Upgraded To Beta Version Of Blogger
I recently discovered that my Blogger ID had stopped working and I was unable to log into other blogs. My blog ID still worked on my blog but not others. I then discovered that I could log into other blogs with my Google ID so this gave me a good idea what the problem was. Apparently at some point all of the old blogs will be changed to the newer Beta version. The Beta version uses a Google ID rather than a Blogger ID. I already had a Google ID since I had to create one for AdSense but I had never actually upgraded my blog. The upgrade messages showed up everytime I first logged in.
When my Blogger ID stopped working it became clear to me that Google has begun changing the login format and that this was why my old Blogger ID was not recognized on other Blogs. I have no way of knowing if this effects all Blogger ID's or just people who have blogs of their own. For me, it was necessary to upgrade my blog to the Beta version to straighten out my login ID. It seems to work fine now just with the Google ID instead of the original Blogger ID. I have to say though that the upgrade process is confusing because you are faced with a screen that asks if you have a Google account already. The choices are Yes and No. The problem is that there is no button on the Yes side so you can only click No. I didn't really want to click No since I already had a Google account but I had no other option. If you click the No button it will take you to another screen where you can then either create a Google account or login to your existing account. So, the option of using your existing Google account is there on the second screen but Google could have made this so much clearer.
Now I am wondering with my blog upgraded to Beta whether other people might be having trouble logging in. My suggestion would be that if you don't have a blog and your Blogger login doesn't work that you try creating a Google account. If you do have a blog then you might have to upgrade to Beta like I did. You can get some information about this from Blogger Help. Thank you.
BTW, I need to leave this article up for a little while to let people know what is going on. However, I'll mention that I'm working on my next article which will probably be called,
Intel Versus AMD: The Truth Unfolds
~
5 comments:
Thank you for changing.
I would have to log into beta blogger, then go back to the post page then make a comment.
In other news, I am curious why you have not written about Nvidia and AMD (ATI) being in (speculating) trouble for keeping the price of graphics so high?
Like your blog, keep them comming, and keep them long. ;)
I hadn't had a problem until recently and at first I couldn't figure out what why I couldn't log in. So far it looks like the upgrade is working okay. I'm always a little hesitant to upgrade to something that calls itself Beta. Google claims that Beta is more stable than the original Blogger. So, unless the original is Alpha someone at Google should Google software naming conventions. Blogger 2.0 would make more sense.
Well, the simple answer is the that the price of graphics is not high. Graphics chips don't make as much money as processors which is why AMD doesn't want to take up wafer capacity making them. I would assume that if Nvidia and ATI were really overcharging that VIA would be having a field day. I'm not sure that there are any other big players (besides Intel of course) but VIA is backed by a company larger than nVidia.
Trudat, and Via's options really aren't any cheaper and have a worse price/performance ratio than any of Nvidia's or ATI's products. The whole argument the DOJ is making is retarded, and I really have to wonder who gave them the idea that this was a good idea (because obviously someone specific did, though I wouldn't know who).
Scientia said...
"Well, the simple answer is the that the price of graphics is not high."
I would just like to start out saying I think the whole thing will end up being about discrete GPU's.
Example...
An 8800GTX is like $640 at Newegg.
That $10 less than an E6600, ABIT AW9D-MAX and a gig of Corsair XMS2 1GB.
That is expensive, and there is no other way of looking at it.
"Graphics chips don't make as much money as processors which is why AMD doesn't want to take up wafer capacity making them."
That doesn't make any sense, I can understand GPU's not making as much money, but the reason AMD won't make there own is that they do not have the capacity.
Are you trying to say it is/or would be cheaper for Intel to outsource there IGP's?
"I would assume that if Nvidia and ATI were really overcharging that VIA would be having a field day."
Why?
Does VIA have anything that is not IGP that could be used as a discrete GPU, and that could compete with Nvidia or AMD(ATI)?
Have a good one.
Again, if graphics prices were that great then other companies would get into graphics. Probably companies like Texas Instruments, maybe Phillips, but there are several who could.
Intel has been making its graphics and chipsets on older FABs. AMD doesn't have an older FAB since FAB 30 will begin upgrading right after the bump and test addition is finished.
To answer your question though. Intel currently has idle capacity and that is even more expensive that using a more modern FAB to make chipsets. If AMD found itself with idle capacity they would probably scale back outsourcing to Chartered and then move some production over from TSMC. The biggest problem for AMD though is that TSMC's process is quite different from what it uses. So, process transition alone would probably take 6 months. New masking and transistor redesign could take another 3.
We know from the fact that Intel has not regained volume share that they have idle capacity. We also know that they have been plagued by chip shortages (caused by driving away partners). So, they will now produce chipsets on one of their older modern FABs. If memory serves this may even be one of the 300mm FABs.
Post a Comment