It's all Quartz Graphics. I think you are thinking about Quartz Extreme. Regardless, it's not like OSX looks less pretty without QE, it's just not as fast.
Attention mods. rxed posted the same argument on the Mozilla snubbed by Safari story a couple of days ago. This is a -1 Flamebait or -1 Troll, as there is no supporting evidence to these claims.
The next release of iTunes is slated to include P2P technology over Rendezvous(sp).
Wrong. It will have library sharing capabilities that allow users in the same subnet to access music for listening.
With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.
Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.
Wrong. See previous point, and the article writeup. Rendezvous sharing does no good if you do not have a Rendezvous network, so unless the file is local already (or a friend stops by for an extended stay), you will not be able to listen to that file. You won't be able to copy it via iTunes regardless. iCommune was not an OSS project. iTunes Rendezvous sharing will not be a "single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network". It is, as described above, and in the actual specifications for Rendezvous, a LAN level alternative to configuration (think AppleTalk over IP).
Not exactly the point I was going after. I use Moz on OSX, and have one complaint in that it insists on using the built-in mail client. I tried out earlier versions of Chimera, but didn't test mail integration, but given that it is a browser only piece, figure that it probably uses whatever you have set as default mail client in the System Preferences. My point is that Chimera serves the needs of those who only need a browser replacement on OSX. You get the Gecko-based browser, you probably get better integration with preferred apps (haven't used Chimera since early builds), and due to Cocoa frontend versus the Carbon windowing frontend of Moz coupled with XUL, you end up getting speed (a pleasant side effect, as previously noted). In fact the only downside is the fact that the Gecko used is from 1.0.1 with modifications, so there is probably not parity between the current Moz's Gecko engine and Chimera's Gecko.
In other people's comparative tests, there's stark difference in loadtime between Moz and Chimera (same engine, disparate levels of cruft, frontend window engine), but there's not enough of a difference in loadtimes between Chimera and Safari (different engines and featureset, same frontend window engine).
FYI, the choice of Cocoa for the window engine will practically always give you speed over Carbon, all other things being equal. This is simply because the windows are in persistent storage, as opposed to being part of the cost of starting a Carbon app.
mods this is -1, Flamebait. Based on Unix as if Unix was ever OSS, taking developers as if David Hyatt wasn't working on Chimera and Safari and Sherlock3 all at the same time, and finally talk about proprietary systems as if Apple still used ADB. All in all, no factual information was presented and all attempts at debasing Apple were due to common trolls regarding the system.
OK, just uncheck the boxes for the mail and news when you install; problem solved.:)
Not a flame, either, but the "installer" for OS X is really a disk image that presents the license agreement, then mounts. You open it up, and copy the Mozilla folder into your Applications directory. The application is now installed. IOW, you don't get install time options to not include Mail or News or other pieces of the Moz suite.
That's why Chimera was actually started, not for a Phoenix-like reason of speed, but for a "browser-only" distribution for OS X. Just happens that it was fast too.
Man, you apple whores are unbelieveable!! Who else would put up with not being able to scroll smoothly through any pages? If it were a PC app there's be a huge uproar about how shite it was.
Man, you pc schmucks are unbelievable!! Who else would think that Apple's at fault for the turtle quality speed that IE puts us through? If you actually used a Mac, you'd know that there is a huge uproar in how shitty the speed of IE is, but it's not like Apple can fix that. Well, except for releasing their own browser independent of Microsoft. Which is a "Great job" that they flipped the bird at BillG and co. at this keynote.
IE5 for the Mac is as good as Mozilla for Windows.
It's pretty good, except I seem to have this problem using <object> tags to include text/html content. Both versions of IE5 (Win or Mac) seem to make this extra GET request to the server with "-" as the referer, and the content is not displayed.
This is in keeping with not using frame tags in Strict HTML 4.01 compliance. The w3c validator reports that the container page is compliant, as is the page included by the object tag.
Finally, in all versions of Mozilla browsers (since they all use the same render engine), the content is included in the container page without a hitch (and Moz doesn't make the extra GET request with the empty referer string). So, IE still isn't as good as Mozilla in this w3c strict compliance regard.
Since you tried this out, are there any side effects of the change. I read about this earlier today and before the site got/.ed, and followed a link to the previous hack. In it, they said something about DVD Player freaking out, but I don't know if that is in reference to the known problem of the TV out issue or something else. I didn't have a chance to run the commands this morning before work, and wanted to wait to here from other reports before doing it.
Anyway, if you have any anecdotal information regarding side effects, it'd help those of us who haven't done anything yet.
And yet, Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS sales; they sell very little hardware.
Man, oh man, this myth has gone on too long. Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS licensing. Let's all hearken back to the old days of late 1998 / early 1999...
Remember the call for the end of the Microsoft tax? Remember that you still have to pay that tax if you buy a brand name x86 box? Notice that only a week ago, Dell "outsmarted" MS by announcing they will be shipping FreeDOS in the box with the blank PCs. Microsoft didn't make its money by selling their OS exclusively. They made it by being everywhere, making the ubiquitous solution, and licensing with every x86 computer manufacturer there is.
And this rise was made possible by "nobody ever getting fired for buying IBM" in the 70s and early 80s. And then the skyrocket that was the PC Clone market.
They played smart business that turned into bully tactics. And the sheer size of their early success has allowed them to maintain this advantage.
Yeah, it was for a problem in the Network Manager. Of course, since this was the big 'sploit of the week, you and 2short seem to have mistaken the patch for something that it's not. This morning's patch description
The patch this morning was for an insecurity in something else. Perhaps you ought to read the description of what you install before assuming MS is on the ball, and even visit the ol' Knowledge Base. As it turns out, they're still working on this problem. So stop with the 3-day turnaround praise. It's still loose.
That is the entire focus of the ads, IMO. There are no 'facts' or 'figures' substantiating any of the claims. It just appears to be a bunch of ads featuring computer illiterates switching to something that is supposed to be 'easier' and more 'intuitive.'
I say: PROVE IT.
Well, at the expense of feeding a troll, anecdotal evidence is unprovable by logical convention. But it seems that you're getting all worked up over advertising. FYI, all advertising is designed to appeal to your emotions. Numbers are a big turnoff for the general populace.
You want facts? Watch the Switch ads again. All the people in the ads are providing subjective facts. Anecdotal evidence is not FUD, but it's not hard objective fact either. There is one overlying subjective fact that isn't voiced in all of the ads: A Mac is a computer that will work for you. This is a fact if you consider one detail: computers are tools designed to work for you. The ad never says a PC won't work for you, it says it didn't work for them. The whole point of the ad is to say: If you feel like your computer isn't working for you, try something new.
In your haste to denounce the ads, you read something extra into the meaning. Your definition of the FUD from the ads is stretching for some tie-in with your misinterpretation. The implications are that you might actually agree with the Real People, but are frightened to leave the hegemony that you are comfortable with. Regardless, your troll is obviously FUD. You could do better, if you'd only take time to apply yourself and elevate from obvious troll status to the level of elegant troll by providing some facts or figures to prove your point, you might have actually succeeded.
Does Mr. Mossberg point out the dramatic speed difference between the GUI of Windows 2000 and Mac OS X? He should, if he really wants to write an impartial article.
Does jchristopher have a reference beyond the vagueness of "OS X, even on the G4 iMac, still lags."? He should, if he really wants to write an impartial post.
My experience with my G3/500 iBook has been greatly improved since the release of 10.1.5. So, if this was meant as an attempt to be insightful to the lagginess of the GUI, then let's be fair. Set up a Win2K machine that pushes all of the GUI through a PDF rendering level using software based rendering. Since you're moving the processing from the GPU to the CPU, and you're comparing to the new iMac, this theoretical Win2K machine can only utilize a P4/1GHz (I'm feeling generous). Compare this machine with a normal Win2K machine, a new iMac with = 10.1.4, and a new iMac with 10.1.5.
Oh, one other thing, both Win2K machines are required to move the GUI out of kernel-space (what's it in there for anyway? That's just begging for a user-space program to crash the whole system).
How exactly can a government pass laws against purchasing from a particular company, considering the fact that the company is still operating under perfectly LEGAL pretenses and practices?
Good question. It's still being battled in courts. Berkeley's city council had their law repealed by higher courts regarding their boycott of major gasoline suppliers (due to international actions). The law was repealed because of the limits of domestic government on international relations, and not due to any other presumed illegality by your argument. After the law was repealed, the city distributed a memo simply suggesting that the city employee's choose a certain supplier (local to CA named Sunshine, if memory serves). (read No Logo: Klein)
But this is a domestic issue, so it wouldn't fall under the same category of domestic agencies defining international relations. Furthermore, it doesn't impose tariffs on interstate commerce by raising the bar for entrance (i.e. it's not requiring local vendors, which would require any comers to have offices in AZ which would present a difficulty to smaller vendors who could not afford to open new offices to meet requirements). Since it doesn't impose any barriers that infringe upon federal requirements, it appears that it is a local issue, and the policy wouldn't have any problems in any level of court. Procurement laws exist to suppress monopolist action by the government in the first place. They define a strict protocol for selecting vendors (i.e. some formal guidelines require a minimum pool of respondents before a purchase can even be considered. If it doesn't meet the minimum, the purchase could simply die, even if there really is only one possible vendor for sproingie widgets).
I said it in my other post, but reiterate here: your argument deserves to be modded down simply because you fail to demonstrate any sort of knowledge of government procurement.
The government hasn't made any rules about spending money..., so what rules are you suggesting they follow?
I cut out the vendor name to make my point. Local government agencies have as much power as state and federal agencies. Some might argue, they have even more power, since it directly affects your local community. It's just that local agencies don't have federal power, and federal agencies don't have local power (why else do you think that federal raids always coordinate with local authorities?).
Maricopa County contains the city of Phoenix, among others. Hardly podunk.
Not to mention the fact that it is one of the top governmental procurement sites in the nation (this includes local, regional and state level procurement). Mod this parent up, and the grandparent down into oblivion. It's worth noting that 2 of the top 20 largest procurement agencies are in the state of Arizona. If anything, they would be some of the best choices for leading by example.
In other words, if you're looking for a portable music player, the iPod is your choice. If you're looking for a desk-bound one, then the larger capacity is your choice.
If you're looking for a desk-bound one, why not just use the computer? My "desk-bound" MP3 player is called an iBook. It's not really deskbound, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
It's all Quartz Graphics. I think you are thinking about Quartz Extreme. Regardless, it's not like OSX looks less pretty without QE, it's just not as fast.
I immediately thought of Max Headroom, and how it was set 10 minutes in the future. That was a cool show.
I'm sure they'd love to test V7, but it is surprisingly missing from the Mac OS X platform.
Attention mods. rxed posted the same argument on the Mozilla snubbed by Safari story a couple of days ago. This is a -1 Flamebait or -1 Troll, as there is no supporting evidence to these claims.
The next release of iTunes is slated to include P2P technology over Rendezvous(sp).
Wrong. It will have library sharing capabilities that allow users in the same subnet to access music for listening.
With my mac, I'll only have one, and if the file is out there, it's on that network.
Like I said killed OSS projects are bad, mmmkay? But, a single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network is (maybe) worth it.
Wrong. See previous point, and the article writeup. Rendezvous sharing does no good if you do not have a Rendezvous network, so unless the file is local already (or a friend stops by for an extended stay), you will not be able to listen to that file. You won't be able to copy it via iTunes regardless. iCommune was not an OSS project. iTunes Rendezvous sharing will not be a "single, united, SUPPORTED p2p network". It is, as described above, and in the actual specifications for Rendezvous, a LAN level alternative to configuration (think AppleTalk over IP).
Not exactly the point I was going after. I use Moz on OSX, and have one complaint in that it insists on using the built-in mail client. I tried out earlier versions of Chimera, but didn't test mail integration, but given that it is a browser only piece, figure that it probably uses whatever you have set as default mail client in the System Preferences. My point is that Chimera serves the needs of those who only need a browser replacement on OSX. You get the Gecko-based browser, you probably get better integration with preferred apps (haven't used Chimera since early builds), and due to Cocoa frontend versus the Carbon windowing frontend of Moz coupled with XUL, you end up getting speed (a pleasant side effect, as previously noted). In fact the only downside is the fact that the Gecko used is from 1.0.1 with modifications, so there is probably not parity between the current Moz's Gecko engine and Chimera's Gecko.
In other people's comparative tests, there's stark difference in loadtime between Moz and Chimera (same engine, disparate levels of cruft, frontend window engine), but there's not enough of a difference in loadtimes between Chimera and Safari (different engines and featureset, same frontend window engine).
FYI, the choice of Cocoa for the window engine will practically always give you speed over Carbon, all other things being equal. This is simply because the windows are in persistent storage, as opposed to being part of the cost of starting a Carbon app.
mods this is -1, Flamebait. Based on Unix as if Unix was ever OSS, taking developers as if David Hyatt wasn't working on Chimera and Safari and Sherlock3 all at the same time, and finally talk about proprietary systems as if Apple still used ADB. All in all, no factual information was presented and all attempts at debasing Apple were due to common trolls regarding the system.
OK, just uncheck the boxes for the mail and news when you install; problem solved. :)
Not a flame, either, but the "installer" for OS X is really a disk image that presents the license agreement, then mounts. You open it up, and copy the Mozilla folder into your Applications directory. The application is now installed. IOW, you don't get install time options to not include Mail or News or other pieces of the Moz suite.
That's why Chimera was actually started, not for a Phoenix-like reason of speed, but for a "browser-only" distribution for OS X. Just happens that it was fast too.
Man, you apple whores are unbelieveable!!
Who else would put up with not being able to scroll smoothly through any pages? If it were a PC app there's be a huge uproar about how shite it was.
Man, you pc schmucks are unbelievable!! Who else would think that Apple's at fault for the turtle quality speed that IE puts us through? If you actually used a Mac, you'd know that there is a huge uproar in how shitty the speed of IE is, but it's not like Apple can fix that. Well, except for releasing their own browser independent of Microsoft. Which is a "Great job" that they flipped the bird at BillG and co. at this keynote.
That'd never work. Think about it...
It's effectively the Apple-cubed pie, and we all know what happened to the last Apple Cube product.
IE5 for the Mac is as good as Mozilla for Windows.
It's pretty good, except I seem to have this problem using <object> tags to include text/html content. Both versions of IE5 (Win or Mac) seem to make this extra GET request to the server with "-" as the referer, and the content is not displayed.
This is in keeping with not using frame tags in Strict HTML 4.01 compliance. The w3c validator reports that the container page is compliant, as is the page included by the object tag.
Finally, in all versions of Mozilla browsers (since they all use the same render engine), the content is included in the container page without a hitch (and Moz doesn't make the extra GET request with the empty referer string). So, IE still isn't as good as Mozilla in this w3c strict compliance regard.
You can buy a larger license if you need it, though.
There's a larger license than unlimited?
Since you tried this out, are there any side effects of the change. I read about this earlier today and before the site got /.ed, and followed a link to the previous hack. In it, they said something about DVD Player freaking out, but I don't know if that is in reference to the known problem of the TV out issue or something else. I didn't have a chance to run the commands this morning before work, and wanted to wait to here from other reports before doing it.
Anyway, if you have any anecdotal information regarding side effects, it'd help those of us who haven't done anything yet.
Thanks!
It just dawned on me that in a story about postmodernism nothing can be offtopic, except for this reply.
but when it does, imagine a dual processor of these (with of course, quartz extreme pushing all of the video over to the Graphics processor).
and then... imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...
And yet, Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS sales; they sell very little hardware.
Man, oh man, this myth has gone on too long. Microsoft has become one of the richest companies in the world due in large part to their OS licensing. Let's all hearken back to the old days of late 1998 / early 1999...
Remember the call for the end of the Microsoft tax? Remember that you still have to pay that tax if you buy a brand name x86 box? Notice that only a week ago, Dell "outsmarted" MS by announcing they will be shipping FreeDOS in the box with the blank PCs. Microsoft didn't make its money by selling their OS exclusively. They made it by being everywhere, making the ubiquitous solution, and licensing with every x86 computer manufacturer there is.
And this rise was made possible by "nobody ever getting fired for buying IBM" in the 70s and early 80s. And then the skyrocket that was the PC Clone market.
They played smart business that turned into bully tactics. And the sheer size of their early success has allowed them to maintain this advantage.
Yeah, it was for a problem in the Network Manager. Of course, since this was the big 'sploit of the week, you and 2short seem to have mistaken the patch for something that it's not. This morning's patch description
The patch this morning was for an insecurity in something else. Perhaps you ought to read the description of what you install before assuming MS is on the ball, and even visit the ol' Knowledge Base. As it turns out, they're still working on this problem. So stop with the 3-day turnaround praise. It's still loose.
Apple is strangling Firewire adoption (IEEE 1394) with patent royalty fees.
Really?
That is the entire focus of the ads, IMO. There are no 'facts' or 'figures' substantiating any of the claims. It just appears to be a bunch of ads featuring computer illiterates switching to something that is supposed to be 'easier' and more 'intuitive.'
I say: PROVE IT.
Well, at the expense of feeding a troll, anecdotal evidence is unprovable by logical convention. But it seems that you're getting all worked up over advertising. FYI, all advertising is designed to appeal to your emotions. Numbers are a big turnoff for the general populace.
You want facts? Watch the Switch ads again. All the people in the ads are providing subjective facts. Anecdotal evidence is not FUD, but it's not hard objective fact either. There is one overlying subjective fact that isn't voiced in all of the ads: A Mac is a computer that will work for you. This is a fact if you consider one detail: computers are tools designed to work for you. The ad never says a PC won't work for you, it says it didn't work for them. The whole point of the ad is to say: If you feel like your computer isn't working for you, try something new.
In your haste to denounce the ads, you read something extra into the meaning. Your definition of the FUD from the ads is stretching for some tie-in with your misinterpretation. The implications are that you might actually agree with the Real People, but are frightened to leave the hegemony that you are comfortable with. Regardless, your troll is obviously FUD. You could do better, if you'd only take time to apply yourself and elevate from obvious troll status to the level of elegant troll by providing some facts or figures to prove your point, you might have actually succeeded.
Have a nice day.
Does Mr. Mossberg point out the dramatic speed difference between the GUI of Windows 2000 and Mac OS X? He should, if he really wants to write an impartial article.
Does jchristopher have a reference beyond the vagueness of "OS X, even on the G4 iMac, still lags."? He should, if he really wants to write an impartial post.
My experience with my G3/500 iBook has been greatly improved since the release of 10.1.5. So, if this was meant as an attempt to be insightful to the lagginess of the GUI, then let's be fair. Set up a Win2K machine that pushes all of the GUI through a PDF rendering level using software based rendering. Since you're moving the processing from the GPU to the CPU, and you're comparing to the new iMac, this theoretical Win2K machine can only utilize a P4/1GHz (I'm feeling generous). Compare this machine with a normal Win2K machine, a new iMac with = 10.1.4, and a new iMac with 10.1.5.
Oh, one other thing, both Win2K machines are required to move the GUI out of kernel-space (what's it in there for anyway? That's just begging for a user-space program to crash the whole system).
How exactly can a government pass laws against purchasing from a particular company, considering the fact that the company is still operating under perfectly LEGAL pretenses and practices?
Good question. It's still being battled in courts. Berkeley's city council had their law repealed by higher courts regarding their boycott of major gasoline suppliers (due to international actions). The law was repealed because of the limits of domestic government on international relations, and not due to any other presumed illegality by your argument. After the law was repealed, the city distributed a memo simply suggesting that the city employee's choose a certain supplier (local to CA named Sunshine, if memory serves). (read No Logo: Klein)
But this is a domestic issue, so it wouldn't fall under the same category of domestic agencies defining international relations. Furthermore, it doesn't impose tariffs on interstate commerce by raising the bar for entrance (i.e. it's not requiring local vendors, which would require any comers to have offices in AZ which would present a difficulty to smaller vendors who could not afford to open new offices to meet requirements). Since it doesn't impose any barriers that infringe upon federal requirements, it appears that it is a local issue, and the policy wouldn't have any problems in any level of court. Procurement laws exist to suppress monopolist action by the government in the first place. They define a strict protocol for selecting vendors (i.e. some formal guidelines require a minimum pool of respondents before a purchase can even be considered. If it doesn't meet the minimum, the purchase could simply die, even if there really is only one possible vendor for sproingie widgets).
I said it in my other post, but reiterate here: your argument deserves to be modded down simply because you fail to demonstrate any sort of knowledge of government procurement.
The government hasn't made any rules about spending money..., so what rules are you suggesting they follow?
I cut out the vendor name to make my point. Local government agencies have as much power as state and federal agencies. Some might argue, they have even more power, since it directly affects your local community. It's just that local agencies don't have federal power, and federal agencies don't have local power (why else do you think that federal raids always coordinate with local authorities?).
Maricopa County contains the city of Phoenix, among others. Hardly podunk.
Not to mention the fact that it is one of the top governmental procurement sites in the nation (this includes local, regional and state level procurement). Mod this parent up, and the grandparent down into oblivion. It's worth noting that 2 of the top 20 largest procurement agencies are in the state of Arizona. If anything, they would be some of the best choices for leading by example.
Now, they are helping other companies write software so the player runs on other systems.
WTF?!? Why has this been modded up? When did Apple start helping EphPod?
In other words, if you're looking for a portable music player, the iPod is your choice. If you're looking for a desk-bound one, then the larger capacity is your choice.
If you're looking for a desk-bound one, why not just use the computer? My "desk-bound" MP3 player is called an iBook. It's not really deskbound, I guess.