Slashdot Mirror

Yes, it's very good marketing. The point of AMD's dual core challenge (which everyone here seems to be missing) is that Intel has no dual core server processors with which to compete. In the server space AMD has dual core Opterons and Intel has...nothing. The only dual core Intel processor is Smithfield, which by their own admission was a slapped-together rush job that isn't good enough for the server space.

It's like pulling a Ferrari alongside a pedestrian and saying "let's race". One side doesn't have anything to race with.

From here:
To turn indexing on or off for a volume, run sudo mdutil -i on volume name or sudo mdutil -i off volume name, respectively. For example, if you want to turn off indexing for a volume called Backup, the command would be sudo mdutil -i off /Volumes/Backup .

Now to give you some grief about it:
This is pretty basic stuff - the less the hardware is used, the less power it will consume. If Spotlight, or any other app, is accessing the disk, then it will need power to do so. Likewise, if Spotlight is doing a bunch of searching through it's index that has to be loaded into RAM from the disk and those queries must be computed by the OS, then the disk and OS and RAM are all getting a workout.

What I recommend is that you check out what it is you are doing. If you are copy and moving files all over the place, or mounting and unmounting CDs, those processes would cause HD/CD usage as well as Spotlight indexing on top of that. Likewise, if you are doing a lot of Spotlight searching, there will be more usage because you are querying a DBMS.

Perhaps your battery is just coincidentally needed a replacement and/or non-spotlight related OS tweeks are changing power consumption.

Maybe you should stop listening to "something" and start listening to people who matter: "We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors," said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit.

AFAIK MSIE does run on Apple's OSX, or is my little fox holding the wrong lightbulb.

by macworld dude

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/04/vistavirus es/index.php

OMG a shell! it like does things! and without a mouse!!

• Read - Russell Beattie
• Read - Macteens
• Read - White Girl Suicide Bomber
• Read - Macrumours forums
• Read - theory.isthereason
• Read - Macworld first impressions

I've recently switched to using OS X, and it'd be nice if Apple were to add an optional multi-button functionality to its laptops (beyond [ctrl][click], which requires two hands to be done comfortably). This program looks like a work-around, though I haven't tried it yet.

Personally, I never understood the big deal about one vs two buttons on the Mac. Apple has supported two buttons via any cheap 3rd party mouse for some time. While my 3-year-old has no problem using a two button mouse, my father in-law has never grasped the concept. I'm a sysadmin and some of the users I support get that deer-in-the-headlights look when I tell them to right-click (these are the same users that don't understand directory hierarchy... but thanks to things like Spotlight, they wont need me to find their files anymore).

So IMHO the one-button mouse is not as stupid and out-dated an idea as some seem to think. I wont be buying a Mighty Mouse, but Apple has provided an elegant solution that allows both power users and novices to work of the same computer.

That was two months ago http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/ index.php. This month is ice sculpture.

Looking at Activity Monitor, I see that the Wired+Active memory is frequently above 512MB, so I'm glad I opted for 1GB. Had I been a little more adventurous, I could have saved about $125 (not counting the putty knife price).

The main problem with these new systems is that it doesn't appear easy to order a system without Bluetooth or Airport. Where I work, both of those are not allowed (for security reasons), so those little antennae will have to be removed.

First of all, shipping Intel-based machines probably won't even be using the Pentium 4; but:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#7

What about 64-bit computing?

Apple has not forgotten about 64-bit computing, or x86-64. However, Apple is trying to make the initial phase of the transition as simple as possible. 64-bit is a requirement for systems utilizing more than 4GB of RAM, which will be a necessity for some applications in the future, and is currently possible on today's Apple systems; Apple knows 64-bit capability is a requirement.

http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/

Does this mean Apple's abandoning its commitment to a 64-bit architecture?

We don't have any specifics yet, but it seems highly unlikely to us that Apple would turn its back on 64-bit chips. Intel offers 64-bit chips and it's almost impossible to conceive that Apple would move backward in this area.

"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." -Dean Reece, Apple

Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.

Also, I never said that Mac OS X would run on commodity hardware. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Windows will run on Apple's Intel-based hardware. But on this topic, if you're arguing that the only way Apple can keep Mac OS X on its own hardware is via DRM, you'd be wrong. Apple currently specifies that Mac OS X can only run on Apple-branded hardware in the EULA. The legality aspect alone would relegate running Mac OS X (or hacking it to run) on commodity hardware to a comparatively negligible subset of slashdot-types, hackers, people content to pirate the OS, people content to run without any support from Apple on completely unsupported configurations, etc. In other words, on the grand scale, just about no one.[1] Sure, Apple *might* use DRM to do this, but it doesn't have to. Mac OS X currently has no product activation of any kind; it doesn't even have a serial number.

Whether it is in a direct-boot capacity or in a virtual machine, or both, remains to be seen, but you can be sure Windows WILL run on the Intel-based Macs, period. (And if you're arguing that Apple will somehow specifically disallow it, that flies in the face of both Phil Schiller, the number 2 man at Apple, specifically saying that Apple will not do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs, and the fact that multiple solutions for running Windows on PowerPC hardware, albeit in emulation, exist today. Are you honestly saying that we'll have less options to run Windows in actual x86 hardware? Hardly.)

Further, the last thing Apple wants is people Mac OS X applications getting killed because of the reasoning that people can just run them in Windows, so why even make it any more? Apple developers, including Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, understand that Mac OS X users want to run software in the Mac OS X interface and environment. Running software at full speed in Windows under, say, a virtual machine environment will be a convenience, not the default. Yes, you can make arguments that developers will kill their Mac products, but that makes the assumption that a very large percentage of the Mac userbase will fork out for a VM plus a license of Windows (whether or not these are ultimately bundled together in some product is beside the point - the point is, it will be costly). Further, there is no value in Mac OS X if there is no software. And since Mac OS X growth and Apple growth in general is at the highest in the company's history, Mac OS X developers will not be leaving the platform. There are compelling reasons to choose Mac OS X over Windows, and people, business, and academia are making that decision daily.

[1] From http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/ :

Will any PC be able to run Mac OS X for Intel?

Apple says no. Our guess is that some enterprising hacker may be able to get it to work, but we'd expect that if anyone can get OS X to run on PC hardware, it will be a laborious process, and the end result may not be a particularly stable system. You certainly won't be able to go out, buy OS X, stick the install DVD in a Dell PC, and have it just work. Apple intends Mac OS X to only run on Apple hardware.

From http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ar s/3

Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?

A: No.

Q: Try and stop me!

A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (th

"Macworld news has an article about Yahoo's acquisition of Konfabulator, which will be announced Monday. Yahoo company executives said they will be giving Konfabulator away for free, completely doing away with the US$19.95 currently charged for the product. The reason they purchased Konfabulator was they wanted an easy way to open up its APIs to the developer community and allow them easy access to the information on the Yahoo web site." From the article: "The acquisition of Konfabulator may not be the last Mac compatible product users see from Yahoo! While Schneider wasn't specific, he did say that there was interest in the Mac. 'There is a move at Yahoo! -- in addition to Konfabulator -- to move more onto the Mac,' said Schneider. 'We want to make sure we find a way to be more cross platform.'"

"Macworld news has an article about Yahoo's acquisition of Konfabulator, which will be announced Monday. Yahoo company executives said they will be giving Konfabulator away for free, completely doing away with the US$19.95 currently charged for the product. The reason they purchased Konfabulator was they wanted an easy way to open up its APIs to the developer community and allow them easy access to the information on the Yahoo web site." From the article: "The acquisition of Konfabulator may not be the last Mac compatible product users see from Yahoo! While Schneider wasn't specific, he did say that there was interest in the Mac. 'There is a move at Yahoo! -- in addition to Konfabulator -- to move more onto the Mac,' said Schneider. 'We want to make sure we find a way to be more cross platform.'"

"Macworld news has an article about Yahoo's acquisition of Konfabulator, which will be announced Monday. Yahoo company executives said they will be giving Konfabulator away for free, completely doing away with the US$19.95 currently charged for the product. The reason they purchased Konfabulator was they wanted an easy way to open up its APIs to the developer community and allow them easy access to the information on the Yahoo web site." From the article: "The acquisition of Konfabulator may not be the last Mac compatible product users see from Yahoo! While Schneider wasn't specific, he did say that there was interest in the Mac. 'There is a move at Yahoo! -- in addition to Konfabulator -- to move more onto the Mac,' said Schneider. 'We want to make sure we find a way to be more cross platform.'"

"Macworld news has an article about Yahoo's acquisition of Konfabulator, which will be announced Monday. Yahoo company executives said they will be giving Konfabulator away for free, completely doing away with the US$19.95 currently charged for the product. The reason they purchased Konfabulator was they wanted an easy way to open up its APIs to the developer community and allow them easy access to the information on the Yahoo web site." From the article: "The acquisition of Konfabulator may not be the last Mac compatible product users see from Yahoo! While Schneider wasn't specific, he did say that there was interest in the Mac. 'There is a move at Yahoo! -- in addition to Konfabulator -- to move more onto the Mac,' said Schneider. 'We want to make sure we find a way to be more cross platform.'"

It's easy to upgrade the Mini's RAM yourself, although you void your warranty.

you can upgrade the Mac mini's RAM to 1GB--contrary to rumors around the Internet, Apple has told Macworld that you can even do it yourself without voiding your warranty "unless you break something when you open it.")

Nah, they don't think it's innovative. Even Apple's gotta catch up simetimes. Steve admitted this at WWDC 2003.

"I gotta be honest -- Windows (XP) beat us to this...the only feature that I can think of like that." (Cite)

And on their page about it they explain the 3d animation cheekily: "Because We Can." Well hell, if you can, why not? I do it infrequently enough that I enjoy the cute little animation, but if it really bugs you, turn it off by changing 2 lines in an XML file.

The passing of a forum god.

This implies that you are not a security person. If your main argument is "oh it's patched, it'se secure", you have done a day of security in your life.

There are two kinds of insecure. The first, insecure and everyone knows it, is Windows. That's bad. The second is statistically insecure, which is the state of most software today. Very few systems actually go to the level of rigor provided by OpenBSD which allows them to make bold claims about security.

And even then, they mess up.

Some of us want stable, non-changing software for long periods of time. You know, so I don't have to go through updating foo-OS every week because my vendor can't get his shit together.

Well yeah, that'd be great, I'm sure. But you're tragically misinformed if you think this will ever be the case. The state of software engineering, and by extension security techniques, is constantly changing. In software, you update until you're obsolete. If you don't like that, don't use software.

Indeed, patching something does make it secure after the fact, but it doesn't help with it being secure in the first place. Apple needs to sit down, hire some GOOD programmers, and comb through their code.

Bugs have slipped through, and they will continue to slip through. This is a problem endemic to the industry, and Free Software is no exception. Please do not blame Apple. If you must blame someone, blame the Apple Fanboys who preach absolute security, because they're creating unfair expectations. So far, OS X has a good track record as a desktop OS. As a server OS, I wouldn't go that far.

Maybe the quicktime heap overwrite from last year, that Apple refused to give attention to.

You mean the qts file heap overflow?. The one blown totally out of proportion because successful remote code execution was extremely difficult?

How about the MP3Concept spoof thing floating around early last year? The one apple failed to acknowledge?

You mean the one Secunia rated at "Very Low Risk"? because it was trumped up by the mac antivirus community? The one that doesn't work properly if you have "show file extensions" on? The one that Apple publicly acknowledged?

Both of these allow me to get access to the computer from somewhere other than in front of it. Especially with some social engineering.

Yeah, too bad they don't work anymore.

Bullshit. Gentoo, Debian, Linux and Freebsd had no vulnerabilites as abusurd as "at not dropping root privileges" in years, Apple did is in Jan. In 1994, it would have been ok to let that slip by, but not any more. Solaris is a different matter..they can't seem to keep their "passwd" utility safe no matter what they do.

Because things like Gentoo, Debian and Redhat get special poster-child treatment. They cheerfully call people when their integrated apps have holes. But, when someone points out that many standard linux applications have holes in them, they claim it's "not part of the distribution."

I go to osvdb, search Apple, OSX and check "remote". I see 56. I don't know what you're smoking. Hell, I see 18 this year alone, and it's only June!

I was talking about on the front page. Yes, Apple has has remote exploits. As I said, in general their track record on patching them has been at least as good as any other commercial vendor. A heck of a lot better than some. They are not the paragon of security, and as they move to intel machines (which, architecturally, are easier to exploit and better understood by the crowd who writes exploits) t

I tried, multiple times, to go electronic with my notebooks (I'm a grad student in astronomy.) It never panned out, mainly because paper and pen are just way more convenient and have that "scribble" factor: you can get things down without being quite sure what you're trying to say. Later, you can write things up in "proper" form (which for me is LaTeX.)

In my experience, having an additional layer between brain and note (the syntax of an electronic journal program, whether it's HTML or not) shorts out this process. (I'm reminded of the time I tried to use a tape recorder to record notes: I would just come up speechless.) Oh, and having your own clever electronic notetaking system really gets in the way when you meet your advisor and he wants to scribble herself.

But, if you don't want the benefit of my experience, here are the things I tried:

LaTeX. Easy, good looking output with simple math syntax (actually, I do something use LaTeX when I'm writing out complicated maths, instead of doing it by hand. Makes it easier to edit mistakes in a long formula.) My old college roommate does EVERYTHING in LaTeX (he's a mathematician now) -- all his notes, everything. He is also a little weird.

NoteTaker. Cute "metaphors" that seem to get in the way of actually doing anything.

omnigraffle. I thought I would use this to diagram various systems I was looking at. No go, too complicated to figure out.

In the end, I went with this. It's open source!

You're kidding, right? iTunes doesn't control airtunes?

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/archives/0 00212.php

iTunes streams to airtunes in a compressed format, airtunes decodes the format and plays the music, airtunes does not accept music in other formats from other programs (hacks do not count, apple explicitly markets the bundle)...

Unless Apple's Vice President LIED!

Pretty much. A fancy text editor. Where word falls flat on it's face is if you want to do things with graphics, or advanced multi-column newspaper-style layout, where different columns are different heights and widths. Page layout, like you said, is a problem with Word. If you just want text, paragraph layout, that kind of thing, it's about as feature-rich as you could ask for, if a bit difficult to use for all of the features.

What does a word processor do that Pages does not?

I'm going to let MacWorld handle that one :

Pages is not your typical word processor. In many ways, it's no threat to the dominance of Microsoft Word. For instance, Pages isn't for you if:

You need a form letter to send to hundreds of contacts, with each contact's name and address substituted into the letter.
You often need to count the number of words in a selection of text (Pages will only give you full-document totals);
You have multiple users updating documents and need the ability to track the changes that each makes;
You're an advanced user who relies on macros to automate your word processing tasks.

Not to be a stickler but Jobs said that the heart of the MAC (not Apple) is the operating system.

Well, to be a stickler he said that the soul of the Mac is the operating system:

"Because more than the processor, more than the hardware, the soul of the Mac is its operating system," said Jobs. "And we're not standing still."

from MacWorld.

They do not have "universal binaries". They have one set of binaries for the PPC, and one set of binaries for Intel.

Apparently binary applications for PPC OS X will run through emulation on Intel OS X, but that will still require having the Intel binaries for OS X.

I agree with the grandparent post that the linked article is more of a blog comment than a review. In sum, I think he probably got it as a "Microsoft rip-off of Photoshop" not to be taken seriously.

Instead, I suggest you look at the following list. They are more professional and in-depth reviews of Microsoft Expression (formerly Creature House Expression - the basis of Acrylic) by various magazines online:

• Graphics Unleashed
• All 'Bout Computers
• creativepro.com
• Designer-info
• Creative Mac
• Applelinks
• MacWorld
• About.com

Notice that Mac version has always been available except for this Beta Acrylic release. So I bet Expression was designed to appeal to artists among the Mac community to begin with.

Expression has made use of a unique technology called Skeletal Stroke (the review by creative.com has some explanation), which adds substance & complexity of raster graphics along vector paths. So I believe this vector drawing & painting package, while not as popular as Adobe Illustrator, has always been targetting a niche market with its own appeal.

In fact, it can produce some of the amazing effect found in Chinese water painting and other fine art drawing handily, even easier than you can do with Illustrator. The downside is a steeper learning curve to tap the full power of this unique & different app.

You can find more tutorials & resources on Expression at Wikipedia

Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate /index.php why cant they just run the normal Max OS X binaries on X86 if they're universal binaries like they speak of?

It's amazing that Fractal Painter has become MSs new toy. Then again, that company went through so many name-, management-, and focus-changes that nobody could keep up. At the bottom of this link you'll find a good chronology of the company in the early days. You know, the Good Ol' Days.

Even then, I liked Ray Dream better before Fractal purchased them. Designer 3 forever!

Are you kidding? 28 Days later was great! There's another story about it at MacWorld if you want to read more.

Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.

"We will not sell or support Windows, but we are not doing anything in the hardware that would preclude someone from using it," said Moody.

That was a single processor machine.

According to the feed from MacCentral (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdat e/index.php)

"Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1."

Then I'm reading Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/intelappl eanalysts/index.php) quoting David Moody, Apple's vice president of worldwide Mac product marketing:

"We will not sell or support Windows, but we are not doing anything in the hardware that would preclude someone from using it," said Moody.

Furthermore, the article states:

"Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC."

So, hmmm. I can have ONE COMPUTER run Windows, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu (or whatever distro I like)?

SIGN ME THE HELL UP! I'LL TAKE TWO!!!

"Jobs also discussed a new technology called Rosetta, that he described as "a dynamic binary translator." It runs existing PowerPC applications on the Intel platform, he said. Jobs described Rosetta as "lightweight," and said "it's nothing like Classic."

Jobs demonstrated Rosetta by running Microsoft Office applications, Quicken and Photoshop CS 2 -- all unmodified PowerPC-binary versions , unlike Mathematica -- on the new Intel-based hardware.

"So that is Rosetta, Jobs concluded. " These PowerPC apps just run . And that's what we're going to have for our users, because every app isn't going to be there for our users on day one."

The Macworld online site is hurting from all the hits. Here's what's there on the Intel news:

"The rumors are true: Intel will be inside

Jobs talked about the major transitions in the Mac's life -- starting from the Mac's Motorola 68000-series processor to PowerPC. "The PowerPC set Apple up fro the next decade. It was a good move," he said.

"The second transition was even better -- the transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X that we just did," he continued. "This was a brain transplant. And even though these operating systems (9 and x) vary only by one in name, they are very different, and this has set Apple up for the next 20 years."

As the Intel logo lowered on the stage screen, Jobs said, "We are going to make the transition from PowerPC to Intel processors, and we are going to do it for you now, and for our customers next year. Why? Because we want to be making the best computer for our customers looking forward."

"I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven't been able to deliver that to you," said Jobs. "But as we look ahead, and though we've got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can't envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap," said Jobs.

Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. "When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of perfomance per watt, but Intel's roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do," he explained.

Transition to Intel by 2007, and yes, Marklar exists

"Starting next year, we will introduce Macs with Intel processors," said Jobs. "This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors. In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007."

Jobs then confirmed a long-held belief that Apple was working on an Intel-compatible version of Mac OS X that some have termed "Marklar."

Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years."

Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple's Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system.

Apple needs developers' help to complete the transition

"We are very far along on this, but we're not done," said Jobs. "Which is why we're going to put it in your hands very soon, so you can help us finish it."

Widget, scripts and Java applications should work in the new environment without any conversion, said Jobs. Cocoa-based applications will require "a few minor tweaks and a recompile." Carbon-based applications require "a few more tweaks," recompiling, and "they'll work," said Jobs. And projects built using Metrowerks' CodeWarrior need to be moved to Xcode.

The future of Mac OS X development is moving to Xcode, said Jobs. Of Apple's top 100 developers, more than half -- 56 percent -- are already using Xcode, and 25 percent are in the process of switching to Xcode. "Less than 20 percent are not on board yet. Now is a good time to get on board," said Jobs.

A new build of Xcode, version 2.1, is being released today. This new release enables developers to specify PowerPC or Intel architectures. "... and you're going to build what's called a universal binary. It contains all the bits for both architectures," said Jobs. "One binary, works on both PowerPC and Intel architecture. So you can ship one CD that supports both processors."

"This is nothing like Carbonizing"

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate /index.php

The Software & Information Industry Association hasn't been the Software Publishers Associtaion since the last millennium. The estimate that the macs account for 16% of personal computers is, at the very least, 7 years old!

OS X is not Open Source "yet" , I have been saying for years that we should takem out before they become a nuisance. Whas made into a waco for that comment.

Guess what : Apple Mac OS X is actually replacing GNU/Linux in some area now :

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/05/24/maclinux/i ndex.php?lsrc=mwrss

Mac users have a very powerful tool for password management in the Keychain Access program (which many users pay little attention to). You can store many strong passwords then remember one strong password to unlock and use them all. Additionally, when Keychain Access is locked, you can store the various password files it creates on a server (or on a flash drive) with peace of mind because it's DES encrypted. Note also that you can now sync Keychain Access via .Mac.

I've taught some of my friends to memorize one strong password, then use it to unlock Keychain Access which will simplify the process of assigning separate strong passwords for each account, server, etc. (or at least as strong as each scenario will allow). Because I often also need to access passwords from a PC, I also keep a short spreadsheet of "vital" passwords on the flash drive as well and I encrypt that with Kremlin (which is cross platform).

And they're taking what must be a pretty big loss just for the sake of having good business integrity.

According to the article over at MacCentral, nope. Apple doesn't expect the cost of performing the recall "to be material to Apple", and LG will be the one ponying up the costs.

Which, given this is the second time in a year LG has caused Apple to issue a recall on batteries, they ought to be doing.

macgamestore.com, there are several other games. I read this piece of news from mac world this morning.

...and then more money if you want the home networking option so that you can move programs from one TIVO to another.

...and some amount more for the networking option.

No argument on the rest of what you said, but the 'networking option' (Home Media Option) no longer costs extra.

Still, Deshboard is really just a next version of Sherlock, Apple's tool for searching the yellow pages, tracking packages, and looking up movie times, all rolled into a Konfabulator desktop model.

Apple ripped off Watson when they put those features into Sherlock.

64-bit AMD Opteron workstations were available two months before the G5 Powermacs were announced. If you call the G5 Powermacs "workstations" (dual processor, PCI-X), then AMD was first. If you call G5's "desktops" (no EEC memory, no workstation-class graphics cards), then PPC was first (before the Athlon 64 three months later).

2. I want a quiet system, and that means no fans. A high-end graphics board that sucks energy and produces heat is not just a neutral "I don't need it", it's a negative "I don't WANT it".

C'mon. A new high-end computer should have PCI Express. The Radeon 9600 is last generation's mid-range graphics. It is outperformed by this generation's low-end (GeForce 6200 and Radeon X700). Only the ultra high end cards need loud fans.

The prices of PCI Express versions of the X800 have been dropping rapidly. This doesn't happen unless the supply is healthy. Why the heck hasn't Apple moved to PCI Express?

Let remind you that no one has really moved their processor performance much in the last two years, until just recently with dual core designs.

I agree. However, for laughs, let me remind you that it has been 22 months since Jobs's boast: "3GHz within a year." IBM never stood behind that claim, but Jobs sure got people excited.

As to size, I have one and its just fine by me. It sits on the floor, it could be four feet tall for all I care.

This argument sounds stupid whenever PC defenders use it against iMac proponents. Most Mac users proudly display their beautifully designed Macs on the desk. Putting it on the floor is a travesty, isn't it? I think the size is fine, but some people expect a box that size to have at least a second 5.25" drive bay and more PCI slots. I think the dual processors might have something to do with it.

So, one external drive bay, with an optical drive that supports reading and writing just about every format under the sun.

A second drive bay would be a nice place to put a Blu-Ray drive next year. Also, many pros want an extra 5.25 drive bay for extra studio-quality audio/video I/O.

And what would most people use more slots for? Nothing. So much is included on the motherboard these days that six slots really doesn't make sense for the vast majority. If you need more, you'll probably get a PCI expansion chasis and stop whinning.

"Most people" is not what matters here. The Powermac is the only solution for pros and many pros will want more than three PCI slots over a five-year Mac lifetime. Five years ago, the Powermac didn't have gigabit ethernet, USB 2.0, FireWire 800, AirPort Extreme, Bluetooth, decent surround sound audio, or digital audio I/O. Sure, these can be added in an external mess, but most pros would want those extra PCI slots.

See also this explanation from this very thread.

Yes. ElGato make some and so do Plextor.

Links to Maccentral reviews:
http://www.macworld.com/2005/03/reviews/plextorcon vertx/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2005/03/reviews/plextorcon vertx/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2004/06/reviews/eyetv200/

Yes. ElGato make some and so do Plextor.

Links to Maccentral reviews:
http://www.macworld.com/2005/03/reviews/plextorcon vertx/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2005/03/reviews/plextorcon vertx/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2004/06/reviews/eyetv200/

Yes. ElGato make some and so do Plextor.

Links to Maccentral reviews:
http://www.macworld.com/2005/03/reviews/plextorcon vertx/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2005/03/reviews/plextorcon vertx/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2004/06/reviews/eyetv200/

Really? April 19. STFU.

I've heard nothing about Microsoft phasing out MSN Messenger or Office:mac.

They've dropped IE (Why compete with Safari?) and the MSN internet service client (Seriously, what were they thinking?) but Office:mac is a significant source of revenue.
Microsoft has said that Office:mac is bringing in respectable amounts of money and that they plan to support Tiger and that a new version of Messenger would be coming out soon.

That said, MS has repeatedly said that IE will only be developed as a part of Windows from now on; I'd put a Linux IE version slightly ahead of Linux Office on the probability scale.

I recently got a dish network PVR, and I wanted to know my options for moving content to my computer. Ideally, I would want to extract the video from the hard drive, but that is a really pain, if even possible on the particular model I got. Anyway, I decided if I ever do want to save any shows, it would make more sense to get a box that can do the capturing and encoding. If I were a sucker for high definition, this would not be an option, but the signal quality I get is not great enough that I would expend much effort worrying about recompression. I found a Macworld review of several devices that fit the bill. The Datavideo DAC-100 and Canopus ADVC-100 looked great. No TV tuner, but that doesn't always matter. I haven't bought either one, but it's nice to know they exist.

This argument was addressed countless times after the mini's release. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I can't tell my musician friend to go out and buy your Dell and expect to get a free music sequencer installed, along with the rest of the software. He won't even get a Firewire port to use his M-Audio Firewire 410 with. And he won't get OS X instead of Windows XP.

To get attention. There's no way the broadband industry will permit this. Check the massive campaign they've done (via Republican legislators) in Philadelphia and Houston to prevent municipal WiFi there.