Just watch the movie
"Office Space." It is almost a documentary of my year in MCI IT. Pay special attention when they start firing people to increase stock price. Es verdad, es verdad.
Not to start (continue?) the flame war of availability of apps on one platform vs. another, but how often do people add significantly to their programming effort to port to an OS that not too many people use? You write an app for Windows, you get a potential user base of over 90% of the computers out there (assuming it functions across all the different major versions). Why add another 50% to your effort to port to Mac or Linux?
It doesn't take another 50% investment to target another platform. All your database work is already done for all platforms, all your music, etc. It's been awhile since I've seen the numbers but it's really only about 5% more to port to Mac.
Of course, the worse the original work, the harder it will be to port. Most PeeCee Windoze game coders have the programming skills of a retarded duck. At one shop I worked at, the idiots didn't even know the C Standard Library! I'm serious, they wanted to know if they had to write fopen() and printf() to port to Mac!
Of course PeeCee programmers are ignorant: look at their OS of choice!
-toddhisattva
(Full Tilt! 1 & 2, Total Annihilation)
Re:Ravages of the new economy
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
Alo Michael Dell predicted by 2005 there will be only 3 or 4 major pc comapnies and thats it.
I wouldn't bet on this guy's prognostication abilities since his history is so wrong.
My thoughts exactly. Just put up some EF-111s and EA-6Bs, and whatever UAVs we'll (speaking as an American, because we're the only people who matter;-) have by that time.
No, you're being stupid, purely stupid. If you don't want an LCD from Apple, buy a CRT from someone else. I use an NEC monitor on my Mac, and a God-Knows-What on my PeeCee.
Rant warning, hide the children....
And this is directed at the general Slashdot crowd: just what is it with you all? You pound Apple mercilessly because "you can't build it yourself" and when Apple presents you a perfect opportunity to display all that hacker talent you have, you can't figure out that you can use non-Apple CRTs. Sheesh.
End of rant. We now return you to your completely clueless hacker elite.
-toddhisattva
I would like to benchmark it against my AMD K6-2 300, single CPU, 64M of RAM and Linux-2.2.19
Glad to see someone can run Linux on a K6-2. I cannot. Don't know why, don't care, whole box will be trash soon.
However, back when I used it, with a 333MHz K6-2, to compile a pretty big project (the game Total Annihilation) with VC++ under Win98, and the same code plus porting shims with Metrowerks CodeWarrior under MacOS 8.x on a 300MHz G3, the Mac was some 40% faster.
I wasn't expecting it to be such a drastic difference. Yeah, it could be that CW is just a much better compiler than VC++ (in each and every way), but I was expecting the 100MHz FSB and UDMA HD to more than make up the difference (my 7600 has 40-50MHz FSB and SCSI HDs).
I'd expect this G4 cluster to totally whoop the asses of our K6-2 boxen!:-)
-toddhisattva
In your pathetic bloviation you neglected to mention the main reason I bought a handgun: self-defense. No, not against the US Army, but against the usual criminal.
The issue is much, much deeper than just "some damn law." It is about the right of self-defense.
I own several guns but if I had the option to vote on outlawing guns it would be a non issue.
First off, the police state types have this inconvienient problem of our written Constitution and bill of rights (which they do not have in the UK).....Oh yes. I forgot. They disarmed UK citizens. So now they have no recourse against the government at all. Notice that they seem to be taking advantage of this?
Well said!
You are my hero for today.
-toddhisattva
Re:Affect hardware sales?
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 1
Mac OS 9 is more stable than any DOS-Windows version, and more stable than NT 4.
I'm forced to use NT 4.0 here at work, and I gotta say this -- I have come to think of MacOS 9 as "that small, fast, stable OS!"
Do Microsoft, Intel, and AMD ship vast quantities of mind-altering substances with their products? (My PeeCee won't run Linux, even! PeeCee hardware is wet, warm, smelly, steaming, fresh, wet, jaundiced bullshit.) Only the drug-impaired or truly stupid could think that commodity x86 hardware/software has quality comparable to Apple's. My 7600 kicks the crap out of my ASUS/AMD, about 40% faster and the K6-2 has a 33MHz advantage over the G3.
MHz is RPM. I like horsepower.
Oh, and Compaq ships mice that are far worse than Apple's infamous "hockey puck," and mutant keyboards that have surprising incompatabilities. And Compaq's crud is priced in the same "prestige" range as Apple.
The "price wars" are over, it's a tie. When it comes to quality, Apple has lapped the competition. At the track, I'll bet on "Insanely Great" over "Same Old Crap!"
I can't fear what I can't run. For PPC 603/604 users, LinuxPPC is their only shot at stability. I refuse to buy a new system every few years because I was enough of a sucker to get a fragile proprietary box in the first place.
Then upgrade. My 7600 run OS X PB, it has an XLR8 G3/300 upgrade. Heh, under MacOS 9, it outruns my K6-2/333 under Win98.
I'd run Linux on my PeeCee, but like most shite commodity hardware, it only runs a small fraction of what its supposed to. Six Linuxes failed, including the Mandrake that was compiled for K6-2. It doesn't run BeOS, either. I guess it's that crap IBM-PC design at the heart of commodity hardware. You get what you pay for.
I have run LinuxPPC on my 7600. Who'd a-thunk it? A Mac with greater OS flexibility than a PeeCee!
Godwin's law applies only when the Nazi reference is metaphorical [snippage] Applying Godwin's Law whenever Nazis are brought up as a legitimate topic (and not as a strawman, etc.) is not in accordance with the spirit of the rule
Oh, yes it is! It's about whenever the word "Nazi" is used and you don't like it. Perhaps the argument hits too close to home. Mike made up the "law" to shut down conversations that weren't going his way.
Plain and simple. I know, I was there. He did it on my hardware!
So, the original poster correctly made fun of Godwin's Law, at least in its original spirit if not its modern whitewashed interpretation.
-Todd
More clueless Apple-bashing, believed by Slashdtrs
on
The Future Of The GUI?
·
· Score: 1
If the Mac's invention of the GUI, "put a dent in the universe" it was only by falling into a very large Xerox-shaped hole.
[...snip...]
We all like to rag journalists for being clueless and gullible....
I like to rag Apple-bashers for being clueless and gullible! You know, the simple-minded idiots love to think "Apple just copied Xerox." Their brains are just too wimpy to handle the truth.
As a public service, I am providing the whole text of an article by someone who was actually there, Bruce Horn.
-Todd
Origins of Macintosh Interface
Xerox and the Origins of the Macintosh Interface
by Bruce Horn bruce.horn@alumni.cs.cmu.edu
About Bruce:
Any number of people will try to tell you about the origins of the
Macintosh, but Bruce Horn was one of the people who made it happen. From
1973 to 1981, Bruce was a student in the Learning Research Group at Xerox,
where Smalltalk, an interactive, object- oriented programming language, was
developed. While there, he worked on various projects including the
NoteTaker, a portable Smalltalk machine, and wrote the initial Dorado
Smalltalk microcode for Smalltalk-76. At the Central Institute for
Industrial Research in Oslo, Norway, in 1980, he ported Smalltalk- 78 to an
8086 machine, the Mycron-2000.
At Apple (1981-1984), Bruce's contributions included the design and
implementation of the Resource Manager, the Dialog Manager and the Finder
(with implementation help from Steve Capps). He was also responsible for the
type framework for documents, applications, and clipboard data, and a number
of system-level design decisions. Since then, Bruce consulted on a variety
of projects in the late 1980's at Apple and received a Ph.D. in Computer
Science from Carnegie-Mellon University in 1993. He continues to work as a
computer science consultant with Apple and other companies.
Where It All Began
For more than a decade now, I've listened to the debate about where the
Macintosh user interface came from. Most people assume it came directly from
Xerox, after Steve Jobs went to visit Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research
Center). This "fact" is reported over and over, by people who don't know
better (and also by people who should!). Unfortunately, it just isn't true
-- there are some similarities between the Apple interface and the various
interfaces on Xerox systems, but the differences are substantial.
Steve did see Smalltalk when he visited PARC. He saw the Smalltalk
integrated programming environment, with the mouse selecting text, pop-up
menus, windows, and so on. The Lisa group at Apple built a system based on
their own ideas combined with what they could remember from the Smalltalk
demo, and the Mac folks built yet another system. There is a significant
difference between using the Mac and Smalltalk.
Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file
manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts:
resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international
information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system
extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct
manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant
typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk
accessories; and control panels, among others. The Lisa group invented some
fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing
models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable
software.
Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the
Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have
self-repairing windows -- you had to click in them to get them to repaint,
and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows. Bill Atkinson
did not know this, so he invented regions as the basis of QuickDraw and the
Window Manager so that he could quickly draw in covered windows and repaint
portions of windows brought to the front. One Macintosh feature identical to
a Smalltalk feature is selection-based modeless text editing with cut and
paste, which was created by Larry Tesler for his Gypsy editor at PARC.
As you may be gathering, the difference between the Xerox system
architectures and Macintosh architecture is huge; much bigger than the
difference between the Mac and Windows. It's not surprising, since Microsoft
saw quite a bit of the Macintosh design (API's, sample code, etc.) during
the Mac's development from 1981 to 1984; the intention was to help them
write applications for the Mac, and it also gave their system designers a
template from which to design Windows. In contrast, the Mac and Lisa
designers had to invent their own architectures. Of course, there were some
ex- Xerox people in the Lisa and Mac groups, but the design point for these
machines was so different that we didn't leverage our knowledge of the Xerox
systems as much as some people think.
The hardware itself was an amazing step forward as well. It offered an
all-in-one design, four-voice sound, small footprint, clock, auto-eject
floppies, serial ports, and so on. The small, portable, appealing case was a
serious departure from the ugly- box-on-an-ugly-box PC world, thanks to
Jerry Manock and his crew. Even the packaging showed amazing creativity and
passion -- do any of you remember unpacking an original 128K Mac? The Mac,
the unpacking instructions, the profusely-illustrated and beautifully-
written manuals, and the animated practice program with audio cassette were
tastefully packaged in a cardboard box with Picasso- style graphics on the
side.
Looking Back
In my opinion, the software architectures developed at Xerox for Smalltalk
and the Xerox Star were significantly more advanced than either the Mac or
Windows. The Star was a tremendous accomplishment, with features that
current systems haven't even started to implement, though I see OpenDoc as a
strong advance past the Xerox systems. I have great respect for the amazing
computer scientists at Xerox PARC, who led the way with innovations we all
take for granted now, and from whom I learned a tremendous amount about
software design.
Apple could have developed a more complex, sophisticated system rivaling the
Xerox architectures. But the Mac had to ship, and it had to be relatively
inexpensive -- we couldn't afford the time or expense of the "best possible"
design. As a "little brother" to the Lisa, the Macintosh didn't have
multitasking or protection -- we didn't have space for the extra code or
stack required. The original Macintosh had extremely tight memory and disk
constraints; for example, the Resource Manager took up less than 3,000 bytes
of code in the ROM, and the Finder was only 46K on disk. We made many design
decisions that we regretted to some extent - even at the time some of us
felt disappointed at the compromises we had to make -- but if we had done it
differently, would we have shipped at all?
The Past and Future
In many ways, the computing world has made remarkably small advances since
1976, and we continually reinvent the wheel. Smalltalk had a nice bytecoded
multi-platform virtual machine long before Java. Object oriented programming
is the hot thing now, and it's almost 30 years old (see the Simula-67
language). Environments have not progressed much either: I feel the
Smalltalk environments from the late 1970's are the most pleasant, cleanest,
fastest, and smoothest programming environments I have ever used. Although
CodeWarrior is reasonably good for C++ development, I haven't seen anything
that compares favorably to the Smalltalk systems I used almost 20 years ago.
The Smalltalk systems of today aren't as clean, easy to use, or well-
designed as the originals, in my opinion.
We are not even close to the ultimate computing-information- communication
device. We have much more work to do on system architectures and user
interfaces. In particular, user interface design must be driven by deep
architectural issues and not just new graphical appearances; interfaces are
structure, not image. Neither Copland nor Windows 95 (nor NT, for that
matter) represent the last word on operating systems. Unfortunately, market
forces are slowing the development of the next revolution. Still, I think
you can count on Apple being the company bringing these improvements to next
generation systems.
I'm sure some things I remember as having originated at Apple were
independently developed elsewhere. But the Mac brought them to the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, if Unix isn't function enough for you, what the hell is?
Just watch the movie
"Office Space." It is almost a documentary of my year in MCI IT. Pay special attention when they start firing people to increase stock price. Es verdad, es verdad.
Etherlessnet
compare:
"I could be wrong, but I'm not" -Don Henley
Please show your work. Most Mac vs. PeeCee price comparisons are full of guesstimates, and therefore worthless. This goes for both sides.
It doesn't take another 50% investment to target another platform. All your database work is already done for all platforms, all your music, etc. It's been awhile since I've seen the numbers but it's really only about 5% more to port to Mac.
Of course, the worse the original work, the harder it will be to port. Most PeeCee Windoze game coders have the programming skills of a retarded duck. At one shop I worked at, the idiots didn't even know the C Standard Library! I'm serious, they wanted to know if they had to write fopen() and printf() to port to Mac!
Of course PeeCee programmers are ignorant: look at their OS of choice!
-toddhisattva
(Full Tilt! 1 & 2, Total Annihilation)
I wouldn't bet on this guy's prognostication abilities since his history is so wrong.
"Michael Dull" us folks here in Austin calls him!
Counter-counter-counter-countermeasures!
-toddhisattva
No, you're being stupid, purely stupid. If you don't want an LCD from Apple, buy a CRT from someone else. I use an NEC monitor on my Mac, and a God-Knows-What on my PeeCee.
Rant warning, hide the children....
And this is directed at the general Slashdot crowd: just what is it with you all? You pound Apple mercilessly because "you can't build it yourself" and when Apple presents you a perfect opportunity to display all that hacker talent you have, you can't figure out that you can use non-Apple CRTs. Sheesh.
End of rant. We now return you to your completely clueless hacker elite.
-toddhisattva
Glad to see someone can run Linux on a K6-2. I cannot. Don't know why, don't care, whole box will be trash soon.
However, back when I used it, with a 333MHz K6-2, to compile a pretty big project (the game Total Annihilation) with VC++ under Win98, and the same code plus porting shims with Metrowerks CodeWarrior under MacOS 8.x on a 300MHz G3, the Mac was some 40% faster.
I wasn't expecting it to be such a drastic difference. Yeah, it could be that CW is just a much better compiler than VC++ (in each and every way), but I was expecting the 100MHz FSB and UDMA HD to more than make up the difference (my 7600 has 40-50MHz FSB and SCSI HDs).
I'd expect this G4 cluster to totally whoop the asses of our K6-2 boxen! :-)
-toddhisattva
The issue is much, much deeper than just "some damn law." It is about the right of self-defense.
I own several guns but if I had the option to vote on outlawing guns it would be a non issue.
Hypocrite. Scum.
"If any of you are still white, we have the cure." -Arthur C. Clarke
http://www.google.com/search?q=Common+Hardware+Ref erence+Platform&btnG=Google+Search
Google for CHRP yourself.
While not as open as some goatse.cx GNU/FSF weenies would like, it is an open architecture that anyone can build.
But do not trust my memory on this! Use the Google link above.
-Todd
There are reasons FBI agents are called "Feebs." This is one of them.
This reminds me of the pathetic SS (Schutzstaffel) harassment of Steve Jackson Games: Dumb people with power.
"Power tends to corrupt. Stupidity tends to speed the process."
-toddhisattva
Well said!
You are my hero for today.
-toddhisattva
I'm forced to use NT 4.0 here at work, and I gotta say this -- I have come to think of MacOS 9 as "that small, fast, stable OS!"
Do Microsoft, Intel, and AMD ship vast quantities of mind-altering substances with their products? (My PeeCee won't run Linux, even! PeeCee hardware is wet, warm, smelly, steaming, fresh, wet, jaundiced bullshit.) Only the drug-impaired or truly stupid could think that commodity x86 hardware/software has quality comparable to Apple's. My 7600 kicks the crap out of my ASUS/AMD, about 40% faster and the K6-2 has a 33MHz advantage over the G3.
MHz is RPM. I like horsepower.
Oh, and Compaq ships mice that are far worse than Apple's infamous "hockey puck," and mutant keyboards that have surprising incompatabilities. And Compaq's crud is priced in the same "prestige" range as Apple.
The "price wars" are over, it's a tie. When it comes to quality, Apple has lapped the competition. At the track, I'll bet on "Insanely Great" over "Same Old Crap!"
-toddhisattva
Fuckwits.
You are then less than fuckwit.
From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
aesthetic or esthetic (s-thtk) adj.
1. Relating to the philosophy or theories of aesthetics. 2. Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the aesthetic faculties
[....]
Apple: way smarter than their critics!
Then upgrade. My 7600 run OS X PB, it has an XLR8 G3/300 upgrade. Heh, under MacOS 9, it outruns my K6-2/333 under Win98.
I'd run Linux on my PeeCee, but like most shite commodity hardware, it only runs a small fraction of what its supposed to. Six Linuxes failed, including the Mandrake that was compiled for K6-2. It doesn't run BeOS, either. I guess it's that crap IBM-PC design at the heart of commodity hardware. You get what you pay for.
I have run LinuxPPC on my 7600. Who'd a-thunk it? A Mac with greater OS flexibility than a PeeCee!
-Todd
Or at least acts like he is.
-T
Of course SCSI and FireWire could be polluted with such CP crud.
-Todd
Oh, anyone else notice what a sad shit site Rabtech runs? Intense ignorance! If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny. Maybe it is a parody?
Oh, yes it is! It's about whenever the word "Nazi" is used and you don't like it. Perhaps the argument hits too close to home. Mike made up the "law" to shut down conversations that weren't going his way.
Plain and simple. I know, I was there. He did it on my hardware!
So, the original poster correctly made fun of Godwin's Law, at least in its original spirit if not its modern whitewashed interpretation.
-Todd
[...snip...] We all like to rag journalists for being clueless and gullible....
I like to rag Apple-bashers for being clueless and gullible! You know, the simple-minded idiots love to think "Apple just copied Xerox." Their brains are just too wimpy to handle the truth.
As a public service, I am providing the whole text of an article by someone who was actually there, Bruce Horn.
-Todd
Origins of Macintosh Interface
Xerox and the Origins of the Macintosh Interface
by Bruce Horn bruce.horn@alumni.cs.cmu.edu
About Bruce:
Any number of people will try to tell you about the origins of the Macintosh, but Bruce Horn was one of the people who made it happen. From 1973 to 1981, Bruce was a student in the Learning Research Group at Xerox, where Smalltalk, an interactive, object- oriented programming language, was developed. While there, he worked on various projects including the NoteTaker, a portable Smalltalk machine, and wrote the initial Dorado Smalltalk microcode for Smalltalk-76. At the Central Institute for Industrial Research in Oslo, Norway, in 1980, he ported Smalltalk- 78 to an 8086 machine, the Mycron-2000.
At Apple (1981-1984), Bruce's contributions included the design and implementation of the Resource Manager, the Dialog Manager and the Finder (with implementation help from Steve Capps). He was also responsible for the type framework for documents, applications, and clipboard data, and a number of system-level design decisions. Since then, Bruce consulted on a variety of projects in the late 1980's at Apple and received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Carnegie-Mellon University in 1993. He continues to work as a computer science consultant with Apple and other companies.
Where It All BeganFor more than a decade now, I've listened to the debate about where the Macintosh user interface came from. Most people assume it came directly from Xerox, after Steve Jobs went to visit Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). This "fact" is reported over and over, by people who don't know better (and also by people who should!). Unfortunately, it just isn't true -- there are some similarities between the Apple interface and the various interfaces on Xerox systems, but the differences are substantial.
Steve did see Smalltalk when he visited PARC. He saw the Smalltalk integrated programming environment, with the mouse selecting text, pop-up menus, windows, and so on. The Lisa group at Apple built a system based on their own ideas combined with what they could remember from the Smalltalk demo, and the Mac folks built yet another system. There is a significant difference between using the Mac and Smalltalk.
Smalltalk has no Finder, and no need for one, really. Drag-and- drop file manipulation came from the Mac group, along with many other unique concepts: resources and dual-fork files for storing layout and international information apart from code; definition procedures; drag-and-drop system extension and configuration; types and creators for files; direct manipulation editing of document, disk, and application names; redundant typed data for the clipboard; multiple views of the file system; desk accessories; and control panels, among others. The Lisa group invented some fundamental concepts as well: pull down menus, the imaging and windowing models based on QuickDraw, the clipboard, and cleanly internationalizable software.
Smalltalk had a three-button mouse and pop-up menus, in contrast to the Mac's menu bar and one-button mouse. Smalltalk didn't even have self-repairing windows -- you had to click in them to get them to repaint, and programs couldn't draw into partially obscured windows. Bill Atkinson did not know this, so he invented regions as the basis of QuickDraw and the Window Manager so that he could quickly draw in covered windows and repaint portions of windows brought to the front. One Macintosh feature identical to a Smalltalk feature is selection-based modeless text editing with cut and paste, which was created by Larry Tesler for his Gypsy editor at PARC.
As you may be gathering, the difference between the Xerox system architectures and Macintosh architecture is huge; much bigger than the difference between the Mac and Windows. It's not surprising, since Microsoft saw quite a bit of the Macintosh design (API's, sample code, etc.) during the Mac's development from 1981 to 1984; the intention was to help them write applications for the Mac, and it also gave their system designers a template from which to design Windows. In contrast, the Mac and Lisa designers had to invent their own architectures. Of course, there were some ex- Xerox people in the Lisa and Mac groups, but the design point for these machines was so different that we didn't leverage our knowledge of the Xerox systems as much as some people think.
The hardware itself was an amazing step forward as well. It offered an all-in-one design, four-voice sound, small footprint, clock, auto-eject floppies, serial ports, and so on. The small, portable, appealing case was a serious departure from the ugly- box-on-an-ugly-box PC world, thanks to Jerry Manock and his crew. Even the packaging showed amazing creativity and passion -- do any of you remember unpacking an original 128K Mac? The Mac, the unpacking instructions, the profusely-illustrated and beautifully- written manuals, and the animated practice program with audio cassette were tastefully packaged in a cardboard box with Picasso- style graphics on the side. Looking Back
In my opinion, the software architectures developed at Xerox for Smalltalk and the Xerox Star were significantly more advanced than either the Mac or Windows. The Star was a tremendous accomplishment, with features that current systems haven't even started to implement, though I see OpenDoc as a strong advance past the Xerox systems. I have great respect for the amazing computer scientists at Xerox PARC, who led the way with innovations we all take for granted now, and from whom I learned a tremendous amount about software design.
Apple could have developed a more complex, sophisticated system rivaling the Xerox architectures. But the Mac had to ship, and it had to be relatively inexpensive -- we couldn't afford the time or expense of the "best possible" design. As a "little brother" to the Lisa, the Macintosh didn't have multitasking or protection -- we didn't have space for the extra code or stack required. The original Macintosh had extremely tight memory and disk constraints; for example, the Resource Manager took up less than 3,000 bytes of code in the ROM, and the Finder was only 46K on disk. We made many design decisions that we regretted to some extent - even at the time some of us felt disappointed at the compromises we had to make -- but if we had done it differently, would we have shipped at all?
The Past and FutureIn many ways, the computing world has made remarkably small advances since 1976, and we continually reinvent the wheel. Smalltalk had a nice bytecoded multi-platform virtual machine long before Java. Object oriented programming is the hot thing now, and it's almost 30 years old (see the Simula-67 language). Environments have not progressed much either: I feel the Smalltalk environments from the late 1970's are the most pleasant, cleanest, fastest, and smoothest programming environments I have ever used. Although CodeWarrior is reasonably good for C++ development, I haven't seen anything that compares favorably to the Smalltalk systems I used almost 20 years ago. The Smalltalk systems of today aren't as clean, easy to use, or well- designed as the originals, in my opinion.
We are not even close to the ultimate computing-information- communication device. We have much more work to do on system architectures and user interfaces. In particular, user interface design must be driven by deep architectural issues and not just new graphical appearances; interfaces are structure, not image. Neither Copland nor Windows 95 (nor NT, for that matter) represent the last word on operating systems. Unfortunately, market forces are slowing the development of the next revolution. Still, I think you can count on Apple being the company bringing these improvements to next generation systems.
I'm sure some things I remember as having originated at Apple were independently developed elsewhere. But the Mac brought them to the world.
Nope, it's Mach.
-Todd
-Todd
This just has to have something to do with the P4 "running too fast." Like MacOS requiring more instructions/clock rather than MHz bloviation.
-toddhisattva