"9/11" was the focus for three months? You sure about that? I think that's conservative, given the media and most people around us still won't allow us to forget about the incident and move on - but that's a whole other thread...
Darwin itself won't be encumbered. It'll just provide the facilities for the higher layers to access the TPM unit, I'm guessing, and if those facilities aren't present, the higher layers will probably say "Uh... what's this? I'm not running on this. Go away, kthxbye." I'm sure Apple has spent a little time thinking of solutions to questions just like this.
Oh, be serious now. It's their OS. They want to keep it on their hardware, for several reasons (which I think have been hashed out sufficiently). The technology is available (in the form of TCPA) to do it. And really, I think this is the most sensible, legitimate use of this technology that I've heard of. Really, what'd you think they were going to do - cross their fingers and hope? I think it's pretty clear Jobs & Co. have thought about this long and hard. So no, I don't think this is boycott-worthy.
The only disapointment I have right now is the possibility of loosing the 'Target Disk Mode' because of the BIOS.
That, being one of the most awesome (not to mention really handy) features of the PowerBook, is one that I hope Apple will somehow be able to graft to the new x86-based PowerBooks. I don't know how it'll work on the new systems (and it depends on what they use - BIOS? EFI?) if it does, but here's hopin'...
It's not "better MPEG-4" - the new video playback adds support for playing H.264 encoded video off the memory stick. It's the format that UMD Video discs use. This will surely make it much better for those who want to transcode TV shows and movies for playing on the go - the video quality at present isn't bad, but H.264 is way clearer, and you'll be able to have video at full screen resolution, unlike now. It's gonna be hot.
(Yes, I'll be upgrading my PSP to the 2.0 firmware, as soon as the US version is out.)
Strange, I played in in Xine on my dual-head Debian Athlon box. Nary a flaw. Well, other than the fact that the video looks like it's a TV cap. Where's my HDTV?
Re: [OT] sig (was: moon is made out of cheese!)
on
Google Moon Debuts
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps he likes the licensing, or the flexibility better? Or he's just a Linux diehard? Why not? I run Linux on my G3 Pismo - you can like the hardware and not be a fan of the OS, you know.
Just tried it with Opera 8 on Linux - all the images get doubled up, and the bottom-most group of "radio buttons" only displays one (doubled) item instead of all 5. Guess it still needs some fine tuning.
"Replaced iTunes with.Mac"? Where did that come from? And why would Apple give a rat's fuzzy pink ass about Gnome/KDE apps? Or Wine, for that matter? This (a) is not their tech, and (b) does not (without substantial investment of time and manpoer) follow the Apple mantra of "it just works". I've also posted before about why Apple would not invest serious time and effort in Wine/Winelib, so see my posting history.
Though I must say, whatever you're smokin' over there, please share with the rest of the class, 'k? Thanks.
Which CPUs would those be? NT _did_ run on 4 architectures. There was the Itanium version for awhile. They killed that, however. There's now the x86_64 (what they call x64) version. So as of right now, Windows runs on two, that's right, two architectures - one of which is a superset of the other, so it's questionable at best if that qualifies as a separate architecture.
OS X, on the other hand, has something of an advantage - the benefit of the Mach-O binary format. Since you can have a _single_ executable that contains binary code for multiple architectures, it becomes far easier to support them, as customers need only buy one box of software, and they can get both OS X/PPC and OS X/ix86 support in one shot. Utilities can strip out the non-native binary sections from the executables to save space if necessary, once the binaries have been installed. So it _could_ continue to work, if there's sufficient benefit to do so. We'll see how Apple feels about that once the new ix86-based Apple hardware hits the streets, however.
Not this red herring again. I can see VMware being the cat's meow on this (and you can bet your bottom dollar that Jobs has already called up the bigwigs at EMC and said "Yo, guys, what can we do about VMware for OS X on ix86? This is something I think we need, and you could make good bank on"). But Wine on OS X? No. Not even Not a chance.
Why? Because it'll go one of two ways:
- Wine will continue to be what is has been on Linux - useful for certain (commodity) apps that stick with the documented, well-established APIs, but melts down in ugly ways with apps that make liberal use of the many poorly (if at all) documented APIs in Win32. Apple won't go for this, because it _must_ "just work".
- Apple expends huge amounts of work into eking out all those undocumented API hooks, and makes Wine work flawlessly. Well, that's great - they've now entirely obviated the need for OS X ports of their apps. All major developers will say "wow, we can write/build for Windows, and get perfectly working software on OS X as well? Gee, no more Apple specific builds! Saves us a bundle! Let's snort some more coke off this hooker's ass!" (Okay, they probably won't say that last part. Maybe not. Okay, they might...)
Either way, it's not going to happen. Either scenario. Because whatever else you can say about Steve Jobs, he does have a sense of self-preservation, and I don't think it would fail him in this case - he'd see what a huge blunder that would be and declare "That's the dumbest suggestion I've heard all month. We're not doing it. Not only that, whoever suggested it, and anyone that supports it, is fired." (Again, he might not say that last part, but who knows.)
Except of course for the applications that won't run right - or at all - unless they have access to poke and prod _anything_ on the system at any time *cough*MS Office*cough*.
Or we could just make broader, better use of SRV records, and not have to do something like what you're talking about. I also agree with the grandparent that it'll still be a lot easier for services that listen on multiple interfaces or all interfaces (INADDR_ANY/IN6ADDR_ANY, in IPv4/IPv6 parlance) than what you're talking about. I think having the separation between addresses and ports (which doesn't just exist in IP - it exists in AppleTalk, and IPX and DECNet and other protocols as well, I believe) made, makes and will continue to make sense.
Perhaps you're thinking of Tadpole's SPARCBooks? They've made several iterations of their SPARC-based laptop line. (They even made an Alpha-based laptop at one point.)
Unless Apple can find someway to seemlessly run native Windows apps in OSX (if so the WINE folks would probably like to talk to these Mac wizards) Microsoft shouldn't worry.
If Apple knows what's good for them, if anything, they will AVOID this like the plague it is. This was the downfall of the likes of OS/2, and would equally be the downfall of OS X on x86. Why? Because if they can perfectly run Windows software on OS X, the Windows-only or -primarily dev shops will say "gee, it sure is tough doing this Mac port... what? You say I can just code and build for Windows? And it'll just run on a Mac too? Wow! I'm sold! Where do I sign up?!?!" And MacOS will just become another target for Windows binaries. I don't think Jobs wants that, because that will kill Mac software development deader than a doornail
You mean core logic? Not sure. I know as far as storage devices go, the only IDE controllers supported are Intel PIIX, and there are maybe 2 supported SCSI controllers.
Who will write the drivers for all of the other chipsets out there?
Well, if you can bootstrap Darwin onto the system, you can probably get the rest of OS X going on top of it. Obviously thus far, there's been effectively zip in the way of interest in developing/porting other hardware drivers to Darwin, because without OS X, it's just another "also-ran" 4.4-BSD Lite offshoot.
I'm well aware that Pentium 4 and Pentium M aren't the only processors that Intel produces - the XScale processor family (aka StrongARM) is a perfect example of that. However, as I mentioned, and as many people pasted links to, Apple is most assuredly going to ix86 as the future of their system lineup. If you saw the keynote footage, you would know there is no doubt about that at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
My iSight works just fine on my Linux box - too bad there's not a video enabled SIP client to use it with (GnomeMeeting does H.323 though).
"9/11" was the focus for three months? You sure about that? I think that's conservative, given the media and most people around us still won't allow us to forget about the incident and move on - but that's a whole other thread...
Darwin itself won't be encumbered. It'll just provide the facilities for the higher layers to access the TPM unit, I'm guessing, and if those facilities aren't present, the higher layers will probably say "Uh... what's this? I'm not running on this. Go away, kthxbye." I'm sure Apple has spent a little time thinking of solutions to questions just like this.
Oh, be serious now. It's their OS. They want to keep it on their hardware, for several reasons (which I think have been hashed out sufficiently). The technology is available (in the form of TCPA) to do it. And really, I think this is the most sensible, legitimate use of this technology that I've heard of. Really, what'd you think they were going to do - cross their fingers and hope? I think it's pretty clear Jobs & Co. have thought about this long and hard. So no, I don't think this is boycott-worthy.
The only disapointment I have right now is the possibility of loosing the 'Target Disk Mode' because of the BIOS.
That, being one of the most awesome (not to mention really handy) features of the PowerBook, is one that I hope Apple will somehow be able to graft to the new x86-based PowerBooks. I don't know how it'll work on the new systems (and it depends on what they use - BIOS? EFI?) if it does, but here's hopin'...
It's not "better MPEG-4" - the new video playback adds support for playing H.264 encoded video off the memory stick. It's the format that UMD Video discs use. This will surely make it much better for those who want to transcode TV shows and movies for playing on the go - the video quality at present isn't bad, but H.264 is way clearer, and you'll be able to have video at full screen resolution, unlike now. It's gonna be hot.
(Yes, I'll be upgrading my PSP to the 2.0 firmware, as soon as the US version is out.)
Strange, I played in in Xine on my dual-head Debian Athlon box. Nary a flaw. Well, other than the fact that the video looks like it's a TV cap. Where's my HDTV?
Love the sig.
I guess I was thinking of Hanlon's Razor, as seen at http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/h/HanlonsRazor.ht ml.
Perhaps he likes the licensing, or the flexibility better? Or he's just a Linux diehard? Why not? I run Linux on my G3 Pismo - you can like the hardware and not be a fan of the OS, you know.
There's no extreme verification for any of their other software.
Have you bought a copy of iWork lately?
That's "Occam", as in Occam's Razor. (I've not read Heinlein, but what good geek doesn't know this?)
Just tried it with Opera 8 on Linux - all the images get doubled up, and the bottom-most group of "radio buttons" only displays one (doubled) item instead of all 5. Guess it still needs some fine tuning.
"Replaced iTunes with .Mac"? Where did that come from? And why would Apple give a rat's fuzzy pink ass about Gnome/KDE apps? Or Wine, for that matter? This (a) is not their tech, and (b) does not (without substantial investment of time and manpoer) follow the Apple mantra of "it just works". I've also posted before about why Apple would not invest serious time and effort in Wine/Winelib, so see my posting history.
Though I must say, whatever you're smokin' over there, please share with the rest of the class, 'k? Thanks.
Or maybe the i432 (aka iAPX 432). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i432 for information.
Which CPUs would those be? NT _did_ run on 4 architectures. There was the Itanium version for awhile. They killed that, however. There's now the x86_64 (what they call x64) version. So as of right now, Windows runs on two, that's right, two architectures - one of which is a superset of the other, so it's questionable at best if that qualifies as a separate architecture.
OS X, on the other hand, has something of an advantage - the benefit of the Mach-O binary format. Since you can have a _single_ executable that contains binary code for multiple architectures, it becomes far easier to support them, as customers need only buy one box of software, and they can get both OS X/PPC and OS X/ix86 support in one shot. Utilities can strip out the non-native binary sections from the executables to save space if necessary, once the binaries have been installed. So it _could_ continue to work, if there's sufficient benefit to do so. We'll see how Apple feels about that once the new ix86-based Apple hardware hits the streets, however.
Not this red herring again. I can see VMware being the cat's meow on this (and you can bet your bottom dollar that Jobs has already called up the bigwigs at EMC and said "Yo, guys, what can we do about VMware for OS X on ix86? This is something I think we need, and you could make good bank on"). But Wine on OS X? No. Not even Not a chance.
Why? Because it'll go one of two ways:
- Wine will continue to be what is has been on Linux - useful for certain (commodity) apps that stick with the documented, well-established APIs, but melts down in ugly ways with apps that make liberal use of the many poorly (if at all) documented APIs in Win32. Apple won't go for this, because it _must_ "just work".
- Apple expends huge amounts of work into eking out all those undocumented API hooks, and makes Wine work flawlessly. Well, that's great - they've now entirely obviated the need for OS X ports of their apps. All major developers will say "wow, we can write/build for Windows, and get perfectly working software on OS X as well? Gee, no more Apple specific builds! Saves us a bundle! Let's snort some more coke off this hooker's ass!" (Okay, they probably won't say that last part. Maybe not. Okay, they might...)
Either way, it's not going to happen. Either scenario. Because whatever else you can say about Steve Jobs, he does have a sense of self-preservation, and I don't think it would fail him in this case - he'd see what a huge blunder that would be and declare "That's the dumbest suggestion I've heard all month. We're not doing it. Not only that, whoever suggested it, and anyone that supports it, is fired." (Again, he might not say that last part, but who knows.)
Except of course for the applications that won't run right - or at all - unless they have access to poke and prod _anything_ on the system at any time *cough*MS Office*cough*.
Astrologer, not astronomer. She believes the stars set her _destiny_, yo.
Or we could just make broader, better use of SRV records, and not have to do something like what you're talking about. I also agree with the grandparent that it'll still be a lot easier for services that listen on multiple interfaces or all interfaces (INADDR_ANY/IN6ADDR_ANY, in IPv4/IPv6 parlance) than what you're talking about. I think having the separation between addresses and ports (which doesn't just exist in IP - it exists in AppleTalk, and IPX and DECNet and other protocols as well, I believe) made, makes and will continue to make sense.
Perhaps you're thinking of Tadpole's SPARCBooks? They've made several iterations of their SPARC-based laptop line. (They even made an Alpha-based laptop at one point.)
Wow. Maybe they're just so progressive that having someone actually _edit_ the book is just passe'... oh, I can never tell with these crazy people.
Unless Apple can find someway to seemlessly run native Windows apps in OSX (if so the WINE folks would probably like to talk to these Mac wizards) Microsoft shouldn't worry.
If Apple knows what's good for them, if anything, they will AVOID this like the plague it is. This was the downfall of the likes of OS/2, and would equally be the downfall of OS X on x86. Why? Because if they can perfectly run Windows software on OS X, the Windows-only or -primarily dev shops will say "gee, it sure is tough doing this Mac port... what? You say I can just code and build for Windows? And it'll just run on a Mac too? Wow! I'm sold! Where do I sign up?!?!" And MacOS will just become another target for Windows binaries. I don't think Jobs wants that, because that will kill Mac software development deader than a doornail
How many chipsets does Darwin currently support?
You mean core logic? Not sure. I know as far as storage devices go, the only IDE controllers supported are Intel PIIX, and there are maybe 2 supported SCSI controllers.
Who will write the drivers for all of the other chipsets out there?
Well, if you can bootstrap Darwin onto the system, you can probably get the rest of OS X going on top of it. Obviously thus far, there's been effectively zip in the way of interest in developing/porting other hardware drivers to Darwin, because without OS X, it's just another "also-ran" 4.4-BSD Lite offshoot.
I'm well aware that Pentium 4 and Pentium M aren't the only processors that Intel produces - the XScale processor family (aka StrongARM) is a perfect example of that. However, as I mentioned, and as many people pasted links to, Apple is most assuredly going to ix86 as the future of their system lineup. If you saw the keynote footage, you would know there is no doubt about that at this point.