What disgusts me, in this case, is not the copyright issues but the fact that some people will actually PAY to have "clean" movies...
And it's just as disgusting to some people to PAY and have "dirty" movies... so then they PAY a little more and have a part edited and out. It's not a legal issue.
Ooh, I know. I'm going to go buy a bunch of big long books and cut out all the violence and sex and maybe the boring passages, too, and re-sell them.
Actually, if someone had bought the books and then brought them to you so you could edit them down for even more money, why shouldn't you oblige them? Isn't that essentially what Reader's Digest has been doing for decades?
Of course, I'm not going to stop to ask the author what they think of this; it's my right to free speech, right?
Well in the case of books, a lot of the greatest authors are dead right now... so the point is moot. As far as mixing and cutting a copyrighted work without permission, I guess you better throw away all those "Greatest Dance Hits Mix" tapes you made, as The Righteous Brothers probably never gave you permission to reproduce their work with a copy of a Britney Spears song on the other side...
Forget the rights of the original creator. Forget, for that matter, their feelings, or that they're even human beings at all, because it's so much easier to think of them as the Evil Movie Industry whose sex and violence are so damaging to our precious little children.
It's funny how nobody is willing to trust the mega-corporation when it comes to pollution of natural resources like streams and woods, but for some reason they are trusted completely when it comes to pollution of natural resources like children's minds...
::sigh:: This is what I'm talking about. Apple's design sucks. Yes, it allows for fancy translucent windows, but it puts a significant burden on 3D hardware that is already memory-bandwidth limited to begin with.
Yeah... probably better to free-up all that AGP bandwidth for nothing... that's what it there for, right?
Second, because PDF is used as an internal representation, OS X can't easily use OpenGL for the "real work" case of accelerating all Quartz 2D drawing commands rather than just window-compositing.
Which would be a lot more believable if there were some proof that PDF->OpenGL conversion is particularly tough and compute-intensive. My guess is that changing from one graphics-abstraction language to another is a lot less work than not having a native graphics-abstraction language and then having to cook up a way to do OpenGL when you needed to...
Other designs like Longhorn, EVAS, and Berlin, do not have this limitation.
WHAT? Longhorn? I get accused by you of being a gullible Apple marketing drone because of a great system available now... and then you turn around and start shilling for M$ vaporware? Why don't you send me your M$ Marketing material on Longhorn now so I can dream about that goodness for a few years too!;c)
No problem. Why switching, where you can have both ?
Easy... switch so you can have all 4, at the same time, without rebooting. Running games, M$ Word, and some stuff in OSX... doing app developement in OSX (UNIX and Mac)... and run Linux and/or WindowsXP in Virtual P.C.
With no crashing or compatibility problems under a clean UNIX running on a clean RISC chip with a modern window manager that looks much nicer than X Window...
The two packages mentioned in the article, fink and OroborosX, turn OSX into the slickest X client on the planet, IMO. It's a huge step forward for operating systems, and a worthy inspiration for OpenSource. The posts above doubting it's UNIXness or comparing it to CygWin are wrong.
Heh heh. This reminds me of that article on CygWin where an M$ Shill is giving a talk on the authenticity of its tools and the wonder that was its original Korn shell. A gentleman stood up to correct the market-droid, but the shill continued in his assertations. But the rest of the conference was all a-titter because they recognized the man who stood up as none other than: David Korn.
A good example is trying to get access to a shared printer off of her old computer. The printer adding tool (whatever it's called) has a dropdown, which doesn't include smb shared printers. Since it's not in the dropdown, there is just about zero indication how to proceed.
Just hook up to it as an LPR printer and have its IP address at hand. That should do it.
Well I'm not Kevin but I'll give you the answer anyway. I'd do what I do every single day at work, type HTML into vim and save it with a ".doc" extension - Word users never know the difference.
I have Crossover + MS Word on my work computer, but unless I'm reading a Word doc, vim is the way to go!
Cool beans! Now when people as me to submit my resumé in.doc format, all I have to do is go into OSX's Terminal.app and type: "cp resume.{html,doc}"
Thanks! But it's a sad sad state of affairs when an EMACS-user has to rely on the experience of a vi-user!;c) Good thing this was only M$-app knowledge, or I would have to question my text-editing superiority!;c)
::sigh:: Apple has really done a number on people, haven't they.
Sigh... isn't it wonderful to start a post being as judgemental and condescending as possible... without having any idea who you are talking to?
Quartz extreme is a software mechanism that uses OpenGL (which is almost always hardware accelerated these days) to accelerate window compositing.
Uh right... and accellerated "window compositing" is exactly what I would expect in a system that was good at "visualization." (Partridge's post).
What this guy is talking about is the hardware design of SGI's graphics chips. SGI builds graphics chips with large amounts of bandwidth (which measures how quickly data can be sent to the graphics chip) and that accelerate more of the OpenGL pipeline.
As I have no experience with SGI's systems, I would have to wonder at this point if this is something like AGP or how this is different from AGP (being as how 'Intel has really done a number' on me).
For example, current 3D cards has no notion of multiple clients. The operating system has to manually save and restore resources to switch between graphical applications.
All right. I think I follow you so far: the 3D-card isn't controlling the shots as far as windowing and window-management or application-graphics-management. So, on to how SGI's graphics are different...
SGI's hardware has hardware support for defining and switching between the rendering states of different programs. Quartz Extreme wouldn't even really benefit from SGI's extra hardware because only the window server uses the OpenGL pipeline while doing the compositing. Quartz Extreme has no bearing on the actual design of Apple's 3D hardware (which is EXACTLY the same as that of PC hardware).
Ahhh... so the point of SGI's hardware accelleration is to offload graphics-management at the application level, whereas application level management on the Mac will be impossible because Quartz is the only part of the window-management/rendering that actually can access the hardware. Aha. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.
Oh, and by the way, adding a level of abstraction to the Window Manager/compositor and integrating it as an Open-GL system-level application is a great idea given the state of today's 3-D cards, regardless of their ability to do hardware-level applications-graphics management. Bravo Apple!
Wrong. They only have to replace all the software they actually use.
Well, I don't know about you, but the only software I have on my PC is the stuff I use.
Right... I'm sure you erased everything off there you don't use, including all the megabytes of bloat and obscure utilities included in a clean Windows-install.
And sometimes the Mac version comes free with the computer!
Yeah? Did Apple start shipping MS Office free with new Macs? Or Photoshop? Or Quicken? I must have missed that press release...
Erm. Quicken has shipped for free with quite a few Macs. As well as "Lite" versions of Photoshop and Photoshop-alikes. And although it would be far too expensive to put a full version of M$ Works on there, a serviceable version of AppleWorks is included with most every iMac.
The point here from a consumer-point-of-view is that many of the most-used programs on the P.C. (browser, e-mail, text-editor, office-suite) all have free or cheap replacements on the Macintosh.
Additionally, the user may have to say goodbye to that 80's-vintage DOS accounting software, but can say hello to DV editing software that won't even exist in beta form on the P.C. for another two or three years.
Well, that's great if he wants to edit video! But what if he wants to do his books? <snip -- businessman rant>
Look Rockefeller, I'm a consumer guy, and all the "switch" ads are all about consumers... not mega-business "switching." If you have a huge business that is bogged down in M$-only software that costs tens of thousands of dollars. Or absolutely cannot do without a particular 80's technology, the Mac is not for you!
The point I was making was that a lot of cost-conscious people who have managed to pinch a few extra dimes out of using the same 80's technology DOS-type programs, might find they would have spent their money well by upgrading to a new Mac and getting new Mac programs anyway!
So, while it's nifty that you can edit home movies, it won't replace the need to run your business, and business-related software is one area that Apple falls flat on its face.
Untrue. Business software is among the least demanding software on the planet. And most mega-businesses that do serious work have an in-house software group that custom builds and maintains their own databases and tools. It's only mid-size and wanna-be companies that have to rely on off-the-shelf solutions, and in that case Macs are at a disadvantage. As far as small home/office solutions, the Mac actually excels because what is lost in flexibility with a dearth of ready-made software tools is made back in ease of use and maintainability of what actually is available.
If you want to know why people persist in using SGI workstations, think BANDWIDTH and HARDWARE OPENGL - basically, SGI workstations are hopeless for rendering but surprisingly responsive for visualisation.
and be-fan said:
Quartz Extreme is something else entirely. Basically, it uses the hardware on your graphics card to accelerate window transparency and stuff like the genie effect.
USING HARDWARE-ACCELLERATED OPEN-GL!!! So what I'm trying to ask (and what hasn't been answered) is how similar is the SGI hardware-Open-GL scheme and Quartz Extreme?
Intels fastest chip is the Pentium IV not the
Itanium 2. The only thing Itanium 2 got over Pentium IV is the ability to address > 4GB ram.
Uhhhh... By Intel's own SPECint2000 and SPECfp2000 on Intel's own website the Itanium 2 is like a few points behind the 2.8Ghz P4 in int2000, while it is roughly double the fp2000. Doesn't take a genius to figure those numbers out...
There was a time that Apple was an innovator. Now, unfortunately, they follow Microsoft and in this case they're chasing Intel.
I guess they are following M$'s digital-video editing lead... from 2 years from now. Not to mention their non-existant easy-to-uses-UNIX lead... </sarcasm>
Intel's Merced will be better positioned when the 64-bit market takes off simply because they'll have been out longer and so will have better tool support.
Intel's Merced is already out: that was the codename for the Itanium 1. It was a miserable beginning. The Power architecture has had 64-bit experience from before the Itanium ever hit silicon. Additionally, the Power architecture for consumer 64-bit will be much more backwards-compatible with the PowerPC than the Itanium ever will be with x86...
Motorrola has no one to blame but themeselves for this. If they innovated and tried to keep up with the industry like everyone else, they would of not had this problem. They figured mac users are suckers and will always buy anyway so who cares. They guessed wrong.
Actually, the G4 is now in the 1200Mhz range... along with all the other RISC chips from HP, MIPS, Sun, IBM, etc. Even Intel's fastest chip, the Itanium 2, isn't much faster than 1200Mhz.
Believe it or not, consumers do look at the mhz rating as an indicator of performance and value for what they are paying for.
And that's how it was planned. Ever ask yourself why the x86 ghetto was puffed up to incredibly high Mhz compared to every other chip for every other architecture in the world? Not for power, not for performance... for marketing. Engineers know how to design to make money when their market only understand: "How many megahertz does it have?"
The thing to remember is that "switching" is expensive, and not just for the new hardware. When a longtime PC user switches to Apple, they have to replace all of their software with Mac versions (and in a lot of cases, say goodbye to certain titles altogether).
Wrong. They only have to replace all the software they actually use. And sometimes the Mac version comes free with the computer! Additionally, the user may have to say goodbye to that 80's-vintage DOS accounting software, but can say hello to DV editing software that won't even exist in beta form on the P.C. for another two or three years.
A new PPC processor isn't going to make that any less of a reality (unless of course, it allows VirtualPC to run fast enough that it's actually usable).
VirtualPC already runs plenty fast enough to be usable for office/web appications. In fact, a lot of web developers use 1 Mac to do their work and have Virtual P.C. running to show them what it will look like in 4-5 different flavors of Windows/browsers... obviating the need to dual-triple boot one P.C. or having 3-4 dedicated x86 machines for the task.
A 64-bit PPC would almost assuredly be backwards compatible with 32-bit PPC applications so for current Apple users, it will be a big boost in speed without having to reinvest in all of their software immediately (although, if you want the most speed, you'll eventually need to upgrade to the 64-bit versions of your apps).
Kind of like Microsoft's move from 16-bit to 32-bit in '96. Some of those 16-bit apps still hung on...
Great news for Apple, but it's not a "Windows killer".
Funny how nothing seems to be a "Windows killer." You would think Windows would die from a DRM-induced heart attack on its own...
If you want to know why people persist in using SGI workstations, think BANDWIDTH and HARDWARE OPENGL - basically, SGI workstations are hopeless for rendering but surprisingly responsive for visualisation.
Isn't this what Apple is doing with Quartz Extreme?
Microsoft is actually another good example of this, perhaps they go a bit overboard and talk about vaporware as if it were a shipping product but at least you can't claim you don't know what they are thinking about.
A ravanous giant thinks "out loud" to worry the villagers and to keep them from going on a picnic that day. It's called "FUD" -- Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
Higher quality screen resolution for lower quality entertainment, completely controlled by the lowest-quality human beings on the planet. Doesn't it just make you want to go out and get a digital television?
I agree 100% the power4 would be a much easier change and if IBM's consummer version is meant for Apple terrific. If they can figure out a way to build a power4 that runs much more cheaply and doesn't have the heat problems terrific.
The PowerPC
s found in Macs (601/603/604/G3/G4/G5, etc.) are all "consumer-versions" of IBM's Power 4 workstation RISC processor.
If they can't Intel has the Itanium 2 today.
IBM has been in the high-end RISC workstation space for years with a modern, efficient, RISC chip that does 64-bit. Intel, OTOH, has found cranking megahertz on a 25-year-old x86 ISA isn't going to cut it indefinitely and has just recently got into RISC with Itanium 2.
Apple already moved to a modern chip ISA with the PowerPC back in 1994. It's Intel/Microsoft's turn to bring the P.C. into a similar architectural space with the Itanium 2. Why would Apple want to bear the early-adopter cost for a another modern RISC architecture that doesn't buy them much extra performance over the modern RISC architecture they already have?
Methinks you didn't read the thread. The conversation is about Itanium 2 not Pentium IV. Itanium 2 is much much faster than either the G4 or the P4.
Actually, the Itanium 2 is behind in SPECint with the 2.8Ghz P4, but is roughly double the SPECfp. Go to Intel's own site and they will tell you as much. As far as megaFLOPs are concerned, the G4 has them beat hands-down (as evidenced by both Apple and Intel's sites). A variant of the 64-bit Power architecture is a much more logical choice for Apple because it would give the best backwards compatibility. Additionally, DRM circuitry is about to start infecting the P4, and I don't see the leap to Itanium as improbable.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users! This is not merely speculation on my part.
I wasn't aware that UNIX-users required hand-holding from Apple once they finally got a BSD-compliant system that can run X-Window from Apple...
No problem. Why switching, where you can have both ? Easy... switch so you can have all 4, at the same time, without rebooting. Running games, M$ Word, and some stuff in OSX... doing app developement in OSX (UNIX and Mac)... and run Linux and/or WindowsXP in Virtual P.C.
With no crashing or compatibility problems under a clean UNIX running on a clean RISC chip with a modern window manager that looks much nicer than X Window...
I couldn't get OS X to work, so I bought a PC instead.
Just wait until you find out what won't work there... get ready to re-install every 6 months! <snicker
Thanks! But it's a sad sad state of affairs when an EMACS-user has to rely on the experience of a vi-user!
Hah! A Mac user claiming that the GUI is not a part of the OS? Whoa. That's really streching it.
At least their kernel architects weren't stupid enough to code the GUI in with the kernel... unlike some other brilliant innovators we know...
Oh, and by the way, adding a level of abstraction to the Window Manager/compositor and integrating it as an Open-GL system-level application is a great idea given the state of today's 3-D cards, regardless of their ability to do hardware-level applications-graphics management. Bravo Apple!
The point here from a consumer-point-of-view is that many of the most-used programs on the P.C. (browser, e-mail, text-editor, office-suite) all have free or cheap replacements on the Macintosh. Look Rockefeller, I'm a consumer guy, and all the "switch" ads are all about consumers... not mega-business "switching." If you have a huge business that is bogged down in M$-only software that costs tens of thousands of dollars. Or absolutely cannot do without a particular 80's technology, the Mac is not for you!
The point I was making was that a lot of cost-conscious people who have managed to pinch a few extra dimes out of using the same 80's technology DOS-type programs, might find they would have spent their money well by upgrading to a new Mac and getting new Mac programs anyway! Untrue. Business software is among the least demanding software on the planet. And most mega-businesses that do serious work have an in-house software group that custom builds and maintains their own databases and tools. It's only mid-size and wanna-be companies that have to rely on off-the-shelf solutions, and in that case Macs are at a disadvantage. As far as small home/office solutions, the Mac actually excels because what is lost in flexibility with a dearth of ready-made software tools is made back in ease of use and maintainability of what actually is available.
ST:TNG tackled the terrorism question, pointed out that if Washington lost, he'd have been a terrorist.
Kind of hard to be a "terrorist" without being able to blow up women and children. I think you are looking for the term "rebel soldier."
Higher quality screen resolution for lower quality entertainment, completely controlled by the lowest-quality human beings on the planet. Doesn't it just make you want to go out and get a digital television?
Apple already moved to a modern chip ISA with the PowerPC back in 1994. It's Intel/Microsoft's turn to bring the P.C. into a similar architectural space with the Itanium 2. Why would Apple want to bear the early-adopter cost for a another modern RISC architecture that doesn't buy them much extra performance over the modern RISC architecture they already have?
What percentage of computer users give a fuck about DV editing?
You're right... most people are interested in kernel compiling and having their Digital Rights(tm) managed. My bad.
Methinks you didn't read the thread. The conversation is about Itanium 2 not Pentium IV. Itanium 2 is much much faster than either the G4 or the P4.
Actually, the Itanium 2 is behind in SPECint with the 2.8Ghz P4, but is roughly double the SPECfp. Go to Intel's own site and they will tell you as much. As far as megaFLOPs are concerned, the G4 has them beat hands-down (as evidenced by both Apple and Intel's sites). A variant of the 64-bit Power architecture is a much more logical choice for Apple because it would give the best backwards compatibility. Additionally, DRM circuitry is about to start infecting the P4, and I don't see the leap to Itanium as improbable.