definitely an opportunity there for a company of talented engineers to disrupt some portion of that market (which is what I like to think Guidewire, my employer, has done). But it's not as easy as just building a web app, attracting users, and slowly growing it: the domain-specific knowledge required is off the charts, and the barriers to entry are incredibly high.

<comment><USER11> >On the flip side, companies make themselves very, very difficult to sell to

I think that is a MASSIVE point which very few people realise, until they go down that path. And then they are grumpy and don't want to talk about it ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Most of the last and current generation of tech university leavers appear to be trying to be the next Facebook - instead of trying to disrupt the enterprise software market.

It really bothers me that all these talented kids are outside of the companies that produce most of our economic activity - so big corps are still using the same crappy unproductive software they were a decade ago.

Not only is nobody inside these companies causing disruption - but I see few startups targetting core business functions like purchasing or logistics.

VCs could be driving this. Instead, like a herd, they are all trying to back the next greentech, cloudtech, socialtech etc.

The biggest opportunity to create cost savings for new businesses is in reinventing the way the enterprise apps work and communicate with other enterprises - for instance creating auction and bidding systems to improve procurement.

A startup has more chance of saving 1% of costs for a Top 500 company - <USER3> it has of being the next Facebook.

<comment><USER13> I'd like to offer a reason for this - you're selling to the wrong person.

With apps like Google, facebook, or any number of other startups, building a _good_ product is in line with what your customers desire. Facebook was cleaner and more usable than Myspace, and customers responded in droves. Google produced better results and was easier to use than the competition, and customers responded...

Enterprise software doesn't work like this. You're not selling to random data entry guy #21243 who will _actually_ be using your big fancy enterprise package - you're selling to a PHB who couldn't care less how great and cutting-edge your product is. Someone told him to implement some system, he wrote up a RFP, and here you are. All he wants you to do is jot down a bunch of bullet points, make some big promises, and offer to take responsibility if it all goes down the toilet. He's not interested in your superior usability - there's no demand from up top for more productivity from the data entry monkeys, and it's not as if _he_ will have to deal with this software every day...

There's no room for innovation there, because those who _pay_ for the product do not desire it, and will not reward it.

<comment><USER14> That's a question of salesmanship. It's a very different sell than B2C, but much more rewarding. A facebook customer will maybe earn you $10, a corporate account might net you $100.000. It's certainly not as easy, but the reward per sale can be thousands of times bigger.

And it's not true that corporate buyers don't care about quality or innovation - often they simply don't have much choice. And, of course you have to speak the right lingo.

<comment><USER15> I think most hackers would rather go broke than learn to speak corporate lingo fluently.

<comment><USER14> Every hacker needs a Jobs to their Woz.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'll add a couple more points:

\- They lack the best people. People at the bleeding edge of software development and interface design tend to work for companies like Apple or Google, or to start their own thing, not go build a risk-reporting system for a bank.

\- They go about development the wrong way round. They start with a huge list of features and then try to make it usable. Most start-ups do the reverse - they start with something usable and only then think about adding features. I'll be writing a blog post about that on <http://www.woobius.com/scribbles> sometime soon...

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned economies of scale so far.

Enterprise applications are highly customized systems with deployments of 1 in many cases. We talk about the outrageous cost, but consider an 500,000 dollar application. That's a lot for a company, but that's not a lot for an application budget.

With a 1.6 multiplier for expenses, that's enough for 2 fte senior engineers @ 90k or 3 young ones at 60k, .5 QA @ 70k, 1 manager @ 120k for 20%, a half a technical writer and a half a business analyst - let's call it one person @ 45k. That's 454,400 there. You haven't even accounted for travel yet, or a part time contractor for domain expertise or a graphical designer or someone to design an aesthetically competent interface.

Now, the cost of programmers might be high for senior outside major metros, but the numbers aren't far out of line for a project in less expensive markets.

How much are you going to expect two (or three) programmers to do for a full fledged product? Add to this the shifting requirements, client corporate bureaucracy, and associated complications that have been listed below, it's really no surprise that enterprise products have difficulty with quality.

I've given it a bit of thought on how to deliver better products in the sphere, but I start designing and realize that we've quickly found our way into architecture astronomy quickly. I'm starting to think the best route is actually something akin to <http://baseportal.com/> with a rules workflow system and a little more front end polish.

The problem, again, runs into the customization problems. The more customization that is allowed (and that is a requirement in enterprise), the more complex the system becomes and the advantages of quicker development dissolve.

<comment><USER16> I beg to disagree.

My own business, and many of the YC start-ups, bring products to market for _considerably_ less than $500k. And those products tend to kick ass (well, the YC ones do... I like to think woobius does too).

Perhaps corporations would have better luck by offering $100k each to 5 teams of 2-3 hackers, selecting the winner based on their internal user's feedback after 6 months, and then offering that winner a $200k/year regular income for maintaining the app. (Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming...)

<comment><USER17> 1\. You are forgoing current wages for potential future profit. I might be willing to bootstrap a project where the first year's expectation of profit is low, but I wouldn't develop the same project for 15,000 dollars (as an example.) Are you suggesting you'd be willing to work for 30,000 dollars for 6 months? (That's for a team of 3) Oh, and that's including specs and technical documentation and test plans that many customers expect to see before deployment.

2\. You are developing for someone else's design, which often changes midstream, and it has irrational requirements due to data flows from previous products. I worked with a product that had to support the public health information network logical data model (PHIN-LDM), an absolute monstrosity of a database. If we were building the system privately, we could have shaved the effort in half, if not more. Importing previous client data can be monstrous, due to poor system checking and user hacks to make a system do what it was never meant to do.

3\. Deployment is more expensive. Gathering clients is more expensive. Each means traveling over to the client to gather requirements and install, and to conduct training.

Now, if you can do all this, there are a slew of contracts ready to happen. Get a team of three together, and subcontract out to integration teams and prime contractors. All you have to do is find a first and second project to gain momentum.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Enterprise apps suck for a number of reasons. And yes, of course you can build a better UI for most of them, but that isn't really the problem in this space.

As a startup you face several problems if you want to get in on the enterprise market space. First of all, you're a start-up. You might go bankrupt tomorrow. Secondly, no-one else in the sector you're targeting is using you. Well, that's a no-go right there. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. Thirdly, you probably lack vendor support or recognition from analysts. Oops, you just failed the skimming test (as in 'skimming over basic requirements'). Can your product even execute in the major J2EE stacks? (Probably not).

If you're not 'proven' technology, then you have a hard time moving into this space.

And this space is not driven by user satisfaction or programmer happiness.

Look at how far Google has managed to move into the 'enterprise space'. Not very far.

In the Enterprise, the UI is usually just thrown on as an after-thought. Of course it's going to suck.

</comment><comment><USER19> While I breathe, I cherish the hope that enterprise development will eventually be forced to change.

[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/we-have-lost-control- of-...](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/we-have-lost-control-of- apparatus.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> I have some experience building enterprise software and I'd have to say the problem was that it is mind numbingly boring to do. A lot of it sucks, so to speak, because people can't stay motivated to give a damn.

It's pretty soul crushing to spend all of your working time building systems for inventory management, or AP/AR, or whatever mundane (but incredibly important) business function you're working on. This is why people make startups I suppose.

I agree that, if you have the mental toughness for it, enterprise software is a GREAT way to make money. During my days of having a real job, we were selling our software for $250,000 an install.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's the difference between top-down and bottom up. Entreprise software is designed at the top, and we all know it half of it won't be used, and the half that will won't solve the biggest problems.

The way I write (very small) biz software is get a contract from the top, along with the specs for the first version, and over the next years (pretty much forever) get specific requests almost exclusively from middle management.

It's hard to scale though. I do what they ask because I care about my work, but on a strictly contractual basis I could reject or indefinitely postpone 90% of it.

</comment><comment><USER22> Another reason they suck, is that many corporate CTOs fear open source. I contracted for an enterprise software dev company, conceptualizing product and producing prototypes.

Our protos were quick and simple affairs using jquery. The CTO refused to integrate jquery into the application itself, and rewrote everything custom, which worked half as well as our simple protos and took months longer to develop, had they built the front end with jquery.

The CTO lost his job recently due to cost overruns.

</comment><comment><USER23> For the most part enterprise apps do suck. But I imagine there are enterprise apps that are just amazing. The software that allows UPS/Fedex to deliver packages so efficiently must be fantastic. Or the stuff that powers the supply chain of Walmart, or the stuff that powers Amazon.com's ecommerce. It'd be great if someone could share insights from real world examples of enterprise software that works amazingly well.

<comment><USER24> Those examples are different because they are core to each of those companies' business model by being directly tied into their revenue stream. Simply put, it makes them competitive. Therefore, those apps you mentioned have to be good if not better than what their competitor uses.

The problem is more about internal applications that have nothing to do with the identity of the company itself. Personnel management, time tracking, accounting, and payroll apps suffer from poor quality if built in-house because they are part of the cost of doing business independent of what that business may be.

<comment><USER25> And that's the irony of it. Why do companies think they are going to innovate in the area of personnel management, time tracking, accounting and payroll in such a way that it'll give them an advantage over their competitors who also need to do this? These are commodity processes, or should be, and should be deployed from proven, mature technologies. The fact that they are commodities means they should be cheap. The fact that this isn't the case means this industry is broken (again most likely because the people tasked with deploying these processes/services are not going to be the ones using them).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Some posters touched on this but I don't think anybody made a strong enough point.

Size. Too damn many people involved. Startups and small companies innovate/code circles around Enterprises cause they are small 2-5 maybe 10 people per project. They all know each other, they're all responsible, they're all committed to success and there's no one in their way.

The more people involved the closer to (their)average you get. It's possible to have small number of awesome, above avg people, but not the 50-100+ involved in enterprise app, not consistently.

If enterprise's gave cross-functional teams of 5-10, 20 people autonomy and a general goal they would rock out.

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill The people who buy it don't have to use it; that has got to be a factor.

I remember one company, the CEO was trying to prepare it to be bought by a large company - one bullet item - "enterprise contact management and sales tracking software needs to be in place" . So SalesLogix was bought, 15 people were trained on it - one week later no one was using it.

The top salesman was using his (original version, this was late 90s) PalmPilot and his Windows laptop instead.

The sales engineer that had been with the company the longest and was employee #5, had 3 big accounts to keep happy and maybe 2 people to talk to at each account, for a total of 6.

</comment><comment><USER27> A (possibly) related blog post "Enterprise Software is boring" ([http://ravimohan.blogspot.com/2006/07/but-martin- enterprise-...](http://ravimohan.blogspot.com/2006/07/but-martin-enterprise- software-is.html))

</comment><comment><USER28> I convinced the company I work for to switch their applicant-tracking system from CBIZ to CATS (catsone.com). Using something that was built by people who care has made a huge difference -- now it's a tool instead of a chore.

</comment><comment><USER29> For some reason this site is very slow to render and a horizontal scroller pops up intermittently here on Opera 9.60 (it's maddening!). I think one of the ads is the problem, I see a never-ending 'loading' spinner floating above the Amazon ad.

</comment><comment><USER30> High switching cost / no competition. Yup, classic.

</comment><comment><USER31> Anything built by externally-motivated people will suck exactly as much as it is permitted to.

</comment><comment><USER32> too many cooks spoil the dish.

</comment><comment><USER33> A lot of EA apps suck, and a lot of them don't.

Conversely, a lot of open source apps suck too. A lot of them also don't.

Why are we stereotyping again?</comment>


Trillions of plastic pieces found in Arctic ice - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/23/arctic-ice-trapped-plastic/9507653/ <comment><USER2> What's terrifying to me is that the more our science moves forward, the more we're realizing that we've fucked up the Earth in ways we had no clue about. It's likely going to get worse and worse as time goes on, and it's reaching a scope where undoing the damage is more and more unlikely.

It'll be interesting to read follow up studies about the impacts this has on the ecosystems. It's freaky how interconnected oceans are.

<comment><USER3> We fucked up our own survival,and future generations will hate us for that.

Earth will go on for billions of years after we are gone.

<comment><USER4> Do you find some kind of solace in your (unfounded) assumption that the earth will outlive humanity?

<comment><USER5> > Do you find some kind of solace in your (unfounded) assumption that the > earth will outlive humanity?

I'm struggling to come up with an even remotely likely scenario where that wouldn't be the case....getting sucked into a black hole would be one I suppose.

<comment><USER4> If we achieve interstellar travel, we will spread to other planets. I see no reason to assume that none of our future colonies could outlive this planet.

<comment><USER5> Hmmmm....which is more likely, hard to say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe I'm missing an important detail about the lifecycle of arctic ice, but...

If the arctic ice contains plastic particles...

And the particles are man made...

And man has only been making small plastic particles for roughly 100 years...

That would mean that the arctic ice was, at some point in the recent 100 years, ordinary sea water polluted with small plastic particles.

If this ice... was sea water in the recent past, then it must be superficial ice.

If superficial arctic ice is young enough to contain plastics, and is now melting, then this marks the return of sea water from as recent as 50-100 years ago...

If melting polar ice, polluted with plastics, is a new and disturbing event, then...

Does this mean that this is the first time polar ice of that age is melting?

If 50-100-year-old polar ice is only melting just now, for the first time, then, in terms of rising sea levels, does this mean that sea levels have, thus far, only risen to their state as they existed at the end of the 19th century?

Or, is it that the arctic polar ice cap completely melts every summer and refreezes every winter?

If so, then won't a similar amount of plastic be recaptured when the arctic polar ice cap refreezes? Or are we now fretting at the idea that the arctic polar ice cap will fail to refreeze?

And doesn't that mean that 2 years ago, and 10 years ago, the polar ice cap was capturing just as many plastic particles when it refroze?

And if this plastic-bound ice has also melted during the past few summers, didn't it redistibute its captured plastics back into the ocean?

If the arctic ice cap is (or was) trapping large quantities of man-made plastics, then the sea ice doesn't seem to be the real story here.

The real story seems to be the horrendous amount of plastics in the ocean. The arctic polar ice cap, on the other, hand seems to be an unfortunate additional detail.

<comment><USER7> Yes it melts, yes it refreezes. But more is melting each summer, and less is refreezing each winter. That's why there's excitement about opening of the northwest passage - shipping and oil drilling in the arctic that wasn't previously possible.

[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/05/Figure3.png](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/05/Figure3.png)

[http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/climate- chang...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/climate-change- northern-sea-route)

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/opening-of- northwe...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/opening-of-northwest- passage/)

<comment><USER8> _" That's why there's excitement about opening of the northwest passage - shipping and oil drilling in the arctic that wasn't previously possible."_

That's a glass is half full way of looking at it!

<comment><USER7> I was leaving the obvious unsaid; the shipping/resource-exploitation aspect isn't as well known. I guess we'll be finding out what happens when an oil spill gets caught up in arctic ice in the next decade or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Linkbait headline.

0.00394 inches = 1 trillion per cubic meter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbeads#Controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbeads#Controversy)

It is still a huge environmental problem

But then we continue:

"Rayon was the most common synthetic material discovered -- 54%. Though rayon is not a plastic (it's made from wood), the authors included it"

Only to later find this is all about global warming (?)

"Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic Sea ice"

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000240/abst...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000240/abstract)

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder how all these pieces of plastic in the ice will affect its melting temperature and it's strength. There is a good research paper there with data that could affect estimates on freeze and melt rates of winter ice, formulas used to calculate when ice packs start to break up, ship hull strength requirements for different depths of ice, etc.

</comment><comment><USER11> It mentions pieces smaller than 5mm and talks about fibers from clothing that's been washed. Perhaps that's why the concentration is 1,000 greater than the Great Pacific garbage patch?

I'm curious if the comparison is apples to apples or not. Regardless it's terrible.

</comment><comment><USER12> Leaded gasoline, testing nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, plastic everywhere, chemicals in plastic that interfere with the endocrine system, massive use of antibiotics in farming, Roundup-resistant weeds... All these malpractices have large, measurable, global impacts. It's a wonder we have not caused a mass- poisoning crises or disease outbreak that has an obvious effect on lifespan or fertility.

<comment><USER13> It just means that sooner or later we will have mutations occurring in the general population.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> We spend billions on supposedly averting a crisis predicted by lousy models but appear to ignore grotesque pollution of the oceans of which this is one example. Mercury and other nasties being another. But the list goes on and on.

</comment><comment><USER15> > Though the finding is surprising and worrying, the possible harm to marine > life is so far unknown, the authors concluded.

Sentences like this is not science. It's FUD.

And as such I find the entire article dodgy. I can't see Arctic ice containing massive amounts or plastic compared to the oceans. Nor have I seen evidence that plastics in the oceans can cause any large scale harm anyway.

As compared to over fishing which we do know is causing harm. I don't really understand they people divert from real known issues to these end of the world style made up catastrophes.

<comment><USER16> It isn't the large scale harm we are looking after. If we know such harm exists then it would be too late to step in.

Here is a documentary of what happen to the millions or even trillions of plastic flooding around the ocean.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkY7mOkdqs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulkY7mOkdqs)

Is this a small harm or big harm? What if an entire population on some distant island gets wiped out because of that? How would we know? Even for a small number of death, we are responsible to help clean up the ocean as much as possible, just as we are responsible for cleaning up all the space debris. Is it right that we just blow up a satellite and not worry about the orbital debris?

If it's not right, we don't do it, regardless of how small the harm is. If we overfishing, we ought to mark certain part of the ocean free from fishing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So since this is an entrepreneurial community (supposedly), who knows the wholesale value of this material? One could probably wrangle a government grant to clean this stuff up, collect it, and then sell it to wholesale recyclers at a profit.

</comment><comment><USER18> If there a trillions of plastic pieces in Arctic ice, then what about our oceans and rivers?

Think of life with plastic bits in our water supply. How will life survive with plastic bits in water?

<comment><USER19> _Think of life with plastic bits in our water supply._

Filters work really well to remove those, but most of the other life on Earth doesn't use filtered water... regardless, these plastic bits seem pretty inert.

<comment><USER20> Inert, yes. But they can fill the digestive system of some creatures who then cannot eat enough food to survive.

I'm not sure how relevnt it is here though. [http://ocean.si.edu/laysan- albatross-plastic-problem](http://ocean.si.edu/laysan-albatross-plastic- problem)

<comment><USER21> You know those pictures are faked right? (Maybe it says that there, I didn't check.)

This microparticles would not have that affect anyway though.

<comment><USER20> As far as I know the poctures are real. If you xan find any source that credibly shows he did anything but photograph carcasses then I'll accept the images are faked.

Here's a video where he claims to disect a corpse. Is this also faked?

[http://www.midwayjourney.com/2010/07/10/midway-journey-ii- ju...](http://www.midwayjourney.com/2010/07/10/midway-journey-ii-junk-food-ii- our-first-dissection)

You say that these microplastics would not have this effect.

Here are some articles suggesting that microplastics may be killing fish and other wildlife: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastic- pollu...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/microplastic-pollution-in- the-great-lakes/)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science- environment-16709045](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16709045)

<comment><USER21> I can't find it. My understanding is he posed the birds to show how how much garbage would be found in them.

I'm not saying birds don't have plastic in their stomach though, just not that much.

I can believe microplastics would kill tiny animals, but not larger ones. It doesn't belong in water either way.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure what you're saying - did he add plastic? (That would destroy the credibility of the photographs) or did he take a bird corpse and pose the corpse but without adding any plastic? (That would be a stupid thing for him to do but is irrelevant to the plastic argument)

Birds can survive with some plastic, they swallow stuff for their gizzard anyway, but they mistake plastic for food and die from eating too much which prevents them eating enough food to get nutrition. I think this is accepted and not controversial.

Microplastics are eaten directly by many animals. As shown hy the links I provided some of those plastics migrate from the stomach to the bloodstream. The plastics are then part of the foodchain. The plastics absorb contaminants. So it's not just inert plastic, it is the PCBs and DDT and etc that the plastics contain that are problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> With all of the concern for the environment, why aren't rich people of the world (home owners in the U.S. for example) covering their roofs with solar panels? To me, this is the best solution because we still get our comforts (computers, air conditioning), but decrease coal, gas and oil usage.

It's still expensive, but would be a good option if we figured all of the long term costs in.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not to mention the Great Pacific Garbage patch:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch)

<comment><USER13> The article makes mention to the Pacific Garbage patch as a comparison

"The concentration of plastic debris [estimated from core samples of arctic ice] is 1,000 times greater than that floating in the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch."

<comment><USER24> Wikipedia says GPGP has about 5kg of plastic suspended per square kilometer of ocean.

1 cubic meter of water is 1000 liters and 1000kgs. 1 square kilometer, and let's say all the plastic is within 1 meter of depth would be 1 million cubic meters of water, or 1billion kilograms.

So another way to think about it is dilute plastic molecules at about 5 parts per billion. The big assumption is 1 meter depth, because if it's actually concentrated more like within 1cm of depth then it's 500 ppb.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is the worse thing I've read since they spelt all that salt into the ocean.</comment>


The Genius Hack DHL Used to Build a Billion Dollar Business - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@typesfast/the-genius-hack-dhl-used-to-build-a-billion-dollar-business-3bdbf0b1a89f <comment><USER2> This is written as an excruciating series of tweets.</comment>


Ask HN: Sould we equip all children with an extendable stop sign? - <AUTHOR> This question might look like a stupid joke. And it actually is. But any joke has a little bit of truth in it.
I was walking down the street in the morning. On the sidewalk I saw a group of children with parents waiting for the school bus because the school was too far because of zoning. The cars were passing by despite any moment some child could jump and rush across the road. Why the cars didn't stop until the bus arrived?
The bus blocks the vision? No, there was a big tree and a sign that made the whole crowd invisible from the road. But an extendable stop sign would help to save lives!
Think of the children, vote for me 2020! <comment><USER2> We should not, they will abuse it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not exactly clear what's your idea is. Any demos?

But if it's not about raising the taxes or building communism, you got my vote.</comment>


Intel Is Trying to Manipulate AMD Ryzen Launch? - <AUTHOR> https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-is-trying-to-manipulate-amd-ryzen-launch.html <comment><USER2> from the article

> They question itself was already curious but if we dive deeper into the > story we see the claims have been made by Semi-Accurate, not the most > unbiased source.

yup, charlie loves to make fun of intel, but then, this is different.

further down, in the comments:

> (wccftech) This article has an update on it. It says:

> [UPDATED – Feb 26 2017 7:16 PM ET]

> The editors-in-chief of two of America's top PC hardware and technology > publications have confirmed to Wccftech that they have indeed been > approached by Intel regarding upcoming Ryzen reviews. Although both said > that it was business as usual. Affirming that Intel's response following > AMD's Ryzen announcement was what they had expected it to be. Adding that > nothing was particularly unusual about the emails they received from Intel.

> [End of update]

maybe it really is business as usual...?

<comment><USER3> If it is business as usual, that kind of makes it worse.

Then again, we have no idea what was in those emails, and wccftech is openly pro-amd, so even though I have no reason to think they're lying, they might easily still be interpreting things in an overly negative light.

Without a better overview (or at the very least somebody who has that overview and you trust to be relatively unbiased) it's hard to be sure what to make of this (IMHO).

<comment><USER4> >If it is business as usual, that kind of makes it worse.

Welcome to the world of business where participants are required to do everything with a sufficiently positive risk/reward ratio whether legal or not.

It's just business, as per this comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13744390](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13744390)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Uhh, where are these claims on SemiAccurate's site? I don't see jack from Charlie or Tom over at SA in regards to Intel demanding they do things a certain way, the only thing of note I see is that Intel appears to have started talking to them after nearly a year long drought, then again Intel did cull their entire PR/Marketing staff right around when that drought started.

[http://semiaccurate.com/2017/02/20/intel-launch-atom- xeon-d-...](http://semiaccurate.com/2017/02/20/intel-launch-atom-xeon-d- xmm7560-lte/)

<comment><USER6> "This last bit may explain why Intel PR sent out a last-minute "call us before you write" email to most of the press, but not SemiAccurate, after hours last night."

Quoted from: [https://semiaccurate.com/2017/02/22/amds- ryzen-7-1800x-beats...](https://semiaccurate.com/2017/02/22/amds- ryzen-7-1800x-beats-intels-i7-6900k-half-price/) (you can find it towards the end)

<comment><USER5> Ah, there it is. The comments on Guru3D also had a link to wccftech with similar comments, but they look to have censored it, its as though Guru3D is fighting showing any sources.

Much better article over at wccftech: [http://wccftech.com/intel-playing- dirty-undercut-amd-ryzen/](http://wccftech.com/intel-playing-dirty-undercut- amd-ryzen/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title is a clickbait. No proof, not even circumstantial.

<comment><USER5> I know, like, if they wanna reference SA, just link to where you saw it over there or in their forums, instead of spreading rumors...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is another rumor that Intel is lowering prices with some customers but at the same time _asking for exclusivity_. Predatory pricing and exclusivity deals is exactly what lost them the 1 billion euro lawsuit in the EU 8 years ago. Considering AMD was almost wiped up since then, I guess it was worth it?! Oh, and Intel still hasn't paid that fine yet:

[https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Intel-still-hasnt- pa...](https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Intel-still-hasnt-paid- AMD-12-billion-USD-anti-trust-fine)

I sure hope Intel is not up to the same antitrust-worthy shenanigans again. They're big boys/big company. They can handle a little competition without immediately starting to use unethical or even illegal tactics, can't they?

<comment><AUTHOR> > I sure hope Intel is not up to the same antitrust-worthy shenanigans again.

That's why I posted this even though it's nothing but a rumor at this point. I've met many colleagues over the last years who either didn't knew or had forgotten what Intel did in the past. This rumor should remind them to be wary when reading the reviews (just in case).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> They _should_.

When a sound competitor enters into _your_ market, you _must_ do whatever it means (legally of course) to close the doors of the market.

In the case of Intel, they've been enjoying almost no competition in the PC market and they must not yield that position easily.

</comment><comment><USER10> As always, the most likely answer is NO [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

<comment><USER11> Is it even a question to begin with? ("Intel is..." vs. "Is Intel...")</comment></comment>


The Golden Age of X86 Gaming - <AUTHOR> https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-golden-age-of-x86-gaming/ <comment><USER2> For $699 you can build a Skylake based mini-ITX system that uses a real, PCI- Express 3.0 x16 video card (in the $225 price range for the video card alone) that will kick this thing's butt in every benchmark.

The Intel "gaming" NUC is $699 before you put in any RAM and an SSD, so its actual total build cost as a barebones is probably around $899.

The mini-ITX system will be slightly bigger, but also more robust in nearly every way.

Yes it's tiny and slim but it's effectively laptop grade CPU with onboard GPU in a single motherboard.

<comment><USER3> I am genuinely interested in such mini-ITX setup. Can you post an example please?

Disclaimer: Last time I built my own computer was in 2004 or 2005, so I have no idea what to look for and what is considered powerful these days.

<comment><USER4> For $664.26 [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d](http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d) you can buy an ITX motherboard, CPU, case, PSU and even a GPU. Needs memory and storage added, same as the NUC, after all it's the same price.

How much faster wil this be? Intel's own benchmarks show Iris Pro 580 to be between a 750 and a 750 Ti. The GTX 960 is about twice as fast as a 750 Ti. [http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs- Nvidi...](http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960-vs-Nvidia- GTX-750-Ti/3165vs2187)

CPU wise the difference is much smaller, I couldn't find a direct comparison but I found for the 6700HQ but that's just as good because the 6700HQ and the 6770HQ uses the same CPU [http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,93341](http://ark.intel.com/compare/88967,93341) and then user benchmarks show the 6700 desktop a 20% performance benefit over the 6700HQ [http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel- Core-i7-6700-vs-I...](http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel- Core-i7-6700-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ/3515vsm34954)

Of course because you are not restricted by the integrated parts if you were to spend another $150 then you can get a GTX 970 which is thrice as fast as a 750 Ti and in three weeks when the GTX 1070 lands at the same price as the GTX 970 that'll be four-five times as fast as the GPU in NUC.

For the NUC to be competitive, it would need to be $499 perhaps $549 and the external GPU box $150 tops. Now that'd be a very different ballgame -- at that point we would need to look at the significant size advantage and concede that the much smaller ITX cases are typically small run and tend to be more expensive so then the NUC+GPU box would give them a run for their money when space is at the absolute premium. At the current $699 and $499 prices it's hard to see their niche.

Here's an example for a real small, artisanal :) ITX case for when space is at an absolute premium: [http://nfc-systems.com/shop/s4-mini-chassis](http://nfc- systems.com/shop/s4-mini-chassis) You could buy this chassis, the necessary accessories as listed on the page, a GTX 960 GPU ITX card for the price of the NUC + Razer Core and end up with a single box barely bigger than the Razer Core still packing a much bigger punch. Here's a forum post [http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/post-...](http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/post- your-computer-build.182/page-3#post-34337) mentioning a similar build (i5 6600 vs i7 6700 is the only diff, it might worth the savings actually).

<comment><USER5> In the [http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d](http://pcpartpicker.com/p/49cd8d) list, are you sure the video card fits in there? It's a BIG video card. I have a 950 sitting here on my desk and I assume 960 is similar size, if not the same.

<comment><USER4> That case has max GPU dimensions max length 13", max height 5.88". That's the original PCI standard length so there is no video card or any PCI/PCIe card longer than 13".

Among the current video cards I believe the Asus GTX 980 Ti STRIX is the longest and even that's only 12" long and 5.5" high. Most video cards are 10.5" or less, even the TITAN X and most 980 Ti cards are only 10.5". You will have other problems: the 980 Ti has a 250W TDP and you probably need a liquid cooler in a case this small. (A few years back Asus had an even bigger card, the MARS II but even that would've fit if only for the length -- the reason it wouldn't fit is because it had a three slot cooling system! For very good reasons, it had 365W TDP.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > This is old hat for PCs, but to release a new, faster model that is > perfectly backwards compatible is almost unprecedented in the console world.

Nintendo has done this for years with their consoles. You can play Game Boy games on the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance (1989 -> 2001), Gamecube games on the Wii and Wii games on the Wii U. The same was true for Playstation 2 games in the first few versions of the Playstation 3.

There will definitely be games that require a Playstation Neo and will not run on the Playstation 4.

<comment><USER7> > There will definitely be games that require a Playstation Neo and will not > run on the Playstation 4.

According to leaks Sony doesn't allow that.

<comment><USER8> For now...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The golden age of x86 gaming is past (or ahead of us).

We are in a bad valley right now. Modding is getting progressively harder - compare the fan made content for BGII vs MASS EFFECT. Local servers to play multiplayer too - we had them back in doom and starcraft, so there is no excuse from excluding them from new doom and starcraft II. Save at anytime is long past gone - everything is checkpoints, or in the case of XCOM - even if allowed not "real".

There was more to PC gaming than 4K PC master race superiority (guilty of being proud member of said race myself).

Back in the day - you played the game, the ways you liked. Right now you play the game, the ways the developers like in the majority of big games - that is the console way.

<comment> Al-Khwarizmi As someone who has been gaming since the early 80's, I think we indeed are in a golden age of gaming. But the thing is that you (mostly) have to look at indie titles, not AAA titles.

Games like FTL, The Curious Expedition, Rocket League, Papers Please, Super Hexagon, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Chaos Reborn, Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes... bring back the originality and the pure, unadulterated fun that we had gaming in the late 80s and early 90s, which had been mostly lost in the late 90s and in the full 00s decade, where everything seemed to be franchises and iteration on old formats.

Of course if you look at AAA games it's still mostly rehashes, grindfests and simplified remakes of classics, but I'd argue you're looking at the wrong place.

<comment><USER9> There is a problem with the indies (I have played a lot of the games on your list and more) - they rarely make the big money to graduate to big AAA houses and trendsetters so their production values remain low (and we have the travesty of retro pixelation on purpose, which is beyond me).

The only company that so far repeated the Bioware/Id story is CD Project RED - although I do have high hopes for Croteam, Klei and Flying Wild Hog making it big too.

An ecosystem in which we have only rough diamonds and polished turds is not healthy. I hope that we will get more polished gems soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I do enjoy my xbox one, but the author is right, the DRM checking which has a significant user interface bug and slow boots, slow loads make it much less fun than it should be. The interface bug is that it checks the drm with no reference to what is currently in the tray, asks if I own the disk and will only continue if I eject and reinsert the disk in that interaction. If I click continue because the disk is in there it won't load.

This is a case of lazy lazy ui design and management!

Also when I did rivals first in Forza 6 it gave me a target of 41min for Nurburgring!

</comment><comment><USER11> > $1,080 plus tax compared to $399 for one of those console x86 boxes

It's like he's arguing against PC gaming.

</comment><comment><USER12> These two statements from the article seem to argue against his point.

> The CPU and disk performance on offer here [in the latest NUC] are > hilariously far beyond what's available on current consoles ... But most > importantly, its GPU performance is on par with current consoles.

> Zero games are meaningfully CPU limited today

Why would I pay over $1000 for a game machine that is basically identical to current consoles in the most important aspect of hardware?

<comment><USER13> "Games aren't CPU limited" is a myth, and if you build your own PC instead of following Jeff Atwood's affiliate codes, you can easily put something together for half that price that absolutely smokes all the current gen consoles, has a 20+ year library, _and_ is useful for work. And when you look at the most popular game genres in the west today, you basically have MOBAs (which aren't even playable on consoles) and FPS (which have, dare I say, the objectively superior input scheme on PC).

It used to be that you would have a PC for FPS, and a home console or three for all of the niche Japanese stuff. Then almost all of the niche Japanese devs packed up shop and started developing for handhelds, so you'd get a PC for FPS and a DS/3DS/PSP/Vita for the niche stuff. Now they're finally catching onto the fact that most of the "niche gamers" in the west are on Steam, and we've arrived at the bizarre reality that there are more interesting JRPGs being released on PC these days than on there are for PS4. The bizarre reality where I am literally more interested in the PS4 as a Netflix machine than as a gaming device.

<comment><USER12> > if you build your own PC instead of following Jeff Atwood's affiliate codes, > you can easily put something together for half that price that absolutely > smokes all the current gen consoles, has a 20+ year library, and is useful > for work.

This was more or less my point. He's trying to shoehorn the NUC into a place where other options fit better.

<comment><USER13> Honestly at this point, I assume that every new Coding Horror post is an excuse to spam affiliate links at people.

<comment><USER14> Eh, it's gear he's actually using. Jeff has a massive audience, so if he's going to be advocating for tech he's researching and using then I have no problem with affiliate links. To suggest that's all these blog posts are for is really poor form.

For what it's worth this build and many previous builds are focused on HTPCs. Having a quiet, power efficient, and capable box is the aim. That is the theme. I personally don't see the value in this particular build, but this isn't trying to be an ultimate gaming rig. Just compareble to current gen consoles, with upgrade potential, while still being the quiet, small, power efficient HTPC box sitting under the TV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It feels like this thing is tailor made for SteamOS.

<comment><USER16> Isn't steam great for mostly indie games, which doesn't really need cutting- edge, power-hungry hardware to render (let alone 4K) ?

<comment><USER15> No? Not sure where you'd get that idea. The only games that aren't on Steam are the ones that have Origin exclusivity. And increasingly they have SteamOS (=Linux) compatibility, thanks to the Steam Boxes.

You can browse the Steam store on the web: [http://store.steampowered.com](http://store.steampowered.com)

<comment><USER16> Hey Leo, maybe I wasn't 100% accurate. Comparing games in Steam vs. Origin, I get the idea, but console gaming has moved into a whole new level already and they are the ones that are (relatively) more power-hungry in my assessment. The fact that console games have started diverging from PC games, and even when there is a PC version, the big title games are primarily being developed for consoles and then being (kind of) ported to PCs, was my point in evaluating SteamOS. In a world where 2 consoles will single-mindedly focus on driving hardware power and distribution plays with big studios, I am still thinking that Steam might end up representing primarily the distribution channel for indies to get into console business.

<comment><USER15> Both the PS4 and the XBone _are_ PCs. They just run a fancy OS. It's still Intel and a standard GPU underneath.

There's no "porting" going on, not like in previous gen systems, which were Weird.

Console exclusives are exclusives because the console manufacturer paid for them to be so, and not because the hardware is special, because it just isn't.

Yes, Steam is great for indies, but that's completely irrelevant here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> He keeps saying x86, but all these computers -- including the consoles -- are x64.

<comment><USER18> They're 64-bit variant of x86, or x86-64. x64 is a shit name and people should stop using it. Sadly that probably won't happen thanks to Microsoft.

<comment><USER19> In fact, the term "x86-64" came into existence as a term-of-art because "x64" technically refers to the _Itanium_ ISA (Intel's first now-forgotten attempt at a 64-bit ISA), not the IA64 ISA (Intel's canonicalization of AMD's unofficial extension to IA32.)

<comment><USER20> Uh, "IA-64" is Itanium. Intel officially calls x86-64 "Intel 64".

<comment><USER21> Yeah, Itanium is IA-64. It's also dying but not forgotten: people who like RISC, reliability, security features, and high-speed all in one remember their vain attempt well. Are also reaping benefits of used HP Integrity and SGI Altix boxes on eBay selling cheaper than consoles. I'm eyeballing a few of those suckers myself. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The PC gaming treadmill is the worst. You're committing to throwing so much money to continue to be able to play the latest games at a consistent FPS.

At least developers are forced to fine tune games for a very specific platform when it comes to consoles. Sure, the PC can look better, but at least the console plays better most of the time.

<comment><USER23> > You're committing to throwing so much money

Only if you make bad choices buying hardware, like the obsolete stuff that comes with consoles (even on release)

> console plays better most of the time

PCMasterRace plays real 1080@60 for over a decade

Enjoy your PS4K/Neo/neXt

<comment><USER24> Maybe that's exactly the reason why consoles are successful.

It provides an unified device, which lasts around 8 years, which permits to play recent titles, which is simple to setup up and which is comparatively cheap.

The PC I'm typing this message is a 9 years old thinkpad, and I would not attempt to play any "less than 5 years old games" on it.

Some people don't give to much of a shit about highly impressive graphics and just want to play the fucking game without checking the "minimal configuration required".

However if consoles tend to be like PCs (same or worst hardware, same or worst upgrade process, etc), they will just become meaningless.</comment></comment></comment>


Shazam for Mac - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/shazam/id897118787

<comment><USER3> Personally I would never allow any app to use my microphone all the time, effectively being able to monitor a certain area around the device it is running on all the time. This is gross.

This is all the more true for an app from a company that did transfer sensitive user data to third parties in the past.[0]

In Germany, under certain circumstances, it is also illegal to make sound recordings of persons without their knowledge.[1] This might be the case in other jurisdictions too.

[0] [http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FShazam- meldet-Standort-heimlich-an-Werbenetzwerke-2111850.html)

[1| German Civil Law Code § 201 – Breach of confidentiality of the word: [http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&...](http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdejure.org%2Fgesetze%2FStGB%2F201.html)

<comment><USER4> When it goes to these things, I love Germany. I wish more countries were so respectful of human rights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My first job was at a record store. The owners were an old man and his wife.

The old man was essentially Shazam personified. It was amazing. He could name any song, composer and artist after listening to a few beats. Except he would do it with old jazz artists and big band music.

Coincidentally the old man had huge ears. Enormous.

And when you'd ask him how he could remember all those songs, the wife would chime in, "It's cause of his ears. The songs all stay in his ears. Bouncing around."

The record store is long gone and the space is now occupied by a Cold Stone Creamery.

</comment><comment><USER6> Whelp, that pretty much obsoletes my app [http://audentifi.com](http://audentifi.com) :(

Time to evolve!

<comment><USER7> Can you tell us how you are doing this? Do you have an own database with which you compare the music to ?

<comment><USER8> I've made my own audio fingerprinting software in Python under the MIT license, check it out!

[https://github.com/worldveil/dejavu](https://github.com/worldveil/dejavu)

<comment><USER6> Great work and a really interesting read! Really nice performance too - <USER2> reference Echonest advises samples be 30s or longer for optimum recognition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hm, so is this app running and listening in to the mic constantly? (Also: Extra network traffic and cpu activity.)

<comment><USER10> Yes, but there is an on/off switch which presumably stops this activity. The energy impact in mavericks while "listening" is hovering around 2 on my machine. For comparison, Safari is at 8.

<comment><USER11> The difference is Safari is doing something immensily useful, whereas Shazam is a gimmick.

That and, constant audio surveillance (even with "an option to turn it off")? No thanks...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wonder what the most common use case is for this? It's rare that I'm in front of my computer, there's music, and I have no way of determining what it is.

The mobile version makes -more- sense to me.

<comment><USER13> People on laptops in coffee shops?

Students?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why fingerprint audio with Shazam when you can do it yourself?

I've made my own audio fingerprinting software in Python under the MIT license, check it out!

[https://github.com/worldveil/dejavu](https://github.com/worldveil/dejavu)

</comment><comment><USER14> Works well. Minor nitpick: needs a dark icon option. It's the only colour menu bar extra I have.

<comment> k-mcgrady With dark mode in Yosemite I've got a feeling devs will need to either do a dark and light version of menu bar icons or go all color. Currently my menu bar is useless in dark mode as I can't see any icons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wish it could pick up music from internal audio. Plenty of times I've wanted to try detecting music in YouTube videos.

<comment><USER16> SoundFlower does this, it's open source. It contains a decent chunk of audio routing features that are inexplicably missing from the core OS X.

For instance, you can route application audio out to a Soundflower channel and use that as input for another app.

Edit: just checked, Soundflower rerouting works perfectly with the Shazam Mac app, tried it out on a couple of YouTube songs, and it got it right on 47 out of the current top 50. It's a shame that Shazam is still only useful for mainstream stuff, when I tried it on some random metal, Goa, soundtracks, and industrial... 0 out of 15.

<comment><USER17> It's recently become really good at electronic music since they signed a deal with Beatport: [http://news.beatport.com/blog/2013/02/06/beatport-x- shazam-a...](http://news.beatport.com/blog/2013/02/06/beatport-x-shazam- awesome/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've always liked Shazam but I like what [http://www.soundhound.com/](http://www.soundhound.com/) did with their app better.

</comment><comment><USER19> Anyone know what the timer is? Could it be a timer for usage per day? I can't seem to find anything about paying them for it.

<comment><USER16> It's the countdown until the mic switches off again. You may not want to keep the line open all the time, it may prevent your computer from going into power saving mode (not sure), and Shazam probably doesn't want everyone to hit their servers constantly either.

But if you switch it off and on again the timer starts anew, so it's not a per-user limit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there the equivalent for Windows?

<comment><USER21> Perhaps not quite the equivalent, but there is a "Modern UI Style" app: [http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en- gb/app/shazam/5593d150-...](http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en- gb/app/shazam/5593d150-02c7-4714-ab8f-007d5d251688)</comment></comment>


//TLIILB = "This Line Is Intentionally Left Blank" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/budhajeewa/status/978235833844105216 <comment><USER2> I'm sure there is a better way to avoid this

<comment><AUTHOR> The same result should be returned regardless of the exception being thrown or not. And the exception should not be allowed to propagate any further.

How would you handle this in that context?</comment></comment>


Tell me what surprised you: iPad Edition - <AUTHOR> http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201005#18 <comment><USER2> The equal footing argument is absolutely not true. iBooks uses private APIs to control hardware features like screen brightness that are not available to 3rd party developers.

If I was to submit an eBook app to the AppStore that had feature parity with iBooks, it would be rejected by Apple's reviewers for using private APIs.

See <http://www.marco.org/500743718> for more on this

<comment><USER3> Also, iBooks has in-app purchasing, the Kindle app forces you to quit the app and launch your browser to shop for books. It's not the end of the world, but is a substandard user experience.

I don't have any inside info on this, but rumor has it that not only does Apple want their 30% cut for using their in-app purchasing service, but also that you are not permitted to implement your own, hence Amazon's between a rock and a hard place. Either give Apple 30% of all e-book revenue or provide a substandard experience to users.

All in all, seems like old Amazon is getting a pretty raw deal.

<comment><USER2> I don't think that's a rumor. I think it's pretty well grounded in fact that Apple is the reason you can't buy Kindle books inside the Kindle apps on iPad and iPhone.

And it's definitely a raw deal. No question about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The main point of the article (which was that Apple made no attempt to include or inform the user about iBooks) is completely false which confuses me. When the App Store is first launched, a big colourful dialog comes up asking if the user would like to install iBooks.

</comment><comment><USER5> "it absolutely beats the snot out of Kindle for the iPhone/iPad in pretty much every way (except book prices, which are much higher than Amazon's)"

So I take you can't just transfer books between the two? Sorry, Apple and Amazon, but unless I can't own the books I buy from you, I won't become a customer.

"page numbers. Compare them in Kindle vs. iBooks. Someone at Amazon needs to be shot."

He wants to shoot people for messing up page numbers? Creepy.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, the page numbers complaint is bogus. The kindle doesn't even have page numbers to mess up because "pages" don't make sense when you can navigate to any line and change the font size. The last thing you want is to be stuck with an old limitation when the paradigm changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> He's channeling my favorite PG essay.

"When friends came back from faraway places, it wasn't just out of politeness that I asked what they saw. I really wanted to know. And I found the best way to get information out of them was to ask what surprised them. How was the place different from what they expected? This is an extremely useful question. You can ask it of the most unobservant people, and it will extract information they didn't even know they were recording." <http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> _For the record, iBooks is doing pretty well so far: it absolutely beats the snot out of Kindle for the iPhone/iPad in pretty much every way (except book prices, which are much higher than Amazon's)._

I'm surprised he didn't bring up book _selection_ , where Kindle beats iBooks by far.

<comment><USER9> Or readability. Or fonts. Or design aesthetic. I can't _stand_ iBooks.

And _page numbers_? What archaic nonsense is _that_? This must be the only guy who lamented the loss of "Side" demarcation when tapes gave way to CDs.

<comment><USER8> I must admit, "3 pages left in chapter" is kind of nice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am i the only one that found the Paris analogy and surprises more interesting? :P

" What surprised me about Paris was that, at their fruit stands, every fruit is arranged with absolute care and precision. Compare to a typical grocery store in Canada, where fruit is typically dumped into a bin so you can sort through it yourself. When I think about how much more time it must take to do it the hard way, yes, it surprises me. How can they afford to do that? It's magic. (I also had other related observations at the time.)"

Magic? It's the same in germany and i guess many other european countries too.. Never occured to me to throw all the fruits into one basket randomly.. :D

Those little differences around the world can be so interesting.

</comment><comment><USER11> Doesn't it have something to do with international licensing issues? Which seems odd to say as it's not been released worldwide yet.

</comment><comment><USER12> The most important differences I've found between the iBooks app and the Kindle app are that iBooks supports searching and Kindle supports notes.

When contemplating purchasing a book, I ask which of those I'm more likely to need.

</comment><comment><USER13> So what was his reasoning for leaving it off the device? To be less "Microsoft" and because they want to compete? Right...

<comment><USER14> It was left off the base load of the device so that it could be revved quicker. If there are bugs in an app store application you can push a fix, if there are bugs in mobilesafari or the maps application the only way to update them is to cut a new release of the OS.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How many iPhones match the total USSR computing power in 1970? 1985? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_7600](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_7600) could handle 10-36 MFLOPS in 1970, which is about an iPhone 4.

The Elbrus 2, which was the first Soviet supercomputer, didn't come until 1977. Earlier systems, like the BESM, were mainframes - designed more for data handling than compute power. It looks like 355 BESM-6:s were made, ending in 1987. There were also Minsk mainframes.

There were also clones of US hardware, like the ES EVM clone of the IBM 360 (production didn't start until 1972), and PDP-11/VAX clones. Those were after 1970.

I'll use 50 BESM-6:s as my shot-in-the-dark estimate. Those seemed to be 1 megaflop (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BESM) ), so the USSR could probably do about 50 MFLOPS in 1970.

Or no more than three iPhones.

For 1985 it's much harder to even guess. Is it even reasonable to include the aggregate sum of the microcomputers of that era? Not if you want to simulate an H-bomb. Only you can answer that.

<comment><USER3> >> Is it even reasonable to include the aggregate sum of the microcomputers of that era? Not if you want to simulate an H-bomb

I think so. Since no one's going to be simulating an H-bomb on an iPhone anyway. If we are going to argue maybe there are soldiers trapped in a nuclear-proof bunker with a nuclear bomb and before they launch it they want to simulate it, and all they have is an iPhone, we can argue the same case for a microcomputer.

<comment><USER2> I was being a bit facetious. My underlying point was that the network overhead on a microcomputer likely overwhelms a "Beowulf cluster" (to use a 1990s term) of them, so 10,000 microcomputers in practice won't be anywhere near 10,000x the performance of a single microcomputer.

What then is the goal of estimating the aggregate raw MFLOPs for the USSR?

As a side point, Apple doesn't allow a compiler or language interpreter on their iPhone, so unless they either had the app beforehand, or access to a development machine, they won't be able to anything with it. While if they had an Apple ][ they could start right away in Apple BASIC on the ROM.</comment></comment></comment>


Hy – a Lisp embedded in Python - <AUTHOR> http://docs.hylang.org/en/stable/quickstart.html <comment><USER2> Quite a few previous discussions: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Hy%20lisp%20points%3E10&sort=b...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Hy%20lisp%20points%3E10&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)</comment>