You'd have to be insane to think that's a good deal, especially if the phone is crippled to only work through AT&T's own network. You could buy an excellent contract-free phone (or an even better one under contract) AND an 80Gb iPod and still have change left over. Who are these idiots rushing out to buy one?
Well as I'm not American, it isn't QED at all. And localisation tables ARE crap for most embedding purposes. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but perhaps you should go read the uClibc site to understand that the whole point is you can leave out the parts you don't want - locales, math and so on.
Damned straight it's bad. If Microsoft pulled that shit they would be flayed alive. Correction, they HAVE been flayed alive.
Apple should know better. They crow about usability guidelines for years and years and then takes a bit dump all over Windows conventions whenever they port some of their software. There is no acceptable rationale for doing this. Hopefully in this case it is just because its an early beta and they intend to switch over to the Windows uxtheme engine at some point. If not, I predict their browser share will be lucky to move beyond 1%.
It isn't even as if Safari is a particularly outstanding browser. It works and has some nice features but it doesn't hold a candle to Firefox. Or Opera. Or even IE7. Toss in some weird ass UI and I don't see anybody adopting it even if Apple start bundling it with iTunes. If they fix the UI they might win some converts, but the only people I see ever wanting to use it would be Apple users who might be attracted if iTunes synced their bookmarks to their iPod or similar.
No actually I'm not. I just realise that embedded systems rarely need localization stuff, or if they do that uClibc allows them to selectively compile in the stuff they actually do need.
The original poster said specifically C/C++ which rules out the cc you get with BSD. This implies they have to use gcc or a commercial compiler. I would assume that most people would lump for gcc which normally implies using the GNU standard C & C++ libraries (or uClibc). That being so, you would have supply the source to them irrespective of whether you used BSD or Linux as the operating system. Naturally there are other C++ compilers where this would not apply, but for gcc it basically would. The library uClibc cuts out some of the crap of its big brother (localization tables, modular design for selective compilation etc.) and is also covered by the LGPL.
1. Yes. GPL3 is not retroactive to existing source. Even if you used GPL3 stuff, I don't think it has any impact on your own code if it is distinct. 2. Yes if they are LGPL. Which includes the standard C++ libraries. Some components such as the kernel also have certain binary waivers. 3. Yes but why bother if you're not releasing the source. And if you are releasing the source, then there are benefits to not obfuscating it (e.g. helpful customers fixing your bugs). 4. Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open. 5. Yes, but neither will you have a problem with Linux. However you would have to supply the sources to the GPL / LGPL components of your system upon demand. Most people stick the source up on a web site or link to where they found it, but the latter may not absolve you of not providing it if somebody comes asking for it. Also BSD systems can contain GPL software too (e.g. if you use gcc as your compiler for the C++)
I think if you're in doubt you should probably go look at some existing Linux dist designed for embedded systems. They're bound to have a FAQ that covers most of this.
My point is that there are well known urls - http, https, ftp, file, gopher, javascript, about, mailto etc. that all browsers should handle internally. IE / Win32 implements them via protocol handlers which are COM objects. So a browser could if it wanted instantiate one of IE's protocol handlers via COM. It is also possible to open a stream from a random URL via an internet moniker (another COM object primed with a URL) and then start reading data. But there is no reason that they would either of these things. Safari, Opera, Firefox all have their own impls of these protocols and really have no reason to call out to the IE impl - it doesn't make sense unless Safari took a shortcut for some reason.
Then there are protocol handlers that are IE specific, e.g. ms-help that also reside in the registry and are available via COM. But why would Safari be bothered with those either?
Then there are mime types that are registered to launch external apps. All browsers should support these, assuming for Firefox, Opera & Safari that the mime type is not handled internally and there is no NPAPI plugin available to handle the content. For example if I click on an application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text it might launch OpenOffice (with the appropriate warnings). I don't see why launching these should be harmful to Safari and not Firefox unless Safari is not checking some registry key or blacklist to ensure they are safe to launch.
Irrespective, I don't see any obvious way to blame Windows because of a vuln that shows up in Safari. Perhaps there is one but it isn't obvious to me.
I didn't claim it was perfect, but it is using the GTK methods to paint the widgets. You can see the implementation of how it paints widgets here here. Anything tagged to paint natively ultimately ends up going through that function. Form buttons are handled differently from chrome buttons. I don't recall what the behaviour is for those, but there may be reasons that they don't render natively using the GTK theme.
Also, I can't tell, but it seems like your message is implying that you believe Safari uses XUL or some other Mozilla based skin settings. It doesn't. Safari = Konqueror's KHTML engine wrapped in WebKit frameworks + Stuff that makes it look like a Mac app. There's no Mozilla anything involved. (Or maybe I'm misreading you?)
I meant that the Mac has a theme engine and Windows has a theme engine. Both have a bunch of APIs that you can call easily from any app to render a button, scrollbar, checkbox etc. in the platform style. This is exactly how Firefox and Java manage to render themselves with a native look and feel even though they don't use native widgets. In porting Safari to Windows Apple have also ported the theme engine from OS X meaning the app doesn't look or behave like any other Windows app. There appears to be absolutely no valid reason to do that when Windows has a theme engine of its own. Cocoa could invoke calls on that to render widgets but it doesn't. It makes Safari look atrocious and completely non standard when running in Windows. I'm hoping they will fix this because I don't see any reason at all to use Safari when it can't even be bothered with basic consistency.
Microsoft would be killed if they pulled the same stunt, releasing an IE port with Aeroglass theme for Linux or OS X, and rightly so. MS actually did release an IE 4 for Unix and it was abysmal, running through some Win32 thunk. I don't see why Apple should have a free pass. If anything they should know better.
Uh, I don't know what planet your Firefox is from, but the only thing about Firefox that looks like a Mac are the window glyphs in the corner. As for the Windows version, I'd hardly call it a "Windows" look. It looks like a GTK app, which is a Linux look modeled after Windows. The coloring is specifically targeted for Windows. It doesn't look like either a KDE app or a Gnome app in Linux.
Not true at all. Everything from the scrollbars, progress bar, dialogs, appearance of buttons, entry fields, menu bar (and positions of items such as about box, prefs etc.), keyboard shortcuts are all rendered or behave in the Mac manner.
The reason for this is due to the default theme in Firefox. The Firefox (and Thunderbird / Seamonkey) UI consists XUL that defines the structure of the UI to which a theme is applied to render it. The theme contains CSS and other files such as images and bindings that govern the layout and appearance of everything. So whenever the XUL defines a push button (for example), Firefox uses the theme's CSS to style it.
The CSS can specify any standard CSS 1/2/3 rules to draw an element but there are also special -moz-appearance directives that tell the item to render natively. All UI elements (buttons, entry fields, combos etc.) in the default theme are tagged with special -moz-appearance rules. The upshot of these rules is that when the button is rendered, the rendering is done by the platform's theme engine.
There are also bindings and overlays to ensure that the behaviour of buttons, menus and their position / text match the platform defaults.
So Firefox does look and feel native on every platform. Perhaps not good enough for some Mac purists, but then you've got Camino if you really want an OS X native UI, not just a look & feel-a-like.
Why would any of them be Windows vulnerabilities? The only way they may possibly be is if Safari used IE's http / https URL handlers, or exposed other Windows protocols via the browser, or used the JScript engine for evaluating content, or used the OS call for decoding Jpegs/PNGs. It strikes me as being extremely unlikely that it would do any of this. It already has code for all these things and turning it off to use the archaic and often poorly documented IE / Windows equivalents doesn't make much sense.
It's possible that Safari uses the NPAPI for hosting native plugins, but the NPAPI tends to be quite secure. I don't know if Safari supports plugin scripting (via Safari's equivalent of XPCOM) but that might also expose it to something.
Well not entirely - IE 5 had a fruit flavoured theme to go with iMacs of the day, and the UI was distinctly Mac like. But Mac users have certainly gone batshit crazy over past versions of Office.
Windows users tend to be more levelheaded and / or apathetic. Instead of protesting, they'll simply ignore Safari altogether. The Safari 3.0 UI in Vista is awful - totally nonstandard in every respect. It's bad enough to have an Aqua-esque theme foisted into iTunes (at least most secondary dialogs paid some lipservice to the system theme) but it's even worse in Safari where everything picks up Aqua. The perverse part is that OS X apps call a theme engine to render widgets. So Apple must have ported the theme engine to Windows and hardcoded it into Safari rather than using the one in the operating system.
I really don't see any reason that Safari will take off on the Mac until it tries to integrate. Ironically the reason Safari succeeded at all on the Mac was because of Apple's dissatisfaction with Firefox & Camino (an OS X app using Gecko) for not being native looking enough. Now they're foisting a totally alien Safari onto another OS and expecting it to take off - it's not gonna happen.
Every single dialog box and effect is Aqua style. Even though both OS X and Windows XP / Vista have theme engines meaning there should be absolutely no reason at all for doing this. The engines allow apps to render their controls in the native style irrespective of how they are implemented. It's why Firefox in its default skin looks like a Windows app on Windows, like a Mac app on a Mac and so on - because rendering is handed off to the theme engine. Same happens for Java too. But not Safari it seems.
Yup, VLC,Firefox,OOo etc are signs of FOSS leaving Linux.. Also if we have GTK+, QT libraries on windows, why would you need Linux...
Yes, why would you need Linux. Those apps you cite - VLC, Firefox, Ooo probably have far more users on Windows than they do on Linux. And as such why does a Windows user need to switch to Linux if all these great free apps run on their current OS?
But the Linux guys seem to be barking up the wrong tree as MS has already ported Office to Mac..possibly they are leaving Windows...
The thing with MS Office on the Mac was they tried to do what Apple is doing now - namely porting MSO via various Windows & OLE compatibility layers and the users screamed bloody murder. So MS redesigned the next version to look and feel native. There never was any danger of them dumping Windows since it was making a lot of money.
I know apple not following OS native UI guidelines is a very bad practice..but commenting that they are dumping OS X on a day they released a new beta version and have committed to at least one more version is a bit far fetched..
It was just speculation. But if Apple have a robust Cocoa / Carbon APIs that presumably allow apps to port with minimal effort, then it is just one less reason Apple have for supporting their own OS.
Stability? Security? The amazingly beautiful user interface? The fervor with which most of the Mac community, myself included, worship OS X? Nah, forget it. I think if we could run our Cocoa and Carbon apps in Windows, the entire Mac community would certainly rather run them on top of Windows rather than OS X.
The stability in Windows is just fine. Security could do with some work, but is acceptable in Vista. The "amazingly beautiful user interface" can be replicated especially if Cocoa / Carbon APIs mean apps port almost unchanged. As for fervor - well the switch to Intel didn't exactly spark a revolt.
I think Apple could switch quite easily. One day might see a version of OS X (or OS 11) running natively over Vista, or through some virtualization layer that it shares with Vista. Speculation of course, but it's fairly clear that Apple is less about computers and more about gadgets. Developing MacOS was critical at one point, but I suspect it's a drag on the balance sheet these days.
I recall a time when Apple were almost religious about Mac apps conforming to their guidelines. I remember the stink that users made when an MS Office for the Mac wasn't Mac-like enough for their liking.
It's therefore strange that Apple feel they can simply ignore UI guidelines when they feel like it on other platforms. First it was Quicktime, then iTunes and now Safari that sport Aqua like widgets. It's not just the "brushed metal" appearance, but even the scrollbars. iTunes has a sluggish non-standard interface and part of it must be attributable to its desire to reinvent every single widget including the scrollbars.
While I think Windows users tolerated it for iTunes (since they have no choice really if they use an iPod), the same cannot be said for Safari. I think it would stand a better chance if it tried to blend in. Inflicting some horrid non-standard UI on Windows users will just see them using IE, Firefox or even Opera. Though I wouldn't put it past Apple to start bundling Safari with iTunes in future.
Perhaps this is even a stealth way for Apple to dump OS X altogether. After all, if they build Cocoa & Carbon layers on top of Windows, the ultimate question is why bother with OS X at all?
I don't know what the fuss is about with PS2 upscaling. Any modern TV set should be able to upscale for itself. The only place where it would be any use would be to transform an interlaced game into progressive scan or if the set is broken. That might make it worthwhile.
What would be REALLY COOL is if the PS2 rendered at a higher resolution, i.e. transform and render all data into 1080p graphics buffer rather than upscaling a smaller one. It wouldn't do much for bitmaps and textures but polygons would be gorgeous at 1080p. Some of the screenshots from the PCSX2 emulator show how lovely it could look. Unfortunately PCSX2 runs like a dog, but perhaps the PS3 has the capabilities to actually pull this off, at least for some games.
Obviously proper scaling is also useful for Blu-Ray. Previously it would render a movie in 1080i and leave it to the TV to downscale it to 720p (any sane HDTV handles both resolutions). Now they actually do the scaling themselves which could make the picture quality marginally better.
Amazon Unbox is as DRM infested as they come. Perhaps they've chosen to unencumber certain music tracks (no doubt to "coincide" with a price hike), but movies? No way.
No it's antiquated with sticking to a single menu when it is quite obvious that it isn't the right way. It might have been fine when Finder ran one application at a time. It isn't fine when you might have multiple applications running at once, not all of which have their windows near the top. Having to move all the way up the screen to access the menu when your window is at the bottom is a very bad design.
And closing Opening January 19, 2008. Seriously "Dungeon Siege" will have been sitting in the can for two years. Distributors are not stupid, if it was even slightly watchable it would have appeared before now.
Of course there are apps, just not as many. Not by a long shot.
They are harder to use
I don't believe that, at least for novices. However power users may get frustrated by a UI that assumes they're a novice.
I can't get used to them
That I can believe. OS X is still antiquated in some ways such as single menu bar.
They use a 1 button mouse, what's up with that!?
Well they did until recently. Even now one senses that context menus are thrown in as an afterthought in some apps.
I don't believe Apple computers aren't more secure!
OS X has a far more sensible and secure-by-design model than XP (and Vista) but Apple computers are not more secure. Run XP or Vista via bootcamp and your Mac is as open as any other PC. Of course you could get perfectly good security on any PC by running a properly secured Linux, BSD or other *nix. Even Vista has pretty good security these days though UAC is a very annoying way to enforce it.
Today, when someone asks me what computer to buy, I tell them straight out, buy an Apple computer.
That's rather presumptive. Some people might like to play games or have some other reason that a PC is a better fit for them.
Apple's model appears to be pitch new models slightly cheaper than their rivals and then to coast until they're significantly more expensive and then repeat. Therefore if you're in the market for a laptop when a new Mac appears you might get a good value laptop otherwise no way. Within months of the first Intel Macbooks appearing you could already get comparable PC laptops for several hundred dollars less.
Funny but the hype for the Wii was massively greater than the PS3. In fact appears to be the only reason why people are getting so worked up about an ostensibly last generation system with a new controller. Sony certainly came out with some idiotic statements though.
apply "Flood Geology" to finding valuable mineral deposits and such?
Or if coal can be made in two weeks, they could make a killing. Everyone is looking for ways to take carbon out of the atmosphere and here they say they have a method!
The Museum of Ignorance would be more appropriate. How else to explain a museum which shuts out overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution (amongst other things) by essentially claiming "God did it". Which is a non-answer. For "God" they could substitute "a side of ham", "Elvis Presley" or anything else with as much validity. Oh but you get to ride a triceratops at the end so that makes it money well spent.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd have to be insane to think that's a good deal, especially if the phone is crippled to only work through AT&T's own network. You could buy an excellent contract-free phone (or an even better one under contract) AND an 80Gb iPod and still have change left over. Who are these idiots rushing out to buy one?
Well as I'm not American, it isn't QED at all. And localisation tables ARE crap for most embedding purposes. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but perhaps you should go read the uClibc site to understand that the whole point is you can leave out the parts you don't want - locales, math and so on.
Apple should know better. They crow about usability guidelines for years and years and then takes a bit dump all over Windows conventions whenever they port some of their software. There is no acceptable rationale for doing this. Hopefully in this case it is just because its an early beta and they intend to switch over to the Windows uxtheme engine at some point. If not, I predict their browser share will be lucky to move beyond 1%.
It isn't even as if Safari is a particularly outstanding browser. It works and has some nice features but it doesn't hold a candle to Firefox. Or Opera. Or even IE7. Toss in some weird ass UI and I don't see anybody adopting it even if Apple start bundling it with iTunes. If they fix the UI they might win some converts, but the only people I see ever wanting to use it would be Apple users who might be attracted if iTunes synced their bookmarks to their iPod or similar.
No actually I'm not. I just realise that embedded systems rarely need localization stuff, or if they do that uClibc allows them to selectively compile in the stuff they actually do need.
The original poster said specifically C/C++ which rules out the cc you get with BSD. This implies they have to use gcc or a commercial compiler. I would assume that most people would lump for gcc which normally implies using the GNU standard C & C++ libraries (or uClibc). That being so, you would have supply the source to them irrespective of whether you used BSD or Linux as the operating system. Naturally there are other C++ compilers where this would not apply, but for gcc it basically would. The library uClibc cuts out some of the crap of its big brother (localization tables, modular design for selective compilation etc.) and is also covered by the LGPL.
1. Yes. GPL3 is not retroactive to existing source. Even if you used GPL3 stuff, I don't think it has any impact on your own code if it is distinct.
2. Yes if they are LGPL. Which includes the standard C++ libraries. Some components such as the kernel also have certain binary waivers.
3. Yes but why bother if you're not releasing the source. And if you are releasing the source, then there are benefits to not obfuscating it (e.g. helpful customers fixing your bugs).
4. Not unless a court says. Obviously if you violate the GPL you are taking a major risk of somebody finding out and forcing your code out into the open.
5. Yes, but neither will you have a problem with Linux. However you would have to supply the sources to the GPL / LGPL components of your system upon demand. Most people stick the source up on a web site or link to where they found it, but the latter may not absolve you of not providing it if somebody comes asking for it. Also BSD systems can contain GPL software too (e.g. if you use gcc as your compiler for the C++)
I think if you're in doubt you should probably go look at some existing Linux dist designed for embedded systems. They're bound to have a FAQ that covers most of this.
Then there are protocol handlers that are IE specific, e.g. ms-help that also reside in the registry and are available via COM. But why would Safari be bothered with those either?
Then there are mime types that are registered to launch external apps. All browsers should support these, assuming for Firefox, Opera & Safari that the mime type is not handled internally and there is no NPAPI plugin available to handle the content. For example if I click on an application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text it might launch OpenOffice (with the appropriate warnings). I don't see why launching these should be harmful to Safari and not Firefox unless Safari is not checking some registry key or blacklist to ensure they are safe to launch.
Irrespective, I don't see any obvious way to blame Windows because of a vuln that shows up in Safari. Perhaps there is one but it isn't obvious to me.
I didn't claim it was perfect, but it is using the GTK methods to paint the widgets. You can see the implementation of how it paints widgets here here. Anything tagged to paint natively ultimately ends up going through that function. Form buttons are handled differently from chrome buttons. I don't recall what the behaviour is for those, but there may be reasons that they don't render natively using the GTK theme.
I meant that the Mac has a theme engine and Windows has a theme engine. Both have a bunch of APIs that you can call easily from any app to render a button, scrollbar, checkbox etc. in the platform style. This is exactly how Firefox and Java manage to render themselves with a native look and feel even though they don't use native widgets. In porting Safari to Windows Apple have also ported the theme engine from OS X meaning the app doesn't look or behave like any other Windows app. There appears to be absolutely no valid reason to do that when Windows has a theme engine of its own. Cocoa could invoke calls on that to render widgets but it doesn't. It makes Safari look atrocious and completely non standard when running in Windows. I'm hoping they will fix this because I don't see any reason at all to use Safari when it can't even be bothered with basic consistency.
Microsoft would be killed if they pulled the same stunt, releasing an IE port with Aeroglass theme for Linux or OS X, and rightly so. MS actually did release an IE 4 for Unix and it was abysmal, running through some Win32 thunk. I don't see why Apple should have a free pass. If anything they should know better.
Not true at all. Everything from the scrollbars, progress bar, dialogs, appearance of buttons, entry fields, menu bar (and positions of items such as about box, prefs etc.), keyboard shortcuts are all rendered or behave in the Mac manner.
The reason for this is due to the default theme in Firefox. The Firefox (and Thunderbird / Seamonkey) UI consists XUL that defines the structure of the UI to which a theme is applied to render it. The theme contains CSS and other files such as images and bindings that govern the layout and appearance of everything. So whenever the XUL defines a push button (for example), Firefox uses the theme's CSS to style it.
The CSS can specify any standard CSS 1/2/3 rules to draw an element but there are also special -moz-appearance directives that tell the item to render natively. All UI elements (buttons, entry fields, combos etc.) in the default theme are tagged with special -moz-appearance rules. The upshot of these rules is that when the button is rendered, the rendering is done by the platform's theme engine.
There are also bindings and overlays to ensure that the behaviour of buttons, menus and their position / text match the platform defaults.
So Firefox does look and feel native on every platform. Perhaps not good enough for some Mac purists, but then you've got Camino if you really want an OS X native UI, not just a look & feel-a-like.
It's possible that Safari uses the NPAPI for hosting native plugins, but the NPAPI tends to be quite secure. I don't know if Safari supports plugin scripting (via Safari's equivalent of XPCOM) but that might also expose it to something.
Well not entirely - IE 5 had a fruit flavoured theme to go with iMacs of the day, and the UI was distinctly Mac like. But Mac users have certainly gone batshit crazy over past versions of Office.
Windows users tend to be more levelheaded and / or apathetic. Instead of protesting, they'll simply ignore Safari altogether. The Safari 3.0 UI in Vista is awful - totally nonstandard in every respect. It's bad enough to have an Aqua-esque theme foisted into iTunes (at least most secondary dialogs paid some lipservice to the system theme) but it's even worse in Safari where everything picks up Aqua. The perverse part is that OS X apps call a theme engine to render widgets. So Apple must have ported the theme engine to Windows and hardcoded it into Safari rather than using the one in the operating system.
I really don't see any reason that Safari will take off on the Mac until it tries to integrate. Ironically the reason Safari succeeded at all on the Mac was because of Apple's dissatisfaction with Firefox & Camino (an OS X app using Gecko) for not being native looking enough. Now they're foisting a totally alien Safari onto another OS and expecting it to take off - it's not gonna happen.
Every single dialog box and effect is Aqua style. Even though both OS X and Windows XP / Vista have theme engines meaning there should be absolutely no reason at all for doing this. The engines allow apps to render their controls in the native style irrespective of how they are implemented. It's why Firefox in its default skin looks like a Windows app on Windows, like a Mac app on a Mac and so on - because rendering is handed off to the theme engine. Same happens for Java too. But not Safari it seems.
Yes, why would you need Linux. Those apps you cite - VLC, Firefox, Ooo probably have far more users on Windows than they do on Linux. And as such why does a Windows user need to switch to Linux if all these great free apps run on their current OS?
But the Linux guys seem to be barking up the wrong tree as MS has already ported Office to Mac..possibly they are leaving Windows...
The thing with MS Office on the Mac was they tried to do what Apple is doing now - namely porting MSO via various Windows & OLE compatibility layers and the users screamed bloody murder. So MS redesigned the next version to look and feel native. There never was any danger of them dumping Windows since it was making a lot of money.
I know apple not following OS native UI guidelines is a very bad practice..but commenting that they are dumping OS X on a day they released a new beta version and have committed to at least one more version is a bit far fetched..
It was just speculation. But if Apple have a robust Cocoa / Carbon APIs that presumably allow apps to port with minimal effort, then it is just one less reason Apple have for supporting their own OS.
The stability in Windows is just fine. Security could do with some work, but is acceptable in Vista. The "amazingly beautiful user interface" can be replicated especially if Cocoa / Carbon APIs mean apps port almost unchanged. As for fervor - well the switch to Intel didn't exactly spark a revolt.
I think Apple could switch quite easily. One day might see a version of OS X (or OS 11) running natively over Vista, or through some virtualization layer that it shares with Vista. Speculation of course, but it's fairly clear that Apple is less about computers and more about gadgets. Developing MacOS was critical at one point, but I suspect it's a drag on the balance sheet these days.
It's therefore strange that Apple feel they can simply ignore UI guidelines when they feel like it on other platforms. First it was Quicktime, then iTunes and now Safari that sport Aqua like widgets. It's not just the "brushed metal" appearance, but even the scrollbars. iTunes has a sluggish non-standard interface and part of it must be attributable to its desire to reinvent every single widget including the scrollbars.
While I think Windows users tolerated it for iTunes (since they have no choice really if they use an iPod), the same cannot be said for Safari. I think it would stand a better chance if it tried to blend in. Inflicting some horrid non-standard UI on Windows users will just see them using IE, Firefox or even Opera. Though I wouldn't put it past Apple to start bundling Safari with iTunes in future.
Perhaps this is even a stealth way for Apple to dump OS X altogether. After all, if they build Cocoa & Carbon layers on top of Windows, the ultimate question is why bother with OS X at all?
What would be REALLY COOL is if the PS2 rendered at a higher resolution, i.e. transform and render all data into 1080p graphics buffer rather than upscaling a smaller one. It wouldn't do much for bitmaps and textures but polygons would be gorgeous at 1080p. Some of the screenshots from the PCSX2 emulator show how lovely it could look. Unfortunately PCSX2 runs like a dog, but perhaps the PS3 has the capabilities to actually pull this off, at least for some games.
Obviously proper scaling is also useful for Blu-Ray. Previously it would render a movie in 1080i and leave it to the TV to downscale it to 720p (any sane HDTV handles both resolutions). Now they actually do the scaling themselves which could make the picture quality marginally better.
Amazon Unbox is as DRM infested as they come. Perhaps they've chosen to unencumber certain music tracks (no doubt to "coincide" with a price hike), but movies? No way.
No it's antiquated with sticking to a single menu when it is quite obvious that it isn't the right way. It might have been fine when Finder ran one application at a time. It isn't fine when you might have multiple applications running at once, not all of which have their windows near the top. Having to move all the way up the screen to access the menu when your window is at the bottom is a very bad design.
And closing Opening January 19, 2008. Seriously "Dungeon Siege" will have been sitting in the can for two years. Distributors are not stupid, if it was even slightly watchable it would have appeared before now.
This is true for the most part.
There are no applications for Apple computers
Of course there are apps, just not as many. Not by a long shot.
They are harder to use
I don't believe that, at least for novices. However power users may get frustrated by a UI that assumes they're a novice.
I can't get used to them
That I can believe. OS X is still antiquated in some ways such as single menu bar.
They use a 1 button mouse, what's up with that!?
Well they did until recently. Even now one senses that context menus are thrown in as an afterthought in some apps.
I don't believe Apple computers aren't more secure!
OS X has a far more sensible and secure-by-design model than XP (and Vista) but Apple computers are not more secure. Run XP or Vista via bootcamp and your Mac is as open as any other PC. Of course you could get perfectly good security on any PC by running a properly secured Linux, BSD or other *nix. Even Vista has pretty good security these days though UAC is a very annoying way to enforce it.
Today, when someone asks me what computer to buy, I tell them straight out, buy an Apple computer.
That's rather presumptive. Some people might like to play games or have some other reason that a PC is a better fit for them.
Apple's model appears to be pitch new models slightly cheaper than their rivals and then to coast until they're significantly more expensive and then repeat. Therefore if you're in the market for a laptop when a new Mac appears you might get a good value laptop otherwise no way. Within months of the first Intel Macbooks appearing you could already get comparable PC laptops for several hundred dollars less.
Funny but the hype for the Wii was massively greater than the PS3. In fact appears to be the only reason why people are getting so worked up about an ostensibly last generation system with a new controller. Sony certainly came out with some idiotic statements though.
Or if coal can be made in two weeks, they could make a killing. Everyone is looking for ways to take carbon out of the atmosphere and here they say they have a method!
The Museum of Ignorance would be more appropriate. How else to explain a museum which shuts out overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution (amongst other things) by essentially claiming "God did it". Which is a non-answer. For "God" they could substitute "a side of ham", "Elvis Presley" or anything else with as much validity. Oh but you get to ride a triceratops at the end so that makes it money well spent.