That is what I was referring to when I called it slow. My Mac is no slouch (G4, 1.67GHz, 1GB RAM) but if I accidently tap the key to open Dashboard for the first time my Mac practically freezes for a few seconds until Dashboard comes up. Then, if I haven't used it for a while, and I try to open it again, everything slows down a ton again. Then, when I close Dashboard, the open applications can feel slow for a few minutes as they get paged back in.
I'll go through my impressions mostly in order (I'm writing this in TextEdit as I follow the keynote). Not much surprise in the Mac Pro department (although it's nice to hear that they are actually cheaper). The pure 64-bit OS was predicted and is unsurprising. I like the little jabs at Microsoft. It's one thing to say "MS steals from us" but to put up comparison shots is just great, after all the features are just implemented so closely. The price comparisons were neat, but I wonder how long they will hold (I don't think Dell will take it in stride, their prices will get adjusted I'm betting).
I've gotta say I love the idea of Time Machine. I'm glad they put that in there. Considering how little hard drive space the average person uses compared to how much space is in new computers, this is an excellent feature. Now I don't have to use some stupid 3rd party program any more. I question the interface a little though.
They are building Front Row into Leopard. That's kind of neat, although I don't see myself using it right now. Still, if I was in a dorm and had my iMac or something I bet it would be great.
Spaces! Seems like the true virtual desktops that everyone has been asking for. I like the idea that you can pre-create a space and then launch it and it will bring those apps up (if I'm reading about it right). That would be fantastic.
I'm glad they improved Spotlight. It is a tiny bit pokey on my 1.67 GHz G4. To use it as an application launcher is great. I used it that way for a while but it was just too slow, so I started using Quicksilver (although I don't use any of QS's advanced features). The ability to search across your home network is KILLER and would save my parents SO MUCH TIME from how they do things on Windows.
CoreAnimation looks interesting and I bet a few people will do some incredible stuff with it, although it's also one of those features I can see being abused. I found it very interesting they promoted Universal Access. You never hear about that in the Windows world (I know it's there, it just doesn't ever seem to be talked about on mainstream sites).
Moving ToDos into Mail is interesting. The idea that ToDos can be moved into multiple applications and they all talk with the same database is quite nice. I'm sure quite a few people will like the stationary idea, but to me e-mail is best as plain text. I can only see that ending up like looking at my little sister's AIM conversations. You want to talk about eye-bleeding-color-schemes (and they say men have no sense of color). Notes is great too. I've been using the scheme that I've used since I was on Windows (type them out in TextEdit or NotePad and just save 'em). Still, having the pictures in there well and making it look like the iWeb templates is nice. I haven't seen any other e-mail software really try something like that (not that I've looked).
Note: iWeb needs a SERIOUS update. It really proves the "Apple 1.0" theory.
I've got to say, these improvements to iCal and iMail just make me want a new Newton all the more. My Windows Mobile 2k3 device is just so clunky compared to iCal or the Newtons of olde.
Web Clip looks killer. That is just a great feature. I have quite a few sites where I only look at one little portion and to be able to bring up Dashboard and see that portion would be great. Only Apple seems to make it that easy for an end user. Why go search to see if someone has made the widget you need when you can do it yourself so easily? "See Grandma, computers aren't so scary."
Being able to show photos to people over an iChat chat is great.
My only real complaints with OS X as it is now are kind of minor. Dashboard sucks up WAY too much CPU (especially when starting). I'd like to see finder be multi-threaded, you can occasionally see it need it. I'd like to see a special button put on the MacBooks to activate Expose. Using F9-F12 is clumsy when F9 and F10 are already bound to something else and you have to hit "function". Using the screen corners just c
That's the way the one I bought worked. There is a connector that looks like a PS2 connector on one end of the cable and an iPod dock connector on the other. It would be pretty trivial for me to hack a new one, but I assume they would sell me one with the new connector.
But my question is, is that the way the ones that are built in (like these Fords, the BMWs, etc) work? Or is the cable permanantly attached to the back of the stereo and thus a major hack job to change?
I won't argue that point. Doing ANYTHING other than driving is distracting. That said, which do you think is worse? Reaching over for the radio or iPod and then trying to use it (worse if you have to do the menus on the iPod as opposed to a single button press to switch radio stations); or pressing a button on your steering wheel that will control your iPod?
Added convenience, better sound quality, costs less, slightly less dangerous.
That is definitely true. One of my favorite things about using my car to listen to CDs is the little button on the wheel I can hit to change to the next track. I don't really care about my stereo being able to tell me what track I'm listening to, but having the controls make the iPod work would be great. As it is I I would have to hit the button on my iPod to change tracks.
In fact, that is one of the reasons I have kept my 3G iPod and didn't buy a 4G. Because of the cutouts in the plastic for the buttons above the wheel my iPod is VERY easy to operate by feel. I'm not sure I'd be able to hit the next-track button so easily on a 4G.
And let's not forget that having the controls on the steering wheel is probably safer. Which is easier for me, to hit the volume buttons on my steering wheel that lie right under my finger, or should I reach blindly and feel around for the volume knob (or take my eyes off the road to look for it). Doing either is more dangerous than doing neither, but given that you are not going to stop people from fiddling with the radio/iPod, shouldn't we reduce the distraction caused?
Platformers are still quite alive. 3 of the best platformers ever made were made in the last few years: the Sly Cooper series. On the GBA there was Drill Dozer by Game Freak last year, which was also quite fun. Nintendo is currently working on a sequel to Yoshi's Island (which same rate better than Super Mario World, both being amazing games). While Super Mario Sunshine was no Mario 64, it was still fun and had some moments of ingenious platforming (like the tighrope walks).
The difference is that platfomers aren't the "in" thing anymore. In the 16 bit era, if you made a game you made a platformer. That stayed true for a little while in the 32 bit era (Crash, Croc, Gex 3D, etc) but it faded as other kinds of games became the new "in" game. Right now, it seems to be a combination of FPSes and WW II games.
These things look nice. I would love one in my van. I tried 3 or 4 different FM transmitters before I finally got a CD-changer interface so the iPod plugs directly into the back of the stereo (which took a long time to find because of my car). That said, there is one thing that worries me.
What happens when Apple changes the interface? You don't expect them to keep the same dock connector forever. Does the system have an alternate input (standard line-in, for example)? Is there a cable that can be changed so you can use dock-connector 2.0 (or whatever)?
Just something to think about.
Really, I wish some kind of audio input bus would be put into cars to simplify all this stuff. You either have to get a special (and expensive) adaptor to fake being a CD-changer, or use the FM transmitter. Now let's say I have an XM receiver and a iPod and I want both plugged into my car stereo? I can't do it (without hacking a dock interface connector for the XM). Or what if I want to add HD radio? Or plug in a tape player (which my car lacks). Just a simple line-in jack would be fine with me. I don't need the rest of the fancy stuff (although it's nice).
My guess is this is just vendor lock in since there was basically no demand for it before iPods (and their ilk) and you could always use a tape adapter (although more and more cars lack cassette drives).
This can be true. I'm a big music game fan and I've recently gotten my hands on a copy of PaRappa the Rapper (one of my favorites). Now lately I've been playing tons of Guitar Hero (awesome game). So then I go back to PaRappa for a little bit. Now the graphics look really blocky (it was PS1 after all), but that's not a problem. However, compared to Frequency/Amplitude/Guitar Hero/Donkey Konga it is REALLY HARD to get the timings right. I don't know what the issue is, but it seems to be much less forgiving (either that, or the indicator at the top of the screen is inaccurate). It's still fun, but that was a surprise to me when I started playing again. If the game came out today, I think it would have a hard time because of that.
Then there is also just the fun factor. I got a copy of Donkey Konga 2 a few months ago. After playing Guitar Hero it just wasn't very fun. The music in it was terrible (worse the the first by far) and it just wasn't as fun. You didn't get the connection to the music like you do with GH. Then just for comparison I put in my copy of Donkey Konga, and it was the same. I really liked that game, but now it just wasn't as fun.
Guitar Hero has REALLY raised the bar, it seems. Some games hold up very well (Frequency and Amplitude are still fun to play), others don't.
This happens in all genres. If a game is good enough (Super Mario World, Mario 64) then it will stand above it's peers for years to come. But if a game was just good when it came out, it may not stand the test of time. That's what we're seeing in some of these things.
I played through Kid Icarus about two months ago for the first time ever. I've got to say, that game was HARD. If I didn't know better I'd think it was an arcade (that you'd have to pump full of quarters). You can really see how games have changed. Most games that hard would never survive today. There is nothing wrong with a strong challenge, but that game just beats you over the head with it. I know tons of people think that is one of the best games ever, but I just can't see it from my (obviously quite different) perspective.
Some nostalgia is good. Some games really deserve it (Super Mario World, Mario 64, Yoshi's Island). But many games are remembered fondly and while they were important, they don't stand up to recent games.
For all intents and purposes, it's true. I was talking about game developers. There are NO big game developers that open source their games or engines. ID does, but only years later.
So for the purposes of this discussion, you must buy a license to distribute.
I have nothing against Qt. I've looked at it before, and I like it better than Win32. That said, the Win32 API is free. You can find reference material for free. You don't have to pay MS to distribute your program. If you develop with Qt and you don't pay Trolltech, you are not allowed to distribute your program.
Yes, you would pay for the MSDN subscription if you were of any size. I also understand that a developer of any size can afford the Trolltech license. But which would be cheaper to test out the Mac market? Write the program using Qt (including teaching them Qt) and then sell it, or take your popular product, link it with this library, and then sell it?
It's a temporary solution. If you are ready to dive into cross-platform development and sell your game that way then it would make sense to choose something portable from the outset (Qt isn't a great choice for full-screen games, it's way overblown for that). But if you are in the middle of a development cycle, which is easier? Going over to Qt or SDL/OpenGL/OpenAL, or trying this library.
There are a lot of smart posts, quite a few stupid ones, and some basic "what's going on?" posts. Yours, takes the cake. Let's look at your post, point by point.
"Good thing if it catches on, developers encouraged to test on [two platforms]." You're right, that's good.
"Writing Apple specific executables (DRM...) would no longer be important." That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot. Let's start with Apple does nothing to require DRM. Then we'll move into Microsoft is going full steam at enabling HDCP. And let's not forget that writing Apple specific executables will ALWAYS be important, especially for performance sensitive applications (hint: games).
"This would create some direct Win32 OS competition for MS." More idiocy. This would not do that, at all. First, it's just a tiny subset of the Win32 API. Second, you have to link it in and pay for it (as opposed to WINE). And then there is fact that Microsoft changes the Win32 API constant. Oh, by the way, MS has been trying to replace Win32 with MFC for years. Also, they are now trying to replace that with the.Net framework and such.
"And of course the portable WIN32 apps are more likely to run fine in WINE or ReactOS." There is NO SUCH THING as a portable Win32 app, by definition. If you want portable apps, you use a portable API. You don't write to a non-portable API and then try to shoehorn portability in there by writing a clone of the API in a library on another platform.
And hopefully, Apple would buy Cider, and once and for all sell OS X for any PC, competing directly with Microsoft, and give up on the hardware tie in stuff." Your idiocy astounds me. Apple wouldn't buy Cider. They are Apple. They can make it themselves. They may announce the exact same kind of thing on Monday at WWDC. They won't sell OS X for PCs, they are a hardware company. They won't give up the tie-in stuff, they are a hardware company. Apple already competes directly with Microsoft. Also, one of the great things about the Mac is the hardware its self. Also, considering their Laptop market share doubled in the last 6 months, why would they want to give up their lucrative hardware business that subsidizes the OS that you seem to covet so much.
Just buy the Mac like the rest of us OS X lovers did.
Most of the time it didn't make sense to pay a company like Aspyr (who knew what they were doing) to port your game to the Mac and make it native. It made even LESS sense to do it yourself if you didn't know what you were doing (i.e. this was the team's first Mac game). It was much more productive (financially) to just make a new game.
Now, the cost is much lower because you don't need a full port. This means that it will take fewer sales on the Mac to pay off the development library costs compared to a full port.
Now they can see just how many sales they can get. They also get to "re-use" the advertising because they won't have to re-advertise the game 18 months later when the Mac version comes out.
If the sales numbers are decent to good, they'll do it again and the Mac gets another game.
If the sales numbers are good to great, they'll spend the extra time to make it themselves next time knowing the investment will pay off and they won't have to pay the library license.
Either way, it's an improvement for 90% of the games out there. I know that today, right now, I will pay $100 to get a copy of Half-Life for my Mac so I can play Counter-Strike. Not Half-Life 2, Half-Life. Look at all those sales that Half-Life got. If they could have spent such a relatively paltry amount (compared to a full port (which they already did and never released)) don't you think they would and we would be able to play?
I switched to the Mac last year (I have a G4 so this is a moot point for me for now). The fact is I think this is an EXCELLENT idea. Now I agree that this is not a long term solution. But look at it this way: how many millions did it cost to port and test Civilization 4 for the Mac? It was still viable though.
Now if porting games was (almost as) easy as re-linking with an extra library, we'd see many more games for the Mac. The problem would be that they have to pay money to get the library, but it doesn't cost as much as a full port. Now they can do this and get a bunch more money.
Now the suits take over, as well as some logic from the programmers. "Sure, we made money off the Mac there. But with a little more time upfront and using OpenGL we can make this next game Mac too without having to pay for that library! It will probably perform better too."
Next thing you know, more and more games are Mac native. If that doesn't happen, then what's the loss? Mac gamers still get more games that we have now. It's not ideal, but it's a plus.
I agree that OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL is the ideal solution. But this may lead to that.
Now let's not forget just how many games these days (especially big name stuff like movie games, etc) are put on EVERY platform. They are put on the PS2/GC/XBox/360/Wii/PS3/PC. Guess what runs on almost all those platforms? OpenGL. If you want to make it easy to go on a console later (or multiple consoles) then just use OpenGL. Oh... look... now making it work on a Mac is trivial.
This is either useful, or will propel steps in the right direction. Either way, it's good.
Interviewer: "Mr. Developer: How many licks does it take to get to the...... Nevermind. Why not just use Qt and OpenGL?"
Mr. Developer: "We don't really have anyone who knows Qt, so that would take additional time. Our programmers already know the Win32 API pretty well. Also, developing with Win32 is free, while Qt costs money for development licenses."
Interviewer: "But wouldn't that let you also support Linux?"
Mr. Developer: "Yes, but at this time we get almost no requests for Linux support. We don't think the time or money would pay for it's self. Also, the Win32 API is already loaded into memory. If we use Qt then that is just another set of files we have to ship and give up CPU and Memory to. If we were to use OpenGL, it would be more efficient to do almost everything in OpenGL and just write separate Win32/Carbon/X Windows front ends."
If you want a cross platform GUI app, I could use using Qt. But based on the market size and the costs, I don't see why anyone would use it for a OpenGL game. SDL would be a much better choice.
No kidding. I switched last year and I expect OS X to be a little better. I was amazed what the difference was, and using XP often drives me nuts because of how much it misbehaves.
Now I read about Vista being worse than XP, popping up "Enter administrator password" boxes all the time, etc. They already took out all the interesting Vista features (WinFS, for one).
The fact is, when Tiger was previewed Apple had all those banners that said "Redmond, start your photocopiers". They obviously need new ones, because in that time they have not only not managed to copy most of the features, but Apple is about to release the NEXT set of great stuff at about the same time as MS's copy of Apple's last 3-5 years.
If there is something everyone in the computer industry should pay attention to, it's the WWDC keynote on Monday. Vista has become a joke, and I don't expect much to change. Even if they can release it on time working perfectly with all the features they currently say it will have... it will be outdated and uninteresting.
Their main argument seems to be the razor blade model. If they sell them below cost, this kind of things loses them money. If they sell them at cost, no one buys them.
That's fair enough, but they have a third option. Sell consoles as they are, only make a special version (that will make up all your lost money then some) that lets users develop home brew stuff. Just charge 'em more. If you don't want to make a 2nd or 3rd SKU for that, sell a kit that does the same thing (and is priced accordingly).
The other option is what the Wii is doing. Some of the statements made by Nintendo seem to imply they are going to let users develop content (maybe for a small price). Or, the Wii dev kits are supposed to be only $1000 which would fall within the range of a hobbyist who is interested enough if they are willing to sell them.
It's obvious people are willing to pay for this. They develop the mod chips at great time expense, and others buy the chips and pay to have people put them in.
What I meant was, Comcast didn't carry the channel except in the digital cable package, so I couldn't watch it (because I don't have digital cable). Sorry for that mix up.
I've been watching every episode for years. They've only given out a handfull of 1s, and I can kind of understand it. As bad as most games are, they are playable. It takes a special kind of game to get a 1.
That said, most games get 2/3s, with a few getting 4s, and just the creme-de-la-creme getting 5s. They don't over-rate like most places who hand out 4s and 5s for anything that isn't un-playable.
Of course, they never intended to give out a 0, but they did once. The game was a semi-truck racing game. There was no music or sound effects. The "race" was with another truck, which never left the starting line. The game looked terrible, and had practically no clipping or collision detection. It was the kind of thing you couldn't believe anyone would try to sell. I mean people try to sell things that just aren't fun or are terribly annoying, but this wasn't even a game yet. It was a tech demo for a tech demo for a preview for a game.
X-Play isn't perfect, but they are pretty good. They are the only show left on the network that is good (except ST:TNG which they haven't managed to ruin yet).
Here is my perspective. I've been watching that channel here in the US for years. I watched it as ZDTV for about a year or two. Here is what I can tell you about the history of the channel.
When it was ZDTV, it was very different. It was all computers (Ziff Davis, after all). They had some of the shows that existed up until recently (The Screen Savers being the prime example). But they also had other programming. I remember a show that showed nothing but computer generated animation that people could send in. A user content show, it was ahead of it's time. It also showed some very neat stuff (as companies would send in neat stuff too to show what they could do). This was how I first found Animusic.
Later, the network changed it's name to TechTV. Not much really changed that I remember. This is the time frame that I remember shows like Fresh Gear (which may have been there before) which was a great gadget review show (TVs, DVD Players, Digital Cameras, random gadgets, etc). I can't remember if X-Play was part of ZDTV or not, but I know it was there during TechTV.
Now it is somewhere in this timeframe that I found out about G4 and I really wanted that channel. An all video game channel, that would be cool. But I had DirecTV (which is where I watched ZDTV/TechTV) and Comcast (which didn't carry G4). I later got to see the channel just a little bit on someone's digital cable and it still looked neat (all I got to see was Cinematech, which was cool).
Now during the TechTV days things changed. I remember Call For Help dumped Leo later during this time (I think CFH was a ZDTV show). The Screen Savers was still their headliner program. Other shows later came on including Invent This! (showed inventors, their inventions, how they came up with it, etc... a fantastic show), Anime Unleashed (showed Anime, both good and bad), and a few other good shows. There were some slips during this time (like trying to turn daytime into a CNN of computer news).
Then G4 decided to buy them. I thought that would be good. I wanted to see G4. I was a little worried (I seem to remember things being better during the ZDTV days, but I can't tell you why). It took about 1 day (and I'm being generous) to figure out what an unmitigated disaster this was. I later found out why G4 bought TechTV.
G4 had no shows people would watch, and was terrible. TechTV was a nice little network and had loyal viewers. What better way to start building your empire than buying out a "rival" and destroying them.
So G4 quickly removed everything on TechTV except a handful of shows. The Screen Savers was still there (I think), although it quickly became Attack of the Show. X-Play stayed on (which is better than ANY show on G4), but they did change their set and now I get the feeling the network big-wigs are trying to infuse the show with more "anime-hip-hop-coolness". All the other great little shows were gone. Fresh Gear was killed. Invent This (which was about a year old, at most) was killed.
So what did we get? Cinematech (a decent of waste of a half-hour, sometimes). We also got Icons (interesting profiles some times, but took it's self way to serious), Cheat (unwatchable), Filter (half intersting, with the worlds most annoying hostess), and that's about it. That's all that came over, that I can think of. Oh, Arena (I don't want to watch other people play FPSes with an annoying commentary by a drill-seargent-wannabe).
Now G4 seems to be trying to become SpikeTV. Now I should note that SpikeTV was much better as whatever it was before, which was much better as TNN. But now G4 has ST:TNG (good), Trek 2.0 (good show, made unwatchable by shot-gunning as many tickers and flashing things on the screen as possible), Totally Outrageous Behavior (immature caught-on-tape), Fastlane (never seen it, no intention to), Brainiac (look! we do cool science stuff and act like immature idiots), Ed The Sock's Night Party ("One angry sock puppet and his blazing hot redhead co-host get down and dirty, and often wet" - Immature, e
Because their chips were terrible. Compare a P4 with an Athlon 64 and there is no content. The Athlon runs cooler, could usually beat the P4 in many contests despite the much lower clock, etc. The fact is that MHz was all Intel had going for it, technology wise. Once that started to slip up that was AMD's big chance. For the past few years most things I've seen have put AMD's Opterons much better than Intel's Xeons.
But, in the great spirit of competition, that will change. Intel's Core 2 Duo architecture looks to be a real winner. If the performance is anywhere near where the early numbers look, then AMD could be in real trouble. If AMD can't pull something out with the Opterons... They won't have a new architecture (K9 for the sake of argument) ready until late '08 early '09 at the earliest.
There is major competition again, this is good for consumers, and should be fun to watch too.
I'm sorry, but that's what AOL is. I've had the displeasure of having to deal with them for YEARS.
I'll just be nice and ignore the fact that they bought and killed The Imagination Network, which was a blast.
Let's talk about their software. Their software that, to this day, takes like 30 seconds to start up, if it's feeling fast. Their software that often crashes after closing so when you think it's gone it's actually there sucking up 100% (happens almost daily on one of our computers). Let's talk about their integrated software suite that made since back when no one had a web browser but is now just an annoying piece of bloat-ware that should have been replaced 5 years ago minimum.
But they are going ad supported. You don't say. You'd think they were now based on using their software. In the last few years, they have gone to incredible lengths to cram ads on EVERY SINGLE SCREEN they display. Your mailbox? It has ads. Reading an e-mail? It has ads. Their welcome screen? Ads.
About a month ago, they started something new. When you exit AOL... an ad comes up. But it isn't just some little ad. It's as big as the welcome screen and it always seems to be for AOL.
But wait, it gets better.. that ad has a close button. And AOL doesn't exit until you press it. That means that choosing "exit" from the file menu DOESN'T EXIT AOL. This also seems to happen before you log off, so good luck if you don't have an unlimited plan for some reason and you forget about this.
I can only tell you from having to support my parents on AOL for the last 5 years or so (they've been members longer, it just wasn't so bad before) that AOL is a NIGHTMARE. It's amazingly slow. It crashes. If it gets screwed up (and it has) reinstalling often doesn't fix it. When you upgrade, it makes a new folder in Program Files and leaves the old version there, but deletes the shortcuts to it. Nothing like looking at someone's computer and seeing 5 copies of AOL. They continually add terrible software that only slows things down OUTSIDE AOL like their virus protection (we already that had), their firewall (WE ALREADY THAT HAD), and more. And there is something to be said for a program that keeps ALL the users downloaded files in some random directory by default. That was acceptable back in the Windows 3.1 days, but ever since Windows 95 those thins are supposed to be in My Documents. But instead, this are spread across the computer. Can't find a file? Did you open it in AOL? Then it isn't where it should be, it's in C:\Program Files\America Online 9.0 Security Slowdown Edition\Something\Or\Other. Also, what other e-mail client DELETES THE MESSAGES YOU'VE READ? You read a message, and when you log off it gets moved to "Read Meassages" or something like that. And the stuff in that folder, seems to get deleted. I don't know if it is the next time you log off, or after 1 week, or what. But if you don't specifically save it somewhere or keep choosing "Keep as new" (what my parents use) then it will go away FOREVER.
I've tried to switch my parents off. I've tried to get them to use IE or FireFox (instead of their constant problems in AOL). I've tried to move them over to GMail. I think I'm getting closer. I can't tell you how much easier my life would be without AOL.
Ah, AOL. You only outlived your usefulness about 7 years ago. All you've done since then is make things worse for everyone else. You were good at one point. It's telling that you've been hemmoraging subscribers for years, and the only way you managed to stay around during the boom (when EVERYONE was buying computers) was by generating 0.5% of all trash in the US with those stupid CDs that were put in EVERY MAGAZINE PRINTED.
Oh, yeah, then there is the Time Warner merger. That was a stroke of genius, huh.
Anyway, the point of this whole rambling anti-AOL post was that AOL already puts ads everywhere. Either their are raking in the cash and don't need the subscriber fees, or they are going to be in trouble when they do this because there is nowhere else to put ads except video ads in the background of the AOL window.
I've been looking for jobs for two to three months now, as I just got my CS degree last month. I knew lots of places wanted websites, but I was surprised at just how many. EVERYONE seems to need another (or a first) website guy. It's too bad I'm not more interested in that, I could get a job easy.
OS X isn't for hardcore F/OSS people. I run some F/OSS, but mostly commercial software or freeware. That said, I'll try to answer you as best I can.
No X11 like forwarding. Apple does have some sort of remote desktop, but I'm not sure how it works, and I think you have to pay for the client. That said, I just use VNC to access my Mac. I do it almost daily. I found a free VNC server (OSXVNC, I think) and it works great. It's not quite as clean as true X forwarding, but it works great. It's a fair complaint, but then OS X is designed as a desktop OS so that's not a feature many people care about. Now if you want to be the client that all the X11 windows come to (while running on other boxes), OS X has an X server (like many things, it's included with the free development tools). I realize that VNC is not the same as true X11 forwarding, but that's the best I can offer in that department.
Good F/OSS that is prebuilt or ready to build can be tough. There is something odd about the way that OS X handles libraries (or something) that has caused me problems in the past. You best bet there is either Fink or DarwinPorts. It's not always up to the latest version though, that's true. Most OSS software doesn't care about OS X and it only works thanks to the Unix subsystem, so the users often have to do the porting. Still, with something like Fink it's as good as "apt-get install x" if it's there (although the command is different, IIRC).
OS X has a Samba server built in. Samba is the sharing mechanism that Macs seem to use to talk to one another. Just turn sharing on and share the folder (or let it share you home folder by default or whatever) and you can access it from any Windows computer. It actually is Samba running, IIRC. They just hide it from you.
Cocoa is based on NextStep, and NextStep is emulated by OpenStep. If you program to OpenStep then your programs will run nativly on both OS X and Linux. You don't get some of the widgets and such (since Apple has obviously enhanced things) or the Apple add ons that make programming so much easier (like CoreData) but if you can do without those (which would be normal in a cross-platform app anyway) then you are set. Go check it out.
Upgradability is a fair complaint. There are 3rd party sites that keep track of that kind of thing so you know that when you buy a drive it will work. There are also sets of drivers you can install that will allow Finder to let you use the drive (without having to use Toast). Apple is a little stingy here, I'll agree. As for the hardware, they had to change any firmware on PCI cards (because of PPC) and such and that's expensive. Now with the Intel transition that shouldn't matter. Add to that most things can be FireWire or USB now and it's not that much of a problem. As for debugging network problems, I really haven't had any so I don't know how bad that would be (although I know it's not as easy as Linux). That said, if you want to, the documentation is up on Apple site and you could write your own driver (or port someone else's, like one of the BSDs).
SMB server - Built in
apache - Built in
php - Built in
postgres - MySQL built in, postgres can be installed
cross-platform development - Complete GCC toolchain, just like Linux
bash - It's the default shell
assortment of little utilities like tar/gz/netpbm - more or less all there
bigger free packages like Gimp/OpenOffice - Gimp is available, OpenOffice is too (as well as NeoOffice)
Not everyone is set for a Mac. Sound like you may not be. But you can use the command line and those apps all day while having other great stuff like Safari and iTunes and such at the same time. And if you decide to get some commercial piece of software, it's there and it works (no fiddling with Wine). When I was doing development for my Senior Project my Mac was great because I could do all my development and testing on one box thanks to PHP/Apache/MySQL/Java. Compare that to my partners wh
They might be able to figure it out. It's all pretty simple from there. Plus, you can buy them a book on iLife. But worst case scenerio, you are just where you would be on Windows if they were using some video editing program (Ulead Studio?). And if your mother calls you up today and asks how to do X in Ulead Studio, will you know the answer?
I agree, you'll get calls. You will ALWAYS get calls. The point is you will get FEWER calls. And when you get calls, it is more likely to be "How do I do neat thing X?" and not "My computer told me it was infected with spyware and now it's acting weird" or "I made this file, how can I find it again" or the ever popular... "The internet changed, what do I do?" (refering to the browser home page changing).
Slashdot Mirror
That is what I was referring to when I called it slow. My Mac is no slouch (G4, 1.67GHz, 1GB RAM) but if I accidently tap the key to open Dashboard for the first time my Mac practically freezes for a few seconds until Dashboard comes up. Then, if I haven't used it for a while, and I try to open it again, everything slows down a ton again. Then, when I close Dashboard, the open applications can feel slow for a few minutes as they get paged back in.
I'll go through my impressions mostly in order (I'm writing this in TextEdit as I follow the keynote). Not much surprise in the Mac Pro department (although it's nice to hear that they are actually cheaper). The pure 64-bit OS was predicted and is unsurprising. I like the little jabs at Microsoft. It's one thing to say "MS steals from us" but to put up comparison shots is just great, after all the features are just implemented so closely. The price comparisons were neat, but I wonder how long they will hold (I don't think Dell will take it in stride, their prices will get adjusted I'm betting).
I've gotta say I love the idea of Time Machine. I'm glad they put that in there. Considering how little hard drive space the average person uses compared to how much space is in new computers, this is an excellent feature. Now I don't have to use some stupid 3rd party program any more. I question the interface a little though.
They are building Front Row into Leopard. That's kind of neat, although I don't see myself using it right now. Still, if I was in a dorm and had my iMac or something I bet it would be great.
Spaces! Seems like the true virtual desktops that everyone has been asking for. I like the idea that you can pre-create a space and then launch it and it will bring those apps up (if I'm reading about it right). That would be fantastic.
I'm glad they improved Spotlight. It is a tiny bit pokey on my 1.67 GHz G4. To use it as an application launcher is great. I used it that way for a while but it was just too slow, so I started using Quicksilver (although I don't use any of QS's advanced features). The ability to search across your home network is KILLER and would save my parents SO MUCH TIME from how they do things on Windows.
CoreAnimation looks interesting and I bet a few people will do some incredible stuff with it, although it's also one of those features I can see being abused. I found it very interesting they promoted Universal Access. You never hear about that in the Windows world (I know it's there, it just doesn't ever seem to be talked about on mainstream sites).
Moving ToDos into Mail is interesting. The idea that ToDos can be moved into multiple applications and they all talk with the same database is quite nice. I'm sure quite a few people will like the stationary idea, but to me e-mail is best as plain text. I can only see that ending up like looking at my little sister's AIM conversations. You want to talk about eye-bleeding-color-schemes (and they say men have no sense of color). Notes is great too. I've been using the scheme that I've used since I was on Windows (type them out in TextEdit or NotePad and just save 'em). Still, having the pictures in there well and making it look like the iWeb templates is nice. I haven't seen any other e-mail software really try something like that (not that I've looked).
Note: iWeb needs a SERIOUS update. It really proves the "Apple 1.0" theory.
I've got to say, these improvements to iCal and iMail just make me want a new Newton all the more. My Windows Mobile 2k3 device is just so clunky compared to iCal or the Newtons of olde.
Web Clip looks killer. That is just a great feature. I have quite a few sites where I only look at one little portion and to be able to bring up Dashboard and see that portion would be great. Only Apple seems to make it that easy for an end user. Why go search to see if someone has made the widget you need when you can do it yourself so easily? "See Grandma, computers aren't so scary."
Being able to show photos to people over an iChat chat is great.
My only real complaints with OS X as it is now are kind of minor. Dashboard sucks up WAY too much CPU (especially when starting). I'd like to see finder be multi-threaded, you can occasionally see it need it. I'd like to see a special button put on the MacBooks to activate Expose. Using F9-F12 is clumsy when F9 and F10 are already bound to something else and you have to hit "function". Using the screen corners just c
That's the way the one I bought worked. There is a connector that looks like a PS2 connector on one end of the cable and an iPod dock connector on the other. It would be pretty trivial for me to hack a new one, but I assume they would sell me one with the new connector.
But my question is, is that the way the ones that are built in (like these Fords, the BMWs, etc) work? Or is the cable permanantly attached to the back of the stereo and thus a major hack job to change?
I won't argue that point. Doing ANYTHING other than driving is distracting. That said, which do you think is worse? Reaching over for the radio or iPod and then trying to use it (worse if you have to do the menus on the iPod as opposed to a single button press to switch radio stations); or pressing a button on your steering wheel that will control your iPod?
Added convenience, better sound quality, costs less, slightly less dangerous.
I don't see a down side.
That is definitely true. One of my favorite things about using my car to listen to CDs is the little button on the wheel I can hit to change to the next track. I don't really care about my stereo being able to tell me what track I'm listening to, but having the controls make the iPod work would be great. As it is I I would have to hit the button on my iPod to change tracks.
In fact, that is one of the reasons I have kept my 3G iPod and didn't buy a 4G. Because of the cutouts in the plastic for the buttons above the wheel my iPod is VERY easy to operate by feel. I'm not sure I'd be able to hit the next-track button so easily on a 4G.
And let's not forget that having the controls on the steering wheel is probably safer. Which is easier for me, to hit the volume buttons on my steering wheel that lie right under my finger, or should I reach blindly and feel around for the volume knob (or take my eyes off the road to look for it). Doing either is more dangerous than doing neither, but given that you are not going to stop people from fiddling with the radio/iPod, shouldn't we reduce the distraction caused?
Platformers are still quite alive. 3 of the best platformers ever made were made in the last few years: the Sly Cooper series. On the GBA there was Drill Dozer by Game Freak last year, which was also quite fun. Nintendo is currently working on a sequel to Yoshi's Island (which same rate better than Super Mario World, both being amazing games). While Super Mario Sunshine was no Mario 64, it was still fun and had some moments of ingenious platforming (like the tighrope walks).
The difference is that platfomers aren't the "in" thing anymore. In the 16 bit era, if you made a game you made a platformer. That stayed true for a little while in the 32 bit era (Crash, Croc, Gex 3D, etc) but it faded as other kinds of games became the new "in" game. Right now, it seems to be a combination of FPSes and WW II games.
These things look nice. I would love one in my van. I tried 3 or 4 different FM transmitters before I finally got a CD-changer interface so the iPod plugs directly into the back of the stereo (which took a long time to find because of my car). That said, there is one thing that worries me.
What happens when Apple changes the interface? You don't expect them to keep the same dock connector forever. Does the system have an alternate input (standard line-in, for example)? Is there a cable that can be changed so you can use dock-connector 2.0 (or whatever)?
Just something to think about.
Really, I wish some kind of audio input bus would be put into cars to simplify all this stuff. You either have to get a special (and expensive) adaptor to fake being a CD-changer, or use the FM transmitter. Now let's say I have an XM receiver and a iPod and I want both plugged into my car stereo? I can't do it (without hacking a dock interface connector for the XM). Or what if I want to add HD radio? Or plug in a tape player (which my car lacks). Just a simple line-in jack would be fine with me. I don't need the rest of the fancy stuff (although it's nice).
My guess is this is just vendor lock in since there was basically no demand for it before iPods (and their ilk) and you could always use a tape adapter (although more and more cars lack cassette drives).
This can be true. I'm a big music game fan and I've recently gotten my hands on a copy of PaRappa the Rapper (one of my favorites). Now lately I've been playing tons of Guitar Hero (awesome game). So then I go back to PaRappa for a little bit. Now the graphics look really blocky (it was PS1 after all), but that's not a problem. However, compared to Frequency/Amplitude/Guitar Hero/Donkey Konga it is REALLY HARD to get the timings right. I don't know what the issue is, but it seems to be much less forgiving (either that, or the indicator at the top of the screen is inaccurate). It's still fun, but that was a surprise to me when I started playing again. If the game came out today, I think it would have a hard time because of that.
Then there is also just the fun factor. I got a copy of Donkey Konga 2 a few months ago. After playing Guitar Hero it just wasn't very fun. The music in it was terrible (worse the the first by far) and it just wasn't as fun. You didn't get the connection to the music like you do with GH. Then just for comparison I put in my copy of Donkey Konga, and it was the same. I really liked that game, but now it just wasn't as fun.
Guitar Hero has REALLY raised the bar, it seems. Some games hold up very well (Frequency and Amplitude are still fun to play), others don't.
This happens in all genres. If a game is good enough (Super Mario World, Mario 64) then it will stand above it's peers for years to come. But if a game was just good when it came out, it may not stand the test of time. That's what we're seeing in some of these things.
I played through Kid Icarus about two months ago for the first time ever. I've got to say, that game was HARD. If I didn't know better I'd think it was an arcade (that you'd have to pump full of quarters). You can really see how games have changed. Most games that hard would never survive today. There is nothing wrong with a strong challenge, but that game just beats you over the head with it. I know tons of people think that is one of the best games ever, but I just can't see it from my (obviously quite different) perspective.
Some nostalgia is good. Some games really deserve it (Super Mario World, Mario 64, Yoshi's Island). But many games are remembered fondly and while they were important, they don't stand up to recent games.
For all intents and purposes, it's true. I was talking about game developers. There are NO big game developers that open source their games or engines. ID does, but only years later.
So for the purposes of this discussion, you must buy a license to distribute.
I have nothing against Qt. I've looked at it before, and I like it better than Win32. That said, the Win32 API is free. You can find reference material for free. You don't have to pay MS to distribute your program. If you develop with Qt and you don't pay Trolltech, you are not allowed to distribute your program.
Yes, you would pay for the MSDN subscription if you were of any size. I also understand that a developer of any size can afford the Trolltech license. But which would be cheaper to test out the Mac market? Write the program using Qt (including teaching them Qt) and then sell it, or take your popular product, link it with this library, and then sell it?
It's a temporary solution. If you are ready to dive into cross-platform development and sell your game that way then it would make sense to choose something portable from the outset (Qt isn't a great choice for full-screen games, it's way overblown for that). But if you are in the middle of a development cycle, which is easier? Going over to Qt or SDL/OpenGL/OpenAL, or trying this library.
There are a lot of smart posts, quite a few stupid ones, and some basic "what's going on?" posts. Yours, takes the cake. Let's look at your post, point by point.
"Good thing if it catches on, developers encouraged to test on [two platforms]." You're right, that's good.
"Writing Apple specific executables (DRM...) would no longer be important." That is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot. Let's start with Apple does nothing to require DRM. Then we'll move into Microsoft is going full steam at enabling HDCP. And let's not forget that writing Apple specific executables will ALWAYS be important, especially for performance sensitive applications (hint: games).
"This would create some direct Win32 OS competition for MS." More idiocy. This would not do that, at all. First, it's just a tiny subset of the Win32 API. Second, you have to link it in and pay for it (as opposed to WINE). And then there is fact that Microsoft changes the Win32 API constant. Oh, by the way, MS has been trying to replace Win32 with MFC for years. Also, they are now trying to replace that with the .Net framework and such.
"And of course the portable WIN32 apps are more likely to run fine in WINE or ReactOS." There is NO SUCH THING as a portable Win32 app, by definition. If you want portable apps, you use a portable API. You don't write to a non-portable API and then try to shoehorn portability in there by writing a clone of the API in a library on another platform.
And hopefully, Apple would buy Cider, and once and for all sell OS X for any PC, competing directly with Microsoft, and give up on the hardware tie in stuff." Your idiocy astounds me. Apple wouldn't buy Cider. They are Apple. They can make it themselves. They may announce the exact same kind of thing on Monday at WWDC. They won't sell OS X for PCs, they are a hardware company. They won't give up the tie-in stuff, they are a hardware company. Apple already competes directly with Microsoft. Also, one of the great things about the Mac is the hardware its self. Also, considering their Laptop market share doubled in the last 6 months, why would they want to give up their lucrative hardware business that subsidizes the OS that you seem to covet so much.
Just buy the Mac like the rest of us OS X lovers did.
Doesn't it?
Most of the time it didn't make sense to pay a company like Aspyr (who knew what they were doing) to port your game to the Mac and make it native. It made even LESS sense to do it yourself if you didn't know what you were doing (i.e. this was the team's first Mac game). It was much more productive (financially) to just make a new game.
Now, the cost is much lower because you don't need a full port. This means that it will take fewer sales on the Mac to pay off the development library costs compared to a full port.
Now they can see just how many sales they can get. They also get to "re-use" the advertising because they won't have to re-advertise the game 18 months later when the Mac version comes out.
If the sales numbers are decent to good, they'll do it again and the Mac gets another game.
If the sales numbers are good to great, they'll spend the extra time to make it themselves next time knowing the investment will pay off and they won't have to pay the library license.
Either way, it's an improvement for 90% of the games out there. I know that today, right now, I will pay $100 to get a copy of Half-Life for my Mac so I can play Counter-Strike. Not Half-Life 2, Half-Life. Look at all those sales that Half-Life got. If they could have spent such a relatively paltry amount (compared to a full port (which they already did and never released)) don't you think they would and we would be able to play?
Now if porting games was (almost as) easy as re-linking with an extra library, we'd see many more games for the Mac. The problem would be that they have to pay money to get the library, but it doesn't cost as much as a full port. Now they can do this and get a bunch more money.
Now the suits take over, as well as some logic from the programmers. "Sure, we made money off the Mac there. But with a little more time upfront and using OpenGL we can make this next game Mac too without having to pay for that library! It will probably perform better too."
Next thing you know, more and more games are Mac native. If that doesn't happen, then what's the loss? Mac gamers still get more games that we have now. It's not ideal, but it's a plus.
I agree that OpenGL/OpenAL/SDL is the ideal solution. But this may lead to that.
Now let's not forget just how many games these days (especially big name stuff like movie games, etc) are put on EVERY platform. They are put on the PS2/GC/XBox/360/Wii/PS3/PC. Guess what runs on almost all those platforms? OpenGL. If you want to make it easy to go on a console later (or multiple consoles) then just use OpenGL. Oh... look... now making it work on a Mac is trivial.
This is either useful, or will propel steps in the right direction. Either way, it's good.
Good luck. Let's ask Mr. Developer:
Interviewer: "Mr. Developer: How many licks does it take to get to the...... Nevermind. Why not just use Qt and OpenGL?"
Mr. Developer: "We don't really have anyone who knows Qt, so that would take additional time. Our programmers already know the Win32 API pretty well. Also, developing with Win32 is free, while Qt costs money for development licenses."
Interviewer: "But wouldn't that let you also support Linux?"
Mr. Developer: "Yes, but at this time we get almost no requests for Linux support. We don't think the time or money would pay for it's self. Also, the Win32 API is already loaded into memory. If we use Qt then that is just another set of files we have to ship and give up CPU and Memory to. If we were to use OpenGL, it would be more efficient to do almost everything in OpenGL and just write separate Win32/Carbon/X Windows front ends."
If you want a cross platform GUI app, I could use using Qt. But based on the market size and the costs, I don't see why anyone would use it for a OpenGL game. SDL would be a much better choice.
No kidding. I switched last year and I expect OS X to be a little better. I was amazed what the difference was, and using XP often drives me nuts because of how much it misbehaves.
Now I read about Vista being worse than XP, popping up "Enter administrator password" boxes all the time, etc. They already took out all the interesting Vista features (WinFS, for one).
The fact is, when Tiger was previewed Apple had all those banners that said "Redmond, start your photocopiers". They obviously need new ones, because in that time they have not only not managed to copy most of the features, but Apple is about to release the NEXT set of great stuff at about the same time as MS's copy of Apple's last 3-5 years.
If there is something everyone in the computer industry should pay attention to, it's the WWDC keynote on Monday. Vista has become a joke, and I don't expect much to change. Even if they can release it on time working perfectly with all the features they currently say it will have... it will be outdated and uninteresting.
Their main argument seems to be the razor blade model. If they sell them below cost, this kind of things loses them money. If they sell them at cost, no one buys them.
That's fair enough, but they have a third option. Sell consoles as they are, only make a special version (that will make up all your lost money then some) that lets users develop home brew stuff. Just charge 'em more. If you don't want to make a 2nd or 3rd SKU for that, sell a kit that does the same thing (and is priced accordingly).
The other option is what the Wii is doing. Some of the statements made by Nintendo seem to imply they are going to let users develop content (maybe for a small price). Or, the Wii dev kits are supposed to be only $1000 which would fall within the range of a hobbyist who is interested enough if they are willing to sell them.
It's obvious people are willing to pay for this. They develop the mod chips at great time expense, and others buy the chips and pay to have people put them in.
What I meant was, Comcast didn't carry the channel except in the digital cable package, so I couldn't watch it (because I don't have digital cable). Sorry for that mix up.
I've been watching every episode for years. They've only given out a handfull of 1s, and I can kind of understand it. As bad as most games are, they are playable. It takes a special kind of game to get a 1.
That said, most games get 2/3s, with a few getting 4s, and just the creme-de-la-creme getting 5s. They don't over-rate like most places who hand out 4s and 5s for anything that isn't un-playable.
Of course, they never intended to give out a 0, but they did once. The game was a semi-truck racing game. There was no music or sound effects. The "race" was with another truck, which never left the starting line. The game looked terrible, and had practically no clipping or collision detection. It was the kind of thing you couldn't believe anyone would try to sell. I mean people try to sell things that just aren't fun or are terribly annoying, but this wasn't even a game yet. It was a tech demo for a tech demo for a preview for a game.
X-Play isn't perfect, but they are pretty good. They are the only show left on the network that is good (except ST:TNG which they haven't managed to ruin yet).
Here is my perspective. I've been watching that channel here in the US for years. I watched it as ZDTV for about a year or two. Here is what I can tell you about the history of the channel.
When it was ZDTV, it was very different. It was all computers (Ziff Davis, after all). They had some of the shows that existed up until recently (The Screen Savers being the prime example). But they also had other programming. I remember a show that showed nothing but computer generated animation that people could send in. A user content show, it was ahead of it's time. It also showed some very neat stuff (as companies would send in neat stuff too to show what they could do). This was how I first found Animusic.
Later, the network changed it's name to TechTV. Not much really changed that I remember. This is the time frame that I remember shows like Fresh Gear (which may have been there before) which was a great gadget review show (TVs, DVD Players, Digital Cameras, random gadgets, etc). I can't remember if X-Play was part of ZDTV or not, but I know it was there during TechTV.
Now it is somewhere in this timeframe that I found out about G4 and I really wanted that channel. An all video game channel, that would be cool. But I had DirecTV (which is where I watched ZDTV/TechTV) and Comcast (which didn't carry G4). I later got to see the channel just a little bit on someone's digital cable and it still looked neat (all I got to see was Cinematech, which was cool).
Now during the TechTV days things changed. I remember Call For Help dumped Leo later during this time (I think CFH was a ZDTV show). The Screen Savers was still their headliner program. Other shows later came on including Invent This! (showed inventors, their inventions, how they came up with it, etc... a fantastic show), Anime Unleashed (showed Anime, both good and bad), and a few other good shows. There were some slips during this time (like trying to turn daytime into a CNN of computer news).
Then G4 decided to buy them. I thought that would be good. I wanted to see G4. I was a little worried (I seem to remember things being better during the ZDTV days, but I can't tell you why). It took about 1 day (and I'm being generous) to figure out what an unmitigated disaster this was. I later found out why G4 bought TechTV.
G4 had no shows people would watch, and was terrible. TechTV was a nice little network and had loyal viewers. What better way to start building your empire than buying out a "rival" and destroying them.
So G4 quickly removed everything on TechTV except a handful of shows. The Screen Savers was still there (I think), although it quickly became Attack of the Show. X-Play stayed on (which is better than ANY show on G4), but they did change their set and now I get the feeling the network big-wigs are trying to infuse the show with more "anime-hip-hop-coolness". All the other great little shows were gone. Fresh Gear was killed. Invent This (which was about a year old, at most) was killed.
So what did we get? Cinematech (a decent of waste of a half-hour, sometimes). We also got Icons (interesting profiles some times, but took it's self way to serious), Cheat (unwatchable), Filter (half intersting, with the worlds most annoying hostess), and that's about it. That's all that came over, that I can think of. Oh, Arena (I don't want to watch other people play FPSes with an annoying commentary by a drill-seargent-wannabe).
Now G4 seems to be trying to become SpikeTV. Now I should note that SpikeTV was much better as whatever it was before, which was much better as TNN. But now G4 has ST:TNG (good), Trek 2.0 (good show, made unwatchable by shot-gunning as many tickers and flashing things on the screen as possible), Totally Outrageous Behavior (immature caught-on-tape), Fastlane (never seen it, no intention to), Brainiac (look! we do cool science stuff and act like immature idiots), Ed The Sock's Night Party ("One angry sock puppet and his blazing hot redhead co-host get down and dirty, and often wet" - Immature, e
Because their chips were terrible. Compare a P4 with an Athlon 64 and there is no content. The Athlon runs cooler, could usually beat the P4 in many contests despite the much lower clock, etc. The fact is that MHz was all Intel had going for it, technology wise. Once that started to slip up that was AMD's big chance. For the past few years most things I've seen have put AMD's Opterons much better than Intel's Xeons.
But, in the great spirit of competition, that will change. Intel's Core 2 Duo architecture looks to be a real winner. If the performance is anywhere near where the early numbers look, then AMD could be in real trouble. If AMD can't pull something out with the Opterons... They won't have a new architecture (K9 for the sake of argument) ready until late '08 early '09 at the earliest.
There is major competition again, this is good for consumers, and should be fun to watch too.
I'm sorry, but that's what AOL is. I've had the displeasure of having to deal with them for YEARS.
I'll just be nice and ignore the fact that they bought and killed The Imagination Network, which was a blast.
Let's talk about their software. Their software that, to this day, takes like 30 seconds to start up, if it's feeling fast. Their software that often crashes after closing so when you think it's gone it's actually there sucking up 100% (happens almost daily on one of our computers). Let's talk about their integrated software suite that made since back when no one had a web browser but is now just an annoying piece of bloat-ware that should have been replaced 5 years ago minimum.
But they are going ad supported. You don't say. You'd think they were now based on using their software. In the last few years, they have gone to incredible lengths to cram ads on EVERY SINGLE SCREEN they display. Your mailbox? It has ads. Reading an e-mail? It has ads. Their welcome screen? Ads.
About a month ago, they started something new. When you exit AOL... an ad comes up. But it isn't just some little ad. It's as big as the welcome screen and it always seems to be for AOL.
But wait, it gets better.. that ad has a close button. And AOL doesn't exit until you press it. That means that choosing "exit" from the file menu DOESN'T EXIT AOL. This also seems to happen before you log off, so good luck if you don't have an unlimited plan for some reason and you forget about this.
I can only tell you from having to support my parents on AOL for the last 5 years or so (they've been members longer, it just wasn't so bad before) that AOL is a NIGHTMARE. It's amazingly slow. It crashes. If it gets screwed up (and it has) reinstalling often doesn't fix it. When you upgrade, it makes a new folder in Program Files and leaves the old version there, but deletes the shortcuts to it. Nothing like looking at someone's computer and seeing 5 copies of AOL. They continually add terrible software that only slows things down OUTSIDE AOL like their virus protection (we already that had), their firewall (WE ALREADY THAT HAD), and more. And there is something to be said for a program that keeps ALL the users downloaded files in some random directory by default. That was acceptable back in the Windows 3.1 days, but ever since Windows 95 those thins are supposed to be in My Documents. But instead, this are spread across the computer. Can't find a file? Did you open it in AOL? Then it isn't where it should be, it's in C:\Program Files\America Online 9.0 Security Slowdown Edition\Something\Or\Other. Also, what other e-mail client DELETES THE MESSAGES YOU'VE READ? You read a message, and when you log off it gets moved to "Read Meassages" or something like that. And the stuff in that folder, seems to get deleted. I don't know if it is the next time you log off, or after 1 week, or what. But if you don't specifically save it somewhere or keep choosing "Keep as new" (what my parents use) then it will go away FOREVER.
I've tried to switch my parents off. I've tried to get them to use IE or FireFox (instead of their constant problems in AOL). I've tried to move them over to GMail. I think I'm getting closer. I can't tell you how much easier my life would be without AOL.
Ah, AOL. You only outlived your usefulness about 7 years ago. All you've done since then is make things worse for everyone else. You were good at one point. It's telling that you've been hemmoraging subscribers for years, and the only way you managed to stay around during the boom (when EVERYONE was buying computers) was by generating 0.5% of all trash in the US with those stupid CDs that were put in EVERY MAGAZINE PRINTED.
Oh, yeah, then there is the Time Warner merger. That was a stroke of genius, huh.
Anyway, the point of this whole rambling anti-AOL post was that AOL already puts ads everywhere. Either their are raking in the cash and don't need the subscriber fees, or they are going to be in trouble when they do this because there is nowhere else to put ads except video ads in the background of the AOL window.
I've been looking for jobs for two to three months now, as I just got my CS degree last month. I knew lots of places wanted websites, but I was surprised at just how many. EVERYONE seems to need another (or a first) website guy. It's too bad I'm not more interested in that, I could get a job easy.
OS X isn't for hardcore F/OSS people. I run some F/OSS, but mostly commercial software or freeware. That said, I'll try to answer you as best I can.
No X11 like forwarding. Apple does have some sort of remote desktop, but I'm not sure how it works, and I think you have to pay for the client. That said, I just use VNC to access my Mac. I do it almost daily. I found a free VNC server (OSXVNC, I think) and it works great. It's not quite as clean as true X forwarding, but it works great. It's a fair complaint, but then OS X is designed as a desktop OS so that's not a feature many people care about. Now if you want to be the client that all the X11 windows come to (while running on other boxes), OS X has an X server (like many things, it's included with the free development tools). I realize that VNC is not the same as true X11 forwarding, but that's the best I can offer in that department.
Good F/OSS that is prebuilt or ready to build can be tough. There is something odd about the way that OS X handles libraries (or something) that has caused me problems in the past. You best bet there is either Fink or DarwinPorts. It's not always up to the latest version though, that's true. Most OSS software doesn't care about OS X and it only works thanks to the Unix subsystem, so the users often have to do the porting. Still, with something like Fink it's as good as "apt-get install x" if it's there (although the command is different, IIRC).
OS X has a Samba server built in. Samba is the sharing mechanism that Macs seem to use to talk to one another. Just turn sharing on and share the folder (or let it share you home folder by default or whatever) and you can access it from any Windows computer. It actually is Samba running, IIRC. They just hide it from you.
Cocoa is based on NextStep, and NextStep is emulated by OpenStep. If you program to OpenStep then your programs will run nativly on both OS X and Linux. You don't get some of the widgets and such (since Apple has obviously enhanced things) or the Apple add ons that make programming so much easier (like CoreData) but if you can do without those (which would be normal in a cross-platform app anyway) then you are set. Go check it out.
Upgradability is a fair complaint. There are 3rd party sites that keep track of that kind of thing so you know that when you buy a drive it will work. There are also sets of drivers you can install that will allow Finder to let you use the drive (without having to use Toast). Apple is a little stingy here, I'll agree. As for the hardware, they had to change any firmware on PCI cards (because of PPC) and such and that's expensive. Now with the Intel transition that shouldn't matter. Add to that most things can be FireWire or USB now and it's not that much of a problem. As for debugging network problems, I really haven't had any so I don't know how bad that would be (although I know it's not as easy as Linux). That said, if you want to, the documentation is up on Apple site and you could write your own driver (or port someone else's, like one of the BSDs).
Not everyone is set for a Mac. Sound like you may not be. But you can use the command line and those apps all day while having other great stuff like Safari and iTunes and such at the same time. And if you decide to get some commercial piece of software, it's there and it works (no fiddling with Wine). When I was doing development for my Senior Project my Mac was great because I could do all my development and testing on one box thanks to PHP/Apache/MySQL/Java. Compare that to my partners wh
They might be able to figure it out. It's all pretty simple from there. Plus, you can buy them a book on iLife. But worst case scenerio, you are just where you would be on Windows if they were using some video editing program (Ulead Studio?). And if your mother calls you up today and asks how to do X in Ulead Studio, will you know the answer?
I agree, you'll get calls. You will ALWAYS get calls. The point is you will get FEWER calls. And when you get calls, it is more likely to be "How do I do neat thing X?" and not "My computer told me it was infected with spyware and now it's acting weird" or "I made this file, how can I find it again" or the ever popular... "The internet changed, what do I do?" (refering to the browser home page changing).
I agree, but he asked for something he could do, and he didn't specify programming.
Getting a programming job without the degree is going to be a TON harder.