Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the no-surprises-here dept.
Les writes "Mac insider site Think Secret has its scoop on what Apple CEO Steve Jobs will announce at Macworld Expo in New York next week. The site says that Power Mac G4s won't be updated until August, but we'll instead see a 17" flat-panel iMac and a demo of OS X 10.2 Jaguar."
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Re:C|Net too
by
Paul+Burney
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You said:
C|Net has an article [com.com] that almost mirrors what ThinkSecret is saying
From the article:
As reported Monday by Mac enthusiast site ThinkSecret
So it looks like C|Net is just rumor mongering as well. They aren't really confirming anything, just re-reporting.
-- <?php while ($self != "asleep") { $sheep_count++; } ?>
Re:Jaguar or Jagwer or...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Do you think apple (has it was said before) will improve linux binaries support from the 10.2?
What the hell are you talking about?
Mac OS X does not run linux binaries, is not intended to run linux binaries, and likely never will. It uses an entirely different binary *format*. Linux binaries are "ELF" executables. Mac OS X binaries are "mach-o" executables. To Mac OS X, ELF binaries are noise. It would be possible -- rather easy , such translation layers exist for BSD already -- to create a special compatibility layer for Mac OS X that would let it understand and run ELF binaries, and trick the ELF binaries into sensing the presence of a more linuxy environment. However, nobody, especially not apple, is even really seriously considering implementing this, because:
There is no good reason for Mac OS X to support Linux binaries, as think about it-- where are you going to find PPC Linux binaries? The macintosh uses a completely different microchip from the x86, the "PowerPC". This means that any program you run on OS X or Linux/PPC *must* be compiled for PowerPC. This is why they don't make WINE for OS X. If the program is open source, you can just compile it yourself for OS X, in which case you don't need Linux/PPC binary support. If the program is closed source, the closed source vendor is far, far more likely to offer an OS X compiled binary version than they are to offer a Linux/PPC compiled binary version, becuase OS X has a larger installed user base, in which case you don't need Linux/PPC binary support.
Now, there is a product called "Virtual PC" by Connectix that emulates an x86 computer, and will let you (with a large speed hit) run x86 linux, unix or Windows inside a virtual machine. You can run x86 linux binaries inside of that just fine. This is not, however, a product that is going to be part of the core OS anytime soon.
And, finally, if what you really meant was source compatibility improvements-- i.e., making OS X more likely to let you compile and install linux software programs on the first try-- i've been using OS X since the first public beta, and i can frankly say mac OS X source-compatibility with linux has gotten steadily better with every single version, and i'm certain that it will continue to get better as apple cleans up their code.
Why do you want linux binary support in Mac OS X?
Re:iMac prices here in my country
by
Large+Green+Mallard
·
· Score: 4, Informative
ThinkSecret Credibility
by
usr122122121
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I recently emailed the guy in charge of ThinkSecret to ask him if he thought that it spoke any to his credibility the fact that the "System Preferences Screenshot" has "firewall" misspelled as "firewal"... and I encouraged him to place the "l" there in order to seem more credible...
He replied that it was Apple's mistake, and that they need to fix it, not him.
He left that image alone, but released a Newer One that is in almost a completely different style- look at the tabs... and "firewal" is now fixed.
I will be SO MAD if apple does the.Mac sh*t. Since when do we copy Microsoft?
Think Secret's integrity as a rumors site is existent only in the fact that it is one of the few rumors sites remaining. This, in turn, is because I believe that Apple is playing them: feeding them doctored images, blatantly false rumors, and such. That would explain why they haven't gotten in trouble yet with apple... and would also explain why half the stuff there seems ludicrous!
I do have to confess, though, I do read Think Secret regularly. Definitely not for an authoritative source of information, but just for fun. Every thing they say should be taken with a grain of salt. No, change that, the whole salt shaker.
uh-oh, i'm 2 cents poorer
--
-braxton
RumorTracker
by
EyesWideOpen
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If you have a rumor fix, the site RumorTracker acts as a sort of rumor portal including rumors from seven different sites including MacOSRumors, ThinkSecret and SpyMac.
--
As with the sun's light My mom was magnificent Unquestionable
Re:No matter what
by
BitGeek
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A 1GHz G4 IS faster than a 2GHz P4.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand pipelines, branch prediction, what having a 386 co-processor for compatibility on there implies, what Risc processing really does, and that floating point is a major part of CPU intensive applications leaves us with people doing what you're doing...
claiming that anything with a higher clockrate is faster.
Never mine that a G4 can do 2-6 times as much work in a given clock cycle.
-- Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
Bullshit rumor. Current Powermac G4 EOl'd
by
d0n+quix0te
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The current crop of PMG4's have been EOL'd. Yup. Limited shelf life plus great discount packages can only mean one thing:
New PowerMacs at MacWorld!!! ---- http://www.cube-zone.com/ reports: The current PowerMac line has been EOled.... the current PowerMac line (800 Mhz, 933 Mhz and dual 1 Ghz) has been EOled. Computers dealers cannot order those computers from Apple anymore...
---
The Quartz Extremem "requirments" myth
by
PythonOrRuby
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Quartz Extreme will only require 16MB of Video RAM on an AGP 2x bus. All of Apple's current machines, minus the old iMac currently meet this. Yes, it would be nice to see all of them meet the reccomended 32MB, but as it is, they'll all be able to take advantage of hardware accelerated Quartz when 10.2 ships.
Slashdot Mirror
CNET has a story on the 17inchers too.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
You said:
From the article:
So it looks like C|Net is just rumor mongering as well. They aren't really confirming anything, just re-reporting.
<?php while ($self != "asleep") { $sheep_count++; } ?>
What the hell are you talking about?
- Mac OS X does not run linux binaries, is not intended to run linux binaries, and likely never will. It uses an entirely different binary *format*. Linux binaries are "ELF" executables. Mac OS X binaries are "mach-o" executables. To Mac OS X, ELF binaries are noise. It would be possible -- rather easy , such translation layers exist for BSD already -- to create a special compatibility layer for Mac OS X that would let it understand and run ELF binaries, and trick the ELF binaries into sensing the presence of a more linuxy environment. However, nobody, especially not apple, is even really seriously considering implementing this, because:
- There is no good reason for Mac OS X to support Linux binaries, as think about it-- where are you going to find PPC Linux binaries? The macintosh uses a completely different microchip from the x86, the "PowerPC". This means that any program you run on OS X or Linux/PPC *must* be compiled for PowerPC. This is why they don't make WINE for OS X. If the program is open source, you can just compile it yourself for OS X, in which case you don't need Linux/PPC binary support. If the program is closed source, the closed source vendor is far, far more likely to offer an OS X compiled binary version than they are to offer a Linux/PPC compiled binary version, becuase OS X has a larger installed user base, in which case you don't need Linux/PPC binary support.
- Now, there is a product called "Virtual PC" by Connectix that emulates an x86 computer, and will let you (with a large speed hit) run x86 linux, unix or Windows inside a virtual machine. You can run x86 linux binaries inside of that just fine. This is not, however, a product that is going to be part of the core OS anytime soon.
- And, finally, if what you really meant was source compatibility improvements-- i.e., making OS X more likely to let you compile and install linux software programs on the first try-- i've been using OS X since the first public beta, and i can frankly say mac OS X source-compatibility with linux has gotten steadily better with every single version, and i'm certain that it will continue to get better as apple cleans up their code.
Why do you want linux binary support in Mac OS X?Brazil has tried this before.. have a look at http://www.applefritter.com/macclones/unitron/ for a 1980's Brazillian Mac clone :)
He replied that it was Apple's mistake, and that they need to fix it, not him.
He left that image alone, but released a Newer One that is in almost a completely different style- look at the tabs... and "firewal" is now fixed.
I will be SO MAD if apple does the .Mac sh*t. Since when do we copy Microsoft?
Think Secret's integrity as a rumors site is existent only in the fact that it is one of the few rumors sites remaining. This, in turn, is because I believe that Apple is playing them: feeding them doctored images, blatantly false rumors, and such. That would explain why they haven't gotten in trouble yet with apple... and would also explain why half the stuff there seems ludicrous!
I do have to confess, though, I do read Think Secret regularly. Definitely not for an authoritative source of information, but just for fun. Every thing they say should be taken with a grain of salt. No, change that, the whole salt shaker.
uh-oh, i'm 2 cents poorer
-braxton
If you have a rumor fix, the site RumorTracker acts as a sort of rumor portal including rumors from seven different sites including MacOSRumors, ThinkSecret and SpyMac.
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
A 1GHz G4 IS faster than a 2GHz P4.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand pipelines, branch prediction, what having a 386 co-processor for compatibility on there implies, what Risc processing really does, and that floating point is a major part of CPU intensive applications leaves us with people doing what you're doing...
claiming that anything with a higher clockrate is faster.
Never mine that a G4 can do 2-6 times as much work in a given clock cycle.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
The current crop of PMG4's have been EOL'd. Yup. Limited shelf life plus great discount packages can only mean one thing:
... the current PowerMac line (800 Mhz, 933 Mhz and dual 1 Ghz) has been EOled. Computers dealers cannot order those computers from Apple anymore...
New PowerMacs at MacWorld!!!
----
http://www.cube-zone.com/ reports:
The current PowerMac line has been EOled.
---
Quartz Extreme will only require 16MB of Video RAM on an AGP 2x bus. All of Apple's current machines, minus the old iMac currently meet this. Yes, it would be nice to see all of them meet the reccomended 32MB, but as it is, they'll all be able to take advantage of hardware accelerated Quartz when 10.2 ships.
iBooks aren't getting G4s, so don't hold your breath.
The G3 is still scaling, and it uses less power, which means better battery life, which is Good Thing(tm) in a laptop.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/778239.asp
MSNBC has picked up the torch of Mac rumor mongering and is running for the gold, baby!