Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.
That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get.NET 3.0 applications up and running and enough new machines with Vista pre-installed, that would be the time to upgrade.
Microsoft is pushing on having at least some of this work cross platform (horribly flawed at the moment, but it is a start): WPF/E
I agree it's a problem that it is proprietary, but there's no reason an open source effort can't take the ideas behind it and run with it. Mono is a pretty darn good CLR/C# implementation for Linux. It doesn't cover the entire.NET Framework, but the language features are there. IronPython runs on it, etc. Many OSS people can't comprehend the idea of taking Microsoft's APIs and running with them, but it seems like taking XAML to the next level on OSS would be a worthwhile effort.
Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good.
Right... because PC blogging enthusiasts are currently running XP on a machine with a Geforce 2 and Pentium II.
Unless you haven't bought a PC since XP came out, Vista's requirements aren't horribly high. You can run it just fine on most PCs that are out there. I run it on 3 year old PCs and a 5 year old laptop all the time. On the ancient laptop, it doesn't run Aero, but it still runs fine.
For both points, I think you're looking for what XAML offers. C# as the scripting language, rounded corners / shapes with real primitives. XAML intro
BTW, Javascript only recently became this "beloved" language when Google started using it. People did not take it seriously before then, it was mostly a language just to embed another applet or provide a little bit of verification. Certainly people weren't writing 25,000 lines of Javascript code before this. As others have said, the only thing JS has going for it is ubiquity. It will be ditched at the earliest convenient time, making it the COBOL of this generation.
Does this mark the beginning of the end for SOAP or for ubiquitous middleware in general?"
Microsoft's tools make it so easy to use SOAP that it would be foolish to say it's "the end of SOAP." While Microsoft only has 31% of web servers out there in the wild (according to Netcraft), I'm sure internal corporate web efforts are 50%-50% Microsoft or better. ASP.NET 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 are an amazing combination for writing web services using SOAP (as other posters have noted)
So, no, SOAP is not going away. Besides, who was building businesses around Google's SOAP API? Certainly not Google.
What does their internal software look like? Are they actually writing their business applications in Objective-C, or are they writing something with a bit of cross-platform safety in it, like QT?
"94% of corporate PCs are not ready for Vista Premium Edition"
This analysis must be right, because there is no Vista Premium Edition. Outside of Home editions, there's only Business and Ultimate.
I've been running Business and Ultimate for a while, on machines with 512M-2G of RAM, and haven't had issues on any configuration. I install it because I'm a chronic early adopter and because I work for a software company.
Anyway, like home users, businesses will upgrade as they buy more machines that have Vista pre-installed. No new news here.
Seriously, I heard this exact same argument when I was working on my first HD commercial circa 2000. One of the post guys claimed that just having digital SD would be good enough. Well, fast forward to 2006. The equipment has all been purchased by broadcasters and post houses. Today transferring film in HD costs the same as it does to transfer SD. Consumers love HD broadcasting.
The reason HD is a good deal has nothing to do with asking advertisers to spend more on HD programming -- it's because viewers will watch your shows when they're in high-def. Do you think people go out to buy $2000 TVs and not watch them? Note that very few prime time shows are broadcast in SD anymore. Why? People will just turn it off if it's in SD. For once, the consumer holds the power. We are buying HDTVs and telling the broadcasters to provide us with HD content or else. Yay for the consumer, bad for Canadian broadcasters that don't get this concept.
No, actually. Apple includes all of the older GCC libraries so you can run apps all the way back to 10.0.
Ok, good to know my information was incorrect on that (haven't used MacOS X since 10.1).
Though, the point remains. Microsoft has a far greater breadth of concerns to address when upgrading Windows compared to what Apple has to cope with when upgrading MacOS. For starters, their customer bases are completely different in size and needs.
Not to troll, and its nice that Windows users are getting these features, but how come no one ever calls MS out on the fact that Vista is basically still playing catch up to OS X,
Not only do people point that out every day, but they fail to point out that Apple has a lot less to worry about when it comes to upgrades and their existing customer base. Didn't they basically break tons of apps with the 10.2 or 10.3 upgrade by switching GCC versions? Yeah, like Microsoft could get away with that!
Microsoft has to upgrade their software to fit the needs of hunderds of millions of business customers. How many Fortune 500 companies are completely built around MacOS X? It's not hard to innovate when your primary money source is selling to home users who want cool 'gadgets' on their desktop, rather than support the OS of businesses with 50,000 employees they've trained up with a bunch of custom IE/intranet, Win32,.NET apps, etc.
I think what the Wikipedia author meant there is that EA did not support Xbox Live for at least a couple years after it came out. I think either Madden 2004 or 2005 was the first version that had XBL, whereas Madden 2003 was the first on PS2.
> The other problem is if you have separate partitions but use HFS+ for OSX, once you
> boot OS9 it mounts your OSX partition and sees its not really MacOS and deblesses it! making
> OSX unbootable.
To boot back into OS X from OS 9, you have to use the System Disk 3.3 that they included with OS X. It's in the OS X partition under the Mac OS 9 folder. Run that and you'll be fine. If you had some other kind of issue, you may try running Classic from OS X to set up OS 9 with the new extensions.
As far as I can tell, you're fine with HFS+ for your OS X partition, save case insensitivity if you care about that sort of thing.
Regarding the original question, you can do this on most machines. As another poster mentioned, you may have some issues with brand new machines and Linux. You'll have to make 4 partitions, MacOS 9, X, Linux and Linux Swap partitions. Then use BootX from OS 9 when you want to run Linux, SystemDisk 3.3 from OS 9 to run OS X.
Frankly, if you're looking for Linux, why install OS X at all on this machine? Just install OS 9 and Linux. If you're looking for any decent UNIX, then just install Mac OS X, I think you'll find most UNIX packages have been ported (except that nasty X-Windows stuff:-)).
The reason MV48 is being pushed by DPs (cinematographers) is because they can become obsolete in the filmmaking process. Once you have a color-correct HD monitor connected to a digital camera, why would you need a DP? The DP just becomes a "lighting supervisor", which I'm sure gaffers can handle. No need to worry about what you'll see in dailies tomorrow... that playback will be your final image.
Digital is inevitable because it simplifies the process. MV48 just makes it more complex. Like Linux or Blair Witch Project, eventually a cheap, high quality digital film will be made and make a lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.
.NET 3.0 applications up and running and enough new machines with Vista pre-installed, that would be the time to upgrade.
That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get
Microsoft is pushing on having at least some of this work cross platform (horribly flawed at the moment, but it is a start): WPF/E
.NET Framework, but the language features are there. IronPython runs on it, etc. Many OSS people can't comprehend the idea of taking Microsoft's APIs and running with them, but it seems like taking XAML to the next level on OSS would be a worthwhile effort.
I agree it's a problem that it is proprietary, but there's no reason an open source effort can't take the ideas behind it and run with it. Mono is a pretty darn good CLR/C# implementation for Linux. It doesn't cover the entire
Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good.
Right... because PC blogging enthusiasts are currently running XP on a machine with a Geforce 2 and Pentium II.
Unless you haven't bought a PC since XP came out, Vista's requirements aren't horribly high. You can run it just fine on most PCs that are out there. I run it on 3 year old PCs and a 5 year old laptop all the time. On the ancient laptop, it doesn't run Aero, but it still runs fine.
Whatever. I'm a modern 36 year old geek, I don't have a TV. I watch 'computer'. No VGA/DVI == not my console.
Wow, you sound exactly like the average consumer!
For both points, I think you're looking for what XAML offers. C# as the scripting language, rounded corners / shapes with real primitives. XAML intro
BTW, Javascript only recently became this "beloved" language when Google started using it. People did not take it seriously before then, it was mostly a language just to embed another applet or provide a little bit of verification. Certainly people weren't writing 25,000 lines of Javascript code before this. As others have said, the only thing JS has going for it is ubiquity. It will be ditched at the earliest convenient time, making it the COBOL of this generation.
Does this mark the beginning of the end for SOAP or for ubiquitous middleware in general?"
Microsoft's tools make it so easy to use SOAP that it would be foolish to say it's "the end of SOAP." While Microsoft only has 31% of web servers out there in the wild (according to Netcraft), I'm sure internal corporate web efforts are 50%-50% Microsoft or better. ASP.NET 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 are an amazing combination for writing web services using SOAP (as other posters have noted)
So, no, SOAP is not going away. Besides, who was building businesses around Google's SOAP API? Certainly not Google.
I don't know for sure, but Omnicom group would be a good candidate. Advertisers I've known over the years almost exclusively use Macintosh.
What does their internal software look like? Are they actually writing their business applications in Objective-C, or are they writing something with a bit of cross-platform safety in it, like QT?
... make it run on any beige PC?
The more Apple moves into consumer electronics, the more this just makes sense.
"94% of corporate PCs are not ready for Vista Premium Edition"
This analysis must be right, because there is no Vista Premium Edition. Outside of Home editions, there's only Business and Ultimate.
I've been running Business and Ultimate for a while, on machines with 512M-2G of RAM, and haven't had issues on any configuration. I install it because I'm a chronic early adopter and because I work for a software company.
Anyway, like home users, businesses will upgrade as they buy more machines that have Vista pre-installed. No new news here.
Seriously, I heard this exact same argument when I was working on my first HD commercial circa 2000. One of the post guys claimed that just having digital SD would be good enough. Well, fast forward to 2006. The equipment has all been purchased by broadcasters and post houses. Today transferring film in HD costs the same as it does to transfer SD. Consumers love HD broadcasting.
The reason HD is a good deal has nothing to do with asking advertisers to spend more on HD programming -- it's because viewers will watch your shows when they're in high-def. Do you think people go out to buy $2000 TVs and not watch them? Note that very few prime time shows are broadcast in SD anymore. Why? People will just turn it off if it's in SD. For once, the consumer holds the power. We are buying HDTVs and telling the broadcasters to provide us with HD content or else. Yay for the consumer, bad for Canadian broadcasters that don't get this concept.
This is news? $4500 of computers being stolen is national, no ... international IT news worthy of the front page of Slashdot?
By limiting all their cars to only go 45 MPH.
No, actually. Apple includes all of the older GCC libraries so you can run apps all the way back to 10.0.
Ok, good to know my information was incorrect on that (haven't used MacOS X since 10.1).
Though, the point remains. Microsoft has a far greater breadth of concerns to address when upgrading Windows compared to what Apple has to cope with when upgrading MacOS. For starters, their customer bases are completely different in size and needs.
Not to troll, and its nice that Windows users are getting these features, but how come no one ever calls MS out on the fact that Vista is basically still playing catch up to OS X,
.NET apps, etc.
Not only do people point that out every day, but they fail to point out that Apple has a lot less to worry about when it comes to upgrades and their existing customer base. Didn't they basically break tons of apps with the 10.2 or 10.3 upgrade by switching GCC versions? Yeah, like Microsoft could get away with that! Microsoft has to upgrade their software to fit the needs of hunderds of millions of business customers. How many Fortune 500 companies are completely built around MacOS X? It's not hard to innovate when your primary money source is selling to home users who want cool 'gadgets' on their desktop, rather than support the OS of businesses with 50,000 employees they've trained up with a bunch of custom IE/intranet, Win32,
I think what the Wikipedia author meant there is that EA did not support Xbox Live for at least a couple years after it came out. I think either Madden 2004 or 2005 was the first version that had XBL, whereas Madden 2003 was the first on PS2.
It appears they want to make the money back selling the games
You mean kind of like every console developer has done since Atari?
> The other problem is if you have separate partitions but use HFS+ for OSX, once you
:-)).
> boot OS9 it mounts your OSX partition and sees its not really MacOS and deblesses it! making
> OSX unbootable.
To boot back into OS X from OS 9, you have to use the System Disk 3.3 that they included with OS X. It's in the OS X partition under the Mac OS 9 folder. Run that and you'll be fine. If you had some other kind of issue, you may try running Classic from OS X to set up OS 9 with the new extensions.
As far as I can tell, you're fine with HFS+ for your OS X partition, save case insensitivity if you care about that sort of thing.
Regarding the original question, you can do this on most machines. As another poster mentioned, you may have some issues with brand new machines and Linux. You'll have to make 4 partitions, MacOS 9, X, Linux and Linux Swap partitions. Then use BootX from OS 9 when you want to run Linux, SystemDisk 3.3 from OS 9 to run OS X.
Frankly, if you're looking for Linux, why install OS X at all on this machine? Just install OS 9 and Linux. If you're looking for any decent UNIX, then just install Mac OS X, I think you'll find most UNIX packages have been ported (except that nasty X-Windows stuff
Hope this helps, Chris, posting from MacOS X
So develop using Carbon in C/C++ or Cocoa using Java. By no means do you have to use ObjC -- at least for now.
The reason MV48 is being pushed by DPs (cinematographers) is because they can become obsolete in the filmmaking process. Once you have a color-correct HD monitor connected to a digital camera, why would you need a DP? The DP just becomes a "lighting supervisor", which I'm sure gaffers can handle. No need to worry about what you'll see in dailies tomorrow... that playback will be your final image.
Digital is inevitable because it simplifies the process. MV48 just makes it more complex. Like Linux or Blair Witch Project, eventually a cheap, high quality digital film will be made and make a lot of money.