Slashdot Mirror


100 Years of Macintosh

Zero seconds on the Mac OS system clock is January 1, 1904. The Mac OS epoch hits 100 years ... now. That's assuming you live in the Pacific time zone, anyway: the Mac OS epoch is unique in that it is time zone-specific. Of course, none of this applies unless you are running Mac OS, and all you Mac users are using Mac OS X, right? (Geek note: the Mac OS epoch is unsigned, which is why it can count over 100 years from 0 seconds, and 32-bit Unix can't, though it can count backward to 1901.)

280 comments

  1. Mac OS 9.2.2 seems to be OK by green+pizza · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been using my older Mac all evening (I know, boring life). Right now it claims it's "2:01:22 AM 1/1/2004". Seems to be OK to me.

    1. Re:Mac OS 9.2.2 seems to be OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What version of MacOS?

    2. Re:Mac OS 9.2.2 seems to be OK by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny
      You're lucky. I'm on OS X and my computer just asked me to go outside to replace the AE35 unit.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:Mac OS 9.2.2 seems to be OK by SYFer · · Score: 2, Funny

      When/if you get back inside, you may may want to zap the PRAM.

      --
      "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    4. Re:Mac OS 9.2.2 seems to be OK by joebeone · · Score: 1

      I just had OS X barf yesterday and significantly affect the PRAM to the point that I couldn't log-in!!! Anyway, reset the PRAM + clock and everythings peachy... link.

  2. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where did the story said that this messes up the system clock?

  3. Well, uh.. happy.. epoch.. then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I will remove the PRAM battery from my LC II temporarily and boot it up, resetting its internal clock, in commemoration of this event.

    1. Re:Well, uh.. happy.. epoch.. then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      command option P R. dear god, that brings back memories. Rebuild the Desktop! NO! Restart without extentions! NO: BLAST THE PRAM!!!!

  4. Ok, and? by REDNOROCK · · Score: 0

    You forgot to post what this means.

    "Hey guys! OSX hit its epoch! Woo!"

    --
    Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
    1. Re:Ok, and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which will be followed by a pair of -1 off topics, but in your case sir, it doesn't really matter, does it?

    2. Re:Ok, and? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Actually, maybe. The classic Mac OS hit its 100 year mark, not its "epoch," which is the beginning of its time keeping period. Technically, the older Carbon APIs that use UTCDateTime also hit their 100 year mark in Mac OS X, but the modern ones that use CFAbsoluteTime or NSDate are based off of January 1st, 2001, and the POSIX APIs are based off of January 1st, 1970. I have NO idea what the kernel uses internally to keep time.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  5. Apple and the Future by The+Slashdotted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems that with Apple's other projects, they stand a good shot digging themselves out the nitch they carved out long ago.. Since Apple models itself a hardware company, do they offer patches on a similar basis as Microsoft or to they rely more on the BSD patching system?

    1. Re:Apple and the Future by freshfromthevat · · Score: 1

      There is a software updater program that may be kicked off manually or (and this is the default) it runs every week. it downloads things at a rate of several a month. This includes updates to the OS, security patches, new versions of included applications.

      --
      .. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
    2. Re:Apple and the Future by KrispyKringle · · Score: 4, Informative
      OK.

      1) Who says they model themselves as a hardware company? Companies that do both hardware and the software that runs on it are common in enterprise computing (Sun, IBM, SGI, etc). Would you say these companies have little software experience because they are hardware companies? Apple is much the consumer equivalent of these; they make hardware and software woven very tightly together; the idea behind a Mac is not that you get superior hardware or superior software, but that you get a package. And that in being a cohesive package, it is superior, almost inherently, than a hodgepodge of off-the-shelf components (much like Sun's claim that Solaris is the best OS for Sparc, or SGI and IBM with IRIX and AIX (which are both perhaps on the way out, in favor of custom Linux distros)).

      2) Yes, Apple patches are offered as timely as Microsoft (which is to say, perhaps not as timely as they should be). I've seen plenty of reports on Bugtraq of Apple being unresponsive to reported bugs, but then I've seen the same with MS. Presumably, they simply didn't take the issue seriously or deemed it unworthy of addressing for some other reason (which leads us back to just how trustworthy your computing really is, if you can't trust the company that designed it).

      3) What ``BSD patching system''? I'm pretty well experienced with administering Open and FreeBSD, and I am totally unaware of some patching system inherent to all BSD-derived OSes (say, Solaris?). Both Open and Free have similar pkg and port systems, but this is more because Open liked the way Free did it, not because they are both BSD's (that is, BSD refers to the underlying OS components--as opposed to, say, GNU--not anything else (certainly not the kernel, which, on OSX, is Mach-, not FreeBSD-based)). I think you are confused.

    3. Re:Apple and the Future by green+pizza · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since Apple models itself a hardware company, do they offer patches on a similar basis as Microsoft or to they rely more on the BSD patching system?

      Closer to Microsoft than anything else. Apple's patches generally come in the form of installer applications that can be downloaded and installed automatically via the bundled "Software Update" application (GUI and command line) or can be downloaded and installed manually from the support section of their website.

      Apple does not publish the source of any of their GUI applications or the GUI framework itself. It does however release the source to the rest of the OS under the name "Darwin". Patches and other updates to Mac OS X generally find their way into Darwin and can be browsed at http://developer.apple.com/darwin.

      The typical artist/writer/mom-or-dad user can click a couple buttons and have OS X update itself (or even set it to always keep itself updated). More technical users can browse the Darwin website for more details. (This was recently done by several folks wanting to know more about how Panther, Mac OS X 10.3, does its automatic defragmentation and optimizing. They dug around in the Darwin souce until they found that particular part of the HFS+ architecture. Examined the code and made a few posts explaining the process to everyone else).

    4. Re:Apple and the Future by KrispyKringle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, yeah. And OpenDarwin provides FreeBSD-style ports, while Fink provides apt and packages based on the .deb format from Debian.

    5. Re:Apple and the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I once looked at the Apple website's downloads section, and it was full of files that said "Fix for buffer overflow" this and "Unauthorized code" that. I got the impression that a lot of Mac users would see that and not realize how serious it was.

      I looked at the site again just now and they seem to be a little more discrete about it. Where they used to label fixes as "Fix buffer overflow in <some component>", they now just say "Security Update".

    6. Re:Apple and the Future by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "Presumably, they simply didn't take the issue seriously or deemed it unworthy of addressing for some other reason (which leads us back to just how trustworthy your computing really is, if you can't trust the company that designed it)."

      The oft neglected third option is that there's a long list of things to do ahead of a given defect. There are only so many programming monkeys at Microsoft or Apple working on code. In other words: A neglected defect is not automatically an indication that a company is evil, incompetent, or uncaring.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Apple and the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (much like Sun's claim that Solaris is the best OS for Sparc, or SGI and IBM with IRIX and AIX (which are both perhaps on the way out, in favor of custom Linux distros)

      I'm really getting tired of this crap. Commercial Unices are superior to Linux and aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Ask any Unix administrator - they'll say the same. I'm not saying Linux isn't a good value considering its price, but it never has been and never will be as robust as commercial Unices.

      When you guys let your zealotry get out of hand like this you're only hurting the Linux cause.

    8. Re:Apple and the Future by KrispyKringle · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Perfectly true, of course. Some amount of bugs and holes are to be expected. But it seems to me that software companies are held to far looser standards than, say, automobile companies. And I think this relates largely to the relative age of each industry.

      People take it for granted that cars work reliably, just as they take it for granted that computers don't. Back when I started using PCs around the time of Windows 3.1, I took it for granted that errors occurred (actually, I remember, though perhaps inaccuratley, 3.1 being surprisingly stable; 95 was where the real issues started) and that I'd have to hit the power switch every so often. That was my accepted norm.

      So too, opinion seems to be that security holes are entirely the fault of the attacker, never of the software designers. Do people hold MS responsible when they get infected with a virus? Sure, they grumble, but I see no class-action lawsuits, no new legislation, no nothing. Perhaps I am confusing reliability--resilience against failure in the course of normal use--with security--resilience against intentional attacks--but when Ford Pintos started blowing up because some jackass wired the turn signals through the gas tank, Ford paid (quite dearly, as well, thanks to punitive damages).

      I don't remember the specifics of the defects I've seen Apple accused of having ignored, but I imagine plenty are simple fixes (a fix of a buffer overflow on the screen-saver lock took a long time, if I remember right; this should be a simple matter of adding a boundary check on the input). The point is, if software companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it. Getting that next release out on time, adding that flashy new feature, and staying under budget are natural priorities for software makers. We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity. It should not be more profitable to spend money on advertising security than on actually building it.

    9. Re:Apple and the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OT, but the thing about the Pintos only saved them about 5 cents for each car "improprely" manufactured... and even after the settlement, they still made a profit off that reduction in safety. As opposed to the Chevy Corvair, which had been fixed to proper safety before it was murdered by Nader...

    10. Re:Apple and the Future by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1

      The typical artist/writer/mom-or-dad user can click a couple buttons and have OS X update itself (or even set it to always keep itself updated).

      Correction: the typical artist/writer/mom-or-dad user leaves the default settings, so his/her OS X updates itself every week. You don't need to "set it", it's set by default; you have to "click a couple of buttons" to disable it.

      Actually, I'm not so sure if it's a good to idea to put it as default - I wonder what will happen if a "typical artist/writer/mom-or-dad user" will be on vacation, connected via roaming/GPRS on cellphone and all of a sudden the machine will start to download 40 megabytes of OS X upgrade...

    11. Re:Apple and the Future by znu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't download updates without user intervention by default; it just checks for them and pops up a window listing what it finds.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    12. Re:Apple and the Future by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "So too, opinion seems to be that security holes are entirely the fault of the attacker, never of the software designers. ... The point is, if software companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it... We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity. "

      I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with this point of view. Your heart is in the right place, but this is not the answer.

      First, the hacker *is* guilty. Software is designed for a specific purpose (even general purpose software) and because of that, the creator of that software cannot and should not be held liable for that. Problem #1 is that software is written by humans, who are, by nature, error prone. Problem #2 is that finding defects and using them maliciously requires creativity. Because of this, there's no practical way for a software company to know that their software is 'liability free'. Problem #3 is that there are far too many products out on the marketplace today that can be misused in such a way that a simple modification would prevent that sort of behaviour from happening. Why single out software? Problem #4 is that in cyberspace, monetary damage is very difficult to measure. Problem #5 is that the environments that the software is run on are far too diverse to guarantee any sort of working order. As such, anybody 'relying' on a computer system would be incredibly ignorant without ways of minimizing damage due to loss of functionality or data. (I should pause here a sec to let you know that I'm quite fatigued, and I apologize if what I'm posting is difficult to read.)

      Secondly, unloading legislation that says you are liable for an attack that somebody else carries simply because you didn't cover all your bases is going to do more harm than good. The Open Source Community will be hit the hardest. Who would want to contribute spare time to a project only to open the door for being sued because somebody decides to be a git? I mentioned in an earlier point that there's no real scientific way to certify the 'safety' of software. The only real way to approach that would be heavy testing on a very diverse range of platforms and configurations. I can see Microsoft with their 25+ billion in the bank doing this, I can't see a startup company doing that. Nor can I see that startup company surviving their first lawsuit over this. The only way to minimize this negative effect on the industry would be to tightly define very specific rules about very specific exploits, such as the one you mentioned with Apple. Well, what good is this legislation going to have if it only covers a limited scope? Okay, I'm drifting a bit here. Sorry. I just don't see this doing anything but making software development less accessible, and making megacorps like Microsoft stronger. Software could become 'less exploitable', but the cost of that is growth. Even then, defects will not disappear. BS like the Blaster Worm will still happen, it just might take a little longer.

      Third, how does one even begin to define effective legislation here? In order to prevent a defect from being exploitable, one has to know every single way that defect can be used. I remember back in the Windows 95 days, you could rename your Windows folder. Doing so meant instantly breaking your system. A shortcut or batch file could be made to do this. If somebody sends out an email tricking people into running a shortcut to do this, how do you define Microsoft's guilt due to damage done? The rename feature works perfectly. Using it to rename your Windows folder is like cruising down the highway at 70mph and shifting into reverse. Sure, the car could be made to prevent that, but why would somebody do that in the first place? Should Honda be partly responsible because of deaths caused by somebody saying "

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    13. Re:Apple and the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is no longer true under the latest version. Now, OS X downloads critical updates in the background, caching them for installation when the user says go.

    14. Re:Apple and the Future by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1
      I didn't argue for statutory negligence here (i.e., legislated guilt rather than decided by a judge and jury). Rather, the common law definition of negligence works fine.

      In such an instance, Microsoft would not be liable for simply making a mistake as a ``reasonable person'' is apt to do (or, as you said, humans are error-prone). But they would be liable for spending millions on advertising Trusted Computing without actually doing anything in the way of R&D (I don't actually know if they've done anything or not, but their track record certainly hasn't yet shown signs of improvement). Or put it this way, if a company--or developer of an open source project--could show that he was adequately concerned about security, within the reasonable person standard (in this case, since it would be professional duty, he would have to show that against a reasonable person in his profession with his skills, not just against a man off the street), he would not be liable for the holes that perhaps inevitably will still occur.

      The only legislation necessary to make this possible would be something banning the escapes in software licenses (``the seller assumes no liability and makes no warranties of suitability for this product'', etc) that currently allow software companies to avoid liability.

      There are, perhaps, large risks that companies would react to this as they do to corporate criminal liability, that is, put on a standard show of moral and legal values (or in this case, software security consideration) so that they can claim to have obeyed the law and that any crimes committed by employees were not committed by the company as a whole (or in this case, so that they can claim that any holes were incidental and that they did obey the reasonable person standard). This is perhaps inevitable. But at the same time, I think negligence liability for those companies who truly ignore security would do a load of good.

      For example, shipping something with a default password that allows remote access clearly violates any standard principles of security. That's negligent. Designing a product so that it trusts any machine on the network to provide it with a root password and configuration upon bootup is negligent. Accidentally forgetting a bounds check on some input buffer that allows a buffer overflow, well, that's not.

      Perhaps open source and small developers would be hit hard by the risk of having to defend against frivolous suits, but I don't think this risk is as great as you think (if they don't have deep pockets, nobody will bother with them). And I think it would go a long way towards wiping out insecure policies (i.e., it may not do a lot against coding mistakes, but it will convince MS not to ship things with everything turned on and no password enabled).

      Your closing point is pretty much what I want to see happening. Class action suits for the very grevious cases of negligence. But you can't do that now about MS for Blaster. Remember the EULA you click through? It absolves them of liability.

    15. Re:Apple and the Future by Macdude · · Score: 1
      "So too, opinion seems to be that security holes are entirely the fault of the attacker, never of the software designers. ... The point is, if software companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it... We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity."

      I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with this point of view. Your heart is in the right place, but this is not the answer.

      First, the hacker *is* guilty. Software is designed for a specific purpose (even general purpose software) and because of that, the creator of that software cannot and should not be held liable for that.


      I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with this point of view. Your heart isn't in the right place, this is the answer.

      Let's reword it slightly...

      "So too, opinion seems to be that safety issues are entirely the fault of the driver, never of the automobile designers... The point is, if automobile companies were liable for any serious defects, they might try harder. And if they were liable for ignoring those defects, I betcha they'd be able to find someone to get to work on it... We, the public simply need to weigh in with some careful legislation to balance those priorities with stability, reliability, and maturity."

      Does that make things clearer?
      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    16. Re:Apple and the Future by gaelicwizard · · Score: 1

      I have the "latest version" of MacOSX (10.3.2) and you have to *explicitly* turn on the "Download important updates in the background" option.

      --
      -- JP
    17. Re:Apple and the Future by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1
      Wow. I like that.

      But he would be right to point out that if I break into a car that has a poorly designed system, it is still my fault, not the manufacturer's (or at least largely my fault).

      I think the point we are all beating around is that there is shared liability, and that some examples (namely the breaking into the car one) are fully the fault of the attacker, while others show clear negligence on part of the designer. Ultimately, this is up to a jury to decide.

    18. Re:Apple and the Future by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1
      They planned it this way by deciding that even minus the average cost of a wrongful death suit, they would profit. But the point of the punitive damages was that they would not profit.

      I didn't know that they still profited, with the punitive damages.

    19. Re:Apple and the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't. The AC is wrong.

    20. Re:Apple and the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Honda came out with a "feature" that allowed anyone access to your car through a simple hack, you bet your ass they'd be sued in court faster than you can say "Type-R". He's not saying that the cracker isn't responsible, what he's saying is that software makers should be held accountable for blatant design mistakes that cause serious damage to people and institutions. So far, there isn't jack squat you can do to MS for making such idiotic mistakes when developing their software. The only real way to fully be able to deny any responsibility on the creator is to fully open the source code. As long as closed source creators keep their software's internal workings secret, then THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE IN SOME WAY SHAPE OR FORM. ok Im done ranting now.

  6. Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who the hell passe's this article? MAC's start counting from August 1956. wot's with the 1904 stuff?

    Just try it. take out they're battery and theyl reset to 1956.

    1. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      ... MAC's ...

      What do Media Access Control addresses have to do with anything?

      Ooohh, you mean "Mac" as in Macintosh.

    2. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the internal battery resets to. However, that is something quite different from what the *standard by which system date is reported* is.

      Try it yourself, if you've got a compiler; ask the Gestalt Manager what time it is. It will return a value corresponding to the number of seconds since January 1, 1904.

    3. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um no moron I mean MAC as in computer like MAC or PC and HP and IBM. read you're history fella

    4. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the company's APPLE... Mixing unrelated names together won't get you out of this one, sorry mate...

    5. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't making sense. There aren't any computers called "MAC"s. An MAC is a designation number in an Ethernet card.

      Apple Macintoshes, which this particular article is about, have MACs, but other than that I can't really figure out what your blathering about ethernet has to do with this article.

    6. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK so now I'm bored of baiting you, and you're still:

      1. Playing dumb and off on a MAC address tangent when you know very well what my troll meant.

      2. Presume I own a Mac, which is incorrect.

      3. Bringing in ad hominem arguments.

      Spelling, grammar and capitalisation freaks are so easy to bait :). I'm happy to see I can make a supposedly intelligent person purposely play dumb and rant & swear.

      Thank you for the amusement.

    7. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Felinoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe I could step in and save some arguing.

      MAC could mean MACintosh.. as in someone standing on a chair yelling the often used nick name for the populare computer platform made by Apple.

      Or it could mean a MAC address as in one of those often used initals to refer to something and yet again the geek forgot to use seperating piriods.

      Eather way the correct terminology would be

      Macintosh (or Mac.. note the last two letters in lower case)
      and M.A.C. (Note the piriods and nobody actually dose that so who really gives a freak...)

      It can also be short for Macaroni and chease..
      Or slang for "eating", "getting into" and "Slamming on"

      So quit Macen on each other... your Mac and chease is getting cold.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    8. Re:Uhhh no it's not by uroshnor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually it depends on the Mac - there are about 4 or 5 dates they can reset to:

      1904, 1956, 1976 , 1984, 2001, depending on the machine.

      This was a "Stump the Experts" Question at the 2003 world wide develoepr conference.

    9. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fetal alcohol syndrome strikes again...

    10. Re:Uhhh no it's not by cgranade · · Score: 1

      Just because it defaults to 1956 doesn't mean that's the zero point... don't know why they'd have chosen that date in particular as the default date, but I see no reason why it would have to default to the zero point.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    11. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The clock epoch (Jan 1st, 1904) and the time it resets to are two different things. All time is counted from the 1904 date. It's up to the designer of that particular motherboard/system/whatever what date the system will reset to if the time value has been lost. Usually it's sometime before the Mac could have ever existed so applications can tell whether or not the date IS actually wrong. If the OS returns 1970, some apps warn you that the date it set incorrectly.

    12. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      1956 is Steve Jobs' birthday. This shows up in older Macs, if the logic board is reset. 1904 is the date newer logic boards reset to. No idea the signifigance of the date.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    13. Re:Uhhh no it's not by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, I use to think so, but google for it and you will find that Steve's is Feb 24. So I think above where a poster says it is Ray's, is correct.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. I'll read. I'm history fella. Thanks for the tip.

    15. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how we're actively participating in wasting other people's time these days...

    16. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jan 1, 1904 - birthdate of Steve Job's Mother - lol

    17. Re:Uhhh no it's not by NewsWatcher · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't want to sound like a pedant, but how could I let the following comment pass?
      Did you fucking fail basic grammar in school?

      If you are going to criticise someone's grammar, you should do it without splitting the infinitive.

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    18. Re:Uhhh no it's not by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Wait, isn't that "ebonics"? :P

    19. Re:Uhhh no it's not by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      Splitting an infinitive? I don't see an infinitive in that statement. Might be splitting other things, but there's no infinitive there.

  7. Re:huh? by susehat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it refers to the fact that when something caused the old MacOS to lose the current date and time, it would default to 1/1/1904. it's the date in the old PROM that is used as a base starting value. much like epoch in UNIX(TM)

  8. That's one bad apple. by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ewwww... I don't think I want to see what a 100 year old Apple looks like.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:That's one bad apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I want to see what a 100 year old Apple looks like.

      Try just looking outside. It's called "dirt".

    2. Re:That's one bad apple. by pooman · · Score: 0

      Its red, greeen or even yellow(and maybe a mix of all thoes colors) and it is actually edible.

    3. Re:That's one bad apple. by GerbilSocks · · Score: 0

      Count to 100. I sorta was thinking I wouldnt want to know what a cunt of 100 years looks like. Eww!

    4. Re:That's one bad apple. by Mononoke · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ewwww... I don't think I want to see what a 100 year old Apple looks like.
      It recently turned some really odd colors, and then it lost all color.
      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    5. Re:That's one bad apple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a 100 foot apple tree?

  9. Fixed long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Classic Mac OS epoch limit was fixed quite some time ago. I believe it was around System 8.6 if I remember correctly. Classic Mac OS has since that version had the ability to work with any date in the range from 20,000 BC to 30,000 AD.

    1. Re:Fixed long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Cool," you say. Then you ask, "But 29,940 AD? Who cares about that?"

      As with many things, the answer should be obvious: time travelers. While the mainstream press seems to have, once again, missed a great Apple story, it can no longer be kept secret: the Macintosh is the preferred computer of time travelers everywhere. Or everywhen. Or at least everywhen across a span of sixty millennia.

    2. Re:Fixed long ago by Trillan · · Score: 3, Informative

      This article and all comments seem to be a little twisted.

      What's an epoch in this context? An epoch for dates is usually the year after which the entered year is assumed to be the next century rather than the previous one.

      For Macs, this has varied over the years with different software releases.

      The other way to look at it might be the date it "rolls over." But date 4,294,967,295 is not for something like 35 years. I think it's in 2040, but I'm not entirely sure. I haven't had to deal with it in a while. :)

      The only significance of today's date is that it's 100 years after time 0.

      (And, of course, there are other APIs available on the Macintosh that won't break even then.)

    3. Re:Fixed long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was fixed way, way before System 8.6. Try System 7, circa 1991.

  10. There is no article... by emerrill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This post doesnt have a real point, and isnt based on an article. It is just stating that today marks 100 years from the point that macs count from. Nothing bad happens from it, it can still cound for another 30ish years (i beleive).

    1. Re:There is no article... by OttoM · · Score: 3, Funny
      That is easy to fix:

      According to this article.....

    2. Re:There is no article... by memco · · Score: 1

      The point is something encountered a harmonious (according to popular ideas) number. It doesn't matter that it is utterly insignificant other than it is now 100 years from the beginning of the Mac age. Yay for seemingly important numbers!

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
  11. epoch == start of time, not duration by OttoM · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article confuses epoch and ticks. The epoch is a fixed point in time. Ticks is a number of seconds (or other time unit) since the epoch.

    1. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Working with date/times is hard enough without having to worry about how it is stored. Why not store it as a text string and be done with it, especially with the huge amounts of RAM and processor speed we have these days.

    2. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Because not everyone uses the same format? 16283723 might not be human readable, but it atleast means something. "Jan 17 1987" is just arbitrary text that can't easily be manipulated or sorted.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    3. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, honestly, if everyone uses seconds, then I can only assume that everyone also uses, oh, say, minutes, hours, days, months, and maybe even years! In which case, you have 6 definable values there that you can store in the computer, which can both be read by humans and processed by the computer.

      Oh, and your example there is quite easily manipulated if all the dates were stored in that format. Computers can, believe it or not, parse text now!

    4. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Freeform text parsing is much more cpu intensive, and just because I have a 1.5ghz sitting in my desktop doesnt mean I want to idle at 100% cpu util. I'm sick of the people that say things like "Who cares if WinAmp3 is cpu intensive, my machine is powerful enough". Sure it is now, but try playing an mp3 when extracting a large rar. quicker execution is almost always the most important factor, the only exception is ease of development, but freform text parsing is much more messy than that to.

      Don't even get me started on the mess that would be timezones (that unix epoch sidesteps entirely)

      After writing this I realised I might of misinterpreted you -- are you suggesting freeform text, or just standardizing on a certan text format? (for example, 01/02/03 10:50:32 CST)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    5. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      If you store it as a text string, you still have to 'worry about how it is stored'. There are a hundred different date and time string formats. OK, you could pick one and use that everywhere, but how would that be easier than picking a single numeric representation such as seconds since 1970?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    6. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is an international standard on date and time strings, and it is supported in just about all date handling software by now. If you need an unambiguous date format for data storage, please have a look at ISO 8603. The basic formats are 2003-12-31 and 23:59:59 for dates and times and 2003-12-31T23:59:59 for combinations (but it's often better to separate the date and time with a space in fields that you expect nontechnical users to read). That's the basics, there's more for time zones and stuff.

    7. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I know about ISO 8601, my point is that deciding to use an ISO 8601 string for all internal datetime representation is no simpler than deciding to use seconds since 1970. And as you mention, there are variations within the standard (space versus 'T' for separation) and the added complication of timezones which are not needed for a basic internal format (just store everything in UTC internally).

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    8. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by transient · · Score: 1

      I thought ticks are 60ths of a second since boot.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    9. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      01/02/03 10:50:32 CST

      So... um... which century is that? And is it 3 Feb, 1 Feb, or the weird American middle-endian 2 Jan?

    10. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by satanami69 · · Score: 1

      Know your rules of normalization. Storing time is similar to storing a field in a database. The simplest way to achieve that is by using the number of seconds from the epoch. If you write it as YYYY-MM-DD, then you are duplicating information that can be creating more simply.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
    11. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      quicker execution is almost always the most important factor, the only exception is ease of development,

      Think XML: it is not even close to being efficient, but its purpose is not for speed but for portability and flexibility (roughly).

      but freform text parsing is much more messy than that to.

      Nobody said anything about freeform text parsing. If you define a fixed text pattern to represent date/time, then parsing is extremely easy. ie. All you need to do is look for space separators and separate into tokens. Token1=month, token2=day, token3=year, token4=hour, token5=minute, token6=second, token7=millisecond, token8=GMT offset

      Sample: 1 1 2003 7 26 0 0 -8

      are you suggesting... standardizing on a certain text format?

      Exactly.

    12. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Sure. Now tell us how easy processing is at the end of a month (actually, you'll have to go through this each day at midnight). There also should be no problem computing the date of the day one week from now or 24 days ago. Believe me, you'll want to at least count just the days, not the months and years - and then you might as well only count seconds, because that makes things much easier for everybody.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    13. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      Know your rules of normalization. Storing time is similar to storing a field in a database. The simplest way to achieve that is by using the number of seconds from the epoch. If you write it as YYYY-MM-DD, then you are duplicating information that can be creating more simply.

      This has nothing to do with database normalization.

      If you count the seconds since the epoch, you are limiting yourself to those date/times which occur *after* the epoch date/time. With a text format, you have no such limitation. I'm not sure why such a limitation is even acceptable.

      Something tells me, though, that if people are striving to save 4 bytes by using a 32 bit integer rather than a 64 bit integer (which would be sufficient for a huge amount of time), they probably will not want to expend the extra space for text date/times. It's pretty silly how much work is created for the sake of saving a little space.

    14. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by fulldecent · · Score: 2, Insightful
      [Let us assume sorting is an important function of time, databases do it continuously]

      So, assuming you put that in little endian format (to be able to sort), prefix zeros (to be able to sort), and specify the offset in army time (not all timezones work that nice):

      2003 01 01 07 26 00 00 -800

      This only sorts easily (alphabetically) if comparing times from the same timezone. Otherwise, some different sorting algorithm is required.

      Additionally, this requires 27 bytes (versus 4), and...

      The times are not unique!

      Consider daylight savings time.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    15. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I thought ticks are 60ths of a second since boot.

      That's correct. Ticks are stored in a global variable in classic Mac OS, and it is incremented during the display's vertical blanking interval. It is completely separate from the real-time clock. In fact, it usually updates 60.15 times per second, and can even skip a tick, so it's not much use for timekeeping.

      So that means the parent post is in error-- ticks don't have anything to do with the "beginning-of-the-epoch" issue.

    16. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      The times are not unique!
      Consider daylight savings time.


      Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean. If there is indeed a problem, is there no simple way around it?

      this requires 27 bytes (versus 4)

      True, but at what cost are you saving bytes? You have to use a fairly recent point in time as the epoch (the year 1970), and you meet the limit of a 32-bit integer within a century if I'm not mistaken.

      Okay, so text takes a lot of space. Why not use a 64-bit integer to store time? That's only 8 bytes.

    17. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by gaelicwizard · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of negative numbers?

      --
      -- JP
    18. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      I'm all for XML(and XML-like implentations), I just completely misinterpreted what the original poster said, my mistake.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    19. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why such a limitation is even acceptable.

      I would guess that it is because the overhead of parsing a YYYY-MM-DD string wasn't feasable in 1970, when the system was designed. Storing time as the number of seconds since the epoch was simple, and worked well with memory/processor constraints at the time.

      We still use it now, because, well, that's how the system is designed.

    20. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by tm2b · · Score: 1

      Wow, you should learn COBOL. You'd love it.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    21. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by topham · · Score: 1

      Actually, for systems storing time/date as a single value, not a parsed string it has everything to do with math manipulations on dates, and virtually nothing to do with anything else. Adding 30 days to such a value is easy, parsing out the effective date from that is also easy.

      A database (and development environment) I use is based on days, and seconds. They are independant and seperate (they have no DATE-TIME fields.) I had to do some funny footwork to deal with some values in seconds which overlap the end of the month.

    22. Re:epoch == start of time, not duration by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      I already know it. I resisted the urge to write about it. Too busy entering the PIC 9 lotto.

  12. Oh Yeah?! by dupper · · Score: 4, Funny
    Well I set the arbitrary starting time on my OS to January 1st, 1804, so take that MacOS: The dupperOS epoch hits 200 years... 3h14m ago.

    Nya, nya!

    1. Re:Oh Yeah?! by Spunk · · Score: 1

      3h14m ago

      I hope you had some pi to celebrate.

  13. For sale: orignal 1904 Mac by catbutt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fresnel lens has a small scratch, and vacuum tube port is broken, but otherwise mint. Best offer.

    1. Re:For sale: orignal 1904 Mac by dorlthed · · Score: 1

      As long as I can play Half Life 2 on it, you've got a deal!

    2. Re:For sale: orignal 1904 Mac by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sir, I wish to solicit you for a possible exchange of similar electric appliance! I will gladly offer you utilisation of an iGrammo (45 second playback model) for your '04 Mac!! Respectable gentlemen are urged to reply with serious disquisitions only, as this apparatus may be potentially be used to play back musical composition containing lascivious lyrics...Ladies know your limits!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  14. Check that 'Speech Recognition'! by MarcQuadra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Before you go, just test to make sure the 'Speech' extension and control panels are in order. Wouldn't want to get stuck out there in the cold with your machine not listening to you.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  15. Ugh. by Feztaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mac OS epoch is unique in that it is time zone-specific.

    It is unique, in the sense that it is crappy.

    On Unix, the epoch is an extremely well-defined moment in time, so then is any point in time measured in epoch-seconds is also extremely well-defined.

    On the Mac, the epoch-seconds depends on the time zone, meaning that in order for a measurement of time in macos-epoch-seconds to be meaningful, you also need to know the time zone. To me, that kind of ruins the whole point...

    1. Re:Ugh. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The epoch was a well-defined moment in time until leap-seconds happened, and Unix ignored them. POSIX perpetuates that error. As a result, the epoch keeps moving.

      Bruce

    2. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter much.

      You get impacted in two ways, as far as I can tell:

      1. If you change the time zone, all your time stamps are unchanged, still referring to the time it was on the old time zone, but possibly incorrectly labelled as the new one.

      2. If integer time stamps get transferred from computer to computer (via disk, or some archive, maybe over a network, whatever.), they could be skewed by a couple hours.

      Did I miss any?

      Are those really that terrible consequences that I should really put a gun to my head? I don't think so. I don't think it's a big deal at all.

      There are limitations on those old world Macs that are much more profound than that one, I'm sure.

    3. Re:Ugh. by afidel · · Score: 1

      Well since modern evidence shows that leap second(s) might not have been needed After all maybe Unix wasn't so wrong in ignoring it =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That whole leap-second thing confuses me.

      We measure time so that things can make more sense, not less. Being "off" by a few seconds in terms of the Earth's orbit is really no big deal.

    5. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be so, but a 68k mac doesn't have the speed or FPU to play an MP3. You need at least 1MHz per kbit/sec of an MP3 file, so to play a 128kbps MP3 you'll need at least a 128MHz processor. Preferably at least 200MHz if you want to be able to play most of them, and even then no 68040s had USB.

    6. Re:Ugh. by Pflipp · · Score: 1

      Or, there should be exactly N seconds in a year, no matter how fast they are :-)

      This battle is about science time vs. calendar time, really.

      --
      "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    7. Re:Ugh. by Red_Winestain · · Score: 4, Funny
      Well, there hasn't been a leap second since 1999. There won't be one this year. Has the planet finally caught up with Unix?

      Reference

    8. Re:Ugh. by gellenburg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're obviously forgetting that GMT (the time-zone which UNIX epoch originated at) is a time-zone in and of itself.

      Sheesh.

      You kids now-a-days.

      (Note - UNIX does not use UTC since UTC incorporates leap seconds which UNIX & POSIX does not honor.)

    9. Re:Ugh. by IM6100 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, that would be cool. Defining seconds to be some arbitrary length that can change every year. I'll get out my rattail file and start trimming the thickness on the quartz crystals in all my gear!

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    10. Re:Ugh. by Graff · · Score: 0
      Being "off" by a few seconds in terms of the Earth's orbit is really no big deal.

      It will be a big deal when the sun is overhead at 6PM and it's pitch black when you are driving into work at 6AM. Yes this won't happen for a while, but it will eventually happen if you let the extra seconds add up.

      It's much easier to tack on an extra second at the end of the years that need it than adding on an extra minute or hour every so often. This way we are on target for astronomical events. Just think back to the mistake the engineers made when they sent that probe to Mars and they mixed metric and english units up. That was an easy mistake to make but it will be much easier for someone to forget that this year we are off by 47 seconds, thus creating another disaster by not firing a rocket at the right time.

      These sort of concerns will only get more important as we become a spacefaring society. Accurate timekeeping, especially in relation to a planet's local time, will be of utmost importance for safety and costs.
    11. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It will be a big deal when the sun is overhead at 6PM and it's pitch black when you are driving into work at 6AM.
      Why is this a big deal again? Because human beings are incapable of associating PM with the morning due to our tiny little brains? And to think that in Australia it's summer in December. I wonder how they keep from going mad.
    12. Re:Ugh. by Graff · · Score: 1
      Why is this a big deal again? Because human beings are incapable of associating PM with the morning due to our tiny little brains?

      It's a big deal for several reasons. First of all, since more people would be driving in the dark to work, half awake, there would be even more accidents than usual. You think that morning commute is bad now?

      Secondly, humans are biologically tuned to having a certain amount of daylight each day. It has been shown that people will generally be more sick and less productive if they don't get a shot of daylight right around the start of their day. In fact just the less light we get during the winter causes a sickness called SAD (Seasonally Afflicted Disorder) which causes people to feel listless, depressed, susceptible to colds, and even homicidal and suicidal in extreme cases.

      Lastly, there are many outdoor jobs that rely on getting 8 hours of sunlight to accomplish. The people who work these jobs would have to skew their work schedule later and later throughout their career in order to keep pace with the sunlight. Right now an outdoor worker can count on working in the range of 6 AM to 6 PM and then have time to be with their family, friends, etc. By not keeping our time at pace with Earth time there would be a lot more people who would be displaced with regards to the rest of society.

      There are other reasons but I think you get my point. We avoid all these problems at the possible cost of a second or two every year that no one but the scientists and engineers really notices. Hmm, seems like a small cost to avoid all these problems.
    13. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is complete bullshit.
      now run along and play with the 3ghz p4 that mommy bought you.

    14. Re:Ugh. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      You're obviously forgetting that GMT (the time-zone which UNIX epoch originated at) is a time-zone in and of itself.

      Yeah, but the difference is that all unix computers uniformly use GMT, so there's no confusion about which timezone a particular time is. If I say the time is "1073002231", that's a very specific point in time. You don't need to know what timezone it's in, because you know that it's GMT. That's the whole point, 1073002231 is 1073002231 is 1073002231, no matter what computer you're using or what timezone you're in. 1073002231 defines the same moment in time on all unix computers, regardless of what timezone you're in, making it easy to refer to a specific moment in history (or the future!), and avoid any potential confusion.

    15. Re:Ugh. by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      I agree:

      PowerMac:~ gme$ uname -a
      Darwin PowerMac.local 7.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.2.0: Thu Dec 11 16:20:23 PST 2003; root:xnu/xnu-517.3.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
      PowerMac:~ gme$ date -r 1073002231
      Thu Jan 1 19:10:31 EST 2004
      PowerMac:~ gme$

      The thing is though. this article was referring to MacOS which is *not* UNIX. Mac OS X however ... _is_.

      Happy New Year.

    16. Re:Ugh. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      The thing is though. this article was referring to MacOS which is *not* UNIX.

      That's exactly the point of my original post :)

      Unix has a nice standard time format that's consistent worldwide, MacOS (pre-X) has an inconsistent time format that breaks for silly reasons like "you moved your computer to a different time zone".

    17. Re:Ugh. by devnullify · · Score: 1

      And why, over the course of the thousands of years it would take for a noticable difference to occur, would the work day still be at the same absolute time of day, regardless of the fact that that time is now the middle of the night? Obviously the time change would be extremely slow, and humans would just naturally adapt to being awake in the PM. It really isn't a big deal...

    18. Re:Ugh. by Graff · · Score: 1
      humans would just naturally adapt to being awake in the PM.

      The problems that humans have with too little light are hard-coded into our physical makeup and DNA. Since the human genome hasn't changed substantially in over 10,000 years it is very unlikely that we would evolve quickly enough to offset the effects of not keeping proper Earth-time.

      Yes the most extreme effects of losing a second every year would take a considerable amount of time to build up. However, adding a second for every year that needs it is so easy, why not just take the easy way out and adjust our time to match Earth-time. It only makes sense.
    19. Re:Ugh. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "(Note - UNIX does not use UTC since UTC incorporates leap seconds which UNIX & POSIX does not honor.)"

      That's interesting, considering that all the big NTP servers respond in UTC, as do all the other important time services (e. g. GPS). Does *nix automagically know how many leap seconds to add/deduct from the UTC response? If so, how do they know the time differential?

  16. Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I thought the Epoch was the flying time machine thingy from Crono Trigger.

  17. Huh, I have older files from that by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Mainly because I have files on my current Mac (a Dual 1 GHz G4) that were present on my Mac Plus hard drive when it crashed in 1991, and they read:

    Dec. 31, 1903, 6:00 PM

    Which may be the default for the Central time zone.

    Do I really need those files anymore? Well sure! Some of them are old entries for the Bulwer Lytton Contest, and you never know when I'll have enough to collect for section of a short story collection. Plus, you know that as soon as I throw away a file, I'll need it the next day. That's just how things work.

    This is one of the many, many reasons why I've gone from a 60 Meg to a 60 Gig hard drive. ;-)

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Huh, I have older files from that by mackstann · · Score: 1

      Central time zone is GMT-6, and the date you pasted is 6 hours before 0:00 jan 1 1904. I guess that's what he meant by time zones affecting it.

    2. Re:Huh, I have older files from that by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      The real question is: can you still open those files? They were created with whatever Word application was on the Mac in 91 (Word? WordPerfect? Simpletext?) but would have to be opened with what's available for OS X.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    3. Re:Huh, I have older files from that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I had an old Quadra with a 240MB hard drive and lots of Word 6 documents from 1994. When I decided to get rid of the Quadra, I copied the entire hard drive onto a CDR and then wiped it.

      I was just hoping that Office 98 on my G3 could open the old Word documents, but I didn't have to worry. When I popped the CD in the drive and double-clicked a document, Word 6 launched from the CD! No configuration, conversion, or installation necessary.

      That put a big grin on my face! I turned to my wife and said, "I knew there's a reason I love the Mac!"

      (p.s. - this doesn't work under OS X. Score one for Classic Mac OS!)

    4. Re:Huh, I have older files from that by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      This is one of the many, many reasons why I've gone from a 60 Meg to a 60 Gig hard drive. ;-)

      Wow! Only 60 GBs? I've got a couple 80's, and it's just not enough :)

    5. Re:Huh, I have older files from that by flamingnight · · Score: 1

      "When I decided to get rid of the Quadra, I copied the entire hard drive onto a CDR and then wiped it."

      Copying an entire hard drive to a CD-R... those were the days.
      Kind of reminds me of how I never though I could fill the 160MB drive in my Performa 467. Then I discovered the Internet.

  18. um.. OK.. by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Note that there's nothing particularly special about hitting 100 years after epoch, being that 100 years is not a technically interesting length of time and the epoch being 1/1/1904 isn't non-technically interesting.

    A technically interesting length of time (such as 2^32 seconds) from epoch would be noteworthy, but that's a few decades off.

    A non-technically interesting length of time (such as 20 years) from the date the Macintosh was first introduced would also be noteworthy, and that's later this month I believe.

    I'm a bit tired; did anyone grok that?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  19. Re:um.. OK.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A technically interesting length of time (such as 2^32 seconds) from epoch would be noteworthy, but that's a few decades off.

    2^32 seconds from the Mac Epoch passed some time ago.

  20. Hardware clock by norwoodites · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually all Macs are defined that way, the hardware clock is defined that way.
    Little know fact (or widely known) almost all Macs will reset to January 1, 1969 if the batter is removed.

    1. Re:Hardware clock by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Little know fact (or widely known) almost all Macs will reset to January 1, 1969 if the batter is removed.

      Removing the batter from most apples will completely ruin the pie. So a reset would seem appropriate.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    2. Re:Hardware clock by Tar-Palantir · · Score: 1

      Actually, I know of several (Performa series) Macs which revert to August 8 (?) 1956 when the battery dies. I can't remember exactly what my G4 tower did when it's battery died, but I think that one does 1956 too (anybody sure about this?)

    3. Re:Hardware clock by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Compact macs, like the Little SE here next to me, do indeed reset to 1904, and considering these are what people thought of when they thought of macs before Apples recent successes, I would have to say that the widely known macs do reset to 1904, and the other dates are for 'lesser known' Macs.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Hardware clock by spasm · · Score: 1

      Depends on the model. Some reset to Aug 27th, 1956 (birthday of Ray Montagne, who designed the CUDA microcontroller used in some Macs), some reset to Jan 1 1969 (also a birthday, but I forget whose), the vast majority reset to 1904.

  21. Re:um.. OK.. by pudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, 2^31 passed. 2^32 would be in 2040.

  22. Ha! by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha! Us Windows users don't have this problem. Microsoft won't let us use a Windows OS that old! *SmUG*

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Ha! by spongman · · Score: 1

      We also don't have this problem since windows stores its time as a signed 64-bit number of 100-nanosecond intervals since 1/1/1601 (UTC). That should be ok for the next 3 million years or so...

    2. Re:Ha! by spongman · · Score: 1

      and if you're wondering why 1601, it's because it's the beginning of the first year of the first full century of the gregorian calendar (which was started sometime around 1582).

  23. Picking Epochs by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why did these people pick these various epochs? Why 1904? Why 1970? Why is unix going to have (?) problems in 2038?

    1. Re:Picking Epochs by keeboo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why is the sky blue? Why has a week 7 days? Why some people drink Cherry Coke?
      Why? Why? Why?

      Oh, kid... Just accept things the way they are.

    2. Re:Picking Epochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

    3. Re:Picking Epochs by BinaryOpty · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 2038 problems are going to raise from the integer used to store the Unix time. The maximum value that the signed, four byte Unix integer can reach is 2^16-1, and so when you put that into seconds from 1/1/1970 (The Unix Epoch time) you end up somewhere near January 2038 (leap-seconds and such will throw it off) when the variable will reach its highest value and then reset to zero, essentially setting time back to 1970. The same will happen with the Mac variable at around the same time.

    4. Re:Picking Epochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's going to happen when Jan 2038 rolls around?

    5. Re:Picking Epochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What's the significance of 1/1/1970? Was that when Linus Torvalds was born or something?

    6. Re:Picking Epochs by kjd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie began receiving financial support from Bell Labs to port UNIX to the PDP-11 in 1970. That new version of UNIX got the first of the year as its epoch.

      The previous version had 1969-01-01 as the epoch.

  24. I've one-upped you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I set the epoch of my homemade OS to Februtember 84th, 54.3 BC.

  25. Count backwards to 1901? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    How well does Unix actually support timestamps earlier than 1970? The standard time() system call uses -1 as an error code, so even many programs would fail if the clock were set to something earlier. gettimeofday() and settimeofday() don't appear to have the same inherent limitations.

    1. Re:Count backwards to 1901? by Talez · · Score: 1

      The integer is signed. So it can go forwards from the epoch and backwards from the epoch.

  26. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember on an old Power Mac 6100/66 with a dead battery, the time was always stuck on 1956.

  27. Re:YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, I read that interchange three times and I don't think there's any way in hell you could consider the other guy has lost.

    You were done a good one!

  28. Palm OS too by Imperator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Palm OS also uses 1904 as 0. I don't know about Macs, but I do know that the DateType structure uses a 7-bit field for the year, so 2027 will be the end of the world for Palm handhelds.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    1. Re:Palm OS too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they both use M68K motorolla chips. Go figure
      they use the same clock.

    2. Re:Palm OS too by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are huge similarities between the original PalmOS design and the original Mac OS design. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the same people were involved, or else the Palm OS team were big Mac fans.

    3. Re:Palm OS too by transient · · Score: 1

      I learned how to program on a Mac Plus, and when I started programming for Palm OS I was astounded at how alike they are. "Similarities" isn't the word -- they're nearly identical!

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    4. Re:Palm OS too by JohnsonWax · · Score: 2, Informative

      PalmOS was founded by former Apple employees, so this makes a lot of sense.

      Apple's greatest contribution may not be it's spin on the UI or 3.5" floppies or mice or whatever, but the degree to which former Apple employees have taken lessons learned at Apple and applied them to so many new products and technologies over the last 20 years or so. So many successful startups were founded by former Apple employees.

  29. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macsturbation. Nothing of note to ring in the new year in a very "mac" way, other than the fact that the default date is 100 years ago.

    I mean, HOLY FUCKING SHIT. If I owned a mac, I could set the date to ONE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS AGO.

    That's pretty much it.

  30. Should be 2031 (n/t) by Imperator · · Score: 1

    Lameness filters suck.

    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  31. Re:Dear Apple, by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer."

    Okay, the whole 'Mac users are gay' troll is very stale now. Here's something a little fresher:

    "I heard that OSX is based on eunichs!"

    (man I hope the mod dudes are in good humor today.)

  32. Re:Dear Apple, by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    My favorite is apple is deing twice as fast as BSD. Dieing company + deing OS.

  33. more than that... by netsrek · · Score: 4, Funny

    I seem to remember being amazed at just how many damn dates there were... and being even more amazed that people knew them...

    nothing compared to that guy who came up with the internationalisation bug/easter egg that took three minutes just to describe....

    I thought WWDC was full of nerds, but then Stump the Experts was like concentrated nerd juice...

    --

    i don't read slashdot anymore.
    1. Re:more than that... by unother · · Score: 1

      concentrated nerd juice

      That sounds like a marketable product!

    2. Re:more than that... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      I thought WWDC was full of nerds, but then Stump the Experts was like concentrated nerd juice...

      Yeah, tell me about it. This year was the first time I'd gone, so I didn't know how completely hardcore those guys were. I submitted what I thought, at the time, to be a pretty obscure question about the Pippin.

      I'm sort of glad they never drew it, since I'm sure one of the nerds on stage would have known the answer in .00000003 seconds or so.

      --saint

  34. Re:Dear Apple, by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "I heard that OSX is based on eunichs!"

    Oh man, heh. I hope that gets modded up. It'll light a fire under the Slashdotters here to come up with something a little more edgy than 'Windoze'.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  35. Mac Geek Trivia by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some Macintosh models have clocks that reset to August 27, 1956 (and to a time other than midnight, I believe). This is the birthdate (and time) of Ray Montagne, the Apple engineer and programmer who designed the chip that controlled the PRAM on those models.

    As for January 1, 1904, this date was selected because the original Mac's clock (which counts in seconds) can encompass a period of about 136 years. Selecting 1904 as the start date means that the 136-year period covered by the clock (1904-2040) includes the birthdate of nearly every Mac user, and extends well past the expected lifetime of the Mac OS. It also means that the simplest rule for leap-years can be used (every fourth year has an extra day), which simplifies day and date calculations. They didn't choose the year 1900 because it was not a leap year.

    ~Philly

    1. Re:Mac Geek Trivia by 601zx · · Score: 1

      Always cracks me up to see this stuff... The chosing of the date of 1904 was so that the original author of the clock could have the clock span across his birthdate. And no, I don't remember who it was...

      Ray Montagne

    2. Re:Mac Geek Trivia by certsoft · · Score: 1
      Some Macintosh models have clocks that reset to August 27, 1956 (and to a time other than midnight, I believe). This is the birthdate (and time) of Ray Montagne, the Apple engineer and programmer who designed the chip that controlled the PRAM on those models.

      Looks like Ray beat me out of the womb by about 3 days.

  36. mmmmm, batter..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  37. Good question! by axxackall · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree all those epochs are too random, including the birthday of Jesus Christ. IMHO the only meaningful and universal epoch is a time of the Big Bang. All time should be count from that.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:Good question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, Smart Guy, exactly how many seconds ago was the Big Bang?

    2. Re:Good question! by DarkVein · · Score: 1

      Once we nail it down, an unsigned 64-bit int should fit that nicely, with a factor of ten breathing room just in case we're off a bit, or if seventeen billion years is just too soon for another y2k bug.

      (The universe is somewhere between 2^59 and 2^61 seconds old.)

      If time was constant everywhere in the universe, you could assign 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 IPv6 addresses to every second. Since it ain't, I'm not sure it's useful to count from the moment the quantum sock that is our universe turned inside out in the dryer of the unknowable non-existing nothingness that was before.

      --

      I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.

    3. Re:Good question! by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      There is an rfc proposal that in some ways adresses these concerns.





      Increase your PENIS! size while working from HOME!
      (Ask me how.)

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    4. Re:Good question! by grumling · · Score: 1
      the dryer of the unknowable non-existing nothingness

      Is this where the missing socks go?

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    5. Re:Good question! by ihummel · · Score: 1

      Uh huh. Supposing that we do manage to come up with a reasonable estimate of when, precisely, the big bang occurred, what are you going to do when the scientific community in fifty years says that that's way off?

    6. Re:Good question! by axxackall · · Score: 1
      If time was constant everywhere in the universe, you could assign 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 IPv6 addresses to every second.

      First, I thought we talk about computer clocks, not IP address space problems.

      Second, what's wrong to assign IPv6 addresses every second *even* when time is not constant everywhere?

      Third, we have sunrise at different moment at Earth, which (and because) is rotating. However we have so-called Universal time, which is the point zero for all other time-zones. In the same way the age of the Universe as it's seen on Earth can be count as a starting measurement. I guess something like timezones will be needed when we'll travel to places where the Universe is younger or older.

      So, the problem of different Universe ages is solvable. But we don't have to solve *that* problem now. All we need right now is to get some valuable, provable, reliable zero-point for our clocks. I don't see anything better than the Big Bang. Do you?

      --

      Less is more !
    7. Re:Good question! by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Increase your PENIS! size while working from HOME!
      (Ask me how.)

      So, umm.....how?

    8. Re:Good question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill them.

    9. Re:Good question! by ihummel · · Score: 1

      You just made a very good case for not using the Big Bang in our dating system. Men don't need one more reason to kill each other.

    10. Re:Good question! by NatasRevol · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    11. Re:Good question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, but if you try to put that on the system clock, we're all gonna need bigger monitors.

  38. Explanation as to what this is about by soft_guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Macintosh traditionally measured time for most purposes in seconds since Midnight, January 1st, 1904. The call to get this value is GetDateTime() which takes a pointer to a unsigned long and returns the number of seconds by assigning the value to the argument.

    Unlike what the article says, GetDateTime() is still available under the Carbon framework in MacOS X. However, there are now other ways of dealing with date/time in the MacOS. Ironically the preferred method, CFDate is also available under MacOS 9. So, I don't really get the point of the write up saying that this works only in MacOS 9.

    Frankly this is of little interest to anyone who is not a Macintosh programmer - and only mild interest to those of us who are Macintosh programmers.

    It is interesting to note that the Apple Newton also measures time from this reference point. However, it measures minutes since 1904 instead of seconds in dealing with its default date handling routines. On the Newton they had no real reason for picking that reference date other than that the Mac already used it.

    On the original Mac, they did have a good reason for picking it. Apparently 1904 is the first leap year in the 20th century and it simplified the algorithm for factoring in leap years by starting at that point. Since they were trying shoe horn a graphical OS onto a 128Kb machine with no HD (but they did have some ROMs), you can't really fault them for taking a few shortcuts.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    1. Re:Explanation as to what this is about by splattertrousers · · Score: 1
      Since they were trying shoe horn a graphical OS onto a 128Kb machine with no HD (but they did have some ROMs), you can't really fault them for taking a few shortcuts.

      IIRC, they were tryng to shoe horn a graphical OS onto a 64Kb machine. At the very last minute, the RAM was doubled. But Andy and the gang had already pulled off a miracle.

    2. Re:Explanation as to what this is about by sulli · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Frankly this is of little interest to anyone who is not a Macintosh programmer

      Not entirely. Users of Microsoft Excel across Mac and Windows platforms at least used to have to compensate for the 1904 (Mac) or 1900 (Win) date systems when copying data. It was a major pain to always have to add or subtract 1462 days to get the dates to work properly.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    3. Re:Explanation as to what this is about by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Actually, they wanted to be lazy in figuring out when leap years happen. See, they happen on years divisible by 4, except that they do not happen in years divisible by 100, except that in fact they do happen in years divisible by 400. So, there was no leap year in 1900 but there was in 2000. This made it very convenient to start in 1904, because the number of days since the start of time becomes day_in_current_year + 365*dyear + dyear/4, where dyear = year - 1904 is the stored variable. As far as date calculations go, that one is remarkably simple and valid through the 28 Feb 2400. Also, it requires no branches. If they had started with (say) 1980 instead of 1904, it would have been hard to (for example) calculate the age of a user based on his birthday, which they saw as more important than how long the storage format would be good for in the future.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    4. Re:Explanation as to what this is about by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      They should be ashamed to have shipped a bug like that.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    5. Re:Explanation as to what this is about by bennomatic · · Score: 1
      It's funny about miracles, isn't it? It's like the four minute mile. Once someone does it and proves it can be done, lots of people follow. Within a year after the Mac came out (IIRC), a little company called GeoWorks came out with a GUI-based OS for the Commodore 64. Pretty neat, but unfortunately, it just didn't catch on.

      I miss my C64...

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  39. 20 years of Macintosh by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, in just three weeks there will be a real anniversary of the introduction of the Macintosh - January 24th, 1984.

    1. Re:20 years of Macintosh by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      And the perceived foe bandied about in said 'introduction' now makes critical components in the Mac. I guess they weren's so evil after all. Or did marketing contrive a new boogeyman to keep with the times?

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:20 years of Macintosh by DrDNA · · Score: 2, Funny

      So I suppose the release of the Twentieth Anniversary Mac in 1997 was due to some bug in the OS?

      Yes, I know it was the twentieth anniversary of Apple, the company, but isn't the name a little ambiguous?

    3. Re:20 years of Macintosh by burns210 · · Score: 1

      yes, it is ambiguous to those who don't know what they are talking about. Which in the case of apple history 101, is quite a large group.

      However, there were Apple computer's made before the "Macintosh" line of computers were released(nearly 20 years ago to the day). There were both Lisa computers(with a gui) and simply Apple computers(not apple macintosh computers).

    4. Re:20 years of Macintosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> And the perceived foe bandied about in said 'introduction' now makes critical components in the Mac. I guess they weren's so evil after all.

      It's pretty remarkable what happened after Windows 3.0 came out... IBM and Apple both had to take a serious look at their strategies.

      Even if IBM itself is no longer the 'foe,' its bastard child (the Intel-driven PC-compatible platform) still is!

  40. Homework question for geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What size integer would you need to store the number of seconds since the big bang? Allow for the future too. Show your work.

    1. Re:Homework question for geeks by jaxdahl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Latest scientific estimate of age of universe from WMAP data: 13.7 billion years +/- 200 million years
      Assume 13.9 as worst case.
      Assume 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46.5 seconds for a 'year' -- the time it takes for the Earth to go around the Sun once -- ignore the 'slowdown' (which hasn't happened in 5 years anyway) alluded to in an earlier article. (no real need to be so exact though -- 31,560,000 seconds would work fine)

      ((365*24+5)*60+48)*60+46.5 = 31556926.5 seconds in the 'year'

      13.9x10^9 * 3.156*10^7 = 4.38684*10^17 seconds

      2^32=4,294,967,296
      2^64=18,446,744,073,709,551, 616 ~= 1.845*10^18 -- quite enough for the current age of the universe and 3 more of the same length tacked on.

      If you really need to skimp on the bit length, we could suffice with 59 bits, which would give us:
      2^59=576,460,752,303,423,488 ~= 5.76*10^17 -- at least 100 quadrillion years to spare before the Y-576trillion-K bug rears its ugly head.

  41. Anyone know why? by inkswamp · · Score: 0, Redundant
    I've done a couple searches, but I'm not coming up with anything. Does anyone know why a date in 1904 was selected (assuming it was selected and not some quirk)?

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    1. Re:Anyone know why? by Graymalkin · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The year 1904 was choosen because it was the first leap year of the 20th century. Using this as their epoch beginning saved them several dozens of leap year checking indstructions. Apparently they thought this was pretty cool and it has stuck with the Mac since.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  42. Wow, so many mistakes in one post by iamacat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hopefully, just too many drinks for a New Year and not a troll. 2^16-1, which corresponds to unsigned 2 byte int, wouldn't even last for one day. INT_MAX assuming four byte integer is 2^31-1. When the variable reaches it's max value, it will change to a -2^31. Depending on how functions like ctime are implemented, this may work just fine until the start of 22nd century, set the date to 1902 or cause programs to display garbage data or even crash. It will definitely not set the date to 1970, which would correspond to 0, not INT_MIN.

    1. Re:Wow, so many mistakes in one post by BinaryOpty · · Score: 1

      You are right, I shouldn't post on Slashdot right after getting home from a New Years Party. All of your corrections to my post are indeed right and I'm sorry for the misinformation of my original post. (I guess for some reason, in my New Year's Eve state I thought 2^32/2 was 2^16. Damn.)

  43. Related Comic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
  44. Re:Dear Apple, by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

    I'd have to agree. The only time(s) said troll is funny is when the troll response gets posted before the original troll.

  45. eunichs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean little boys who have been castrated in order to preserve their perfect soprano voices and extend their youth? Count me in!

    1. Re:eunichs... by The+Phantom+Buffalo · · Score: 1

      What you are refering to is a castrato.

    2. Re:eunichs... by ricosalomar · · Score: 0

      It is spelled eunuch. They were originally harem keeping types, and there are still groups of eunuchs in some places on the Indian sub-c., I believe. Sort of wedding minstrel types. Castratti are the contralto singers, not soprano.

  46. One of the weirdest stories ever... by tuxedobob · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. There is no article.
    2. The story is cool anyway.
    3. Most of the comments (in my threshold, 1+, anyway) are actually funny.
    4. Pudge posted this on time. This means that either he a) lives in PST and spent midnight posting this, or b) lives elsewhere and stayed up so he could post this.
    1. Re:One of the weirdest stories ever... by LakeSolon · · Score: 1

      Pudge posted this on time. This means that either he a) lives in PST and spent midnight posting this, or b) lives elsewhere and stayed up so he could post this.

      Actually, slashcode allows you to set when an article goes live, as far as I know. Not that I figure someone who's managed to get themselves made apple.slashdot.org editor has anything useful to do on new years eve anyways.

      ~Lake

    2. Re:One of the weirdest stories ever... by Gorbag · · Score: 1
      There is no article.

      Of course "There" is no article. "The" is an article. (As is "a", "an" ...)
      --
      -- I speak only for myself
  47. OS X: Like Linux, but a whole lot slower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


    and all you Mac users are using Mac OS X, right?

    No, actually. You forgot that OS X is optimised for G4 architecture and newer. Even a fast G3 box is often brought to its knees by Jaguar due to its lack of specific hardware features. OS 9 is not dead: that is apple marketing hype. sure, its becoming more of a niche platform, and eventually the market will drive it to being a "retro platform" or whatever but thats another couple years at least. but its preferred if you don't have a particular need for a UNIX environment and/or you really need to eek out every last bit of performance from your hardware... and even if you did need a unix environment, what not just use linux? oh yeah, no itunes, my bad...

    don't get me wrong. OS X is a tight platform, and i can't wait till the day i buy a brand new g5 or whatever and run OSX full-time. but come on: i'm one mac user thats not gonna bow down to the cult... my G3/800 MHz w/ 512 MB ram screams in OS 9.2.2 but feels like a 286 when i'm in jaguar (10.2.6), and sorry but i just don't have the time or mental energy to have to be waiting on my computer when i'm trying to get stuff done quickly.

    alright, i'm done ranting. =) oh, and btw, i've had more than one Mac come up w/ 1856 (not 19--) when the battery dies...

    1. Re:OS X: Like Linux, but a whole lot slower... by mj_1903 · · Score: 2, Offtopic
      Try Panther. The performance optimizations on my iBook 500 have been nothing short of phenomenal.

      Personally I could never bring myself to using Macs before OS X simply because they were so different to everything else on the market at that time. OS X bridges the divide and still lets me get my work done with the ease of use of Mac OS X and the fantastic development environment brought about by Unix and Cocoa.

    2. Re:OS X: Like Linux, but a whole lot slower... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Even a fast G3 box is often brought to its knees by Jaguar due to its lack of specific hardware features.

      I've upgraded dozens of older Macs from OS 9 to OS X. My 400mhz G3 Pismo Powerbook (8MB VRAM) has run OS X 10.1, .2 and now .3 just fine. The keys to this:

      1) don't upgrade a badly fragmented drive. Defrag, then install OS X.

      2) make sure you have ample free hard drive space. A new drive is a cheap and easy upgrade.

      3) RAM! OS X likes to have lots of headroom. The Panther running Pismo I'm typing on right now has 750MB of RAM (a 250 in the top slot and a 512 in the bottom). It runs Photoshop, iMovie and other RAM hogs quite nicely. RAM is a cheap and easy upgrade anyway. ...sorry to stray off-topic. Happy 100!

    3. Re:OS X: Like Linux, but a whole lot slower... by tuxedobob · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. You have no right to rant. I'm on a 466MHz iBook, maxed out at 320MB RAM, and 10.3 is doing just fine. Thoth gives me trouble with newsgroups containing 100,000+ articles, but then I just quit the Finder.

  48. Re:Dear Apple, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL ! You're so right dude ! You only forgot to add "I hope the moderators are in good humour today" at the end of your post, like the kharma sonofabitch below.

  49. Re:Dear Apple, by grubi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I see you don't let a little thing like spelling get in the way of your ignorance.

    --
    Actually, information would like a turkey sandwich.
  50. Re:huh? by c1pher · · Score: 1

    "I remember on an old Power Mac 6100/66 with a dead battery, the time was always stuck on 1956."

    It's reset to August 27th, 1956, the birthdate of the designed of the CUDA microcontroller.

    --
    The Adult Happy Meal - "I'm lovin' it!"
  51. You, sir... by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

    ...are a fanatic. :-)

    (tig)

    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
  52. Zapping the PRAM by Bender+Unit · · Score: 1
    "After zapping the PRAM, Doug was surprised to find himself back in the year 1904." (4th cartoon down)

    --

    --
    -- Bite my shiny metal *ss!
  53. Epoch, Tick, Wall Time & Wrap Around by rockwood · · Score: 3, Informative

    The time and
    date corresponding to 0 in an operating system's clock and
    timestamp values. Under most Unix versions the epoch is
    00:00:00 GMT, January 1, 1970; under VMS, it's 00:00:00 of
    November 17, 1858 (base date of the US Naval Observatory's
    ephemerides); on a Macintosh, it's the midnight beginning
    January 1 1904. System time is measured in seconds or ticks
    past the epoch. Weird problems may ensue when the clock wraps
    around which is not necessarily a rare
    event; on systems counting 10 ticks per second, a signed
    32-bit count of ticks is good only for 6.8 years. The
    1-tick-per-second clock of Unix is good only until January 18,
    2038, assuming at least some software continues to consider it
    signed and that word lengths don't increase by then.

    Wall Time is the `Real world' time
    (what the clock on the wall shows), as opposed to the system clock's
    idea of time. The real running time of a program, as opposed to
    the number of ticks required to execute it (on a timesharing
    system these always differ, as no one program gets all the ticks,
    and on multiprocessor systems with good thread support one may get
    more processor time than real time).

    Wrap Around of a counter that starts over at zero or
    at `minus infinity' (see infinity) after its maximum value has
    been reached, and continues incrementing, either because it is
    programmed to do so or because of an overflow (as when a car's
    odometer starts over at 0).

    --
    Never try to beat a professional at his own game!
    1. Re:Epoch, Tick, Wall Time & Wrap Around by Etcetera · · Score: 1


      Weird problems may ensue when the clock wraps
      around which is not necessarily a rare
      event; on systems counting 10 ticks per second, a signed
      32-bit count of ticks is good only for 6.8 years. The
      1-tick-per-second clock of Unix is good only until January 18,
      2038, assuming at least some software continues to consider it
      signed and that word lengths don't increase by then.


      You're confusing the epoch datetime and "ticks," at least on the Macintosh.

      The classic Mac OS had the normal epoch seconds time (which is what is referenced in the story), and then a value called "ticks" which was 60ths of a second since system boot.

      Epoch time was used when determining current time, but ticks, because of their decent resolution, were often used for timing duration of things.

    2. Re:Epoch, Tick, Wall Time & Wrap Around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, I beg to differ with you " Etcetera ", that is unless your last name is Webster.

      Dictionary.com defines wrap around as what was defined in the first post, which was collective information.

      See these

      Wrap Around
      Tick
      Epoch

  54. What ya Ha-ing about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What problem is that? That our clocks started counting 100 years ago... that we can't set our clocks to Dec 31 1903?

  55. ...from 20,000 BC to 30,000 AD by FosterKanig · · Score: 1

    Great. Now I have to worry about the Y30K problem.

  56. Nah... now HERE's an epoch for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Newtons only have 30-bit integers. Add 2^30 seconds to the 1904 epoch and you get around 2008. That's when Newtons everywhere will have, erm, a little Y2K problem. Pretty much *everything* in the Newton will get screwed up. There are hacks in the works to get around this, but none are very satisfactory.

    1. Re:Nah... now HERE's an epoch for Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Pretty much *everything* in the Newton will get screwed up. There are hacks in the works to get around this, but none are very satisfactory.

      Well, just send it back to Apple, and I'm sure they'll be happy to charge you $250 for a refurb! ;-)

      www.newtonsdirtysecret.com

  57. It makes sense that Palm would have at least by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    copied the Mac OS model, since they are both based on the same processor.

    I don't know how Palm could have gotten away with it without paying money to Apple. Maybe they are both based on a standard Motorola programaming model?

    1. Re:It makes sense that Palm would have at least by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      Some Apple operating-system engineers left to form Palm, I believe. I dunno how they got away with it.

  58. Re:Dear Apple, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it doesn't, because the original poster doesn't know how to spell for shit.

    Or did they misspell eunuch intentionally?

  59. Re:um.. OK.. by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Interesting


    A non-technically interesting length of time (such as 20 years) from the date the Macintosh was first introduced would also be noteworthy, and that's later this month I believe.

    That is indeed later this month, dated from the SuperBowl 1984 when the Apple SuperBowl commercial aired. And there are some rumors that Apple will air it again, during the 2004 SuperBowl, to get some of that old time feeling back.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  60. Hmmm... by mrseigen · · Score: 1

    My LC I is running quite fine under v7.0. I just created a folder and it reported the date as Thu, Jan1, 2004.

  61. There you go, then. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I didn't know that.

  62. The BIG news for MacWorld by austad · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs unveils the 100th Anniversary iMac.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  63. Mac Newbie by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    I heard OSX existed in 1901. Where did people find the place to plug it in then?

  64. Poor Mac Users by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    pudge sez: "(Geek note: the Mac OS epoch is unsigned, which is why it can count over 100 years from 0 seconds, and 32-bit Unix can't, though it can count backward to 1901.)"

    What a shame. Mac users obviously weren't able to participate in the net prior to 1904. Well, at least there's archives like Goggle Groups where they can read what they missed.

    BTW, the Apple II has the same calendar scheme as the Mac. My GS's calendar is good through 2038.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  65. Re:Dear Apple, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "They" is a pronoun denoting "more than one person", not "at least one person".

    "The original poster" denotes "exactly one person".

    Yeah, I know, it's fashionable to foul up grammar these days because it's "uncool" to discriminate against females by using the default "he".

    It's also fashionable to be a Mac zealot, but everybody still knows those zealots are still feebs having no technical skills. A good word for this situation is "poseur" which has no gender issues at all.

  66. All's well with 7.5.5, too by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
    I have this ancient version running on a Quadra 610, and after checking "Show century" in the Date & Time cdev, it showed that it was indeed in 2004 and not 1904.

    (Given that my Apple IIGS got through Y2K without a hiccup, I'm not particularly surprised that there were no issues with newer hardware either.)

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  67. Re:Dear Apple, by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 1

    I'd guess he was talking in pluralis majestatis :-)

  68. Re:Dear Apple, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does nobody spell "eunuch" correctly?

  69. Re:Dear Apple, by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Why do people bitch about understandable typos in words that are not in the common daily lexicon when there's a perfectly good joke there?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  70. Mac Classic with Mac OS 6.0.7 Seems OK by Izmunuti · · Score: 1

    Mac Classic running System 6.0.7. Created a document with Microsoft Word 5.1a and the Finder correctly gave the date as January 1, 2004.

    This is the first time I've turned this old Mac on in years. What fun! The Word application used only 881 Kbytes! The screen is so tiny. How quickly it starts up and shuts down. This one doesn't even have Multifinder on it so literally, only one program can run at a time on its measly 4 Mbytes of RAM.

    Iz

  71. Important by rixstep · · Score: 1

    It is important when counting backwards, that if you should run into someone counting forwards, keep your head inside the window.

  72. NSDate/NSCalendarDate by jcr · · Score: 1

    As it happens, if you use the NSDate class (or CFDate), the epoch is the turn of the century that happened four years ago, and the datum is an NSTimeInterval which is typdef'd as a double.

    The UNIX epoch isn't exactly deprecated yet, but our apps don't use it.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  73. This would apply only to Mac OS 9 and below... by borgheron · · Score: 1

    Mac OS X is UNIX, so it's epoch should begin at January 1, 1970 just like every other UNIX machine on the face of the planet.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  74. And now for everybody else.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Feed this to your VisualStudio and enjoy 100 years of Mac on your Wintel.

    #define kFTTicksPerSecond 10000000LL

    static long long gMacSatartOfTime = 0LL;

    static void InitMacStartOfTime (void)
    {
    SYSTEMTIME st;
    FILETIME ft;

    st.wYear = 1904;
    st.wMonth = 1;
    st.wDayOfWeek = 0;
    st.wDay = 1;
    st.wHour = st.wMinute = st.wSecond = st.wMilliseconds = 0;
    SystemTimeToFileTime (&st, &ft);

    gMacSatartOfTime = * (long long *)
    }

    void GetDateTime (unsigned long *secs)
    {
    SYSTEMTIME st;
    FILETIME ft;
    long long llNum;

    if (!gMacSatartOfTime)
    InitMacStartOfTime ();

    GetLocalTime (&st);
    Date2Secs (&st, secs);
    }

    void DateToSeconds (SYSTEMTIME *stPtr, unsigned long *secs) // or Date2Secs
    {
    FILETIME ft;
    long long llNum;

    if (!gMacSatartOfTime)
    id_InitMacStartOfTime ();

    SystemTimeToFileTime (stPtr, &ft);
    llNum = * (long long *)
    llNum -= gMacSatartOfTime;
    llNum /= kFTTicksPerSecond;

    *secs = (unsigned long) llNum;
    }

    void SecondsToDate (unsigned long secs, SYSTEMTIME *stPtr) // or Secs2Date
    {
    FILETIME ft;
    long long llNum = (long long) secs;

    if (!gMacSatartOfTime)
    id_InitMacStartOfTime ();

    llNum *= kFTTicksPerSecond;
    llNum += gMacSatartOfTime;
    ft = * (FILETIME *)
    FileTimeToSystemTime (&ft, stPtr);
    }

  75. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Steve Jobs birth year.

  76. System 6.0.5 seems to be OK by capmilk · · Score: 1

    At least on my Mac Plus the date is just fine (and probably will be until 2019). If I can find those old System 4.3 disks, I will try them, too. :)

  77. OT: Vinge's 'A Deepness in the Sky' by Thagg · · Score: 1

    In Vernor Vinge's exceptional 'A Deepness in the Sky', they are still using variants of Unix tens of thousands of years from now. They characters in the book think that the epoch was set the instant man set foot on the Moon, and they think that's pretty cool.

    Anyway, off-topic, but it always brings a smile to my face.

    thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  78. Re:Assumptions, assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't a troll, it's completely true and makes a cogent point about the dangers of generalization.

  79. G3 imac runs OSX fine by dinodriver · · Score: 1

    My 400mhz, 348mb imac dv graphite model runs 10.2.8 just beautifully. I had to update the firmware when going to 2.8 since the monitor will freak (and did) if you don't do that but once installed, all is speedy as hell and so much better than os 9.

  80. Re:MORE EVEN MORE RETARDED MODERATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more mod points they waste on these, the fewer they have for legitimate trolls. Fucking retards.