Slashdot Mirror

The mac version of Eve was reported as in development as far back as March but as of yet no offical statements. http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/09/eve/index.php And people ALREADY run Eve on linux using Cedega. Running Eve on linux is nothing new, people have been doing it for at least 9 months, maybe more. Nice of slashdot to pick up a PR statement.

Apple never said they would sell 1 million phones in a quarter.

I think Vista was just rushed to be released to soon just like the Playstation 3 and a bunch of other products on the market.

Consumers gripe and complain when companies release buggy products but complain when a company keeps delaying their product as was the case with Vista and now with the new version of OSX. XP machines are still running fine so what's the rush? They should have spent another year on it and made sure it was good to go before releasing early under consumer pressure.

I say shut the fuck up and let the company release when they think the product is ready to ship. Otherwise you get 360s with no built in HD player, bugs in Vista, 360s that overheat, understocked PS3s, and on and on. Granted the companies should have the balls to say "not till it's done" and should not release news of a release until they have the product shrink wrapped and on pallets.

references

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/21/233121 0
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_s ystems/vista_delayed_again.html
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04/12/leopard_re ax/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04/12/leopard_re ax/index.php
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/15/commentary/game_ov er/column_gaming/index.htm

I think Vista was just rushed to be released to soon just like the Playstation 3 and a bunch of other products on the market.

Consumers gripe and complain when companies release buggy products but complain when a company keeps delaying their product as was the case with Vista and now with the new version of OSX. XP machines are still running fine so what's the rush? They should have spent another year on it and made sure it was good to go before releasing early under consumer pressure.

I say shut the fuck up and let the company release when they think the product is ready to ship. Otherwise you get 360s with no built in HD player, bugs in Vista, 360s that overheat, understocked PS3s, and on and on. Granted the companies should have the balls to say "not till it's done" and should not release news of a release until they have the product shrink wrapped and on pallets.

references

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/21/233121 0
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_s ystems/vista_delayed_again.html
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04/12/leopard_re ax/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/04/12/leopard_re ax/index.php
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/15/commentary/game_ov er/column_gaming/index.htm

http://iphone.macworld.com/2007/08/the_iphone_hack ing_kit_step_by.php

You mean these?

There is plenty of demand for an iPod SDK, and has been since day 1:

http://www.alteringtime.com/log/archives/96
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/09/21/macgamesip od/index.php
http://www.ipodhacks.com/modules.php?op=modload&na me=Forum&file=viewtopic&forum=2&topic=1806
http://lists.apple.com/archives/studentdev/2001/Oc t/msg00437.html
...and so on.

Apple has their reasons for not releasing an iPhone SDK, same as they have their reasons for not releasing an iPod SDK. I assure you that not knowing the demand has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I can see how you're confused, because all the news outlets reporting about how the iPhone destroyed Duke's network did not bother to report that it was all made-up crap.

Last week:

"I don't believe it's a Cisco problem in any way, shape or form."

This week:

Cisco worked closely with Duke and Apple to identify the source of this problem, which was caused by a Cisco-based network issue. Cisco has provided a fix that has been applied to Duke's network and there have been no recurrences of the problem since.

Maybe at least /. could bother to retract the story?

Nah, who cares, it's just your usualy weekly Apple bashing.

Well, the whole network went down
yesterday without any help.

A little reading around here would appear to contradict you.

In fact, as does this "geek":

http://www.macworld.com/2007/07/firstlooks/iphone_ tech/index.php?pf=1

I dunno what the big deal is. In the US, you buy a phone and you're signing a 1 or 2 year contract, that is the norm here.

My phone with SprintPCS is about $80/mo, unlimited nights and weekends...I think about 1000 anytime minutes, SMS is extra, but, I don't use that much, nor do I ever come close to the daytime minutes. I have the full Vision plan...unlimited data, picture mail...and since I 'unlocked' the bluetooth modem capabilities in my Samsung A900...I can tether it to my laptop as needed.

The latter point, is the main reason I'm not going with the iPhone in Jan. when my current contract is up. It isn't price, it is the stated fact that iPhone will NOT allow tethering to a laptop as a modem as part of their 'unlimited' data plan.

The price and monthly cost is no big deal to me....but, I want my tethering capability.

Apple went straight for the enterprise with OS X servers. Remember all that triumphalism a few years back about a new supercomputer being built from Xserves? How OS X was going to be the new standard for supercomputing, how all the enterprises were going to switch switch switch? Yeah, nothing came of it, so of course the fanboys rewrite history so Apple only ever aimed for the home market.

What are you reading? I don't recall any of that guff and nor should anyone else. Lets dig back in history and see what was really said: Here's a journalist's transcript of the Xserve preview event in 2002 and here's a followup a few hours later with more details, neither of which bear out any of those assertions. The stated market was Education, Creative, Biotech and Video and they sold a lot into those areas, not to mention Government (find out how many Xserves are on U.S. Navy submarines running Linux).

As far as "triumphalism", the first anyone heard of the Mac supercomputer was when it made the top 10 Supercomputer list - and those were DESKTOPS! That generated its own hooplah when, once again, the extablishment was pulling another stick out of its eye for underperforming and overbilling.

Apple went straight for the enterprise with OS X servers. Remember all that triumphalism a few years back about a new supercomputer being built from Xserves? How OS X was going to be the new standard for supercomputing, how all the enterprises were going to switch switch switch? Yeah, nothing came of it, so of course the fanboys rewrite history so Apple only ever aimed for the home market.

What are you reading? I don't recall any of that guff and nor should anyone else. Lets dig back in history and see what was really said: Here's a journalist's transcript of the Xserve preview event in 2002 and here's a followup a few hours later with more details, neither of which bear out any of those assertions. The stated market was Education, Creative, Biotech and Video and they sold a lot into those areas, not to mention Government (find out how many Xserves are on U.S. Navy submarines running Linux).

As far as "triumphalism", the first anyone heard of the Mac supercomputer was when it made the top 10 Supercomputer list - and those were DESKTOPS! That generated its own hooplah when, once again, the extablishment was pulling another stick out of its eye for underperforming and overbilling.

"Apple didn't release Safari for Windows to compete"
This must be what it feels like to be in the spin room after a Presidential debate. Someone's distributed the talking points, and now dozens of people are suddenly parroting the exact same line: "This is an SDK. It is not a browser war."

Well, you're half right. It will be easier for Windows users to ensure Safari compatibility when Safari runs on their own systems. But this is also Apple making a play for a share of the Windows browser market. Let's review.

Reuters: "Jobs put Microsoft's dominant Internet Explorer browser squarely in his sights ... 'We would love for Safari's market share to grow substantially,' Jobs said ... 'We assume Safari for Windows should increase market share and encourage Web site developers to allow for greater compatibility with Safari,' Soleil Equity Research analyst Shannon Cross said."

MacWorld: "A second reason for Apple's expansion into the Windows browser market might be a simple matter of green ... The more Safari users, the larger Apple's revenue from its own deal with Google. ... 'In addition to the iPhone, there are two things Apple is looking for--increasing overall market share to ensure developers are supporting it [Safari] and bolstering the number of alternatives to Internet Explorer,' [NPD Group analyst Ross] Rubin said. ... 'The Mac's market share is great, but we want to grow, and, in order to do that, we have to create a version of Safari on Windows,' Jobs said during his keynote. ... 'What we know is that people will love an innovative browser,' said Brian Croll, Apple's senior director of software product marketing. 'We think it will be really popular on Windows.'"

Computerworld: "a major step for Apple into the browser wars ... During his speech, Jobs said that Apple simply wants to increase its browser market share, which seems logical."

And so on...

Actually this article had what I think was quoted to me earlier about no tethering.

Hello, sorry so long to get back. I wish I had the good quote someone answered me with...it was a few month ago. But, I do believe it was said by Jobs himself when he introduced the iPhone, so you might look at that. I found this blurb here which mentioned this:

"What doesn't iPhone do? Unlike most smart phones, the iPhone doesn't have voice-dialing, voice memos, 3G Internet access, Word or Excel support, one-handed operation, or video recording. It can't be used as a laptop modem. The battery can't be replaced. It doesn't support removable storage. The calendar, task list and e-mail won't sync with Microsoft Outlook."

Tethering like I mentioned, is a big deal for me too...but, I think Jobs himself said you could not use it at a modem for another computer.

I just tried to compare a true OS X game to some DirectX converted one via Cider. I am not claiming they will ship .exe of course :) Cider, the gaming optimised version/SDK combo of Wine.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/03/cider/inde x.php

If those games from EA will be Intel only, you will figure it.

GeForce3 puts Mac at the head of GPU field
A first look at Doom 3 Mac benchmarks

GeForce3 puts Mac at the head of GPU field
A first look at Doom 3 Mac benchmarks

So how do you explain 50 frames per second on an X800XT, minimum settings?

Your arguments do not negate the fact that they have no presence in that market range. The article is specifically talking about which is cheaper, and making excuses for Apple as to why they are more expensive only proves the other side's point.

Most people want a cheap computer. If you talk to the average family in the United States you will find that few are winning to pay more than $1000 for a laptop these days. Apple has been very successful and makes a very quality product, but it simply is not the cheapest.

Apple still only commanded 4.8% market share in 2006. Are you still so sure that cheap macs would take away from the mid-range models? http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/marketshar e/index.php

Quantization issues are well understood, it doesn't take a color guru to understand that. However, name-dropping digitaldog as you leap to conclusions about the new display is total bullshit. Claiming that the new displays have improved gamut is pure, baseless speculation at this point. Furthermore, I've read reliable explanations for why notebook LED displays can't be wider gamut.

Wow, you really do know how to turn on the charm, don't you?

I do have to say yes, you're right that I've speculated about wider gamut on the new MBP LED displays, as have a lot of other sources, from folks posting in messageboards to MacInTouch to MacWorld. Much of this speculation concerns comparisons to NEC's nice LED-backlit display that claims to recreate "107% of the AdobeRGB colorspace". (Yes I realize, the backlighting on the NEC display is almost certainly quite different from that of the new MacBook Pro).

I've looked for a bit and don't find Apple making any claims at all about wider gamut for the new MBP LED displays. So yep, all speculation at this point. I deserve a spanking for thinking I'd seen Apple claiming wider gamut when that impression was mainly created by my conflation of "news" coverage and people raving in blogs and fora with what Apple had actually announced. It'd be nice to see Apple make some claims about what the display will do, but they're probably smarting about such things this week.

I wasn't "name-dropping" Andrew Rodney to try and grab some cred, buddy. Frankly, my own favorite color management guru passed away recently. I just figured that if I was going to mention Rodney's name, I should point to his site.

Andrew Rodney weighs in on LED- vs. CCF-illuminated displays in this forum post discussing the new MacBook Pro machines - though he doesn't specifically address the MBP display, which one might or might not assume he's seen.

And BTW, Rodney links to his own site in his .sig, so you'd sure better go bitch at him about it too. Looks like you've got the time on your hands.

Quantization issues are well understood, it doesn't take a color guru to understand that. However, name-dropping digitaldog as you leap to conclusions about the new display is total bullshit. Claiming that the new displays have improved gamut is pure, baseless speculation at this point. Furthermore, I've read reliable explanations for why notebook LED displays can't be wider gamut.

Wow, you really do know how to turn on the charm, don't you?

I do have to say yes, you're right that I've speculated about wider gamut on the new MBP LED displays, as have a lot of other sources, from folks posting in messageboards to MacInTouch to MacWorld. Much of this speculation concerns comparisons to NEC's nice LED-backlit display that claims to recreate "107% of the AdobeRGB colorspace". (Yes I realize, the backlighting on the NEC display is almost certainly quite different from that of the new MacBook Pro).

I've looked for a bit and don't find Apple making any claims at all about wider gamut for the new MBP LED displays. So yep, all speculation at this point. I deserve a spanking for thinking I'd seen Apple claiming wider gamut when that impression was mainly created by my conflation of "news" coverage and people raving in blogs and fora with what Apple had actually announced. It'd be nice to see Apple make some claims about what the display will do, but they're probably smarting about such things this week.

I wasn't "name-dropping" Andrew Rodney to try and grab some cred, buddy. Frankly, my own favorite color management guru passed away recently. I just figured that if I was going to mention Rodney's name, I should point to his site.

Andrew Rodney weighs in on LED- vs. CCF-illuminated displays in this forum post discussing the new MacBook Pro machines - though he doesn't specifically address the MBP display, which one might or might not assume he's seen.

And BTW, Rodney links to his own site in his .sig, so you'd sure better go bitch at him about it too. Looks like you've got the time on your hands.

Canvas is 100x better suited to the poster's needs than GIMP. It's a shame that it is being neglected under it's current corporate management (few updates, no publicity). The web site hardly indicates what a general-purpose piece of graphics software it is. I can't think of something that would be better suited for the poster's needs.

Here is a review:
http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/reviews/canvasx/in dex.php

Now that it's Jobs is saying that iphone will support 3rd party apps, they'll be setting the bar for phone OS's. I d bet the market for phones gets stratified just like the MP3-player market is now -- there's IPods, and then the rest are all followers. http://30days.itious.com/

Actually, the Mac version of Canvas just got killed.

I've used graphics apps for a long time, and the fact is, if you only need 25% of what the Adobe Creative Suite can do, then you should look for cheaper or open-source alternatives.

But if you actually need the industrial-strength features that Photoshop, InDesign, etc. actually deliver, there frankly are no substitutes.

In fact, most of the people who think they need to pirate Photoshop because it's "too expensive" would actually be quite well served by the feature set in the powerful Photoshop Elements, which is not expensive at all, at under $100 retail.

3.5" drives but still cool floppy raid

I thought that Apple made a big fuss about not allowing the Cell companies to lock users in to long term contracts with subsidized phones and that was why were were going to pay 500+ for the iPhone.

They said it would carry a 2 year contract during the initial announcement at MacWorld in January. They did say no price subsidies, though. The running theory has been the combination of high purchase price and a 2 year contract must mean really cheap plans (like free unlimited data), but I doubt that will happen. I think the purchase price was chosen as a combination of the average prices of smart phones and ipods.

if you're employed by elgato, say so

"The EyeTV 250 is Elgato's follow-up to its successful EyeTV 200 (4 mice) product. Like the 200 model, it is an analog TV tuner with a built-in MPEG encoder (digital cable or satellite subscribers need to go through their converter box)."

This is another hardware solution. not something you install to your computer. AFAICT.

http://www.macworld.com/2006/12/reviews/eyetv250/i ndex.php

While I appreciate your concern for my reading skills, "not as successful as Apple had hoped" is clearly a nice way of saying "a failure." Aside from that, Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative reference, so arguing over what it says is an exercise in futility. If you're going to try to prove me wrong, at least link to something more authoritative. Like this, perhaps. Although "Apple CEO Gil Amelio is also taking a close look at Newton, the disastrous 'personal digital assistant' that has yet to turn a profit," might not be the smoking gun you were looking for. That said, the article was from 1997. Maybe the Newton actually started turning a profit right before they discontinued it a year later? In which case, why is the Newton on the top of Macworld's 21 biggest IT flops?

Next time, do your own research.

So Palm Os is dead then?

Would Palm be so kind as to give us back BeOs? They purchased it many moons ago, never did anything with it, but didn't want to release it in any shape or form because of IP issues associated with PalmOs (I guess they had grandious plans to port some of the technology across)

Comin' Palm, pretty please?

http://www.macworld.com/news/2001/08/16/palm/
http://www.begroovy.com/wordpress/?p=200

More importantly: have you replaced Macworld with anything? Is there any Mac-specific magazine out there that's worth spending the money on? If anybody has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them, because I have no idea as to what might be a single-source replacement. (Comments on multiple-source replacements are welcome, too.)

...it costs a huge amount of money to print and distribute copies of a magazine. Ink, paper, and postage are massive costs. Think of it this way: it costs us x to distribute 350,000 Macworlds. How much would it cost to distribute 700,000 copies? Twice as much. Ad revenues have to double. Since most of our advertisers couldn't afford to pay us twice as much as they do now, we'd suddenly be losing a massive amount of money.

Play that in reverse and you see why we keep knocking down our circulation. Not because we couldn't have a higher circulation -- we certainly could. But because almost no advertiser could afford to pay for those extra readers. And so we drop circulation, using methods like not being aggressive about getting renewals. It's pretty scientific, actually -- the circulation number of an established magazine has almost nothing to do with how many people want to read it, and almost everything to do with how many people advertisers can afford to reach.

For us to survive, we need to transform from a magazine company into a media company, and that means the web's just as good (or better!) than print. If you want to read the mag in paper form, great. If you would rather read it online, that's fine -- we will make money either way. People who are on the Web all the time, posting in forms and the like, are less likely to be magazine readers. And we're totally okay with that -- if the mag as a medium is irrelevant to you, don't read it anymore. We hope that what we offer on the web is compelling, though. And if you become our reader on the web instead of print, I tell you honestly, we don't care. A web reader is as good as a magazine reader in my book. They're different, sure -- but that's all.

Indeed. Their yearly roundup of Mac security and anti-virus software cracks me up. They ran an article that basically said, "there are no Mac viruses," and then two pages later, gave a glowing review of two $60 anti-virus software packages that "no Mac user should be without."

So, I sent a letter to the editor, basically asking, "So, what do I get for my $60 if there's nothing to protect against?"

Their answer was less than satisfying.

For just pure stupidity that's totally worthless, you can't beat MacHome.

Your MacBook is almost five years old? Impressive, considering they first came out about a year ago... Perhaps you meant "iBook."

Agree with your analysis, though. While I might consider a Win/Lin desktop, I have just not seen laptop offerings competitive with Apple's. The closest in terms of build quality and design is Lenovo, and even their offerings are thicker and uglier (while not offering DVI or FireWire 800). Others may be more feature-complete but are huge, heavy, criminally ugly monstrosities next to a MacBook Pro.

Even if I needed to buy a Windows laptop, given the choices I have today, I'd buy an MBP.

Dude, you can run it now in apple.

Although some other implementations of the Common Language Infrastructure run on non-Windows operating systems, the CLR runs on Microsoft Windows operating systems.

I didn't say I was sure they wouldn't. I said I'm "not convinced" they will, and questioned the confidence in your "most certainly" comment. In other words, I don't take it as a given. I think it's possible, but the fact that they have not stated it, and they specifically said "it won't run apps" indicates they likely won't. (a widget is an app, albeit a small one)

And as I pointed out, others -- not just people on some message board, but editors from Macworld -- agree that it is far less than a given that it will run 3rd party widgets without Apple's blessing. ( once again: http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/01/ph onefix/index.php )

Turning off the 'open safe files' prevents drive-by downloads from being automatically executed.

It was pretty much perfectly safe, until the Dashboard widget exploit came along.

1) IE for the mac

...sucked.

2) WMP for the mac

...sucked.

You've just pointed out two great examples of Microsoft offering crappy software for another platform that was later superseded by superior alternatives. IE was a native OS X app prior to the creation of Safari, but it was — at best — a mediocre implementation of a web user agent. Once Safari was released, IE lagged far behind, and Microsoft publicly acknowledged that it was a better representation of what customers wanted.

Along similar lines, the Microsoft-distributed Telestream Flip4Mac is far better than the OS X version of WMP could ever have hoped to be. A plugin for QuickTime that integrates reasonably cleanly with the rest of the OS was a much better idea than that buggy standalone app.

... was never so appropriate.

The mini is designed like apple's DRM; it prevents the casual tinkerer from getting inside of it, voiding their warranty, then having a fit on the phone.

Well, it voids the warranty, which most people try to avoid.

Jobs has been saying Apple doesn't want DRM since at least 2003.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939600/ste ve_jobs_the_rolling_stone_interview/

"When we first went to talk to these record companies -- you know, it was a while ago. It took us 18 months. And at first we said: None of this technology that you're talking about's gonna work. We have Ph.D.'s here, that know the stuff cold, and we don't believe it's possible to protect digital content." ...

"Of course. What's new is this amazingly efficient distribution system for stolen property called the Internet -- and no one's gonna shut down the Internet. And it only takes one stolen copy to be on the Internet. And the way we expressed it to them is: Pick one lock -- open every door. It only takes one person to pick a lock. Worst case: Somebody just takes the analog outputs of their CD player and rerecords it -- puts it on the Internet. You'll never stop that. So what you have to do is compete with it.

At first, they kicked us out. But we kept going back again and again. The first record company to really understand this stuff was Warner. They have some smart people there, and they said: We agree with you. And next was Universal. Then we started making headway. And the reason we did, I think, is because we made predictions."

http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/03/04/jobs/

"If you legally acquire music, you need to have the right to manage it on all other devices that you own," said Jobs."

I'd never heard of the DefectiveByDesign site before your post today (I thought it was a tag on Slashdot!) but these quotes stuck in my mind when I read them years ago. It looks like the music industry is catching up to Jobs' way of thinking.

You have to face facts - Jobs has a history and he's turning the music industry around. First he reclaimed the wasteland left behind by Napster, now he's pushing for unrestricted music and achieving some success. It's not a 'right place at the right time' thing, unless you completely discount the years of work to get Apple to the 'right place at the right time.'

Macworld explains why Apple computers will remain nitch products... From http://www.macworld.com/2006/06/reviews/parallels/ index.php in June 2006: "The first, and the biggest letdown for diehard gamers, is that Parallels can't presently handle accelerated 3-D graphics. So, while you can play Windows Solitaire just fine, you'll have to use Boot Camp if you want to try out Half Life 2." It is March 2007, nothing has changed - and it will never change.

One thing Apple did tell us is that you won't be able to use the iPhone as a wireless Bluetooth modem for a laptop on the road... That's from macworld so I'd be pretty confident in saying that, barring a software upgrade for the phone.

And how do you know he was the impetus for it? (Psssst: you don't.)

The internal audit came as a result of claims by a senior researcher at SecureWorks
impetus

It would be wrong, if it were the whole truth.

Despite SecureWorks being quoted saying the Mac is threatened by the exploit demonstrated at Black Hat, they have provided no evidence that in fact it is," Apple Director of Mac PR, Lynn Fox, told Macworld. "To the contrary, the SecureWorks demonstration used a third party USB 802.11 device-not the 802.11 hardware in the Mac-a device which uses a different chip and different software drivers than those on the Mac. Further, SecureWorks has not shared or demonstrated any code in relation to the Black Hat-demonstrated exploit that is relevant to the hardware and software that we ship."

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/17/wirelessha ck/index.php?pf=1

The bit about SecureWorks not providing evidence of the exploit is now borne out by their inability to provide any evidence since. Crashing a MacBook is not the same as taking control, and while it was recently claimed that it's a simple extension, the fact is that the exploit has not been proven.

Occam's Razor seems to be on Apple's side - they heard of an issue, couldn't get the details so they stared their own audit and patched the problems they found. Simple, straightforward, doesn't require invention of entities.