Slashdot Mirror
Intel Gets Called Out Again For Their M.I.A. 3.0 X.Org Driver (phoronix.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The xf86-video-intel 3.0 DDX driver has been in development the past two and a half years without seeing an official release. The last development release even of xf86-video-intel 3.0 Git was 13 months ago with the xf86-video-intel 2.99.917 release. At that time it was said by Intel's lead DDX developer, "3 months have passed, we should make one more snapshot before an imminent release." Since then, there's been no communications about a stable release of this DDX driver that makes SNA the default acceleration architecture over UXA. Over on the intel-gfx mailing list users are bringing up again the state of xf86-video-intel 3.0 and why it isn't released yet, questioning if Intel is "able to maintain its own device driver in a usable way?"
Oh yeah, that's right... they give away the chips for free...
They must not be using Agile methodology and must be missing their Sprints! Their Backlog must be huge! Process Control freaks must be weeping at this news!
How is buying their GPUs not paying them for driver development?
Look no further!
Intel going Windows only and without AMD doing much they can.
Nope, but you do severely limit what hardware you can use.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
If you buy something based on future development potential, you are quite simply an idiot. No, buying their GPU does not obligate them to give you anything other than the GPU itself and whatever driver comes with it at that point.
Yup, only with a Mac you fall out of support entirely - a Mac Pro released in 2006 wasnt supported by an OS Apple released just 6 years later. Runs Windows 10 fine however. Hows that for stupidity?!
Uh, Intel developers are PAID developers to work on linux drivers for their hardware. It's not like they work on Linux stuff on a volunteer basis during their lunch break.
Well, there are still commits going into the git repo - so there's some work being done.
If the complaint is that they haven't "released" anything In years, then well, it's OSS - technically you can call each new checkin a new release.
So it's far from a dead project, and it'll be far from the only OSS project where the last release was years ago and everyone just pulls the latest source code and settles with that.
And yet a MacBook Pro from 9 years ago (2007) works with all of the latest Apple software, including El Capitan.
I have a feeling my hardware will fail before Apple's support will.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Nope, but you do severely limit what hardware you can use.
So the fuck what?
It all comes down to "Do you want to work WITH your Computer" or "Do you want to work ON your Computer".
I got all the "work ON my computer" out of my system (no pun) in the Apple ][ days. Now, I'd just as soon get some REAL work done, thankyouverymuch!
But for some people, it's the only way they can feel like they have control over some small part of their empty existence.
Note that this does NOT apply to those who are actually DOING the Yeoman's work of DEVELOPING F/OSS Projects. For them, I only have awe and admiration at their combined talent and perseverance. Quite frankly, OS X in its current form simply could not exist without their efforts; so to belittle them would be ridiculous.
I am instead referring to the basement-dwelling ne'er do-wells that simply leech off the tireless efforts of others in the F/OSS DEVELOPMENT Community and expect everything to be handed to them for free.
Exactly. Don't buy the damn thing.
Apple doesn't make video cards. I've had to deal with shit like this on a Mac too. Too many times I bought things that supposedly had Mac drivers but they were out of date and didn't work with the latest version of the OS. When you call them they act just like they do to linux users. The sneer in their voice is audible.
I love my macs, but Apple does not sell anything that represents a performance machine, and never has. In fact that is why some of us learned to hate them in the 90s: we can put together a much faster machine, for less than their not so fast machines for users we, frankly, disrespect. Now I'm older and have a life, and I am sensitive to the argument that I want to use the machine not constantly tinker with it, and although I have designed computers literally from copper traces, I respect the investment Apple makes in building a very high quality machine that can last and requires very little TLC. They are the best machines out there for casual use.
But I still wish they made one with a high end processor and a high end GPU (hint: AMD does not make any, but then either does Intel). I don't want to hear about "not needing the performance", that is a horrible answer on many different levels, and in point of fact, is wrong for some of us.
So, Apple having forsaken us, we're forced to use the next best os (Linux) and cope with what drivers the gods of Proprietary Hell (right above Special Hell) deign to give us, and frequently bitch and moan about their idiocy. I don't especially care about Intel graphics myself, I always replace it, but I can understand the attractiveness some might see given the wider array of form factors some of these low end machines can come in, where Intel graphics is a key feature.
I fully expect to replace my laptop more frequently than every 6 years.
The only computer I genuinely used as a primary machine for more than 6 years was the Apple ][+ which lasted for 10. Things have changed since then.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Yup, only with a Mac you fall out of support entirely - a Mac Pro released in 2006 wasnt supported by an OS Apple released just 6 years later. Runs Windows 10 fine however. Hows that for stupidity?!
However, for the savvy Slashdot reader, you can easily make that first-revision 2006-2007 Mac Pro run later versions of OS X than 10.7 (Lion). I will admit, there are a few gotchas; but all in all, it works.
Here's another article that goes beyond the first one, giving Yosemite (and very likely beyond) compatibility. Oh, and the next Mac Pro hardware revision, 2008, apparently has no problems running the latest OS X. So, that would be eight years of support for that model (so far).
Don't mean to reply to my own Post; but apparently El Capitan can run on a 2006/2007 Mac Pro with all features, too!
But I still wish they made one with a high end processor and a high end GPU (hint: AMD does not make any, but then either does Intel). I don't want to hear about "not needing the performance", that is a horrible answer on many different levels, and in point of fact, is wrong for some of us.
The problem is, the market for such a machine is vanishingly-small.
I would never say that SOME people might benefit from the extra 5-10% of performance (let's even get it to 20%); but you're only talking a couple of hundred-thousand machines WORLDWIDE. For a company the size of Apple, the numbers just don't add-up, for the extra R&D (both hardware and software), extra testing/support and extra supply and distribution logistics.
Not just that but the cost as well. A bump up the models (latest gen) CPU easily increases it's price by $500-1500 for what is often only a faster clock (same speed interconnect, cache etc) or 2 more cores. That and the yields for those are so low, you can't guarantee an order of more than a few 1000 at any given time.
Apple makes computers that are price competitive with feature-matched HP/Dell machines and has superior service and quality. Sure you can get cheaper 2-4 gen old systems but then you can also get refurb or second hand Macs for a discount. Doing it yourself may also be cheaper until you bend a pin on that $1500 top-line CPU or the power supply fried your $2500 FirePro because its 1500W rating is a 5s peak performance rating.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
> I got all the "work ON my computer" out of my system (no pun) in the Apple ][ days.
I REMEMBER THOSE DAYS TOO!
Three OSs: Windows, linux, OSX.
Three drivers, of equal complexity and thus about the same cost.
90+% of their customers run Windows.
So when 60% of their software development budget time, the sneer is hardly a surprise.
It's worse than that, though. Linux's driver interface moves fast - every couple of kernel releases they need a recompile, and there are many different distros with just enough differences to make testing very time-consuming. OSX is not so bad. But Windows? A major release every couple of years, and then you're good until the next one. It's much more stable. There's one kernel, and it almost never changes aside from bug-fixes and security updates.
Ah, the curse of slashdot!
"So when less than 10% of their users take more than 60% of their software development time budget..."
I used angled brackets before.
How do you know this? Have you spoken to them on this subject? What was their names?
Oh AC you so lazy.
Here's their propaganda:
https://01.org/about
For more than two decades, Intel has employed thousands of software engineers around the world to ensure open source software delivers, top notch performance, scalability, power efficiency and security on Intel platforms—across servers, desktops, mobile devices and embedded systems.
Intel Open Source Technology Center
The Intel Open Source Technology Center (OTC) is a world-class international team dedicated to working within open communities. Intel commits quality code that optimizes the latest in Intel platform features to drive software reliability, accessibility, security, and performance from enterprise to mobile, web technologies to virtualization, and the cloud.
OTC is part of Intel’s Software and Services Group with a mission to define and deliver product-quality open source software and technology innovation that unlocks the potential of Intel hardware and creates software business opportunities.
Intel has one of the largest software organizations in the world, many working in open source. With software engineers and user experience designers at sites around the world, Intel continues to set the pace. For the past decade, Intel has been a top contributor to Linux Graphics, Linux Bluetooth and the Linux Kernel, as well as one of the top three contributors to Webkit*, Chromium* and Android* projects. Today Intel works in open source communities to support everything from enterprise, Big Data, clients, and the Internet of Things.
As a leader in the silicon industry, we are unique in that we significantly invest in open source software optimization, helping to ensure that a breadth of solutions run exceptionally well on Intel architecture. This gives operating system and software application vendors, device manufacturers, and service providers the freedom, power and choice to build and deliver revolutionary solutions faster, better and at lower cost.
Working with software leaders, like SuSE, Google, Red Hat, SAP, Oracle, SAS, Canonical, IBM, Mozilla, and our mutual OEM customers means, as Linus Torvalds put it, "Intel's open source team leads the industry, making sure their hardware is well supported..." Our deep open source experience and working relationships are geared to deliver solutions that work best for our customers and partners
Intel® Graphics for Linux*
The following people from Intel Open source technology center are working on this project:
Intel Development Team
Anuj Phogat
Ben Widawsky
Carl Worth
Chad Versace
Chang Zhou
Chris Wilson
Chuanbo Weng
Damien Lespiau
Daniel Vetter
Eduardo Lima
Gwenole Beauchesne
Haihao Xiang
Ian Romanick
Jordan Justen
Paulo Zanoni
Jesse Barnes
Kenneth Graunke
Kristian Høgsberg
Nanhai Zou
Rafael Antognolli
Robert Bradford
Rodrigo Vivi
Yuanhan Liu
Zhigang Gong
Intel Testing Team
Christophe Prigent
Elio Martinez
Humberto Perez
Jairo Miramontes
Ricardo Vega
Yann Argotti
Software developers should absolutely be paid, for their time. Neither they nor the company they work for should be paid for anything beyond their actual time. The same with musicians, movie stars, producers, directors, graphics designs, photographers, and everyone else who currently thrives on a work once paid many times through artificially restricting copying model.
'It all comes down to "Do you want to work WITH your Computer" or "Do you want to work ON your Computer."'
For some of us those two things are two intertwined there is little difference. I don't want to spend much time getting my computer up and running but playing with all the latest and greatest toys and understanding how they work inspires me when it comes time to work on things which get me paid.
I'd hardly call Linux the "next best os" it is superior to mac os on so many levels. Sure mac os provides a tightly integrated and low support experience but the ways in which it is superior end there.
Problem Solved!
> I got all the "work ON my computer" out of my system (no pun) in the Apple ][ days.
I REMEMBER THOSE DAYS TOO!
Yeah, back when if you ran your Apple ][ with the cover ON (because you didn't get into the guts very often), you were considered lame...
I was QUITE the hardware/software developer for that wonderful little machine.Honestly, and in all modesty, probably one of the top ones in the country (USA) outside of some engineering employees at Apple HQ itself.
Good times, good times...
Everyone benefits from 10-20% more performance. There might be a relatively small number of people who NEED 10-20% more but everyone benefits from it.
When every action you perform on a machine is instant and there are no longer progress bars or hour glasses no matter how many things you do in parallel or what operation you are performing THEN you no longer benefit from a higher performing machine so long as it remains this way in the face of all new software released for the rest of your life. We aren't there on any of our machines yet. You can buy the biggest and most powerful machine in any data center and it still won't be performant enough to achieve this today let alone future proof.
'It all comes down to "Do you want to work WITH your Computer" or "Do you want to work ON your Computer."' For some of us those two things are two intertwined there is little difference. I don't want to spend much time getting my computer up and running but playing with all the latest and greatest toys and understanding how they work inspires me when it comes time to work on things which get me paid.
I understand; and I truly do envy you for having that kind of free-time; but for me, those days are (somewhat sadly) over...
"90+% of their customers run Windows."
I highly doubt that. The vast majority of intel graphics chips are likely in servers and only a tiny fraction of those would be running windows. Windows servers are for exchange, rdp, and a few poorly written apps are so industry specialized that they are hard to get rid of.
Servers outnumber personal computers...? Wha?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
For desktop use, Linux is 2nd best. The linux desktop has become significantly less good in the past few years since Canonical mostly abandoned it, I remain optimistic against all odds that it will improve, but OS X is much cleaner and more responsive. It manages to combine the best parts of unix with the best parts of a modern UI. There are things I'd change, but compared to linux where even on a fast machine X responds slowly and with high latency, I use both and prefer OS X.
For server use, for multi-user, or for a workload that is largely headless, there's no question that linux is best.
No, not really. Intel dominates the chips right now.
Depending on what you do, you might be able to get some of the latest ARM stuff on boxes being sold out of china as "tv boxes"
Debian dumping Linux Standard Base was really a big slam against interoperability.
I'd guess the vast majority of intel chips are in laptops. Most laptops under $800 or so have intel video.
And server operators don't care about xorg drivers, so you wouldn't count them in the consumer base that counts for developing graphics drivers.
Everyone benefits from 10-20% more performance. There might be a relatively small number of people who NEED 10-20% more but everyone benefits from it. When every action you perform on a machine is instant and there are no longer progress bars or hour glasses no matter how many things you do in parallel or what operation you are performing THEN you no longer benefit from a higher performing machine so long as it remains this way in the face of all new software released for the rest of your life. We aren't there on any of our machines yet. You can buy the biggest and most powerful machine in any data center and it still won't be performant enough to achieve this today let alone future proof.
No, EVERYONE does not benefit from an increase in performance; only those who bump into the upper end of their machine's performance actually benefit from the extra performance. Otherwise, it is just wasted potential (and energy). Not to mention that the additional cost often does not justify that extra speed, if the bottlenecks are few and far between and unless the intended processes are truly CPU/GPU-bound, and the slowness is not due to any other constraint that is already in the top echelon of its performance.
And in case you haven't noticed, your "goal" will ALWAYS be unobtainable; because software will ALWAYS expand in computational requirements to fill the computational resources... PLUS 10 percent...
I understand it. It doesn't make me hate them less though. I can't do anything about it, not really but I fuck them every little way I can. When Nvidia started making their cards work on Linux, even though it was with a binary blob, I was so happy I haven't built a Radeon (now AMD) system since. It's insignificant and petty I know.....but I don't care. Every single friend or coworker or family member's computer I've built in all those years contained an Nvidia graphics card. All because of a snarky support tech.
Then you are, literally, an idiot.
I'm trying this on an eight year old laptop with a dual core, 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 processor and a Geforce 9800 GTS. Full HD screen. It can run any app I need it to. It can run most of the games I'm interested. If I really want power, I use my desktop.
For the last two year's I've debated myself about once per quarter because a shiny new laptop would be neat. Yet every time I decide that what my $800-1200 would by is not enough improvement to be worth the money.
No, the days of the 3-5 year laptop replacement cycle are gone. You can stretch out far, far longer and not be running an antique.
I'm typing this on a 20-year old machine. Granted, I have replaced some parts here and there at various times (like the cpu, keyboard, screen, ram, motherboard, drives, case, video card, nic, modem, mouse, etc.) and it's still working fine...
I don't mean to be pedantic, but what exactly is a gen?
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
Quieter (fan noise) and less energy usage would be the main benefits then.
You might save $10/quarter on electricity with a new machine. Then there's the cost of a battery replacement for an old machine.
Though you might have to buy adapters for all your 'legacy' equipment and buy an external DVD drive and put up with other people's fingerprints on your touchable screen.
The number 5 key on my current desktop gaming PC just failed on me today. But WASD still works, so I'll be fine.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The only computer I genuinely used as a primary machine for more than 6 years was the Apple ][+ which lasted for 10. Things have changed since then.
I would say that depends on what you buy. My primary machine is a first-gen Core i7 (920) I built years ago. Still fine today.
I'm debating if I should build a new machine from Kaby Lake or Cannonlake when they are released. Main reason for upgrading is to move to a smaller (physical size) computer that runs cooler, not performance.
I end up with peoples fingerprints all over my non touchscreen anyway. I don't get why some people can't point without touching it. They also get offended when i keep pointing out that it's NOT a touchscreen and therefore you're not meant to touch it and cover it with greasy fingerprints.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Jessie would revert to software rendering, which makes working in Blender nearly impossible. Had to upgrade from Jessie to Stretch/testing for this to work though, which upgrades the entire graphics stack from the kernel up to X.
Right now, today, I have a P3 desktop running CentOS6/32 as a network monitor. It's old as the hills. My phone beats it handily in performance. But it runs on about 15 watts, and does the job so reliably that, in 10 years, it's never skipped a beat. It started with the original RedHat 6.1. (before RHEL was a thing)
I know it won't actually make any records, but I'm sure it's one of the oldest 0.01%, maybe even 0.001% of computers in terms of durability. It would be a remarkable machine if it wasn't otherwise so unremarkable.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
what he meant was that the apple computers he has bought since have all failed within 6 years.
seriously, the rate the mobos go bad should be alarming. who cares if it's encased in aluminium if it just breaks some subsystem or another when it wants to. just today hd controller broke on one over here.. solution? buy a new mac of course.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
X is pretty much deprecated at this point. No one wants to maintain drivers for that shit.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
If you buy something based on future development potential, you are quite simply an idiot.
No, they are buying something based on future development promises, which is still stupid but which is also not quite the situation you make it out to be. Intel has promised to develop these drivers, it's not like people are buying the hardware because intel has the capabilities to develop the drivers. They stated plans to complete them. They are now obligated to do so, for some very small value of obligated.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Software developers should absolutely be paid, for their time. Neither they nor the company they work for should be paid for anything beyond their actual time.
You say "should" like there is some kind of absolute morality. Hint: there is not. What software developers should get paid for is what users are willing to pay for. What users should pay for is what will serve them. Somewhere in between lies reality, which is why the world not only does contain but actually should contain a mixture of open and closed software. However, also involved in that reality is the fact that users often work against their own interests, so the balance is far more towards the closed side than what would benefit them most.
We will probably never be able to have some types of games without closed source and IP law. I want those types of games to exist, so I am not against the existence of these things. I am against their current implementations, but not the very concept, and am a bit baffled that anyone could be. You should have the right to do business under your own terms, and people should have the right to not do business with you.
The same with musicians, movie stars, producers, directors, graphics designs, photographers, and everyone else who currently thrives on a work once paid many times through artificially restricting copying model.
This model has been shown to work OK if you keep the terms down. Sadly, we have failed to do so. Copyright reform doesn't have to mean throwing away the concept.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would never say that SOME people might benefit from the extra 5-10% of performance (let's even get it to 20%); but you're only talking a couple of hundred-thousand machines WORLDWIDE. For a company the size of Apple, the numbers just don't add-up, for the extra R&D (both hardware and software), extra testing/support and extra supply and distribution logistics.
Explaining to me the business concerns does not change my opinion on the product I need, that is not my problem. I also think you grossly underestimate the performance delta and the number of users who would benefit from a high quality, well tested and artistically sound performance machine. What is the only real reason to run Windows at home? Games. You can do virtually everything else on OS X, Linux or just via some web app, usually better. Windows has one place in the market: the office, not so much on the merits of its technology but because of the infrastructure built around it (both software and IT). But at home? Games, otherwise it's a barnacle. But a lot of people have one.
I would argue that power & thermals are the main issue: an iMac with these parts would be thick and noisy. Enter the Mac Pro which has solved these things nicely. The Mac Pro is targeting a vanishingly small segment of the market, but Apple has stood behind it (and it's a a very nice machine for what it is, and as a system designer very impressive technologically considering what the competition is doing). The irony is that form factor seems less than ideal for the business where you want to stack things, and much more ideal for the home office or desktop where you may have only one computer. If only it had a single proc option with a more ideal video card. By not using Xeon the price would be lower (enticing more people to buy a turn-key solution). Next note this thing about gamers, they want the latest and greatest, from a business case this is a feature. Since the Mac Pro isn't a standard FF (and that's ok, the standard FF is not great from most quantitative perspectives, never mind the aesthetics), you are now in a position to sell the latest and greatest CPU and video card to them, on a yearly basis, without necessarily having to do a yearly upgrade cycle of the whole system. I believe Apple could solve this neatly, way better than what we currently do with aftermarket cards, and manually mounting sensitive electronics. It's just a matter of wanting to serve the market, and understanding how many people have more money than time (>30 w/kids and gamer, I imagine) and how much extra you can charge for a turn-key system.
"You say "should" like there is some kind of absolute morality. Hint: there is not."
Absolute morality? I'd not go that far. It is simply the fact that ideas are not unique or property. We've created the concept that you can own an idea and supported it by force it is not a natural or innate thing. The key in my statement that justifies my saying what they should or should not get as an absolute is "artificial restriction." The evidence does not support the idea that we would not have any given solution if the person holding the copyright did not first pen it, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, almost everyone who has ventured on a course of self learning has experienced reinventing or re-imagining something. Ideas don't belong to any one person, they belong to everyone or to no one however you look at it.
"What software developers should get paid for is what users are willing to pay for."
I disagree, what software developers and everyone else should get paid is what they'd accept to do the job. Last I checked a software developers life is not more precious than any other and we only live so long. This amounts to what development firms pay developers vs what users pay development firms. The firms can simply be eliminated. I should clarify, I'm not talking about firms that get paid one off to produce something, I'm talking about the likes of Adobe, Microsoft, etc that build a product and then charge for it millions or billions of times over even though it costs the same to produce once as a billion times.
"This model has been shown to work OK if you keep the terms down."
No it hasn't. It has not been shown we end up with less value in software or music or books or invention without the inhibition on progress created by patent or copyright. There is a benefit to a tiny group of individuals using this model while there is limitation placed on the rest of mankind, including the development of progressions on what has already been created. Paying people for labor of any sort, including copyright and patent flavors however IS a model that is proven to work without need for those limitations. Almost everyone creating something that can be copyrighted or patented is already working in this model so it is almost certain they would be willing to continue to do so, the model itself is only benefiting the wealthy who reap all the benefits beyond those wages.
Ah but server operators do care and will care more going forward. The GPU is another processing platform now, one which is highly parallel. But no, they don't care about the pretty pictures.
I didn't say servers outnumber personal computers I said intel graphics chips. There is a very big difference. Intel graphics chips are what you use in headless systems because you don't care about pretty pictures because they suck. For servers it's a minimal video capability if you needed it and an extra very parallel processing system useful for certain work types and they come free with intel cpus which provide the best processing per watt density in a datacenter.
End users care about graphics so personal computers more frequently come with a decent graphics chip that would be functional for a typical game which means ATI and AMD.
Mint is actually the superior experience these day and Mint w/ KDE is a superior experience to anything Canonical ever produced or what you get on your Mac.
And how are things operating there on the PC of Theseus?
I know for a fact that Intel employs Jack Vogel to work on the FreeBSD (and possibly Linux) port of their Ethernet drivers, as I've talked to him on their mailing list on more than one occasion. OSS drivers are in no way "special projects" at Intel.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Explaining to me the business concerns does not change my opinion on the product I need, that is not my problem.
Maybe not; but it IS Apple's "problem". And like every manufacturer of every product, they have to do a cost/benefit analysis for each and every major design decision of each and every product. In your little "me-centric" world, you may not recognize that metric; but then you've likely never been the CEO of a Company the size of Apple (nor have I).
The Mac Pro is targeting a vanishingly small segment of the market, but Apple has stood behind it...
Barely. When is the last time you heard "Mac Pro" in an Apple Keynote? Heck, they don't even include it when they haul out the "Mac Lineup" Slides at those events! I REALLY wish it weren't so; and I agree that it is a incredibly bold and frankly gutsy engineering and packaging achievement; but the "trashcan" Mac Pro seems destined to be discontinued...
I believe Apple could solve this neatly, way better than what we currently do with aftermarket cards, and manually mounting sensitive electronics.
You know what I think? I think that's why Apple has such a "nudge and a wink" attitude toward the Hackintosh community. My friends who like OS X, but want a bleeding-edge gaming system invariably build "Hacks". And you KNOW that Apple COULD lock-down OS X to REALLY only run on Apple hardware in about 2 seconds (remember, they were GOING to put Trusted Computing hardware/software into the Mac lineup (the original couple of Intel Macs actually had the chip); but then didn't. Why? My theory was that it was an intentional "backdoor" that allowed the hacker community to satisfy their desire for a "Mac" that was outside of what Apple could economically support. I also think that Apple hoped that high-end peripheral manufacturers would jump on the Thunderbolt bandwagon with both feet (the Mac Pro has SIX TB2 Ports, FFS!!!); but, for whatever stupid reason, they haven't been able to pull-off the same thing with Thunderbolt that they did with USB and the original iMac. Even high-end audio companies like Focusrite STILL haven't embraced TB wholeheartedly, and TB is tailor-made for that kind of application, preferring to use a TB to FW solution. They have only NOW come out with a few offerings that directly support TB (good on them!). Same thing with high-end video hardware. Yes, the original TB wasn't quite fast enough for high-end video; but that has changed... So where's all the high-end TB "video cards"???
:
However, by OFFICIALLY supporting Windows as a Dual-Boot system (with zero performance penalites), Apple TRULY created an environment where Gamers (and others with a want/need to run Windows) COULD have the best of both worlds.
What's not to like with that scenario? A Hackintosh will ALWAYS be cheaper than an equivalent Mac, just because there is no R&D cost, no Warranty cost, etc. Personally, I am not a gamer; so I would not likely build a "Hack"; but I think that Apple HAS actually "run the numbers" and decided that this is the best solution for everybody, without them getting into the whole "clone licensing" debacle again, and without admitting that they simply don't care what you install OS X onto (VMs other than on Snow Leopard Server notwithstanding).
And, I submit that Apple ALSO KNOWS when OS X is installed on a NON-Mac (all it takes is one little "phone home"), and is keeping track of those numbers for two reasons (and NOT for anti-piracy, which they could solve in other ways)
1. To see what percentage of HARDWARE sales they are losing to Hackintoshes
2. To see if perhaps there IS enough demand for machines outside of their current offerings.
I do not agree - Apple used to be price competitive. A Dell Precision is a very different beast then a MacBook Pro (Quadro and Firepro Graphics, multiple storage device support, you can easily work on the hardware, current generation of Mobile Precisions has Xeons and ECC RAM, etc)
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I'm always amused by idiots that get all hard over the Apple II. An expensive computer with no hardware sprites, sound synthesizer, or speech?
And I'm always amused by idiots that forget/revise history...
//e. No mean feat, and the straw that ultimately broke the Apple ///'s back, BTW. Unfortunately, this was after the Mac II had been released, and so, other than in primary and secondary schools, hardly anyone bought this wonderful updated version of the Apple ][. Oh, and lest we forget the rather interesting Apple //c, which was a fairly successful attempt at bringing the Apple ][ to a laptop form-factor, and actually had a couple of interesting innovations, such as the Integrated Woz Machine, the Lyra 3.5" Floppy, and an integrated LCD screen. Stuff that was pretty cool when it debuted in 1981 (IIRC)...
You DO realize, of course, that the Apple ][ was developed in 1976, long before Jay Miner's brilliant (but CPU-cycle-stealing) custom chipsets (Copper, Blitter, etc) were anything other than scribbles in his Engineering Notebook. Time marches on, and I also loved my Commodore 64's SID and its "GPU" with its Sprites, etc; but you have to remember, that machine was designed nearly FOUR YEARS after the Apple ][ (which was, in a lot of ways, really just an update to the Apple 1's original design from 1975), but you forget those Atari and Commodore machines that Jay Miner was responsible for had their own deficiencies. Need I mention the Commodore 1541 Disk Drive? The floppy drive that was actually SLOWER than cassette tape (!!!) and ran so hot (due to the fact that it had a full-blown 6502-based computer in it) that most people had to have a FAN on top of it? Meanwhile, the Apple ][ Disk drive was a marvel of hardware efficiency.
Oh, and after having ZERO (and I do mean ZERO) R&D dollars dedicated to it for nearly a DECADE (even though the Apple ][ product line was making Apple money hand-over-fist at the time), the Apple IIGS was introduced in 1988 (IIRC), and it corrected ALL of the deficiencies of the original Apple ][ design, including memory limitations, a faster (and 16-bit) CPU, lower-case and 80 column video, more Hi-RES graphics modes, including a 560 pixel "Super Hi-Res" mode, the ability to do "colored" text, and most notably, a full-blown Ensoniq "Q-Chip" 8-voice Sampling Synthesizer (the hands-down most underutilized feature of the IIGS). All this while maintaining 100% compatibility with the Apple
As for the Mac, it too was developed before "GPU" was even a CONCEPT, let alone an Acronym. I believe if you went inside the competition at that time, with the exception of the Commodore and Atari offerings (which were good game machines... and NOTHING else!), you would be VERY hard pressed to find any significant "hardware acceleration" for video. So the fact that the original Mac didn't have any either was of little concern in 1984. And even LESS in 1981, when the Mac project actually started...
Later, of course, Macs got custom (at first) then commodity (ATi and Nvidia) GPUs, and were essentially on-parity with the Windows systems (although MS' commitment and development of DirectX was a coup for them as "gaming" systems). By this time, both Commodore and Atari had filed bankruptcy. So much for their superiority translating into sales... And do we want to talk about the Crash-happy Debacle that was Amiga Workbench??? Did it EVER become stable, or was it always one "Guru Meditation Error" after another? But unlike you, I won't denegrate the designs of the Amiga or Atari 68k machines. They had some VERY clever hardware tricks (once again, 100% due to one man: The late, great Jay Miner), and at one point when I was considering embedding an Amiga 500 motherboard into a stage lighting controller, I was told that one out of four Arcade-level video games was actually running on an Amiga 500; unfortunately, neither the marketing nor the OS software could seal the deal, and so they are relegated to the dustbin of history...
what he meant was that the apple computers he has bought since have all failed within 6 years.
seriously, the rate the mobos go bad should be alarming. who cares if it's encased in aluminium if it just breaks some subsystem or another when it wants to. just today hd controller broke on one over here.. solution? buy a new mac of course.
It's the batteries that go bad first. But that is common to all laptops. The choice of replacement is based on other factors.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
it's doing just fine. although someone put an axe through it a while back, so i had to get the handle replaced.
"No, EVERYONE does not benefit from an increase in performance; only those who bump into the upper end of their machine's performance actually benefit from the extra performance."
"When every action you perform on a machine is instant and there are no longer progress bars or hour glasses"
A progress bar or hour glass is someone bumping into the upper end of their machines performance. Okay, admittedly some of these are hard coded to display as animations so there is a minimum time they'd appear regardless but generally speaking they are there because most users bump into the upper end of their machines performance.
Just because people are willing to accept delays does not mean they wouldn't benefit from getting rid of them. Time is a resource which is completely limited for all of us.
"Not to mention that the additional cost often does not justify that extra speed, if the bottlenecks are few and far between and unless the intended processes are truly CPU/GPU-bound, and the slowness is not due to any other constraint that is already in the top echelon of its performance."
I made no claims of cost effectiveness. You are making a lot of assumptions here, even limiting the definition of performance to cpu/gpu and then you throw out a statement that flies in the face of your own argument.
"And in case you haven't noticed, your "goal" will ALWAYS be unobtainable; because software will ALWAYS expand in computational requirements to fill the computational resources... PLUS 10 percent..."
So you agree, everyone would benefit from more performance because it would increase the useful lifespan of their machine.
Does a doctor live longer than a burger flipper? Statistically, they just might given that particular example but you can't really predict how much time you have so for all practical purposes we have to assume we all get the same amount. You can't put a value on human life and we all have a finite amount of life. Of course, you do have to account for the portion of his life a doctor spent becoming a doctor.
As for how much they should get paid, I believe wages for developers are reasonably well established and I don't need to make up numbers. The difference between that number and what users currently pay, that part can disappear almost entirely. I'm not talking about a few developers pooling to together contracting for a project. That is still getting paid for work performed and not over and over again for each copy. I'm talking about the likes of Adobe, Microsoft, etc who pay developers a fair minimized wage but then turn around and maximize what they extract from the public rather than maximizing the value the public receives from the work while minimizing the cost.
You get paid fairly to produce a piece of work, it only took you so long to do it and you've been paid for the piece of your life you gave up to do so. It shouldn't matter if one copy of it is used or ten million copies. Although the ten million copies will probably secure your ability to find work in the future and give a better negotiating position.
I don't think it is fair to claim that hardware has 8 years of support when you have to apply third-party hacks to get the newer versions of OS X to work. Isn't that pretty much the definition of unsupported?
I don't know. If we were talking about Linux, I think that you'd be arguing the other direction.
But I admit I see your point.
Sure, you can make it work, but Apple won't help you get it to work, they even go and deliberately make it harder to accomplish than it needs to be.
I agree with the first clause of your sentence; but why do you say that Apple has deliberately made it harder to accomplish than it needs to be? Just because they decided to change/delete a Framework or an API, that does NOT imply that Apple did so in order to "deliberately make it harder to accomplish". It's the "deliberately" part that I take exception to; software changes, OSes change. Almost zero percent of the time is that done to DELIBERATELY orphan/inconvenience someone who purchased a piece of expensive hardware like a Mac Pro. For one reason, in Apple's case, Mac Pro sales are SO minimal compared with their other models, that it simply wouldn't be worth the bad publicity to DELIBERATELY try and force the owners of same into a "forced upgrade".
Stop trying to ascribe ridiculous "motives" to stuff like this. It makes you look foolish.