I tried OS X 10.1 on my Rev A imac (233 MHz G3, with 160 MB RAM), which is to Apples spec as to what machines are supported and recommended, and found it to be unusably slow... Running native applications as well as classic apps, it was just useless.
I just checked out one of the new LCD imacs the other day, and found it to be running OS X at quite acceptable speeds... OS X seems great on a machine with the actual horsepower to run it, but apples recommended configuration is too lenient.
So, chalk another onto the list of why peopel aren't upgrading... Their computers aren't up to OS X's requirements.
And many publishing companys aren't moving to OS X until Quark is availalbe... Though some are so excited about OS X, that they're checking out Adobe's Indesign to see if it could be ready to steal Quarks thunder...
The centris 650 was identical to the quadra 650, except that it had a 25 MHz, FPU less CPU (68LC040) versus the 650's 33 MHz full fledged CPU (68040).
The Centris 660 AV was identical to the the Quadra 660 AV (including A/V circuitry).
The Centris 610 was again, identical to the Quadra 610, except again, in the 650's case, it simply used a slower (20 MHz) FPU less CPU versus the 25 MHz full CPU of the Quadra 610...
You must be comparing the Centris 610 to the Quadra 660 AV in your mind... (a quadra without all the AV stuff). But there were equivalent models across the board...
Since IRIX is no longer being supported (from what I hear)
Prior to saying something like that, try visiting SGI?
In their workstation section, most offerings are MIPS/IRIX machines, with one Itanium/Linux thrown in to boot... as far as their servers go, it's all MIPS/IRIX.
Far from being "unsupported".... It's still SGI's lifeblood (the IRIX/MIPS combiniation)
As an animator, I can tell you that I'm really excited about studios moving over to Linux. What's great about Linux is that you can run it on any platform.
You might want to brush up a little... Just because something runs on Linux, doesn't mean it'll run on the version of Linux that's available for your platform.
In general, it seems that when a developer announces a port to Linux, that usually means Linux on an x86 platform.
So, as much as i'd like to see Apple get the hardware sale, you'd better make certain that the applications are available for your particular flavor/platform prior to rushing out and buying a spanking new powerbook G4, or whatever their next latest-and-greatest laptop happens to be...
It would be interesting, if it'd been written and posted in 1992, rather than 2002.
I don't know who i'm most disappointed in.
A - Tweaktown, for posting such an inane article in the first place B - MrTweak, for relaying it to slashot. Of course, he probably wrote it. C - Hemos for posting it.
I mean really... the whole thing reeks of MrTweak wanting more site traffic and turning to slashdot with a story about anything to get it. Like "oh my god, i didn't know i could COMPRESS graphics?"
Proposal to slash: never accept submissions from people with obvious links to the article in question...
I just realized that my 28 seconds were mostly likely skewed by the fact that i'm also running limewire and AIM on the iMac, which is dutifully saving it's downloads to the XP computers drive (Via DAVE). So, there's a few other processes going on, plus a bunch of network stuff that may or may not affect it all.
Still, if i dared cancel limewire, i could probably must a better figure for page loading, but i'd rather not...
Which browser are you using? IE for the Mac (under OS 9 and OS X) has problems with complicated tables; it will take minutes (yes, minutes) to render moderately sized Slashot pages. OmniWeb, Opera, iCab, Chimera, all return the same page in seconds.
Somethings wrong with your setup, then... My iMac (Rev. A, 233 MHz G3, 160 MB RAM, 8.7 MB allocated to IE 5.1 on MacOS 9.2.2) took 28 seconds to render this page (as it stood, 283 comments at my threshold (1) out of 426 comments being displayed).
Yes, it's still a far cry from my WinXP box (Athlon 750, 128 MB RAM, yes, this one too is getting a little long in tooth), hence i'm posting from the XP box, though mostly for love of the larger monitor). But it's not nearly as bad as you make the situation out to be.
I guess we come from 2 different schools of thought on this one...
If you buy software, you acquire assets. That's fine on the balance sheet, cash goes down, assets go up. This is neat in that it doesn't show a cost, but bad in that you lost cash.
Cash is not the all powerful thing... IF you have the extra cash, it's perfectly reasonable to use it for capital investments, which is what acquiring assets is.
It's my sense from all that, that your primary goal is to pay as little taxes as possible... And hoard as much cash as possible at the same time. I don't think that's appropriate for most businesses.
Spend the cash, you end up with assets on your balance sheet which will look good if you need to solicit credit or investment to grow your business. If all your company has to show for anything is a fat bank balance, no one will think that you have much staying power, and hence will be much more wary of giving out money in one form or another.
And if you're concerned with taxes, then the depreciation expense could be seen as a "bonus", in that it's (in your theory), $4000 a year more business you can do without having to pay tax on... Short term vs. Long Term, i guess... If you don't feel comfortable having you cash tied up in licenses, and you arent' using them, you can always turn around and sell them down the line (see below).
Keep in mind with software licenses, you can't really sell them, so you make your balance sheets look artificial when you show these terrific assets...
i've had no problems selling software licenses across the years... If i don't use a particular program, or any program which ownership of that program is mandatory (upgrades and/or competitive upgrades), i have found absolutely no issue i selling a license to someone who wants it. There hasn't seemed to have been any clauses against it in any of the EULA's i've read.
We just differ... I've worked for a company for instance in the past that needed to turn over it's balance sheets to a potential client, so that they could determine if we'd have the staying power to support a project we were bidding on...
It's all 2 schools of thought. I'm sure if we asked the rest of slashdot we'd get 250,000 more schools of thought to add to the pool...
What exactly is the difference between an XML file and Apaches.conf files? All i can figure is that the XML file will have a bunch of useless tags laying about.
I don't know, I like their current configuration - text with wordy descriptions of what each setting does.
I also think that XML is the biggest crock to survive the dotcom days... It's just not nearly as wonderous as the world presumes, i don't think. Maybe your experience has been different, but you can basically do anything with good, well formed data, and do nothing with bad data. It doesn't matter the format if the contents are garbage.
IIS can be made just as secure as Apache, and those that think it's security is flawed are doing nothing but showing their ignorance of the product.
I think, as others have probably pointed out, you're showing your ignorance. The problems with IIS aren't just the registry settings, that you can fix. They're in the coding, that Microsoft has to fix. Sometimes, hackers are kind enough to give Microsoft notice of the exploit prior to announcing it's existance to the world. Other times they're not. And there's nothing that you, Joe End-User, can do about it.
Yes, holes will probably be found in Apache, but with every mention of a hole will probably be a mentioning of a fix.
IIS just has such a lame security history compared to Apache, that shouldn't be an arguing point. If you like IIS, just say so. But acknowledge the facts.
I've already paid for the OS license, and I get IIS for free with it whether I use it or not.
You can also get Apache for free, whether you purchased an OS license or not... With all the words mentioning it, aren't you in the slightest bit curious as to what all the hype is about? The last version you checked out was a completely experimental release... This one is ready for prime time consumption...
When you purchase software licenses, you are making a capital purchase, that will take at least 3 (and often 5) to depreciate. So the cash all flows out at once, but you have to write it out over 3 years.
It's been a while since i took accounting (in high school), but i'm a little confused, none the less. You make it sound as though purchasing assets is a bad thing to do. The don't, assets increase the networth of your company.
The depreciation expense, again, isn't so bad... This isn't the dotcom days... it might be best to have your assets depreciate over 5 years rather than finagle a way into creating a much larger 1 time expense. That was part of the dotcom downfall, after all.
I know this isn't an accounting site... But you make it seem as though it's intristically bad for business to purchase commercial software licenses, for accounting reasons, and i just wanted to say i don't think it's all that bad a decision to make. Better spend the money and have an asset to show for it, than spend the money and have nothing but a receipt in the end...
All other things being equal, of course (software quality not being the least of those things:)
And of course, if somebody does they have to release both the source of those binaries as well as the source of any tools that helped created those binaries
Is that TRUE???? I always thought Microsoft was overreaching their bounds in some of their attacks on the GPL... Yes, i know i could just go read it myself, since it's slipped from memory, but could someone please enlighten me?
If that's really the case, then all those posts proclaiming Microsoft an even greater satan than they are currently are basically hogwash...
Re:The timing may advance open source
on
PC Prices to Rise?
·
· Score: 2
If anything, i'd think that i'd more stand to nulify the advantages of a free OS. The rise in hardware prices makes the % spent on software per PC lessen...
Because there was a huge glut of it on the market. Memory manufacturers had increased capacity immensly during the boom times. Then the slump happened, and they were left with a huge amount of excess inventory and capacity. The only real way for them to alleviate that was to basically dump it into the market at whatever price people would pay... Since there was sooo much, the price was extremely low. Now that inventory and production are nearing demand levels, the price is rising back up again...
Rather than go through the trouble of securing a linux box, one might consider OpenBSD instead? Seems like a very narrow task that it'd be well suited for.
To really stretch a point... If the US Gov't was really pissed at you, you could probably get nailed for smoking said Cuban cigars in Mexico... just as one of the charges against John Walker stems from supporting the Taliban, which was on our (US) list of embargoed countries/terrorist supporting... Just as Cuba is.
But for them to care, you'd probably have to do a whole lot more than post a few mp3's tothe internet.
the resaon that apple always showcases photoshop benchmarks, besides the fact that the Mac's tend to fair better, is that Apples' bread & butter audience lives and dies by Photoshop (and Quark, Illustrator and Freehand).
So simply a faster photoshop machine will not take any share from Apple. It would take the combination of all the apps to present a threat to their mainstay audience. Wintel hasn't been able to do that, even with the much cheaper hardware, since the costs of the software made the hardware price difference much less discernable...
So no matter how good a job GNOME and KDE projects do, until the whole smattering of apps is available, there's little use in any of them being available. But the mainstays won't come to GNOME and KDE until they have decent color management. Which, unfortuately, means licensing patents, which goes against the gain of free software.
And yes, photoshop users do care what their machine is doing underneath it all... they know their macs inside and out, most of them, and can troubleshoot their own problems when something goes awry... another reason the mac has maintained so far... Why learn another OS, like windows or linux when the users have so much vested experience in Mac OS ___... though there is the problem that they're going to have to relearn OS X. But if they're going to make a jump away from the Mac OS as it's presented to them, it's not going to be a baby leap to Linux PPC, or Linux x86, it'll be to Windows, what the other 95% of the world is using...
Srrry... i think you just got far ahead of yourself in the symbolism of a new compiler!
Funny that Disney chose to single apple out, since they are in bed together due to Pixar... One must wonder how much money Steve Jobs has made for Disney, through movies and merchandising. Perhaps Eisner could have picked up the phone to his wunderchild, rather than moan and groan about him to congress?
It doesn't look like they're storing the image at all... Just the text around the image for the search, and then the results page is actually pulling the image from it's originating server...
but at the very least the swap file shouldn't be on disk. I've spent too much time in the past ten years listening to hard drives slice meat as I waited for Windows to move pages off of and into RAM
Then add RAM. The entire reason for the swap file is because you don't have enough RAM. Thus, the OS is set up to use the hard drive as a slower back up... It'd be a waste to store your swap file on a RAM disk. Just add 1/2 a gigabyte or a full one and turn the thing off.
First, is 30 FPS absolutely ESSENTIAL? Many security applications can get by on 10 or 15 frames per second, which in itself would cut your storage needs down by 50-66%.
Again, is 640x480 essential, or could you get by with 400x300? Again, cutting small corners will save immense space in the long run.
Secondly, forget uncompressed... Use something like the Sorensen streaming encoder (i forget which company markets it... perhaps apple?). Pair it with a G4, and you've got a live video compression station. If the camera's are recording the same scene, the compression should be great, probably figure 80-90% compression...
Lastly, forget recording to disk... instead investigate recording straight to DLT. Otherwise you'll just have to redouble your efforts, first recording to disk when the ultimate desination is probably going to be DLT anyhow...
That's it for now... i STRONGLY disagree with anyone saying that 1000 VCR's is the ideal way to go... But who am i to say?
Well geez... my 2nd box at work (first box is a Mac G4) runs Win 2000, w/IE6 beta, Office XP, SQL Server 2000 among others and has been chugging along since June without need for a reboot.
560 days? Wow... I surely hope that it wasn't connected to the internet, or that your new computer isn't... There were quite a bit of security bulletins you ignored en route to your 560 days... What's more important?
Slashdot Mirror
I tried OS X 10.1 on my Rev A imac (233 MHz G3, with 160 MB RAM), which is to Apples spec as to what machines are supported and recommended, and found it to be unusably slow... Running native applications as well as classic apps, it was just useless.
I just checked out one of the new LCD imacs the other day, and found it to be running OS X at quite acceptable speeds... OS X seems great on a machine with the actual horsepower to run it, but apples recommended configuration is too lenient.
So, chalk another onto the list of why peopel aren't upgrading... Their computers aren't up to OS X's requirements.
And many publishing companys aren't moving to OS X until Quark is availalbe... Though some are so excited about OS X, that they're checking out Adobe's Indesign to see if it could be ready to steal Quarks thunder...
No, you can;t lose a patent or a copyright from non-action. You're thinking of Trademarks!
No
The centris 650 was identical to the quadra 650, except that it had a 25 MHz, FPU less CPU (68LC040) versus the 650's 33 MHz full fledged CPU (68040).
The Centris 660 AV was identical to the the Quadra 660 AV (including A/V circuitry).
The Centris 610 was again, identical to the Quadra 610, except again, in the 650's case, it simply used a slower (20 MHz) FPU less CPU versus the 25 MHz full CPU of the Quadra 610...
You must be comparing the Centris 610 to the Quadra 660 AV in your mind... (a quadra without all the AV stuff). But there were equivalent models across the board...
Since IRIX is no longer being supported (from what I hear)
Prior to saying something like that, try visiting SGI?
In their workstation section, most offerings are MIPS/IRIX machines, with one Itanium/Linux thrown in to boot... as far as their servers go, it's all MIPS/IRIX.
Far from being "unsupported".... It's still SGI's lifeblood (the IRIX/MIPS combiniation)
As an animator, I can tell you that I'm really excited about studios moving over to Linux. What's great about Linux is that you can run it on any platform.
You might want to brush up a little... Just because something runs on Linux, doesn't mean it'll run on the version of Linux that's available for your platform.
In general, it seems that when a developer announces a port to Linux, that usually means Linux on an x86 platform.
So, as much as i'd like to see Apple get the hardware sale, you'd better make certain that the applications are available for your particular flavor/platform prior to rushing out and buying a spanking new powerbook G4, or whatever their next latest-and-greatest laptop happens to be...
It would be interesting, if it'd been written and posted in 1992, rather than 2002.
I don't know who i'm most disappointed in.
A - Tweaktown, for posting such an inane article in the first place
B - MrTweak, for relaying it to slashot. Of course, he probably wrote it.
C - Hemos for posting it.
I mean really... the whole thing reeks of MrTweak wanting more site traffic and turning to slashdot with a story about anything to get it. Like "oh my god, i didn't know i could COMPRESS graphics?"
Proposal to slash: never accept submissions from people with obvious links to the article in question...
I just realized that my 28 seconds were mostly likely skewed by the fact that i'm also running limewire and AIM on the iMac, which is dutifully saving it's downloads to the XP computers drive (Via DAVE). So, there's a few other processes going on, plus a bunch of network stuff that may or may not affect it all.
Still, if i dared cancel limewire, i could probably must a better figure for page loading, but i'd rather not...
Which browser are you using? IE for the Mac (under OS 9 and OS X) has problems with complicated tables; it will take minutes (yes, minutes) to render moderately sized Slashot pages. OmniWeb, Opera, iCab, Chimera, all return the same page in seconds.
Somethings wrong with your setup, then... My iMac (Rev. A, 233 MHz G3, 160 MB RAM, 8.7 MB allocated to IE 5.1 on MacOS 9.2.2) took 28 seconds to render this page (as it stood, 283 comments at my threshold (1) out of 426 comments being displayed).
Yes, it's still a far cry from my WinXP box (Athlon 750, 128 MB RAM, yes, this one too is getting a little long in tooth), hence i'm posting from the XP box, though mostly for love of the larger monitor). But it's not nearly as bad as you make the situation out to be.
I guess we come from 2 different schools of thought on this one...
If you buy software, you acquire assets. That's fine on the balance sheet, cash goes down, assets go up. This is neat in that it doesn't show a cost, but bad in that you lost cash.
Cash is not the all powerful thing... IF you have the extra cash, it's perfectly reasonable to use it for capital investments, which is what acquiring assets is.
It's my sense from all that, that your primary goal is to pay as little taxes as possible... And hoard as much cash as possible at the same time. I don't think that's appropriate for most businesses.
Spend the cash, you end up with assets on your balance sheet which will look good if you need to solicit credit or investment to grow your business. If all your company has to show for anything is a fat bank balance, no one will think that you have much staying power, and hence will be much more wary of giving out money in one form or another.
And if you're concerned with taxes, then the depreciation expense could be seen as a "bonus", in that it's (in your theory), $4000 a year more business you can do without having to pay tax on... Short term vs. Long Term, i guess... If you don't feel comfortable having you cash tied up in licenses, and you arent' using them, you can always turn around and sell them down the line (see below).
Keep in mind with software licenses, you can't really sell them, so you make your balance sheets look artificial when you show these terrific assets...
i've had no problems selling software licenses across the years... If i don't use a particular program, or any program which ownership of that program is mandatory (upgrades and/or competitive upgrades), i have found absolutely no issue i selling a license to someone who wants it. There hasn't seemed to have been any clauses against it in any of the EULA's i've read.
We just differ... I've worked for a company for instance in the past that needed to turn over it's balance sheets to a potential client, so that they could determine if we'd have the staying power to support a project we were bidding on...
It's all 2 schools of thought. I'm sure if we asked the rest of slashdot we'd get 250,000 more schools of thought to add to the pool...
:-)
Can be witty...and generally provides a response to most questions and statements.
It did not, however, know what to say to the statement "Please shoot me".
For finding that, i was impressed....
Huh?
.conf files? All i can figure is that the XML file will have a bunch of useless tags laying about.
What exactly is the difference between an XML file and Apaches
I don't know, I like their current configuration - text with wordy descriptions of what each setting does.
I also think that XML is the biggest crock to survive the dotcom days... It's just not nearly as wonderous as the world presumes, i don't think. Maybe your experience has been different, but you can basically do anything with good, well formed data, and do nothing with bad data. It doesn't matter the format if the contents are garbage.
\\\
IIS can be made just as secure as Apache, and those that think it's security is flawed are doing nothing but showing their ignorance of the product.
I think, as others have probably pointed out, you're showing your ignorance. The problems with IIS aren't just the registry settings, that you can fix. They're in the coding, that Microsoft has to fix. Sometimes, hackers are kind enough to give Microsoft notice of the exploit prior to announcing it's existance to the world. Other times they're not. And there's nothing that you, Joe End-User, can do about it.
Yes, holes will probably be found in Apache, but with every mention of a hole will probably be a mentioning of a fix.
IIS just has such a lame security history compared to Apache, that shouldn't be an arguing point. If you like IIS, just say so. But acknowledge the facts.
I've already paid for the OS license, and I get IIS for free with it whether I use it or not.
You can also get Apache for free, whether you purchased an OS license or not... With all the words mentioning it, aren't you in the slightest bit curious as to what all the hype is about? The last version you checked out was a completely experimental release... This one is ready for prime time consumption...
When you purchase software licenses, you are making a capital purchase, that will take at least 3 (and often 5) to depreciate. So the cash all flows out at once, but you have to write it out over 3 years.
:)
It's been a while since i took accounting (in high school), but i'm a little confused, none the less. You make it sound as though purchasing assets is a bad thing to do. The don't, assets increase the networth of your company.
The depreciation expense, again, isn't so bad... This isn't the dotcom days... it might be best to have your assets depreciate over 5 years rather than finagle a way into creating a much larger 1 time expense. That was part of the dotcom downfall, after all.
I know this isn't an accounting site... But you make it seem as though it's intristically bad for business to purchase commercial software licenses, for accounting reasons, and i just wanted to say i don't think it's all that bad a decision to make. Better spend the money and have an asset to show for it, than spend the money and have nothing but a receipt in the end...
All other things being equal, of course (software quality not being the least of those things
And of course, if somebody does they have to release both the source of those binaries as well as the source of any tools that helped created those binaries
Is that TRUE???? I always thought Microsoft was overreaching their bounds in some of their attacks on the GPL... Yes, i know i could just go read it myself, since it's slipped from memory, but could someone please enlighten me?
If that's really the case, then all those posts proclaiming Microsoft an even greater satan than they are currently are basically hogwash...
If anything, i'd think that i'd more stand to nulify the advantages of a free OS. The rise in hardware prices makes the % spent on software per PC lessen...
Because there was a huge glut of it on the market. Memory manufacturers had increased capacity immensly during the boom times. Then the slump happened, and they were left with a huge amount of excess inventory and capacity. The only real way for them to alleviate that was to basically dump it into the market at whatever price people would pay... Since there was sooo much, the price was extremely low. Now that inventory and production are nearing demand levels, the price is rising back up again...
Rather than go through the trouble of securing a linux box, one might consider OpenBSD instead? Seems like a very narrow task that it'd be well suited for.
To really stretch a point... If the US Gov't was really pissed at you, you could probably get nailed for smoking said Cuban cigars in Mexico... just as one of the charges against John Walker stems from supporting the Taliban, which was on our (US) list of embargoed countries/terrorist supporting... Just as Cuba is.
But for them to care, you'd probably have to do a whole lot more than post a few mp3's tothe internet.
Sorry... just felt like nitpicking/..
the resaon that apple always showcases photoshop benchmarks, besides the fact that the Mac's tend to fair better, is that Apples' bread & butter audience lives and dies by Photoshop (and Quark, Illustrator and Freehand).
So simply a faster photoshop machine will not take any share from Apple. It would take the combination of all the apps to present a threat to their mainstay audience. Wintel hasn't been able to do that, even with the much cheaper hardware, since the costs of the software made the hardware price difference much less discernable...
So no matter how good a job GNOME and KDE projects do, until the whole smattering of apps is available, there's little use in any of them being available. But the mainstays won't come to GNOME and KDE until they have decent color management. Which, unfortuately, means licensing patents, which goes against the gain of free software.
And yes, photoshop users do care what their machine is doing underneath it all... they know their macs inside and out, most of them, and can troubleshoot their own problems when something goes awry... another reason the mac has maintained so far... Why learn another OS, like windows or linux when the users have so much vested experience in Mac OS ___... though there is the problem that they're going to have to relearn OS X. But if they're going to make a jump away from the Mac OS as it's presented to them, it's not going to be a baby leap to Linux PPC, or Linux x86, it'll be to Windows, what the other 95% of the world is using...
Srrry... i think you just got far ahead of yourself in the symbolism of a new compiler!
Funny that Disney chose to single apple out, since they are in bed together due to Pixar... One must wonder how much money Steve Jobs has made for Disney, through movies and merchandising. Perhaps Eisner could have picked up the phone to his wunderchild, rather than moan and groan about him to congress?
It doesn't look like they're storing the image at all... Just the text around the image for the search, and then the results page is actually pulling the image from it's originating server...
but at the very least the swap file shouldn't be on disk. I've spent too much time in the past ten years listening to hard drives slice meat as I waited for Windows to move pages off of and into RAM
Then add RAM. The entire reason for the swap file is because you don't have enough RAM. Thus, the OS is set up to use the hard drive as a slower back up... It'd be a waste to store your swap file on a RAM disk. Just add 1/2 a gigabyte or a full one and turn the thing off.
First, is 30 FPS absolutely ESSENTIAL? Many security applications can get by on 10 or 15 frames per second, which in itself would cut your storage needs down by 50-66%.
Again, is 640x480 essential, or could you get by with 400x300? Again, cutting small corners will save immense space in the long run.
Secondly, forget uncompressed... Use something like the Sorensen streaming encoder (i forget which company markets it... perhaps apple?). Pair it with a G4, and you've got a live video compression station. If the camera's are recording the same scene, the compression should be great, probably figure 80-90% compression...
Lastly, forget recording to disk... instead investigate recording straight to DLT. Otherwise you'll just have to redouble your efforts, first recording to disk when the ultimate desination is probably going to be DLT anyhow...
That's it for now... i STRONGLY disagree with anyone saying that 1000 VCR's is the ideal way to go... But who am i to say?
Well geez... my 2nd box at work (first box is a Mac G4) runs Win 2000, w/IE6 beta, Office XP, SQL Server 2000 among others and has been chugging along since June without need for a reboot.
560 days? Wow... I surely hope that it wasn't connected to the internet, or that your new computer isn't... There were quite a bit of security bulletins you ignored en route to your 560 days... What's more important?