Resurgence of the King of Clay

Let me confess I'm a great fan of Swiss tennis star Roger Federer, and having written about him once, would have loved to write about him 10 more times. But the sweeping manner in which Rafael Nadal won the Men's Single title clash at the French Open on, making a name for himself in the history books of the game, was way too tempting for any sports enthusiast to ignore.

On Sunday, June 11^th 2017, with his clay-court prowess as unassailable as ever, the 31-year-old Spaniard coasted to a record 10th French Open title, demolishing Stan Wawrinka in a brutally one-sided final which also earned him a 15th Grand Slam crown. Nadal triumphed 6-2, 6-3, 6-1 to become the first man in history to win the same major 10 times in the Open era, which began in 1968.

Along with improving to 10-0 in finals at Roland Garros, Nadal increased his career haul to 15 Grand Slam trophies, breaking a tie with Pete Sampras for second place in the history of men’s tennis, behind only rival Roger Federer’s 18.

It marked a stirring return to the top for Nadal in his favorite event and on his favorite surface: Over his career, he is now 79-2 at the French Open and 102-2 in all best-of-five-set matches on clay.

Why winning a French Open is Hardest

Doing a 'La Decima' (the 10th in English) at the Garros isn't a cake walk by any stretch of the imagination. It's a great achievement - one that seems rare to be equaled or surpassed for generations to come. There are solid reasons that make achieving 'La Decima' at the French Open a superlative feat. 

The slow clay surface, the windy open conditions inside the stadium and the disruptions due to weather - the French Open is the only major tournament without a retractable roof on its main court - all make it a devil of a tournament to string together seven straight wins.

Even former legends like Arthur Ashe, Boris Becker, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, John Newcombe, and Pete Sampras were unsuccessful in mastering the tiresome clay surface. All of them missed their career Grand Slam only because they were never able to conquer Garros. 

Why Rafa is The Best

This game is demanding and challenging because it is a tough physical sport in which injuries are a part and parcel. Nadal's problems with his knees and foot have been well documented but his ability to disregard his excruciating pain and win 10 French Open titles in a span of 12 years is exceptional.

In 2003  a 17-year-old Nadal was forced to withdraw from what should have been his first Roland Garros win, due to a wrist injury. But the Spaniard has effectively worked on his problematic niggles that have forced him to stay away from major tennis tournaments so far.

Here is a 31-year-old who has earned himself a name with a 'La Decima' at the French, proving without a doubt, and against all odds, that he is several cuts above one-hit wonders at the Roland Garros. The fact that Nadal has won other five Grand Slams on grass and hard courts only substantiates his prowess and claim to fame in the history of tennis.

Nadal's influence and superiority over Federer grew with every meeting of the pair during three compelling finals between 2006 and 2008. Watching the usually stoic Federer kick the red dirt away in frustration and despair was evidence enough of Nadal's hold over his great rival.

Earlier this year, the Swiss had even admitted that Nadal's authority on clay gave him the edge in other tournaments. He said, "Rafa has presented me with the biggest challenge in the game."

Rafael Nadal admits he doubted he’d ever win another Grand Slam title after a three-year drought at the majors and an ongoing battle with injuries and poor form. His last Grand Slam title before this year’s Roland Garros came in Paris in 2014 and he admitted that there were doubts over whether or not he’d recover his former powers. “I have doubts every day but that’s good as it makes me work hard with more intensity,” he said.

After winning his ninth Roland Garros and 14th major in 2014, Nadal’s best performance at the Slams was two quarter-final spots. His world ranking slipped as low as 10 in 2015 and his 2016 French Open was ended prematurely after the second round by a wrist injury. But he finished runner-up at the Australian Open in January, losing in five sets to Federer and he was back in business.

He dominated the clay court season with titles in Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Madrid. He lost just one match on clay all year while his win on Sunday took his Paris record to a staggering 79 wins and just two losses. Against world number three Wawrinka, his record is now 16 wins and three losses. On clay, it’s 7-1.

Nadal went through the tournament without dropping a set for the third time in his French Open career. He lost just 35 games in total, next only to Bjorn Borg’s record of 32 in the Swede’s 1978 title-winning season, the second fewest by any man on the way to any title at a Grand Slam tournament in the Open era with all matches being best-of-five-sets.

“To win 10 Roland Garros titles is magical,” added Nadal. “I had tough times last year so it’s great to have big success again.”

Despite his dominance at the French Open, Nadal said he never took victory for granted. He was aware of being within touching distance of the title in Australia in January when he was a break up in the final set only to lose to Federer.

“At 4-1 in the third set I knew I was close. At 5-1, I thought probably I am going to win this. But I have come close before -- in Australia this year and in 2012 in Australia (when he lost an epic final to Novak Djokovic). So my mentality was that I cannot give Stan the chance to get back into the match. But I knew that I had been playing too good in the tournament to play a bad final.”

Wawrinka is no slouch; he owns three major titles, including one from Roland Garros, and had never lost a Grand Slam final. But a five-set semifinal win over No. 1-ranked Andy Murray must have taken something out of the 32-year-old from Switzerland, the oldest French Open finalist since 1973. His shots didn’t have their usual verve, his legs their usual spring. After one point, Wawrinka bent over, leaning one arm on his racket and resting the other on a knee. Nadal has that way of wearing down opponents. On this day, he was nearly perfect. He won all 12 service games, saving the lone break point he faced, and made a mere 12 unforced errors.

When it ended, Nadal dropped to his back on the clay, then rose and briefly pulled his blue shirt over his face. He was again the champion, again unbeatable at the French Open.

As the Spaniard pummeled Wawrinka into submission on Sunday, one was reminded of another campaign where he let little go. The 35 games Nadal lost in Paris over the last fortnight is a record. The previous best was 41, during the 2008 French Open.

In those seven matches he did not even play a tiebreaker, let alone dropping a set. That run to the title saw some incredible results — Fernando Verdasco was thumped 6-1, 6-0, 6-2 in the fourth round, followed by a 6-1, 6-1, 6-1 thrashing of another compatriot Nicolas Almagro. But it was his display in the final which stands out in memory. Nadal’s evisceration of his greatest rival, Roger Federer, took 108 minutes as the Majorcan won his fourth Slam title in Paris. The news of the massacre was relayed by the score line as 6-1, 6-3, 6-0.

It was the kind of result which stays with you. You do not just watch one of the greatest players of all-time take a mere four games in three sets, without the gory details seared in your memory. Perhaps, the one-sided nature of that win made the ‘contest’ forgettable for some. But Nadal’s ruthless performance in the Slam final would have had to look hard to find its equal. Much like it did on Sunday.

When Nadal was undergoing his rough patch that lasted for the most of 2015 and ’16, his longest ally & uncle Toni Nadal identified three areas where his nephew had to improve - strengthen the serve, return the forehand to its former glory and find that competitive hunger again.

This season, Nadal has ticked each of those boxes. The technical work done by him has reaped wonders; his serve has particularly been a revelation thank to the insights provided by new coach Carlos Moya. But it also needs to be stressed that we have once again found a Nadal who cannot make do with what he has. He keeps pushing for more and when it seems it is beyond his grasp, he responds with his own take on a miracle. That reeling forehand on Sunday summed up his refuelled spirit.

Nadal took a stoic view of his defeat in the Australian Open final. But as he said back then, if he took his good form into France, “good things can happen.” And they did. The arrival of the 15th Grand Slam title has cemented the path of Nadal’s rejuvenation which began in Australia. But is rejuvenation the right word? Literally, it means to make someone young again. Nadal, in tennis terms, cannot go back to the works of his youth. But his game is relevant, it succeeds. So he can look to the future. There are plans to be made and thought about.

Conclusion

The game of tennis is as much mental as it is physical. Some would argue the former takes precedence. Other champions would not have been able to keep their head above water with the challenge set before them year after year - but not Nadal.

Nadal is going to be here for a while.

Barcelona's magical UCL comeback vs. PSG will never, ever be forgotten

Something magical had just happened, something utterly implausible. Football, bloody hell?

How inadequate those two words sound now. All the expletives on Earth would struggle to do justice to this. Barcelona went where they have been every year for 10 years now, into the quarter-finals of the Champions League, but they got there in a way they never have; a way that no one ever has. Not just one comeback, but two. Dead, revived, dead, revived. Somehow, they are still standing.

There is perhaps only one club in world soccer that could stare at a 4-0 deficit for three weeks and eventually decide that it was no big deal. Barcelona manager Luis Enrique said, 24 hours before his side was due to kick off against Paris Saint-Germain, “If they scored four, we can score six,” fully aware that Barça would need to win by at least five to stay in the Champions League.

That’s the kind of certainty that winning the tournament four times in a decade will buy you in these parts: the conviction that if any team on the planet can produce history in a pinch, it’s Barça.  No one believed him and he probably didn’t even believe himself, but it happened. This was absurd, astonishing and agonising too. 

On the night of March 9^th, the Catalan club pulled off the most dramatic turnaround the Champions League has ever seen, scoring three times in the final seven minutes to beat PSG 6-1 and advance to the quarterfinals.

“I’ve never experienced anything like that.” Barcelona defender Samuel Umtiti said.

Barcelona scored three goals in an hour to give them hope that they could produce a miracle to overturn the massacre they suffered in Paris on Valentine’s Day – but that hope was torn from them.

As Barcelona went 3-0 up early in the second half, the comeback appeared to derail when PSG’s Edinson Cavani snatched a goal back. Except instead of calming things down, it only turned Camp Nou into the craziest soccer venue anywhere in the world on Wednesday night.

The home side needed three more goals to avoid its earliest Champions League exit in a decade. PSG needed only to avoid an epic choke. Up stepped Neymar, Barcelona’s Brazilian winger, with the finest seven minutes of his career.

He scored in the 88th minute with a violently swerving free kick. He scored again in the 91st from the penalty spot—even if Luis Suarez appeared to draw the foul with a dive. Finally, in the chaos of 90,000 fans, he laid on the assist off the free kick for Sergi Roberto’s decisive goal.

This time it was not hope: it was a reality. Ridiculous, but real. Six-one on the night, 6-5 on aggregate. “So many things can happen in 95 minutes.” Luis Enrique had said beforehand, and so many things did; this was a game that will be picked over for days and an occasion that will be relived for years.

Minute-by-minute:

• 3: Luis Suarez goal, Barcelona 1-0 PSG (1-4)
• 40': Layvin Kurzawa own-goal, Barcelona 2-0 PSG (2-4)
• 50': Lionel Messi penalty, Barcelona 3-0 PSG (3-4)
• 62': Edinson Cavani goal, Barcelona 3-1 PSG (3-5)
• 88': Neymar free-kick, Barcelona 4-1 PSG (4-5)
• 90'+1: Neymar penalty, Barcelona 5-1 PSG (5-5)
• 90'+5: Sergi Roberto goal, Barcelona 6-1 PSG (6-5)

Barcelona manager Luis Enrique: "It is a difficult night to explain with words. It was a horror movie, not a drama, with a Camp Nou that I have seen very few times as a player or coach. What defines this victory is the faith that the players and fans had."

Luis Enrique had called the comeback. He’d even called the goals. But he never could have called the ending.

“Barcelona is capable of doing that,” PSG manager Unai Emery said. “It was all or nothing for them in the final minutes.”

Brains. Belief. Guts.

This Barça era, which now really stretches from 2005 until the present day, has more often shown genius, strategy, creativity, technique as trademarks. This was different.

However, there's no escaping the fact that on a night when they did something to stun the world, something that had never been done before, this group of players won not via a display of their stunning, plus-ultra football. No, this was guts, strength, unity, perseverance, a couple of dollops of luck and a smattering of brilliant moments.

Neymar's free kick to make it 4-1 - a dazzling, elite execution - was one.

This was worth remembering because this was pure magic.

Magic from start to finish.

AMD Ryzen : Rise of a Phoenix

When Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) announced nearly two years ago that the Zen CPU architecture would provide an architectural improvement of 40%, it had both skepticism as well as optimism. For the last few years, AMD had some small wins and even some big wins like sweeping the Xbox and the PlayStation game consoles but it appeared it would be a long time before AMD could pull a rabbit out of their hat in PC processors. But based on the analysis of AMD Ryzen, it can be said that Ryzen desktop is the real thing and AMD is back in desktops with a vengeance.

While it may seem like a distant memory, AMD once had a commanding performance lead in the desktop PC processor market. For years with the Athlon 64, Athlon 64 FX  and Athlon 64 X2,
AMD pretty much ran up the performance score on the competition and until Intel introduced the Core architecture which put a stop to that, AMD sold as many as they could make.

With AMD announcing the launch of their top of the line 8 core, 16 threads processor line, the Ryzen 7 enters AMD’s latest line up of desktop processors. Featuring three CPUs at various price points, all supporting DDR4 memory in a dual channel setup, the Ryzen 7 processors are set to take the gaming and computer market by storm.

Zen and the product derivatives like Ryzen and what is code-named “Naples” for server, is derived from a completely new architecture. In other words, it’s not a small improvement on prior architectures like “Jaguar” or “Excavator”. Starting from scratch is a high-risk, high-return endeavor as we saw in AMD’s “Hammer” architecture on the upside in 2000 and “Bulldozer” in 2010 on the downside. Architecture cuts both ways. This is just one reason Intel has remained with the “Core” architecture for a decade, making incremental improvements to it. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. AMD wasn’t getting what they needed from Excavator, so they had to create Ryzen.

A good desktop chip is comparised of relationship between relevant performance in a preferred workload, power draw, price, cost and availability.  Performance can be driven with architecture and frequency. CPU architecture improvements are many times measured by the term “instructions per clock”, or IPC. This is essentially how much work the CPU can do every tick of the processor clock.

Starting with the cream of the Ryzen crop, with a base clock of 3.6 Ghz and a boost of 4 Ghz, the Ryzen 1800X managed to match Intel’s 6900K in single core performance in Cinebench and beat it by 9 per cent in the multi-core rendering test. A 9 % better performance may not be anything to write about, but it so is when it is considered that the 1800X will retail for less than half the price of the 6900K. Identical results were seen when the 1700X was compared to the i7 6800K, again the former being cheaper. The only result where the Intel chip came out in front was in the single core performance of the 1700, the lowest member of the elite R7 line up vs the i7 7700K. This is due to the fact that the i7 comes with a much higher base and boost clock compared to the 1700, which features base/boost clocks of 3/3.7 Ghz. However, this shouldn’t matter given the price of the 1700, the fact that it too features eight cores and 16 threads and comes with AMD’s Extreme Frequency Range tech, which means that this chip can be easily overclocked.

AMD has hit a performance home run architecturally with the Zen core as evidenced by desktop Ryzen. AMD said nearly two years ago they would increase IPC 40% but they are delivering more like a 50-52% improvement. With IPC usually being measured by SPECint and with AMD measuring it with Cinebench, it may give them one or two-point advanatge. In case you’re wondering, such a leap between sequential architectures is unheard of as most generations can only manage between 5-10%. So, a 50%, improvement is incredible and really boggles the mind and with AMD actually shipping, it’s an even bigger deal.

It is amazing to see the phoenix rise from the ashes, and shaking up the market with a product that looks set to dominate the market. The pricing set by AMD is not just competitive, it is disruptive and Intel needs to pull out a miracle from somewhere if they wish to stay relevant in the CPU market going forward. 

Linux in the Mainstream. What Will it Take?

If you Google “Why Linux is Better Than Windows” you’ll be able to go 20 pages deep and still find articles from tech blogs and news sites alike proclaiming reasons for Linux’s superiority. While most of these articles are just rehashing the same points, they are valid points nevertheless. And with all this ruckus over Linux, it begs the question: if Linux is so much better, why is it not competing for users at the same level that Windows is?

The Problem

Linux lays claim to only 2% of the desktop operating system market. Meanwhile, Windows holds 88% of the market. We know why this is the case. Microsoft had the first mover advantage, with MS-DOS solidifying Microsoft’s hold in the personal computing market a decade before Linux even came into existence.

Once Linux had managed to mature into having intuitive and usable distros, it was too late. People haven’t been and still aren’t switching over. And why should they? Windows comes preinstalled on most computers and works right out of the box.

Some claim that the solution is simple; a distro needs to be offered preinstalled on computers from big name computer manufacturers like Dell, HP, ASUS, etc. The logic is that by showcasing the many advantages of Linux over Windows, people will make the logical decision to switch over. In reality, when users are presented with this choice, they most always stick with Windows. Why???

The main contest is really between proprietary and closed-source software vs. free and open-source software. Propriety software is where only the private company that owns the software knows how it works and only they can legally distribute the software. Free Open-Source Software (FOSS) is where the software is released to the public, and everyone can see how it works and distribute it at no cost. Windows a pure example of the the proprietary model, and Linux is a pure example of the FOSS model. Apple's macOS (OSX) is a clever mix of the two models, and is designed by Apple to sell its high-end hardware systems. As one of the most profitable private companies on Earth, Apple is extremely successful at what they do, but they are not as dominant on the desktop. Apple's enormous wealth comes from the profits and popularity of their iOS in mobile technology. Mobile computing is diminishing the market share of the desktop as a computing platform. Mobile computing is also an area where Linux in the form of Android dominates Windows.

The principal reason for the sustained popularity of Windows on the desktop is that Microsoft at a very early stage in the mass adoption of desktop PCs was able to secure wide deployment of its operating systems by forming strong alliances with hardware makers like Intel and the builders of IBM clone PCs. This started with MS-DOS/Windows 3.1 and reached a fever pitch with Windows 95. Microsoft was also first to bring to market a well-integrated office productivity suite in the form of Microsoft Office.

Microsoft's strong alliances with hardware makers and PC builders along with the tight integration of its popular office business tools with its operating systems create an enormous money-making synergy for the profitable sale of proprietary software licenses. In its ruthless execution of this strategy Microsoft was very successful! At one point Microsoft Windows was running on over 90% of PC in the world and Microsoft Office is still the de facto standard for information exchange in documents.

The wide distribution of Microsoft operating system and its tightly coupled office productivity tools led to a network effect where developers would write programs that ran only on Microsoft operating systems because they were guaranteed a wide market and would make more money for the least amount of effort.

So today we have the situation where when you buy a PC it is already pre-installed with a paid copy of Windows. Many users will use what comes installed with the computer as long as it does what they expect it do. Because most developers write the most popular programs only for Windows it is very difficult for other operating systems to compete even if they are superior.

Also, Microsoft has the marketing muscle to persuade PC users that they are receiving more value from Windows than they actually are getting. The marketing budgets of Linux distributions are near to zero, even though these technologies are critical to modern computing. Very few people know that there exist better alternatives than what they are already using.

There is now a huge installed base of computers that run Windows. The technology in most of these computers are heavily encumbered by patents. Microsoft deploys these patents to block the adoption of superior competitor technology. This means that many times if you do switch to Linux (or Mac) you will encounter compatibility issues that Microsoft has intentionally created to block you from working with those who use Microsoft technology. Many users find it is easier to just continue paying to use Windows and Office than dealing with some of the challenges of switching to alternative solutions.

It is possible to make the switch, but it means leaving behind Windows operating systems and file formats completely. It also means finding alternatives for any software that only run on Windows (or Mac). This includes beloved desktop programs like PhotoShop, Illustrator, AutoCAD, Outlook, CorelDraw, Picasa, and many games. A huge number of valuable work-flows and technical processes are tightly coupled to programs that only run on Windows.

Microsoft's intentionally complex licensing practices block many PC makers from lowering the price of a new PC even when they pre-install Linux or sell the PC with no operating system. If a PC maker wants to sell Windows licensed PCs, then Microsoft often requires PC makers to buy a Windows license for every PC that they sell even if they don't install Windows on that particular PC. If a PC maker fails to comply they are charged higher licensing fees. In a market as hotly competitive as PC hardware, no PC maker can afford to pay higher licensing fees to Microsoft than its competitors and remain in business.

There are also some problems users have with Ubuntu and Linux operating systems that prevent wider adoption and use. As mentioned above, there is a lack of awareness of Linux operating systems due to a lack of strong marketing and evangelism. Many people do not know that there exist free alternatives to Windows or Mac. Any awareness of the Linux brand is usually accompanied by the message Linux is only for the technically savvy. Of course, this is a false message since in many ways Linux can be much easier to use than Windows. The reason Windows might seem easier to use is that there is a lot more people who are experienced with using Windows, fixing its quirks, or finding workarounds.

Sometimes Linux user interfaces (UI) lack attention to detail and design awareness. While huge strides have been made in this area, there are times where ugly details in the UI go untended for years before some intrepid volunteer out of boredom or disgust contributes some polish. (I am looking at you Ubuntu and the way your top panel works with overlapping windows and menus in your Unity Desktop Environment.) Sometimes ugly or quirky UI widgets only disappear after they become obsolete and are bypassed or replaced completely. Deficiencies in the desktop environments can make the underlying Linux operating system appear cheap and shoddy.

Once they have successfully settled on a particular flavour of Linux, they often find that there is some new program or function they want to do that they can't do on Linux. They go to the store and buy a new iPhone, or smart-TV, or they subscribe to some on-line service which uses file formats infested with Digital Rights Management (DRM), and they find that the software needed to make it run will only work with Windows (or Mac). Despite all the nice things that Linux might have done for them, they begin to feel like it is a crappy operating system. Of course it is not the fault of Linux that developers are lazy, or willing to encumber their users with DRM, yet it adds to the false impression that Linux is a second-rate and "cheap" solution.

Another problem is when proprietary hardware manufacturers decide not to release to the public the proprietary way their hardware works. They fail to release the driver code in order to protect their so-called "trade secrets". If that hardware becomes popular, a lot of users will find their hardware will not work with Linux. The hardware will not work with Linux until some intrepid Linux developer figures out a way to reverse-engineer a usable driver. This can take a long time and by then many users of that hardware will go back to Windows because for them "Windows just works". Of course, this is just another false impression.

Finally, most of the DIY solutions to these problems require the user to query Google and visit technical forums. They will find that many of the most skilled users of Linux are haughty and rude. They will find that they have to go to a "scary" command line and exactly execute one or more unfamiliar commands. These commands can be sometimes quite lengthy and complex. Most PC users lack the confidence to evaluate the solutions they find on-line, or correctly execute the solution. They often don't try, or when they do try they often destroy their Linux set-up and corrupt their files. Of course, the same thing happens with DIY Windows users, but because of the above reasons, users end up going back to Windows (or Mac) because it is perceived as safer than Linux and there are more commercial options for help and support available to users of the for-profit proprietary platforms.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how much people proclaim the superior features of Linux — the reality is that to the average consumer, Windows and Linux accomplish the same tasks and there is no reason to switch away from what they already know.

The Solution

In order for Linux to succeed at a consumer level, Linux would have to do more than just appeal to consumers with utilitarian value. This is already expected from consumers. It would require consumers holding a higher brand value for Linux over Windows.

Once people hear about Linux they usually find there are many formulations of Linux and they get overwhelmed by the choices. First they are confronted with choosing between distributions: There is Debian vs. Ubuntu vs. Linux Mint vs. Red Hat vs. Fedora vs. CentOS vs. Slackware vs. SuSE vs. Arch vs. Gentoo, etc. Then they have to choose between Desktop Environments (DE): There is Unity vs. KDE vs. GNOME vs. XFCE vs. Cinnamon vs. Mate vs. Enlightenment vs. LXDE vs. bash, etc. Most users don't want to have to decide what solution is best. They would rather have good choices made for them. The plethora of choices and the constant arguments over which is better feed into the false message that Linux is hard or only for geeks.

And by brand value, we aren’t talking about nice logos, product design/experience, or even what a company says about themselves. By brand value, we are talking about a company’s values and how they act upon those values and in effect, how consumers view said company.

To give an example, we can look at the wildly successful car manufacturer Tesla Motors. Tesla’s Model S is the world’s bestselling electric car, despite being 2-4 times more expensive than the next 10 bestselling electric cars.

This is possible because consumer’s aren’t buying into just the product itself, they are buying into Tesla’s values and how Tesla acts upon them — their values being that of creating a sustainable future for generations to come.

And while the next 10 bestselling cars I mentioned are sold by companies who promote the same values for their electric cars, they fail to truly act upon those values by continuing to sell gasoline powered vehicles as well. As a result, they fail to form the emotional connection with costumers. Tesla’s values of a brighter future are only further solidified by the company’s close association with other forward thinking companies like SpaceX and SolarCity.

For Linux to experience success in the consumer market, a new computer manufacturer would have risen up and either adopt or create their own Linux distribution. One comparable to Windows in utilitarian value. That’s the easy part because distros like that already exist.

After that, they must create and act upon a stronger brand than that of which Microsoft promotes. A brand that has users emotionally invested in the company and its values. This emotional connection is why it must be a new computer manufacturer and not an existing one.

Much like the less successful electric car manufacturers in the Tesla situation, you can’t truly be acting upon your brand values if you are simultaneously promoting another, separate brand value.

Linux has tried far too long to market itself as the logical upgrade from Windows. This method is no longer feasible. We now live in a world where the combination of higher expectations from consumers and their empowerment through social media/the internet has caused a radical shift in how many buy into and stick with brands. Usability has become a given. Emotion is now the key to customer loyalty.

Thank You, Roger Federer. Greatest Of All Time.

It had been four and a half years since he had last taken home a Grand Slam, and over a year since he had won any tournament at all. Six months had elapsed since he had played competitive tennis and ten years since he had beaten Rafael Nadal at a major. And yet.. Roger Federer won his 18th Grand Slam in Melbourne, coming from a break down in the fifth set to defeat his arch rival 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3. At 35 years and six months, he also became the oldest player to win a major in almost half a century, since Ken Rosewall claimed the Australian Open crown in 1972.

Not one but two incredible comebacks occurred in this year’s men singles at the Australian Open – but there could be only one man standing in the winner’s circle in the Rod Laver Arena. And in Sunday’s final at Melbourne Park, Roger Federer was the stronger, the quicker and quite simply the more brilliant. The Maestro returned after six months away due to a serious knee injury, and dashed the hopes of Rafael Nadal in an unbelievably intense, high-quality match. The Swiss won an incredible 18th Grand Slam title into the bargain, four years and six months after the previous one, at Wimbledon 2012. That may seem like an eternity in tennis terms, but with Federer at the top of his game at the age of 35, time has (once again) been made to stand still.

On paper, this clash of the titans had everything. Indeed, such was the public’s excitement ahead of the ninth Grand Slam final between Roger and Rafa – a record for two opponents in the men’s game – that the neighboring Margaret Court Arena was opened up to spectators who were able to live this historic moment on a giant screen. And the match certainly lived up to its billing. Nadal was also making a return to the biggest of stages, at the age of 30 and after spending three months away from the circuit while his wrist healed. Federer therefore needed to choose his tactics wisely against a man who led their head-to-head 23-11, and whom he had not beaten at a Grand Slam since the Wimbledon final back in… 2007!

And so they each gave it their best shot, over five sets. Rafa was Rafa. He looked a tad slower in his movements than in previous rounds, and his tireless running did not quite have the desired effect at the end of the rallies. Mentally, however, he was very much back to his best. And as was the case against Grigor Dimitrov in the semi-finals, his will power and concentration saw him pull away at the end of the match, as Federer began to struggle with the adductor muscle problem which, as was the case in the semis, saw him ask for a medical time-out so that he could get some treatment from the physio.

Exceptional champions can pull off exceptional feats, however, and what Federer managed in the fifth was nothing short of extraordinary. Having gone a break down at the outset of the decider, he began to exert all the pressure he could muster on Nadal, whose accuracy was beginning to fade. Despite being 2-0 then 3-1 down, Federer rattled off five games in a row, hitting winners each more amazing than the last and finishing the match off with a forehand that painted the line.

The 2017 Australian Open will certainly be one of the most special of the Slams in the Swiss legend’s trophy cabinet. After his first-round victory over Jürgen Melzer, he adjudged that his comeback tournament was "already a success". What followed saw him become the first man since Mats Wilander at Roland-Garros in 1982 to beat four top 10 players en route to a Grand Slam title (Tomas Berdych – No.10 – in the third round, Kei Nishikori – No.5 – in the Round of 16, Stan Wawrinka – No.4 – in the semis, and No.9-ranked Rafa in the final).
This 18th Grand Slam title will go some way to erasing the memory of the three finals he has lost to Novak Djokovic since 2012, and for the first time in his career, Federer won three five-set matches. At the age of 35, no less. That he was able to achieve this can be put down to the way he has changed his game, making it more aggressive and attacking (coming to the net 40 times in the final and winning 29 points in the process). It is more “old school”, but with the sublime technique of a man who took yet another step towards justifying the tag of “Greatest of all time”. And since he told the Melbourne crowd that he would be back in 2018 to defend his crown, the only question now is to wonder just how far Roger Federer can keep pushing back the boundaries of tennis.

Federer v Nadal in Grand Slam finals

2006: French Open - Nadal won 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6 (7-4)

2006: Wimbledon - Federer won 6-0 7-6 (7-5) 6-7 (2-7) 6-3

2007: French Open - Nadal won 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4

2007: Wimbledon - Federer won 7-6 (9-7) 4-6 7-6 (7-3) 2-6 6-2

2008: French Open - Nadal won 6-1 6-3 6-0

2008: Wimbledon - Nadal won 6-4 6-4 6-7 (5-7) 6-7 (8-10) 9-7

2009: Australian Open - Nadal won 7-5 3-6 7-6 (7-3) 3-6 6-2

2011: French Open - Nadal won 7-5 7-6 (7-3) 5-7 6-1

2017: Australian Open - Federer won 6-4 3-6 6-1 3-6 6-3

“I don’t think either of us believed we’d be in the finals,” Federer said afterwards before paying tribute to Nadal. “I’m happy for you. I would have been happy to lose, to be honest. The comeback was as perfect as it was.”

Nadal said: “Today was a great match. Roger deserved it a bit more than me. I’m just going to keep trying. I feel I am back at a very high level, so I’m going to carry on fighting the whole season.”

Performing at this level in your prime is one thing; doing it as the lights dim is the mark of untouchable greatness. Given the buzz generated by this final, let's hope it won't be the last duel between Federer and Nadal.

The best tennis won. And so did Federer.

5G : The Game changer of Mobile Technology

5G - It's being compared to the arrival of electricity.

That's a big call but Qualcomm has its eyes on a 5G future. And it's not just thinking about speed.
At the Las Vegas CES 2017 that has given us intelligent robots, autonomous drones and wallpaper TVs, the next generation of wireless technology might not seem like that big of a deal. But Qualcomm says it will change society in ways we haven't seen since the introduction of electricity.

For anyone who thinks 5G is just an iteration after 3G and 4G, Qualcomm CEO Stephen Mollenkopf spent his keynote outlining why the next generation of mobile connectivity is about so much more than faster 4K Netflix streaming on your phone.
It's about connectivity.

Think of it this way: If 3G ushered in the picture era and 4G was about video, 5G will be about tying our entire world together. What will we get? Live-streaming VR, autonomous cars that respond to real-time conditions, and connected cities where everything from the houses to the street lamps talk to each other.

"5G will be a new kind of network, supporting a vast diversity of devices with unprecedented scale, speed and complexity," Mollenkopf said at the packed keynote. "5G will have an impact similar to the introduction of electricity or the automobile, affecting entire economies and benefiting entire societies."

Qualcomm is buzzing about 5G as the key to our future connectivity.

As far as Qualcomm sees it, our hyper-connected future will be about three key things: VR, the internet of things and connectivity for mission-critical tasks like autonomous cars and health care.

Qualcomm showed off to the gathered audience about the different ways it’s going to deliver better performance using 5G technology. Qualcomm CEO, Steve Mollenkopf, also shared interesting titbits in his keynote address at the CES gathering.

"5G Will Let You Download 1GB File In 3 Seconds" Qualcomm

In his keynote, Mollenkopf said that 5G isn’t just the next version existing 3G and 4G technologies but a whole new ball game in the field of mobile telephony. Mollenkopf said that 5G will be the key driver of the new age technology like VR live-streaming, autonomous cars, connected townships, etc.

According to him, 5G is expected to change the entire industry as it’ll increase the data speeds and reduce the associated costs. Apart from these benefits, the best thing about 5G is its low latency compared to 3G and 4G which will help users achieve many unimaginable and mission critical operations. Moreover, Mollenkopf said that 5G will have an impact similar to the introduction of electricity or automobile and “affect entire economies and benefiting entire societies.”

The research commissioned by Qualcomm predicts that 5G value chain will support up to 22 million jobs and generate up to $3.5 trillion in revenue by 2035. It also predicts that the full economic impact of 5G is expected to be realized by 2035. It also said that the new 5G technology will allow users to download a 1GB file in 3 seconds flat. Due to its high speed and low latency, the users will be able to download a full-length 4K movie in 18 seconds. The 5G tech will also usher in a new Internet age as far as speeds are concerned.

Qualcomm certainly had plenty of big ideas, and we're starting to see some of them on the CES show floor, even if they're just proof of concept. The only thing we need now is the wireless power to get us there. We now have to wait for mobile service companies to adopt the 5G tech and provide 5G services to users. As per a report, 5G tech will be implemented in Japan as early as September 2017.

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

Why Does 64-Bit Windows Need a Separate “Program Files (x86)” Folder?

Since 2005, Microsoft has offered both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of its Windows operating system (OS) to support new 64-bit CPUs. So, if you see a folder Program Files (x86) on your computer, it means that you are running a 64-Bit Windows OS. You will notice that there are two separate folders where your Program Files are kept:

• Program Files (x86), which contains 32-bit programs and applications, and.
• Program Files, which contains 64-bit programs and applications.

But, have you ever wondered why it is necessary to have these two folders and what’s the difference between them?

A 64-bit Windows OS has a backward support for 32-bit applications. Also, a 64-bit Windows stores all 32-bit apps on another folder to let you know that these apps are created for a 32-bit OS, which is also a very good way to organize everything properly.

Microsoft’s solution to this transition from 32-bit to 64-bit has been to add legacy support for most 32-bit applications. In other words, most 32-bit applications will function in the 64-bit operating environment. Keep in mind that other operating systems operating on a 64-bit architecture cannot load or run 32-bit applications at all.

To help make the transition easier, Microsoft has designated that all 32-bit application should, by default, be loaded into the Program Files (x86) folder rather than getting mixed in with true 64-bit applications in the regular Program Files folder.

Windows runs smoother if it keeps these two very different types of code separate. The OS can’t assume that an x86 program even knows that such a thing as x64 code exists, and that could cause problems if they cross. For example, if a 32-bit program went looking for a .dll, and found one that came with an x64 version, the program wouldn’t work and wouldn’t know why it didn’t work. Therefore, keeping them in separate folders is the simplest way to avoid such problems. However, this folder (Program Files x86) is only available on a 64-bit Windows OS (XP, Vista, 7, 8,10).

"What would go wrong if I somehow avoided the redirection mechanism and forced everything to install to the real 'C:\Program Files\' ?"

Nothing. The two program directories are only for organisation, or to keep programs that have two version a 32-bit and 64-bit version separate, like Internet Explorer. But you can install a 32-bit program in "Program Files" and a 64-bit program in "Program Files x86" and nothing will happen the program will run the same.

Wikipedia says 'Some application installers reject spaces within the install path location. For 32-bit systems, the short name for the Program Files folder is Progra~1. For 64-bit systems, the short name for the 64-bit Program Files folder is Progra~1 (same as on 32-bit systems); while the short name for the 32-bit Program Files (x86) folder is now Progra~2.'

So, is it the 32-bit folder called “(x86)”?

x86 is another way to refer to 32-bit processors. Originally, 16-bit processors — specifically, the 8086 and 8088 processor architectures — were referred to as “x86”. This name was later extended to include the 32-bit 80386 and 80486 processor family. When 64-bit processors were introduced, they were referred to as x64 to distinguish them from the older processor lines. The number 86 now refers to pre-x64 code, whether it’s 16- or 32-bit, even though the 16-bit x86 code won’t run in 64-bit versions of Windows.

Other than the Program Files, there are also some other components that have both 32-bit and 64-bit version of Windows. Some of these are stored in Winsxs (stands for Windows Side By Side) and WoW64 (Windows 32-bit on Windows 64-bit), which is a subsystem of the Windows OS capable of running 32-bit applications that is included in all 64-bit versions of Windows.

Source: Superuser

Nokia is back in the Smartphone Game and We Are Excited !

After losing the smartphone battle a couple of years ago, it was almost like we had forgotten what Nokia was. Once a giant in the mobile industry, Nokia was simply kicked out of the game amid evolution and with heavy hearts, the world bid adieu to it.

However, it preached about coming back in the game and finally the long wait is over. After acquiring rights to the Nokia brand name last year, HMD Global has finally launched the first Android-powered smartphone bearing Nokia’s name called the Nokia 6. The Nokia 6, announced by HMD Global on January 8th 2017, will be initially available for buying for 1699 CNY (roughly Rs 16,739) in China only, with no word on global availability and pricing for now.

But, the bigger point to note here is that Nokia is back. There was previously no estimated time frame around which Nokia would launch its smartphones. Although, reports had hinted that Android-based Nokia phones would be released some time in Q2 2017. The Nokia 6, it seems, would be hitting the market (albeit, just in China) sooner than one would have anticipated.

Surprisingly, HMD Global did not take the global stage at CES to unveil Nokia's new smartphone. It, instead, decided to announce it rather silently which means global media is still to get their hands on a functional unit. The company has, however, teased the phone on its global website, and also took the wraps off of what's in store.

The Nokia 6 by HMD Global runs Android 7.0 Nougat out-of-the-box and supports dual-SIM cards. It features a 5.5-inch (1080x1920 pixels) Full HD display with 2.5D curved glass coating and Corning Gorilla Glass 3 protection. It is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 430 processor along with Adreno 505 GPU and 4GB LPDDR3 RAM. The device will offer 64GB of storage and Dolby Atmos audio. At the back of the device is a 16MP camera, while at the front is an 8MP camera. The 4G LTE -supporting Nokia 6 comes with Bluetooth v4.1, GPS, USB OTG and Wi-Fi connectivity and has a 3000mAh battery as well.

Nokia phones are known for their build quality and it seems like HMD has done its bit to ensure this holds true with the Nokia 6. The device features an aluminium build and the company says that it takes  55 minutes to machine the device from a block of aluminium. It then receives two separate anodising processes, which take over 10 hours to complete and each phone is polished at least five times.

Finland-based HMD will manufacture Nokia's upcoming phones -- for ten years in a row -- in partnership with Foxconn: the same company that also makes Apple's iPhones. HMD will invest a minimum of 500 million Euros in marketing in the first three years alone and will broadly deal with developing (marketing) and selling all Nokia-branded smartphones and accessories.

The Nokia 6, it seems, is just the beginning. Clearly, more Nokia smartphones are in tow. The fact that Nokia CEO Rajeev Suri will be hosting a keynote at the upcoming MWC event in February raises lots of possibilities. Chances are the world would also get the first look at the Nokia 6 at the MWC, prior to availability. Going by its spec-sheet, the Nokia 6 appears to be a decent mid-ranger banking heavily on nostalgia.

World's First Smartphone with 8 GB RAM

Asus Zenfone AR has been announced officially at CES 2017, carrying some really exclusive features like 8 GB of RAM and support for Tango AR as well as Google Daydream functionality. The phone is second only to Lenovo Phab 2 Pro for Tango Augmented Reality feature while Zenfone AR is the World’s first smartphone to carry 8 GB of RAM.

The phone comes with 5.7 inch, 1440 x 2560 pixel super AMOLED display and uses Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 processor. Apart from its huge RAM, it comes with 23 megapixel, three camera configuration that enables motion tracking, depth sensing and high resolution photography at the same time. This helps in creating a three dimensional atmosphere for the AR functionality through Tango.

Tango actually combines the camera, gyroscope and accelerometer to calculate six degrees of freedom and create a map of the surrounding through 3D motion tracking. The phone has been made with close interaction with Google engineering, providing the users with a best in class experience while using the Virtual Reality function on the phone.

Zenfone AR comes with impressive 5-magnet speaker for high quality audio and DTS surround sound. Apart from its 8 GB version, the phone even offers a 6GB RAM version also. The storage options include 32 GB / 64 GB / 128 GB / 256 GB with more option through the use of microSD expansion port. It runs on Android 7.0 and uses ZEN UI 3.0 at its top. The front camera is 8 MP with wide viewing lens.
​
Under the hood, Asus ZenFone AR packs the high-end Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 processor that the company claims has been customised for Tango. With Qualcomm announcing the new Snapdragon 835 Soc, the Snapdragon 821 processor choice for Tango-enabled and Daydream-ready ZenFone AR smartphone looks dated. Asus at the event confirmed that the company will have exclusive Asus ZenUI VR 360 degree app support on PhotoCollage, Gallery, and ZenCircle apps.

The phone even offers fingerprint sensor, 4G VoLTE support, 3300 mAh battery with quickcharge 3.0 and Gorilla Glass 4 protection. The phone is offered in just Charcoal Black shade and their has been no estimates for the price of this exclusive phone.The Android 7.0 Nougat-based Asus ZenFone AR will be available in the Q2 2017, with the company to announce prices near to market launch. Asus is yet to reveal the entire specifications details for the ZenFone AR. Other specifications revealed include up to 256GB of inbuilt storage that’s expandable via microSD card (up to 128GB) in a hybrid dual-SIM (Micro+Nano) configuration; a 3300mAh battery; USB 2.0 Type-C port, as well as Bluetooth v4.2 and Wi-Fi 802.11ac connectivity.