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.)

62 of 280 comments (clear)

  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 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/
    2. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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).

    3. 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.

    4. 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."
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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."
  4. 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)

  5. 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 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
  6. 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.)

  7. 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.....

  8. 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: 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.

    2. 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

  9. 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!

  10. 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 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!"
  11. 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
  12. 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 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

    3. 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.)

    4. 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
  13. 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/

  14. 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;
  15. 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.
  16. Re:um.. OK.. by pudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  17. 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."
  18. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  21. 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.)

  22. 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.
  23. 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

  24. 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 !
  25. 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 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.
  26. 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 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?

  27. 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.

  28. Related Comic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
  29. 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.
  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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!
  34. 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