Well, having lived in Nebraska for a few years with a cable modem, I would say there is other options.
Anywhere where you can get DSL in Omaha, you can get a cable modem... and actually, I lived in an area where you couldn't get DSL.
Also, the same was pretty much true for western Iowa.
If you really want something to bitch about, look at the broadband options for the people living outside of Omaha and Lincoln... hell, a lot of these people didn't/couldn't have phones until recently. Do you think they can have a connection to the internet that goes faster than 56k? I'd imagine that their line quality isn't the greatest, and it's more like 28.8 (or worse...)
I'm surprised that we haven't seen a push for the equivalent of equal access in broadband. Just like the phone was earlier, the internet is (has?) becoming a necessary means of communications, at least here in the US. If we neglect the needs of the farmers (and others outside of broadband's profitable reach), then we may create a bigger problem in the future when the farmers kids try to enter back in society without the necessary tech skills that every 4th grader will have in the bigger (profitable) communities.
While I'll grant you the point for saying QT isn't Linux compatible, you lose points for saying that creating QT media is expensive... last I checked, it just required QT Pro, $30. It's a simple registration key.
Add in the fact that you can download the streaming server and run it under Linux for free. That would make Quicktime a very cheap option.
Just not Linux friendly. But, the average video shop probally isn't going to care... they probally want to use their Macs for video production, and the higher ups want their videos to be available on Windows.
My network has been evolving over the past couple of years... ever since I got a cable modem. Originally, it was just a couple of old machines with my main machine, and since I didn't have a hub, I would switch them out by hand between the cable modem and each other... not very practical.
So, of course, I did what anyone else would do... I bought a hub. But I still had the problem with not being able to share the connection. Hence the Linux router box.
And this went on, until I had a room full of computers (8 at it's height) that could really only be used practically by two people at once.
I've now switched gears and taken a different route.... wireless. Currently, I have a Linksys router w/4 port switch and wireless access point. Right now, I only have one wireless enabled machine, but I plan on adding wireless cards to two other machines and start spreading those machines out.
In the future, I don't plan on buying desktops, except for one machine which I'll use as a server, hosting things like DNS, HTTP, SSH, and more. It's just not very practical in my case to have to go to a room, away from everything else in the house just to surf the web.
Wireless is really the future... and don't go for the silly Intel AnyCrap stuff... stick with products that implement the 802.11 standard.
Many artists don't have a problem with this. In fact some artists openly encourage spreading of MP3s. It is mostly record companies and BIG music stars that have problems.
I wouldn't say that the BIG music stars have the problems... the only reason they are so vocal is that the industry realises that because of their status, they can use them as the vocal point against MP3s. Nobody is going to side with a suit spouting off about how MP3s is cutting into their profit (yeah right). But, when Britney Spears stands up and says MP3s are bad, millions of teenage girls are going to listen.
This whole issue is all about PR. Whoever wins over the public opinion will prevail in the long run... if the public feels that MP3s are no more wrong than listening to the radio, the RIAA is effectively screwed, because no matter how many laws get passed, they will be worked around. But, if the RIAA succeeds, they won't need to get new laws... society will shame those who do trade music into conforming... much in the way we look down on someone who would walk into a bank with a gun.
What the hell? I've always thought that DS9 was the best of all the series... it was a lot more indepth than the original or TNG could ever be. And it was a more appealing show to those outside the "trek realm". Case in point: my wife would actually change the channel to watch DS9... compared that to her constantly changing the channel to get away from TNG.
While I don't personally like it, mostly because I haven't watched it that much, I've heard that Voyager is an excellent addition to the Star Trek family. I think it's the lack of familarity with the characters that turns most people off.
For example, I remember when the first season of TNG aired. I was among many who said that they could never do a new series. The original was so good, they could never improve upon that.
And for the first season, I didn't watch.
Well, by chance, I happened to watch an episode. And than another, and another. And pretty soon, I had friends watching. And my father. And so on.
And before long, guess what? I realized it was better. That there was life after Kirk, Spock, McCoy. That you could extend the idea without breaking the original.
But, you think I would've learned from this, right? Nope
When DS9 came out, I shunned it. I still had new episodes of TNG, I didn't need it.
And it took, ahem, a lack of cable for a month. The only channel I could recieve was the one that was carrying DS9. And I got hooked.
So, while I personally don't watch Voyager, I don't automatically just spout out that it sucks. It's just different.
I wish the creators of this new show lot's of luck. It sounds like a neat idea that should give them a lot of stories to play with.
And after a few seasons, I might actually sit down and watch the new show... and then I'll be hooked again.
The Linux 2.4 kernel is not everything everyone is claiming it to be and still does not have a lot of the features the Unix kernel has had for years. It will probably take another three years to build a [truly enterprise-ready] Linux kernel.
So, what Caldera is basically saying is, that they need at least 3 years to recoup their investment in SCO... that statement should scare the pointy hair types for at least that long while the tech guys scurry to gather facts on why they should use Linux over SCO.
First off, is there a lot of code sharing between Plex86 and Bochs? There is a lot of similarities in terms of interface issues, disk images, etc, etc...
Second, what is the plan on supporting devices within the virtual environment? Devices such as USB, FireWire, etc, etc..
Third, has anyone thought about hacking Windows (or any other OS) running within Plex86 to allow a transparent Windows desktop ala MacOS X with Classic? This would fall into the nifty but not needed category, but would probally surprise a few folks:)
I never said in my post that OS X is BSD... what I did say that I wasn't counting the variants of *BSD's available for the Mac... I believe there are a couple of them. And those really are BSD.
And while MacOS X isn't BSD, it is based on BSD, and still carries a lot of it's BSD heritage with it. The average user won't know about it, but they will be using it through Aqua/Carbon/Cocca/etc..
Also, it's a computer, not a religion... if you're not open to try new things, than that's alright by me... it's not going to change the way I feel, or for that matter, the way a lot of people feel.
I'd imagine that the tougher problem would be hardware, but with processors all running much faster than the system bus, that probally isn't as bad as it seems.
As far as OS management, unless a process is hitting 100% (of the slower processor, that is), there is no real reason to push a process over to the faster processor. I'd imagine that the OS could look at the CPU usage for a process, and if it's consistently on the heavy side for some amount of time, force it to run on the faster CPU.
But the real benefit of SMP isn't going to be for those processes that reach 100%... it's going to be for things like Apache where you have many small processes/threads all running. Each processes may only take 1% or so, but when you have a couple of hundred of them:) The people running machines that consistently eat 100% of the CPU have the money to buy high end CPUs and boards to go with them.
My real question is will the added complexity of the chipset justify the added price, when chip prices are pretty low anyway? I mean, why spend extra money on the chipset to support both a 700MHz and 900MHz CPU instead of going with the cheaper chipset and dual 900Mhz's instead?
I mean really... I think the SPARC is a great chip. And the Sun boxes are great, but must user's who buy a Sun box get Solaris... and to a lot of people, Linux = Unix = Solaris... so why bother?
So, what you have left using RedHat are the hard-core Linux on everything types (you know who you are...), and the "hey, i just got this thing on eBay... what can I do with it" types. And these aren't big money sources for RedHat.
So while it sucks that their won't be a SPARC version of RedHat, and for anyone that wanted to rid themselves of Intel hardware in exchange for Sun hardware that wanted to run Linux that there won't be any official (ie, paid) support, it is a decision that had to be made.
It's always been obvious to me that SPARC RedHat was doomed to fail... and I've always wondered why there is a SPARC version but no PPC version, considering that there are plenty more PPC's out there running an OS that isn't a Unix variant. This just isn't the case with the SPARC.
ahh, so refreshing... at a time, apple would've been considered anything but the cheap alternative:)
of course, the really nice thing about the iMac is that you can run Linux on it for free, or (by the time the splitup would occur) just run the free copy of OS X that's already on it. That's two (not even counting *BSD's and Darwin, but not out of prejudice...) OS's that don't suck and a machine for sure beats buying windows licenses for $1000:) or buying into to sun's view on the world;)
this brings up a point that i've seen in the open-source world before.
If the open-sourcing of a project (Motif, in this case) kills a project that was supposed to be the open-source replacement (Lestif), is that really a bad thing?
The reason Lestif was being created was lack of a available open-source/free implementation of Motif under Linux/*BSD/etc, etc.. If Motif is open (eventually fully open, that is), than what does it matter if Lestif dies?
From the perspective of a software developer, would you rather have a clone that implements most of what you want, or do you want the original? Especially if they are available under similar terms?
Just because it's open-source doesn't mean it has to live forever.
normally i wouldn't reply to a troll, but what the hell...
the difference is that on the linux side, there are people trying to make the system better. On the Windows side, you only have Microsoft... and if they want to make it better they will, but most of the time they don't.
Sure, Linux isn't perfect (much to the surprise to some on/.) but, it has much more potential than Windows currently does.
So, as I read your comment, you'd rather have Windows, where the libraries are in just as bad shape as Linux (or worse), than to have Linux where at least someone is trying to address the problem with the libraries. Fine by me... I don't want to dictate your OS choice.
I recieved this book for free from Cisco about 4 months ago. I'm sure there are a few Cisco users out here that could point out a URL to signup for the free books. I think the only requirement is that you or the company you work for is a Cisco customer, but that might be wrong.
I've noticed that your company is now porting to LinuxPPC, and so, I have a few questions regarding that:
1) You obviously feel that the PPC market is viable for porting. What factors made the PPC more attractive over the Sparc or Alpha? I can see where the larger Macintosh hardware market may be a factor, but I just don't see Linux taking ahold on the Mac side like I do with the PC side.
2) Have there been many problems with the PPC porting effort, such in the ways of 3-D Acceleration, sound support, etc?
3) And finally, is Loki's PPC support limited to PCI machines made by Apple, or are you targeting any PPC machine that can run Linux? (Such as CHRP motherboards or machines that can only run MkLinux).
3: (Cable modems again). Screwey Cable Cos can put different machines on the same modem onto different class Cs. This makes TCP/IP really bad for moving data arround because you are limited to you modem bandwidth.
what you just said doesn't even make sense, secondly, you are limited to the bandwidth of the line attached to the cable modem, and lastly, under what circumstance would you not be limited to the bandwidth of your line?
what he's trying to say is, because the subnets are different, all data from one machine sent to another on the same hub will be sent through the cable modem... unless the modem is smart enough to route those back without sending through the cable line, the packets will go out to the router and back again.
with two machines on the same subnet, the cable modem isn't even involved in the connection
>>... Apple has done everyhting in it's power to >> be the ONLY company allowed to produce PowerPC >> based machines. Or perhaps you've forgotten >> what happened to Power Computing et al?
Wrong. Apple has done everything in it's power to be the ONLY company allowed to produce PowerMac machines.
The PowerPC is about as open as you can get. Apple is just one of three companies that make up the PowerPC alliance (motorola and ibm being the other two). Motorola and IBM will be more than happy to sell you PPC chips to stick in machines running something besides MacOS. Heck, they probally don't care if the machine does run MacOS. They have a business of selling PPC chips to any customer, Apple or not.
uh huh... so lack of adb and scsi prevents you from upgrading to a new G3/G4.
According to the Apple store, you can add scsi for 50 bucks. If it's that important to you, there is a nice option.
And how many ADB devices do you have? I can count 3 that I have, keyboard, mouse, and joystick. But I'll gladly take USB over ADB any day of the week.
Oh, and if ADB is important, buy a B&W G3. It still has a ADB port.
By the way, this sort of nit-picking is bordering on insane. Were you one of those who complained that there wasn't a 680x0 chip in your new fang-dangled PPC Mac? Or how about that your new Mac II made your investments in Monochrome monitors go bad?
It's progress. Thank god we don't have to keep every obsolete piece of technology ever pursued at Apple. We'd probally still be on 680x0 machines with NuBus and the old style keyboard connector from the original Mac. Apple has done a wonderful job in moving the platform forward. You can't satisfy everyone with every decision, but Apple has tried to make the best of it anyway.
it was explained to me that the reason the 603e desktop machines won't work, and that the 603e portables will isn't a matter of cpu, but of chipsets.
The 603e notebooks use the same chipsets as the G3 notebooks/iMacs. Hence, the motherboard works.
The 603e desktops use a different chipset than the 8500/8600/9500/9600/G3s, so getting them to work may be problematic.
Hopefully, this release combined with my copy of Rhapsody DR2 may allow me to use my Performa 6400/180 with something besides MacOS 8.5/LinuxPPC/MkLinux/BeOS...
Now it's too late for partial measures. If they would release hardware specs, that would be a start, probaly help Linux ports.
Huh? What help do the Linux ports really need? Sure, there is some problems with the latest G3's (read Blue & White), but hell, it's tough to find a PPC Mac that won't run some form of Linux. Even the iMac with it's USB keyboard and mouse run LinuxPPC with the proper patches.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the more Apple progresses, the more they seem to become the high end version of a PC. The new G3's have standard ports all over the place. They even gave up the Mac video connector they've been using ever since the Mac II came out in '86/'87. And the next version will even get rid of ADB.
The chipsets are becomming more standard, the interfaces are becomming more standard (I still have a IDE Performa that doesn't support slave drives, at least you can connect 4 UltraDMA drives to the G3s), and depending on what today's announcement is, the os itself is becomming more standard.
Apple is doing everything it can to not only survive, but to bring some innovation to the industry. And being a Unix developer by day, Mac programmer by night, it's nice to see Apple build on the strengths of Unix instead of following the same road it's been on, and the same one the Microsoft is carving out for 95/98/NT/2000.
And as far a Be is concerned, at this point, if Apple gave them the motherboard designs, I would doubt that Be would produce a G3 version of BeOS. If Be really wanted the specs, they could use the Linux source as a learning guide to the internals of the G3. And my understanding is that the chipsets didn't change that dramatically from the 604/604e machines to the original G3s
Slashdot Mirror
Well, having lived in Nebraska for a few years with a cable modem, I would say there is other options.
Anywhere where you can get DSL in Omaha, you can get a cable modem... and actually, I lived in an area where you couldn't get DSL.
Also, the same was pretty much true for western Iowa.
If you really want something to bitch about, look at the broadband options for the people living outside of Omaha and Lincoln... hell, a lot of these people didn't/couldn't have phones until recently. Do you think they can have a connection to the internet that goes faster than 56k? I'd imagine that their line quality isn't the greatest, and it's more like 28.8 (or worse...)
I'm surprised that we haven't seen a push for the equivalent of equal access in broadband. Just like the phone was earlier, the internet is (has?) becoming a necessary means of communications, at least here in the US. If we neglect the needs of the farmers (and others outside of broadband's profitable reach), then we may create a bigger problem in the future when the farmers kids try to enter back in society without the necessary tech skills that every 4th grader will have in the bigger (profitable) communities.
While I'll grant you the point for saying QT isn't Linux compatible, you lose points for saying that creating QT media is expensive... last I checked, it just required QT Pro, $30. It's a simple registration key.
Add in the fact that you can download the streaming server and run it under Linux for free. That would make Quicktime a very cheap option.
Just not Linux friendly. But, the average video shop probally isn't going to care... they probally want to use their Macs for video production, and the higher ups want their videos to be available on Windows.
My network has been evolving over the past couple of years... ever since I got a cable modem. Originally, it was just a couple of old machines with my main machine, and since I didn't have a hub, I would switch them out by hand between the cable modem and each other... not very practical.
So, of course, I did what anyone else would do... I bought a hub. But I still had the problem with not being able to share the connection. Hence the Linux router box.
And this went on, until I had a room full of computers (8 at it's height) that could really only be used practically by two people at once.
I've now switched gears and taken a different route.... wireless. Currently, I have a Linksys router w/4 port switch and wireless access point. Right now, I only have one wireless enabled machine, but I plan on adding wireless cards to two other machines and start spreading those machines out.
In the future, I don't plan on buying desktops, except for one machine which I'll use as a server, hosting things like DNS, HTTP, SSH, and more. It's just not very practical in my case to have to go to a room, away from everything else in the house just to surf the web.
Wireless is really the future... and don't go for the silly Intel AnyCrap stuff... stick with products that implement the 802.11 standard.
Point two:
Many artists don't have a problem with this. In fact some artists openly encourage spreading of MP3s. It is mostly record companies and BIG music stars that have problems.
I wouldn't say that the BIG music stars have the problems... the only reason they are so vocal is that the industry realises that because of their status, they can use them as the vocal point against MP3s. Nobody is going to side with a suit spouting off about how MP3s is cutting into their profit (yeah right). But, when Britney Spears stands up and says MP3s are bad, millions of teenage girls are going to listen.
This whole issue is all about PR. Whoever wins over the public opinion will prevail in the long run... if the public feels that MP3s are no more wrong than listening to the radio, the RIAA is effectively screwed, because no matter how many laws get passed, they will be worked around. But, if the RIAA succeeds, they won't need to get new laws... society will shame those who do trade music into conforming... much in the way we look down on someone who would walk into a bank with a gun.
Troll, -1
What the hell? I've always thought that DS9 was the best of all the series... it was a lot more indepth than the original or TNG could ever be. And it was a more appealing show to those outside the "trek realm". Case in point: my wife would actually change the channel to watch DS9... compared that to her constantly changing the channel to get away from TNG.
While I don't personally like it, mostly because I haven't watched it that much, I've heard that Voyager is an excellent addition to the Star Trek family. I think it's the lack of familarity with the characters that turns most people off.
For example, I remember when the first season of TNG aired. I was among many who said that they could never do a new series. The original was so good, they could never improve upon that.
And for the first season, I didn't watch.
Well, by chance, I happened to watch an episode. And than another, and another. And pretty soon, I had friends watching. And my father. And so on.
And before long, guess what? I realized it was better. That there was life after Kirk, Spock, McCoy. That you could extend the idea without breaking the original.
But, you think I would've learned from this, right? Nope
When DS9 came out, I shunned it. I still had new episodes of TNG, I didn't need it.
And it took, ahem, a lack of cable for a month. The only channel I could recieve was the one that was carrying DS9. And I got hooked.
So, while I personally don't watch Voyager, I don't automatically just spout out that it sucks. It's just different.
I wish the creators of this new show lot's of luck. It sounds like a neat idea that should give them a lot of stories to play with.
And after a few seasons, I might actually sit down and watch the new show... and then I'll be hooked again.
The Linux 2.4 kernel is not everything everyone is claiming it to be and still does not have a lot of the features the Unix kernel has had for years. It will probably take another three years to build a [truly enterprise-ready] Linux kernel.
So, what Caldera is basically saying is, that they need at least 3 years to recoup their investment in SCO... that statement should scare the pointy hair types for at least that long while the tech guys scurry to gather facts on why they should use Linux over SCO.
First off, is there a lot of code sharing between Plex86 and Bochs? There is a lot of similarities in terms of interface issues, disk images, etc, etc...
:)
Second, what is the plan on supporting devices within the virtual environment? Devices such as USB, FireWire, etc, etc..
Third, has anyone thought about hacking Windows (or any other OS) running within Plex86 to allow a transparent Windows desktop ala MacOS X with Classic? This would fall into the nifty but not needed category, but would probally surprise a few folks
You'll never see an article about RedHat like this... "Yeah, they broke in and stole the source to our prize gem OS..."
hate to respond to this, but oh well...
I never said in my post that OS X is BSD... what I did say that I wasn't counting the variants of *BSD's available for the Mac... I believe there are a couple of them. And those really are BSD.
And while MacOS X isn't BSD, it is based on BSD, and still carries a lot of it's BSD heritage with it. The average user won't know about it, but they will be using it through Aqua/Carbon/Cocca/etc..
Also, it's a computer, not a religion... if you're not open to try new things, than that's alright by me... it's not going to change the way I feel, or for that matter, the way a lot of people feel.
I'd imagine that the tougher problem would be hardware, but with processors all running much faster than the system bus, that probally isn't as bad as it seems.
As far as OS management, unless a process is hitting 100% (of the slower processor, that is), there is no real reason to push a process over to the faster processor. I'd imagine that the OS could look at the CPU usage for a process, and if it's consistently on the heavy side for some amount of time, force it to run on the faster CPU.
But the real benefit of SMP isn't going to be for those processes that reach 100%... it's going to be for things like Apache where you have many small processes/threads all running. Each processes may only take 1% or so, but when you have a couple of hundred of them :) The people running machines that consistently eat 100% of the CPU have the money to buy high end CPUs and boards to go with them.
My real question is will the added complexity of the chipset justify the added price, when chip prices are pretty low anyway? I mean, why spend extra money on the chipset to support both a 700MHz and 900MHz CPU instead of going with the cheaper chipset and dual 900Mhz's instead?
I mean really... I think the SPARC is a great chip. And the Sun boxes are great, but must user's who buy a Sun box get Solaris... and to a lot of people, Linux = Unix = Solaris... so why bother?
So, what you have left using RedHat are the hard-core Linux on everything types (you know who you are...), and the "hey, i just got this thing on eBay... what can I do with it" types. And these aren't big money sources for RedHat.
So while it sucks that their won't be a SPARC version of RedHat, and for anyone that wanted to rid themselves of Intel hardware in exchange for Sun hardware that wanted to run Linux that there won't be any official (ie, paid) support, it is a decision that had to be made.
It's always been obvious to me that SPARC RedHat was doomed to fail... and I've always wondered why there is a SPARC version but no PPC version, considering that there are plenty more PPC's out there running an OS that isn't a Unix variant. This just isn't the case with the SPARC.
ahh, so refreshing... at a time, apple would've been considered anything but the cheap alternative :)
of course, the really nice thing about the iMac is that you can run Linux on it for free, or (by the time the splitup would occur) just run the free copy of OS X that's already on it. That's two (not even counting *BSD's and Darwin, but not out of prejudice...) OS's that don't suck and a machine for sure beats buying windows licenses for $1000 :) or buying into to sun's view on the world ;)
if this is a bug that is 2 years old (and i haven't seen anything saying it is or isn't), the fact that it wasn't fixed until now isn't saying much.
If the bug had been known about for 2 years, that would be a different beast all together...
any on another point, why is it linked to the full download??? does anyone know about patches?!?!?!?
this brings up a point that i've seen in the open-source world before.
If the open-sourcing of a project (Motif, in this case) kills a project that was supposed to be the open-source replacement (Lestif), is that really a bad thing?
The reason Lestif was being created was lack of a available open-source/free implementation of Motif under Linux/*BSD/etc, etc.. If Motif is open (eventually fully open, that is), than what does it matter if Lestif dies?
From the perspective of a software developer, would you rather have a clone that implements most of what you want, or do you want the original? Especially if they are available under similar terms?
Just because it's open-source doesn't mean it has to live forever.
normally i wouldn't reply to a troll, but what the hell...
/.) but, it has much more potential than Windows currently does.
the difference is that on the linux side, there are people trying to make the system better. On the Windows side, you only have Microsoft... and if they want to make it better they will, but most of the time they don't.
Sure, Linux isn't perfect (much to the surprise to some on
So, as I read your comment, you'd rather have Windows, where the libraries are in just as bad shape as Linux (or worse), than to have Linux where at least someone is trying to address the problem with the libraries. Fine by me... I don't want to dictate your OS choice.
I recieved this book for free from Cisco about 4 months ago. I'm sure there are a few Cisco users out here that could point out a URL to signup for the free books. I think the only requirement is that you or the company you work for is a Cisco customer, but that might be wrong.
dennis
Scott,
I've noticed that your company is now porting to LinuxPPC, and so, I have a few questions regarding that:
1) You obviously feel that the PPC market is viable for porting. What factors made the PPC more attractive over the Sparc or Alpha? I can see where the larger Macintosh hardware market may be a factor, but I just don't see Linux taking ahold on the Mac side like I do with the PC side.
2) Have there been many problems with the PPC porting effort, such in the ways of 3-D Acceleration, sound support, etc?
3) And finally, is Loki's PPC support limited to PCI machines made by Apple, or are you targeting any PPC machine that can run Linux? (Such as CHRP motherboards or machines that can only run MkLinux).
thanks,
3: (Cable modems again). Screwey Cable Cos can put different machines on the same modem onto different class Cs. This makes TCP/IP really bad for moving data arround because you are limited to you modem bandwidth.
what you just said doesn't even make sense, secondly, you are limited to the bandwidth of the line attached to the cable modem, and lastly, under what circumstance would you not be limited to the bandwidth of your line?
what he's trying to say is, because the subnets are different, all data from one machine sent to another on the same hub will be sent through the cable modem... unless the modem is smart enough to route those back without sending through the cable line, the packets will go out to the router and back again.
with two machines on the same subnet, the cable modem isn't even involved in the connection
heh,
i live in Bellevue... the city... not the prison :)
but the description still fits ;)
not sure, but i could've sworn that the article said fiscal year 2000... which would've been very much on target.
>> ... Apple has done everyhting in it's power to
>> be the ONLY company allowed to produce PowerPC
>> based machines. Or perhaps you've forgotten
>> what happened to Power Computing et al?
Wrong. Apple has done everything in it's power to be the ONLY company allowed to produce PowerMac machines.
The PowerPC is about as open as you can get. Apple is just one of three companies that make up the PowerPC alliance (motorola and ibm being the other two). Motorola and IBM will be more than happy to sell you PPC chips to stick in machines running something besides MacOS. Heck, they probally don't care if the machine does run MacOS. They have a business of selling PPC chips to any customer, Apple or not.
uh huh... so lack of adb and scsi prevents you from upgrading to a new G3/G4.
According to the Apple store, you can add scsi for 50 bucks. If it's that important to you, there is a nice option.
And how many ADB devices do you have? I can count 3 that I have, keyboard, mouse, and joystick. But I'll gladly take USB over ADB any day of the week.
Oh, and if ADB is important, buy a B&W G3. It still has a ADB port.
By the way, this sort of nit-picking is bordering on insane. Were you one of those who complained that there wasn't a 680x0 chip in your new fang-dangled PPC Mac? Or how about that your new Mac II made your investments in Monochrome monitors go bad?
It's progress. Thank god we don't have to keep every obsolete piece of technology ever pursued at Apple. We'd probally still be on 680x0 machines with NuBus and the old style keyboard connector from the original Mac. Apple has done a wonderful job in moving the platform forward. You can't satisfy everyone with every decision, but Apple has tried to make the best of it anyway.
except the 603e desktop machines...
it was explained to me that the reason the 603e desktop machines won't work, and that the 603e portables will isn't a matter of cpu, but of chipsets.
The 603e notebooks use the same chipsets as the G3 notebooks/iMacs. Hence, the motherboard works.
The 603e desktops use a different chipset than the 8500/8600/9500/9600/G3s, so getting them to work may be problematic.
Hopefully, this release combined with my copy of Rhapsody DR2 may allow me to use my Performa 6400/180 with something besides MacOS 8.5/LinuxPPC/MkLinux/BeOS...
Now it's too late for partial measures. If they would release hardware specs, that would be a start, probaly help Linux ports.
Huh? What help do the Linux ports really need? Sure, there is some problems with the latest G3's (read Blue & White), but hell, it's tough to find a PPC Mac that won't run some form of Linux. Even the iMac with it's USB keyboard and mouse run LinuxPPC with the proper patches.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the more Apple progresses, the more they seem to become the high end version of a PC. The new G3's have standard ports all over the place. They even gave up the Mac video connector they've been using ever since the Mac II came out in '86/'87. And the next version will even get rid of ADB.
The chipsets are becomming more standard, the interfaces are becomming more standard (I still have a IDE Performa that doesn't support slave drives, at least you can connect 4 UltraDMA drives to the G3s), and depending on what today's announcement is, the os itself is becomming more standard.
Apple is doing everything it can to not only survive, but to bring some innovation to the industry. And being a Unix developer by day, Mac programmer by night, it's nice to see Apple build on the strengths of Unix instead of following the same road it's been on, and the same one the Microsoft is carving out for 95/98/NT/2000.
And as far a Be is concerned, at this point, if Apple gave them the motherboard designs, I would doubt that Be would produce a G3 version of BeOS. If Be really wanted the specs, they could use the Linux source as a learning guide to the internals of the G3. And my understanding is that the chipsets didn't change that dramatically from the 604/604e machines to the original G3s