Every so often we are treated to another shrill screed about how the troglodytes in 'Merkuh don't believe in "The One True, Irrefutable Scientific Theory du Jour" (in this case evolution). They claim Americans are weak on science because they can't "see the evidence." And yet America has lead the world in scientific discovery and invention for [b]decades[/b]. How can this be? Perhaps the ideologues who write this bushwa can't "see the evidence."
On a related note, ever notice how all the research and development facilities in the United States are in the West and the South (the land of the troglodytes), away from the vaunted Ivy-League colleges of the East coast, the land of the enlightened?
So go ahead and Boot Camp if you must. But don't come running to me when your mind and body prematurely degenerate. I'll be smart, fit, and enjoying my real Windows computers, while you ooze slowly into the Pixar-Disney-ABC swamp of mindlessness. Chump.
Is this what passes for journalism or informed opinion in the P.C. web-rags these days? I mean -- c'mon! All it was missing was a line like "Windows RUL3Z, suckerz! LOL! OMG!" And how about this phrase in particular: "enjoying my real Windows computers." "Enjoying?" "Windows?" WTF?
Re:For the switch to windows
on
Apple Joins BAPCo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think Apple is considering moving out of the computer manufacturing business entirely... I was telling my friends years ago when the ipod accounted for over 50% of Apple's profits that they would shift their strategy to focus on their more profitable businesses.
If their current focus on the "more profitable" business has netted them >80% market-share, how much more of their focus is needed?
A year after that, I was talking about how they would move away from the RISC architecture, and adopt an Intel architecture.. which would give them an opportunity to make their barely profitable computer manufacturing business profitable.
What an "opportunity!"
Apple has always had the highest margins in the personal computing industry, and the have turned hundreds of millions in profit for years now. Additionally, Intel parts cost more than PPC chips, as evidenced by the $100 price increase in the Mac Mini.
Next would be porting OSX to run on competitor's hardware, sidestepping IBM's fatal proprietary model, and opening up their software development segments to a broader market, and giving them better opportunity to be profitable.
As I recall, IBM's "fatal" mistake in the P.C. biz was OS/2, which ran on the "competitor's hardware." There's a reason Apple waited for Intel's built-in DRM chips before moving to x86. Truth be told, the so-called "open" x86 architecture is Microsoft's personal fiefdom, and any proprietary OS besides Windows is suffocated within a few years. Linux gets by because, as an open-source project, there is no traditional way to cut off its "air supply."
At which point, Apple could seriously consider the profitibility of manufacturing computers all togeather.
Yeah. This way they can concentrate on competing with Windows! Imagine how many more copies of OSX will get sold when no consumer-box OEM will install the software on the threat of losing price-breaks on their Windows liscenses.
Apple has potential to grow tremendously, and make a great comeback from near bankruptcy.. once again.
They already did that -- years ago. The potential now is to to make a great comeback to near bankruptcy, once again.
It will need to reduce propreitary business models, increase open market comeptitveness, shed unprofitable revenues sources, and focus thier resources on high profit sections. To me this means, focus on software and peripherals.
This is obviously coming from someone who hasn't taken note of all the wrecked companies in both the peripheral and software markets while companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and Intel live on.
I guess they figured the only time the speed of your brain is in question is when you've been waiting over 5 years for something like OSX to show up from Microsoft.
Now Vista will have a new 3D effect to window grouping. Sweet Jesus, I am turning my cell phone off. I can imagine it now, "All my windows are turning sideways! Make it stop!"
Don't worry about your cell phone. By the time Vista comes out, if it comes out, you will be getting mental vibrations from them through the psychic plane. That's how all transcendent beings will communicate once they've evolved into pure energy. Of course if your sisters are still using Windows by then, perhaps you better keep the phone.
[quote]Yeah, amazing how far a country can stray from its original ideas..[/quote]
The CCCP never had ideals. It only had expediencies. The Soviet constitution wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
It took Intel until now to come up with something a little more powerful than a G5 that runs cooler than a G5. And they had to go dual-core and next-generation 65-nanometer to do it. This does not reflect well on the x86 architecture. But now that Steve is committed to x86, he seems to have resorted to citing the old tried-and-true PC-fan-boy benchmark, SPEC. Steve really was right about the G5 being faster before. If Intel's latest and greatest dual-core is only 10-15% faster than the single-core G5, he was spot-on about performance claims before the architecture change.
Oh, right. OS X. Hey, wait -- isn't that software?
Right.
Hence, Apple is a software company in drag.
I hate to break it to you, but there are absolutely no commercial OS companies Apple's size running on x86. Thank Microsoft for that. The whole point of keeping Apple on their own hardware either through PPC chips or Intel's DRM chips is to insulate them from the deadly general x86 market. The only thing that survives there other than the 800-lb gorilla is small firms selling support for a "free" home-built operating system put together by a digital commune. Compared to Apple's current model, the Linux model is a money-losing proposition.
If you want to write an exciting article about all the next-generation OS technology and improvements coming out, you can either wait 2-5 years to write the Windows article, or you can write the same article about Apple -- today.
Clippy has been old news for years. NT has been old news for years. XP has been old news for years.
Ask me in 5 years when all the problems have been shacken with the intel transition and apple has solved the problem of supplying drivers for all the relatively current hardware.
Apple has been running OSX on Intel-based computers since the beginning of OSX back in 2000. It has already been 5 years. All that remains is for developers to check an x86 check-box in Apple's XCode development environment and recompile their apps. End of transition.
For apps that don't get recompiled for x86, Apple has provided a PPC emulator that runs at 70% of standard speed. Apple has a lot of experience in the emulation biz since the big 68000->PPC transition in 1994.
Yes, and I have a Mac Mini. It's nice and all, but for the same price point I (personally) could build a superior powered PC.
Good luck on trying to make it fit in a 2"x6" box and powering it on 12-20 Watts. I've found my Mac Mini at 1.42GHz is comparable to a 1.8GHz P4 (Northwood), at about 1/20th the size, and without the scream of jet-engine fans. Could I put together a 2.8GHz P4 for less than $500? Probably. Would I want to use it every day for anything other than gaming? Probably not.
Microsoft would call up Dell and say, "ship MacOS X on one single box and your price on Windows will triple." And that will be the end of OS X on PCs. They killed Be in this manner and they can and will do it again.
And DR DOS, and Novell, and OS/2, and the Linux-wing of most large PC OEMs.
The average user isn't going to care about OS X any more than they did about MacOS. I doubt that most non Mac users have any idea what the difference is between MacOS and MacOS X.
Apparently they don't know the difference between Windows XP and MacOS X either. Otherwise more would have switched by now.
If it were not for Microsoft Office for Mac, IE for Mac and Microsoft's support would Apple even be around today? Frankly if Microsoft hadn't given that very public pledge of support to keep developing for Apple back in 97 Apple may have very well be taken over. This btw wasn't due to any charity on MS's part, they did it for anti-trust reasons alone.
Incorrect. They pulled that little P.R. stunt with the Apple stock and promised to develop Office for the Mac for the next five years in exchange for Apple dropping their infringement lawsuits against Microsoft. You're right that it wasn't charity, but wrong about it being a unilater move on Microsoft's part to show the DOJ it could play nice with a "competitor." They got plenty from Apple in that deal.
Re:CNN is quoting Think Secret??
on
New Apples Next Week
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Is what Fox-style journalism has done to the news world? CNN no longer does its own reporting and relies on rumors...
That "Fox-style journalism" has been spreading like wildfire lately. The CBS/Dan Rather fake National Guard documents and the Newsweek rumors of Korans going into the toilet were clearly brought on by a similar spate of discredited stories from Fox News that I can't seem to recall right now.
Apple never dropped 68K support in MacOS (they did in OS X). OS 9.2.2 still has the mixed mode manager, and 68K apps run fine under Classic.
Well if this is any indication, they will never drop PPC support in MacOS until the next major OS revision similar to 9.2.2-->OSX 10.0 ten to fifteen years from now.
Everyone is always so concerned about other people getting ripped off, it never occurs to them that the "cure" is worse than the disease.
The "U.N. first" crowd would rather have a million of us send $1 to some U.N. Goon Squad in Nigeria than have all of us free while some dumbass wires $1,000,000 to an anonymous Nigerian con-man. It's 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.
Either an anonymous dumbass gets burned every once in a while or the whole of responsible computer users (you and me) get burned with new taxes and regulations every year. Gee, that's a hard call.
Well they do decrease productivity because they eat up ram and chew CPU cycles.
Actually it's the opposite. The Old-OSX/New-XP approach actually saves RAM and CPU cycles. Most of this eye-candy is added and managed in the video card's RAM and eats up the GPU's cycles.
Slashdot Mirror
Every so often we are treated to another shrill screed about how the troglodytes in 'Merkuh don't believe in "The One True, Irrefutable Scientific Theory du Jour" (in this case evolution). They claim Americans are weak on science because they can't "see the evidence." And yet America has lead the world in scientific discovery and invention for [b]decades[/b]. How can this be? Perhaps the ideologues who write this bushwa can't "see the evidence."
On a related note, ever notice how all the research and development facilities in the United States are in the West and the South (the land of the troglodytes), away from the vaunted Ivy-League colleges of the East coast, the land of the enlightened?
Touche!
Mod that Coward up to "Funny!"
The Nike+
Yonah = "Core Duo/Solo"
Conroe, Merom = "Core 2 Duo/Solo"
The Woodcrest, who knows?
Conroe, Merom, Woodcrest = "Next Generation Architecture" = "Core Architecture"
Although Yonah is the "Core Duo/Solo," it is not actually part of the "Core Architecture."
Capisci?
Is this what passes for journalism or informed opinion in the P.C. web-rags these days? I mean -- c'mon! All it was missing was a line like "Windows RUL3Z, suckerz! LOL! OMG!" And how about this phrase in particular: "enjoying my real Windows computers." "Enjoying?" "Windows?" WTF?
Apple has always had the highest margins in the personal computing industry, and the have turned hundreds of millions in profit for years now. Additionally, Intel parts cost more than PPC chips, as evidenced by the $100 price increase in the Mac Mini. As I recall, IBM's "fatal" mistake in the P.C. biz was OS/2, which ran on the "competitor's hardware." There's a reason Apple waited for Intel's built-in DRM chips before moving to x86. Truth be told, the so-called "open" x86 architecture is Microsoft's personal fiefdom, and any proprietary OS besides Windows is suffocated within a few years. Linux gets by because, as an open-source project, there is no traditional way to cut off its "air supply." Yeah. This way they can concentrate on competing with Windows! Imagine how many more copies of OSX will get sold when no consumer-box OEM will install the software on the threat of losing price-breaks on their Windows liscenses. They already did that -- years ago. The potential now is to to make a great comeback to near bankruptcy, once again. This is obviously coming from someone who hasn't taken note of all the wrecked companies in both the peripheral and software markets while companies like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, and Intel live on.
I guess they figured the only time the speed of your brain is in question is when you've been waiting over 5 years for something like OSX to show up from Microsoft.
Don't worry about your cell phone. By the time Vista comes out, if it comes out, you will be getting mental vibrations from them through the psychic plane. That's how all transcendent beings will communicate once they've evolved into pure energy. Of course if your sisters are still using Windows by then, perhaps you better keep the phone.
[quote]Yeah, amazing how far a country can stray from its original ideas..[/quote] The CCCP never had ideals. It only had expediencies. The Soviet constitution wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
Now that I've posted, everyone is going to get in on this thread.
It took Intel until now to come up with something a little more powerful than a G5 that runs cooler than a G5. And they had to go dual-core and next-generation 65-nanometer to do it. This does not reflect well on the x86 architecture. But now that Steve is committed to x86, he seems to have resorted to citing the old tried-and-true PC-fan-boy benchmark, SPEC. Steve really was right about the G5 being faster before. If Intel's latest and greatest dual-core is only 10-15% faster than the single-core G5, he was spot-on about performance claims before the architecture change.
Nice machines though.
I hate to break it to you, but there are absolutely no commercial OS companies Apple's size running on x86. Thank Microsoft for that. The whole point of keeping Apple on their own hardware either through PPC chips or Intel's DRM chips is to insulate them from the deadly general x86 market. The only thing that survives there other than the 800-lb gorilla is small firms selling support for a "free" home-built operating system put together by a digital commune. Compared to Apple's current model, the Linux model is a money-losing proposition.
If you want to write an exciting article about all the next-generation OS technology and improvements coming out, you can either wait 2-5 years to write the Windows article, or you can write the same article about Apple -- today.
Clippy has been old news for years. NT has been old news for years. XP has been old news for years.
For apps that don't get recompiled for x86, Apple has provided a PPC emulator that runs at 70% of standard speed. Apple has a lot of experience in the emulation biz since the big 68000->PPC transition in 1994.
This is all explained in detail about halfway through the 2005 WWDC Keynote Address.
You can download and compile an EMACS that runs on OSX without an X Window client:
i ning-and-building.html
http://members.shaw.ca/akochoi-emacs/stories/obta
Incorrect. They pulled that little P.R. stunt with the Apple stock and promised to develop Office for the Mac for the next five years in exchange for Apple dropping their infringement lawsuits against Microsoft. You're right that it wasn't charity, but wrong about it being a unilater move on Microsoft's part to show the DOJ it could play nice with a "competitor." They got plenty from Apple in that deal.
That "Fox-style journalism" has been spreading like wildfire lately. The CBS/Dan Rather fake National Guard documents and the Newsweek rumors of Korans going into the toilet were clearly brought on by a similar spate of discredited stories from Fox News that I can't seem to recall right now.
Well if this is any indication, they will never drop PPC support in MacOS until the next major OS revision similar to 9.2.2-->OSX 10.0 ten to fifteen years from now.
It won't.
Everyone is always so concerned about other people getting ripped off, it never occurs to them that the "cure" is worse than the disease.
The "U.N. first" crowd would rather have a million of us send $1 to some U.N. Goon Squad in Nigeria than have all of us free while some dumbass wires $1,000,000 to an anonymous Nigerian con-man. It's 6 of one, a half dozen of the other.
Either an anonymous dumbass gets burned every once in a while or the whole of responsible computer users (you and me) get burned with new taxes and regulations every year. Gee, that's a hard call.
Actually it's the opposite. The Old-OSX/New-XP approach actually saves RAM and CPU cycles. Most of this eye-candy is added and managed in the video card's RAM and eats up the GPU's cycles.
See this ARS article on Apple's Quartz 2D Extreme. This model is essentially what Longhorn is trying to do with their next generation graphics layer.