What are your future plans for your F50? Is there any future tuning and tweaking to be done? Also, are you interested in the new F360 Modena and seeing what it can do if tweaked a bit more?
(Note to/. Please post this question! We need some question-diversity here. Besides, John's a renowned Ferrari man!)
It uses the exact same, vastly improved core chipset (UniNorth, Key Largo, PMU99) that you find in the new Power Macintosh G4 (with AGP) models. This is also the same motherboard chipset found in the iBook. Essentially, the new iMac (and the iBook) is a G4-class machine without the G4 chip and its MaxBus bus technology. This is all a part of Apple's "Unified Motherboard Architecture" strategy.
In my book, that's a significant change. The new iMac (with 2 FireWire ports, 2 seperate USB buses, 2X AGP graphics, and the new chipset) isn't just a dressed up first-gen iMac with a short-neck CRT and slot-loading DVD drive.
One major flaw in Pirates of Silicon Valley was certainly the wacky timeline they used and how it erroneously made it seem like Windows 1.0 was ready and released before the the release of the Macintosh in January 1984. According to what I know (based on Triumph of the Nerds and the books Insanely Great and The Journey Is The Reward), the first Mac had a least a four or five year lead on Windows during which time it was generally unchallenged in the GUI world. I'm not sure of the exact date of the first Windows but I think it was around '88/'89/'90, no? In the movie it shows Jobs & Co. confronting Gates following a Mac pre-release "pep rally" with NEC machines from Japan running (pirated & pre-release?) versions of the early Windows. Then in the "I got the loot, Steve!" scene it makes things look like Gates actually got the GUI idea out in the market (on a large scale) first, which is completely incorrect. I just hope that the general public, with their limited knowledge of personal computer history doesn't fall for the obvious (incorrect) conclusion here... that Windows beat the Mac out of the starting gate. That's a perversion of history.
Could someone please tell Rob that it's Mike Myers? I mean, I hate to be "that guy" who nitpicks, but a journalist of Rob's caliber surely won't mind getting the little details right.
I agree (how can I not) that Mac OS X Server is a server OS, poised to rival NT...but it is also (unofficially) intended as an early-adopter version (which it is) of Mac OS X. It has all the tools necessary for a server OS but lacks the polish and coherency that is needed for it to truly be a next-gen Mac OS sucessor, one that _everyone_ can use. That is why I denote it a "rough cut"...it's a preview of what's to come.
As for the Mach microkernel...the latest reports (ahem, rumors) indicate that the final Mac OS X kernel will be a hybrid of Mach 2.5, 3, and 4 as well as a little of Apple's NuKernel (from the Copland days) thrown in. This kernel should definately improve on the speed of the OS over Mac OS X Server. The final Mac OS X will NOT be "wimpy" by any means, rest assured. As for the viability of the microkernel achitecture vs. a monolithic kernel... I have read that the microkernel architecture is inherently better in networking related tasks (web serving, etc.) due to the fact that network services can communicate directly with the microkernel, a more efficient route.
I know that Mac OS X will have a modified kernel that is not totally Mach (I too read MOSR). I know that saying Rhapsody = Mac OS X is oversimplifying things. However, some oversimplification is needed to get through to the OS ignorants out there who still think that Mac OS X is a totally new operating system and that Rhapsody has somehow been "scrapped." (There is _still_ a lot of confusion out there on this issue.) There are also people out there who are not aware that Mac OS X will be a radically different beast (underneath) from the current Mac OS. For the purpose of getting through to these people, I chose to say that Mac OS X is fundamentally Rhapsody with a few changes to the kernel and some other additions. Satisfied?
OS X is NOT vapor. To say that it is, you must be quite uninformed--whether by choice or by circumstance. Is NeXTStep or OpenStep vapor as well? No, they've been around since what...? 1986? Well, Mac OS X = Rhapsody, which is essentially PowerPC OpenStep with a Mac interface and Mac software/technology compatability. Also, Mac OS X Server, the "rough cut" of Mac OS X is shipping, right now, in February. I don't know where you come from, but in my world shipping software isn't vaporware.
Oh...I almost forgot, you will be able to use the BASH shell in Mac OS X Server. Happy now?
Slashdot Mirror
John,
What are your future plans for your F50? Is there any future tuning and tweaking to be done? Also, are you interested in the new F360 Modena and seeing what it can do if tweaked a bit more?
(Note to /. Please post this question! We need some question-diversity here. Besides, John's a renowned Ferrari man!)
Sincerely,
bAz
Who says the new iMac isn't a major change?
It uses the exact same, vastly improved core chipset (UniNorth, Key Largo, PMU99) that you find in the new Power Macintosh G4 (with AGP) models. This is also the same motherboard chipset found in the iBook. Essentially, the new iMac (and the iBook) is a G4-class machine without the G4 chip and its MaxBus bus technology. This is all a part of Apple's "Unified Motherboard Architecture" strategy.
In my book, that's a significant change. The new iMac (with 2 FireWire ports, 2 seperate USB buses, 2X AGP graphics, and the new chipset) isn't just a dressed up first-gen iMac with a short-neck CRT and slot-loading DVD drive.
bAz
One major flaw in Pirates of Silicon Valley was certainly the wacky timeline they used and how it erroneously made it seem like Windows 1.0 was ready and released before the the release of the Macintosh in January 1984. According to what I know (based on Triumph of the Nerds and the books Insanely Great and The Journey Is The Reward), the first Mac had a least a four or five year lead on Windows during which time it was generally unchallenged in the GUI world. I'm not sure of the exact date of the first Windows but I think it was around '88/'89/'90, no? In the movie it shows Jobs & Co. confronting Gates following a Mac pre-release "pep rally" with NEC machines from Japan running (pirated & pre-release?) versions of the early Windows. Then in the "I got the loot, Steve!" scene it makes things look like Gates actually got the GUI idea out in the market (on a large scale) first, which is completely incorrect. I just hope that the general public, with their limited knowledge of personal computer history doesn't fall for the obvious (incorrect) conclusion here... that Windows beat the Mac out of the starting gate. That's a perversion of history.
bAz
Could someone please tell Rob that it's Mike Myers? I mean, I hate to be "that guy" who nitpicks, but a journalist of Rob's caliber surely won't mind getting the little details right.
bAz
In a recent issue of WIRED magazine, Chuck D said that Bill Gates is like Michael Jordan.
The guy is just a wee bit off and "Chuck D knows what's happening" isn't exactly spot-on, CmdrTaco....errr, Rob.
bAz
I agree (how can I not) that Mac OS X Server is a server OS, poised to rival NT...but it is also (unofficially) intended as an early-adopter version (which it is) of Mac OS X. It has all the tools necessary for a server OS but lacks the polish and coherency that is needed for it to truly be a next-gen Mac OS sucessor, one that _everyone_ can use. That is why I denote it a "rough cut"...it's a preview of what's to come.
As for the Mach microkernel...the latest reports (ahem, rumors) indicate that the final Mac OS X kernel will be a hybrid of Mach 2.5, 3, and 4 as well as a little of Apple's NuKernel (from the Copland days) thrown in. This kernel should definately improve on the speed of the OS over Mac OS X Server. The final Mac OS X will NOT be "wimpy" by any means, rest assured. As for the viability of the microkernel achitecture vs. a monolithic kernel... I have read that the microkernel architecture is inherently better in networking related tasks (web serving, etc.) due to the fact that network services can communicate directly with the microkernel, a more efficient route.
Baz
I don't think you got me...
I know that Mac OS X will have a modified kernel that is not totally Mach (I too read MOSR). I know that saying Rhapsody = Mac OS X is oversimplifying things. However, some oversimplification is needed to get through to the OS ignorants out there who still think that Mac OS X is a totally new operating system and that Rhapsody has somehow been "scrapped." (There is _still_ a lot of confusion out there on this issue.) There are also people out there who are not aware that Mac OS X will be a radically different beast (underneath) from the current Mac OS. For the purpose of getting through to these people, I chose to say that Mac OS X is fundamentally Rhapsody with a few changes to the kernel and some other additions. Satisfied?
Baz
OSX is vapor.
OS X is NOT vapor. To say that it is, you must be quite uninformed--whether by choice or by circumstance. Is NeXTStep or OpenStep vapor as well? No, they've been around since what...? 1986? Well, Mac OS X = Rhapsody, which is essentially PowerPC OpenStep with a Mac interface and Mac software/technology compatability. Also, Mac OS X Server, the "rough cut" of Mac OS X is shipping, right now, in February. I don't know where you come from, but in my world shipping software isn't vaporware.
Oh...I almost forgot, you will be able to use the BASH shell in Mac OS X Server. Happy now?
To clue in:
Officially: Apple's Mac OS X Server page
Unofficially: Mac OS Rumors (a Slashdot affiliate site--part of Black Light Media)
Baz