.... Such FUD would require people to be technically sophisticated enough to understand the difference between "Apple on x86" and "Apple on PPC", while at the same time dumb unough to believe a random blogger's spewing. I just don't see it ever being a major issue.
That's because you don't fit the demographic you just described. But that demographic exists, bigtime, whether you know it or not. I still run into P.C. doofuses who think Microsoft bought controlling interest in Apple back in the nineties with their little stock deal they had with Steve Jobs.
Fallout? From what? The obvious retort to such an assertion is that it's not supposed to run on a Dell. It's not supposed to run on anything but Apple-branded hardware.
There's information and then there's FUD. I didn't say the blogs and articles would be pushing information.
Although there is a MacOSX developer-version that will run on a particular Macintosh "P.C.," it may not run on your regular vanilla P.C.
But what's worse is that it might run on vanilla P.C., but badly. I can see it now: punks downloading Mac OSX "for free" and having it either crash, or have Quartz disabled, or otherwise run funky. Then the fallout on many a P.C. site/blog will be all about how OSX is crap and can't run well on a Dell.
In short, this could turn out to be bad publicity, if there is such a thing.
The set-up on this guy's web-page indicates he's using a digital-to-analog converter. I wonder if this isn't draining more power than simply sending digi-bits via the Mini's native DVI.
Check around, the extra memory doesn't have anything to do with any one killer app. It has to do with the next generation of operating systems.
MacOS is already pioneering by moving all graphics-related processing to the video card. With all the graphics for the windows and such in the card, the CPU will only need to issue graphics commands instead of RUNNING graphics commands.
MacOS also has an object-oriented set of frameworks for applications developers to get access to this wonderful GPU-only graphic scheme for free. They don't need to know anything about OpenGL or any of the low-level video-driving arcana.
Longhorn has probably been delayed so long because they have a lot of catching up to do, and MacOS is not standing still in this regard.
[i]NT's "VMS" heritage is that it shared the same developer.[/i]
Please, let this meme go.
Please look up the word "heritage" in the dictionary. I mentioned nothing about "a user and programmer's point of view."
Can someone please entertain the question as to why Apple won't release their OS for commodity hardware such as x86? I'm being completely serious here.
Because virtually every commercial OS that has tried has died? Novell, OS2, BeOS: RIP. The only OS that can survive on the "free," and "open," standard is Linux, which is supported by thousands of hackers working on it for free. Macolytes are devoted, but not that devoted.
Well if you add NextStep into the picture, OS X's heritage is as old as NT. What difference does it make anyway?
If you add NextStep's UNIX heritage and NT's VMS heritage to the stack, there's even less "difference." That's why I said OSX was new to PowerPC. The difference was that XP had already been running as NT on x86 for 10 years with millions of users and years of active development. By contrast, the NextStep roots of OSX had never been on PPC, never been used as a MacOS, and never been marketed by Apple until v. 10.0.
According to this guy, every Mac OS system since 10.0 has been an update. And by that reasoning every earlier system revision from 1.0 to 9.0 was an "update."
But he's used to the system changes being more dramatic like in the P.C. world:
1) DOS (command line) 1.5) Windows 1.0, 2.0 (aborted) 2) Windows 3.0 (whoops kinda shitty, do over) 2.5) Windows 3.1 (works!) 3) Windows 95 (Now like MacOS!) 4) Windows 98 (Now with a web-browser built-in!) 5) Windows ME (What is the diff here again?)
Notice 1.5)-5) are all nothing but DOS running a new graphical shell. And other than "service-pack" level changes, I'm hard-pressed to describe how Win 95/98/ME differ at all.
6) Windows 2000 (Now using NT instead of DOS!) 7) Windows XP
Because XP came out about the same time OSX did (you didn't think the "X" in "XP" was an original marketing idea, did you?) this guy assumes OSX can't have progressed any faster than XP has.
But the truth is OSX has had to progress much faster because it was a brand-new OS to the PowerPC. Windows XP by comparison, had already been out in the market for nearly a decade as "Windows NT," before it got the Windows 95 "Finder" slapped on top of it to be rebranded "Windows XP."
So the best way to think of OSX vs XP is that OSX is a generation ahead of XP in many ways, but it was pretty much brand-new in its 10.0 incarnation. By comparison, XP was not a new OS, and Longhorn will not be a new OS either. "Longhorn," such as it is will be a series of system updates to various XP subsystems.
Additionally, the current thinking on the Longhorn update is to allow people with XP to update these subsystems themselves with special installers, effectively making this a piecemeal update cycle and hardly a whole new unified OS rollout at all. Now who's trying to pass off a series of subsystem updates as a new OS?
Don't forget kiddies, more international government poking around your computer will mean the net will become less politicized, more secure, and cheaper! And if you believe that, I have some primo beachfront property to sell you in Nevada!
They're going out of business! Then you'll be left with a best-in-class device that does exactly what you want and there won't be any company around to support it! They are "beleaguered," just like Apple (another company that actually delivers the goods, today) and so you had better listen to the F.U.D.!
</sarcasm >
If TiVo Is Anthing Like Apple...
on
TiVo Will Die
·
· Score: 1
...it will be "going out of business" for the next 30 years or so. Go ahead and buy one now because FUD shouldn't make your decision for you. Quality products are always "going out of business" for some odd reason.;)
But if they put out a report that has scientific facts, not just opinions, that support it and is signed by 20 Nobel laureates, who put their reputation on the line, I think it's safe to say it's more truth than political.
Now that the war in Iraq is over, I'm going to risk my reputation and my credibility by saying "America is going to win and Saddam will be found!"
Have you ever tried to get 5 PHD's, much less 20, to agree on anything before? I think you don't understand the scientific process.
So, if "science" and clear thinking is the kind of thing that disunites PhD's, would it be safe to say that politics and partisanship are the kind of thing that unite them?
Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?
Why, the policymakers, of course! Silly question...
NEWSFLASH! This just in from the AP newswire: "20 Nobel laureate scientists win Democratic primaries in a thrilling come-from-nowhere victory!"
2) I really doubt that this is going to change the election. I really doubt that the average lay person will even know this report exists. If anything, only intellectuals and scientists will take any interest in such a report. Needless to say, I'm sure they will be more critical when parsing this report.
Right. And perhaps these scientists and intellectuals will also realize that this report has come out with the risk-of-WMD curve at a minimum point and the political-fodder-for-election curve at a maximum point.
So true. It just sounds so silly when som politico comes out and say something like "this has been so politisized!" Well, like, yes... You guys are politicians, right?
There is a constant push to one-up the other side in political discussions. Posing as "above the fray" is one way to make yourself look good without actually being any better than your opponents.
The politically savy will note that the translation for a claim of "playing politics" is usually: "Look at those bastards! They're doign the same thing to me that I did to them when they were trying to get their bill through! The NERVE!"
The fact is, the scientists are releasing a paper about science, and the fact it has political ramifications is just sad. Scientific facts are not political. They just exist.
The fact also is this: this paper has been conveniently released after the fact and before the election. Ask yourself, if these "scientific" facts were so vital to the question of the war and our leadership, why weren't they promulgated before the war?
My personal "theory" on this is that now that the war has happened and the risks have not panned out, it's time to bicker by any means necessarily and politically destroy the people who made the policies.
If these Nobel scientists had made these same scientific pronouncements before the war, they would have put their reputations on the line because finding chemicals and WMDs would have put egg on their face. Conveniently releasing the "scientific fact" after all the risk seems to have dissipated is more like arm-chair quarterbacking now for political purposes, especially when there are primaries going on and an ensuing election in the next few months.
and how does on "prove" that they are trustworthy or not? are you going to find all the facts on your own? have you bothered to read the report before saying that they are biased and untrustworthy? why are you so biased against it though? if you are expressing your opinion, why don;t you let them express theirs? they aren't asking you to join them, they simply stated why they are concerned with this administration. read the damned report.
Nobody has questioned the "facts." I think the only thing under question here is the timing of (long after the war ended, and before the election) and the motivation behind the emergence of these facts. If these facts REALLY MATTERED for anything other than partisan fodder, they would have been published in a like manner BEFORE THE WAR.
But success in the scientific field certainly gives someone the right to comment on misapropriation of scientific fact.
Who knew that leadership was "science," that spooks were "scientists," and that taking a calculated risk was a "scientific fact?" I guess the next step is to consider the entire world a "laboratory," and just set up scientists as our philosopher/kings.
Seems anyone will believe anything under the rubric of "science." Yet facts that anyone can see like "the government is spending too much" are conveniently forgotten while the partisans continue to bang the drum: "Government must do MORE!"
[blockquote]Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?[/blockquote]This would seem a valid question unless you had already realized that the Nobel has a very left-leaning selection process that is itself somewhat political (not scientific).
Slashdot Mirror
Although there is a MacOSX developer-version that will run on a particular Macintosh "P.C.," it may not run on your regular vanilla P.C.
But what's worse is that it might run on vanilla P.C., but badly. I can see it now: punks downloading Mac OSX "for free" and having it either crash, or have Quartz disabled, or otherwise run funky. Then the fallout on many a P.C. site/blog will be all about how OSX is crap and can't run well on a Dell.
In short, this could turn out to be bad publicity, if there is such a thing.
The set-up on this guy's web-page indicates he's using a digital-to-analog converter. I wonder if this isn't draining more power than simply sending digi-bits via the Mini's native DVI.
I'd rather not drag Longhorn into this.
Check around, the extra memory doesn't have anything to do with any one killer app. It has to do with the next generation of operating systems.
MacOS is already pioneering by moving all graphics-related processing to the video card. With all the graphics for the windows and such in the card, the CPU will only need to issue graphics commands instead of RUNNING graphics commands.
MacOS also has an object-oriented set of frameworks for applications developers to get access to this wonderful GPU-only graphic scheme for free. They don't need to know anything about OpenGL or any of the low-level video-driving arcana.
Longhorn has probably been delayed so long because they have a lot of catching up to do, and MacOS is not standing still in this regard.
The extra memory is to keep the CPU from having to busy itself writing graphics to backing-stores in the RAM.
/ 14
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars
[i]NT's "VMS" heritage is that it shared the same developer.[/i] Please, let this meme go. Please look up the word "heritage" in the dictionary. I mentioned nothing about "a user and programmer's point of view."
Can someone please entertain the question as to why Apple won't release their OS for commodity hardware such as x86? I'm being completely serious here.
Because virtually every commercial OS that has tried has died? Novell, OS2, BeOS: RIP. The only OS that can survive on the "free," and "open," standard is Linux, which is supported by thousands of hackers working on it for free. Macolytes are devoted, but not that devoted.
Well if you add NextStep into the picture, OS X's heritage is as old as NT. What difference does it make anyway?
If you add NextStep's UNIX heritage and NT's VMS heritage to the stack, there's even less "difference." That's why I said OSX was new to PowerPC. The difference was that XP had already been running as NT on x86 for 10 years with millions of users and years of active development. By contrast, the NextStep roots of OSX had never been on PPC, never been used as a MacOS, and never been marketed by Apple until v. 10.0.
According to this guy, every Mac OS system since 10.0 has been an update. And by that reasoning every earlier system revision from 1.0 to 9.0 was an "update."
But he's used to the system changes being more dramatic like in the P.C. world:
1) DOS (command line)
1.5) Windows 1.0, 2.0 (aborted)
2) Windows 3.0 (whoops kinda shitty, do over)
2.5) Windows 3.1 (works!)
3) Windows 95 (Now like MacOS!)
4) Windows 98 (Now with a web-browser built-in!)
5) Windows ME (What is the diff here again?)
Notice 1.5)-5) are all nothing but DOS running a new graphical shell. And other than "service-pack" level changes, I'm hard-pressed to describe how Win 95/98/ME differ at all.
6) Windows 2000 (Now using NT instead of DOS!)
7) Windows XP
Because XP came out about the same time OSX did (you didn't think the "X" in "XP" was an original marketing idea, did you?) this guy assumes OSX can't have progressed any faster than XP has.
But the truth is OSX has had to progress much faster because it was a brand-new OS to the PowerPC. Windows XP by comparison, had already been out in the market for nearly a decade as "Windows NT," before it got the Windows 95 "Finder" slapped on top of it to be rebranded "Windows XP."
So the best way to think of OSX vs XP is that OSX is a generation ahead of XP in many ways, but it was pretty much brand-new in its 10.0 incarnation. By comparison, XP was not a new OS, and Longhorn will not be a new OS either. "Longhorn," such as it is will be a series of system updates to various XP subsystems.
Additionally, the current thinking on the Longhorn update is to allow people with XP to update these subsystems themselves with special installers, effectively making this a piecemeal update cycle and hardly a whole new unified OS rollout at all. Now who's trying to pass off a series of subsystem updates as a new OS?
Don't forget kiddies, more international government poking around your computer will mean the net will become less politicized, more secure, and cheaper! And if you believe that, I have some primo beachfront property to sell you in Nevada!
< sarcasm >
/sarcasm >
They're going out of business! Then you'll be left with a best-in-class device that does exactly what you want and there won't be any company around to support it! They are "beleaguered," just like Apple (another company that actually delivers the goods, today) and so you had better listen to the F.U.D.!
<
Compile EMACS for OSX!
EMACS binaries for OSX!
The politically savy will note that the translation for a claim of "playing politics" is usually: "Look at those bastards! They're doign the same thing to me that I did to them when they were trying to get their bill through! The NERVE!"
My personal "theory" on this is that now that the war has happened and the risks have not panned out, it's time to bicker by any means necessarily and politically destroy the people who made the policies.
If these Nobel scientists had made these same scientific pronouncements before the war, they would have put their reputations on the line because finding chemicals and WMDs would have put egg on their face. Conveniently releasing the "scientific fact" after all the risk seems to have dissipated is more like arm-chair quarterbacking now for political purposes, especially when there are primaries going on and an ensuing election in the next few months.
Seems anyone will believe anything under the rubric of "science." Yet facts that anyone can see like "the government is spending too much" are conveniently forgotten while the partisans continue to bang the drum: "Government must do MORE!"
[blockquote]Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?[/blockquote]This would seem a valid question unless you had already realized that the Nobel has a very left-leaning selection process that is itself somewhat political (not scientific).
Tar and feathering Minnesota Senator may reduce fear-mongering tax and power grabs by the government.