The way the memory was used in OS 9 probably had mroe to do with it. OS X is much more opportunistic about things - any and all RAM is considered fair game for pretty much any piece of software, including the OS. In OS 9, the OS stayed in the lower portion of the memory for the most part, so you'd run into more app crashing and less OS crashing. You'd blame Photoshop for the incident rather than the OS, while it was really the hardware failing you.
A-MEN, except I'd tend to vouch for the OS 8 (or System 7 with the Aaron extension) as the prettiest-yet-most-functional OS I've ever had my hands on. OS X may bring some new things to the table, but it just doesn't feel as refined as the classic Mac OS became over its 15-year tenure.
The thing is, a road can only handle so much traffic before the efficiency goes *way down.* Take a run-of-the-mill four-lane roadway. When you have a certain amount of traffic, it flows quite quickly. Add another 25% to the total number of cars. The traffic stoll flows quickly. Add another 25% beyond that, though, and you end up with a four-lane parking lot. How many times have you run into a patch of traffic that is slow for no apparent reason? Once you pass a certian point, though, traffic just eases and you're on your way. By spreading out the traffic more evenly, every road gets only the amount of traffic it can handle efficiently and everyone gets where they're going quicker.
Say what you will, but I have been an occasional user. Do you know why it's never been a regular habit? Because I know people that have been regular users. I have seen how they're effected long-term. I don't need a study to tell me that habitual marijuana use leads to impaired intellect.
In all fairness, System 7 supported custom icons, but it took the document's creator app to actually implement the functionality. The first programs I saw that actually took advantage of it were GraphicConverter and Photoshop; saving a JPEG from your Netscape Navigator 2.1 browser left you with the Netscape-document icon.
If someone had had posted something like "Oh, that explains the events of Star Trek: TOS episode twelve" you would have just passed on by. But no, you just had to make that random attack.
Thanks for helping to keep the Slashdot S/N ratio low.
It was upgradeable in the sense you could do a motherboard swap. All the machines with that style of case used a pin-compatible connector on the front of the motherboard for the SCSI (CD-ROM), power, front buttons, and IR sensor. You could take the aforementioned 6360 motherboard and put it into your 636CD chassis rather painlessly.
Sure, not the epitome of upgradeability, but I still think it fits the letter fo the claim fairly well.
By the way, as an owner of a 636CD myself, how was a person to find out about these class-action suits? We certainly were never notified, and I know we submitted all the registration materials. Was Apple required to contact us, or were we just supposed to know these things by magic?
*After I learned my friends SONY surround sound system couldn't play CD-Rs, I decided Sony had gone too far.
This would be an old DVD player. Pressed CDs reflect color wavelengths that are in a range all DVD players can read, while CD-Rs are different enough that a DVD read laser can't discern the data. Newer DVD players have a dual-laser setup that allows them to read both DVDs and CD-Rs.
It's not some evil conspiracy, it's just a limit of the technology from a few years ago. I don't recall seeing any DVD players recently that could not read CD-Rs, in fact most brag loudly that they can play MP3 CDs.
No, actually what they've been missing is the underlying system. It's easy to brute-force a search by reading every file on the hard drive sequentially. The current Mac OS system can one-up that by periodically doing a sequential indexing of all files, so the index can be consulted when a user does a search by content.
What Spotlight and WinFS promise is the ability to search a continuously-updated index. You open a search, and search for an MP3 with a certain tag. Three results show up. Then, you copy over an additional folder of MP3s - and your still-open search window updates to include the additional file.
The search subsystem is inserted into the filesystem, so that the file-finding system always knows what's going on. It's informed when a file is copied, modified, deleted, and so on.
Now, this is just the search-engine interface. What the underlying tech enables is far more important. It allows a new way of locating files and arranging by the file itself, not a spatial/tree construct. This is important because the purpose of a filesystem is to organize and locate files. A tree was sufficient when the averag person had a few dozen files on a disk. It was still pretty good when people got to a few hundred, or even a few thousand. Now, with the tens of thousands of files that the average user has roaming his hard drive, the traditional tree layout is no longer sufficient. Finding and using information has become a chore for the user instead of a service provided by the OS. The new features of Windows and Mac OS X are aimed at making the organization of files helpful again.
Yeah, about that meiosis: we're going to have to ask you to stop. Do whatever it takes; we can even take care of the "problem" for you with a simple outpatient surgery.
I really want to know who the people are that are buying high, in order to afford us the opportunity to sell high. For as smart as a lot of people in the market are, there sure seem to be quite a few dumb ones too.
That's the way I'm looking at it - after all, it's money I didn't have before. I made money instead of lost, so there's not really anything to complain about.
I'm irritated that I bought at $23/share then sold a couple weeks ago at $73/share. Yeah, 200% profit, but I could have made it to 250% profit! Or more!
And yes, I'm entirely serious about this. The thing is, being me, it was only 20 shares. Still, an extra grand I didn't know I'd have a few years ago...best investment I've ever made. Well, best one I've made and cashed out already. The others are yet to be seen.
I honestly think that with a few improvements, the commodity PC could be a good home to OS X. As it stands, though, the generic x86 computer is crap.
For example, OpenFirmware could make worlds of difference. If the x86 folks had made that transition around the time Apple did, we'd all be better off - but everyone is still using a hacked-up BIOS from twenty-odd years ago.
The PC99 spec was supposed to get rid of legacy ports like PS/2, serial, and parallel. It's now six years later and virtually every Windows PC still has these ports.
I think that's a big problem for the acceptance of Apple in this area - Apple relies on their low inertia to respond quickly to changing demands. Once you have licensees and the like, change cannot be made as rapidly; few markets are a slow to adopt new technology as the consumer PC market.
The Frotune article makes it sound like MS still owns the stock, but I keep hearing from various people (inclusing yourself, obviously) that MS sold the stock years ago. Who's right? Do you have a reference besides another Slashdot comment?
First, modify the standard a little bit. Only allow characters from one language set to be used in a given domain name (No mixing Swedish characters with Russian)
Second, clearly show next to the URL what "language" it is written in.
Another possible workaround (also involving changes to the standard) would be to only allow the use of the German-specific charcters in domains in the.de TLD and so forth.
And if you read the $600 model's spec sheet, it doesn't specify that it actually has integrated wireless, but that it has "wireless capability." That seems mighty suspicios given that they list specifics for both the wired ethernet and the modem.
Slashdot Mirror
The way the memory was used in OS 9 probably had mroe to do with it. OS X is much more opportunistic about things - any and all RAM is considered fair game for pretty much any piece of software, including the OS. In OS 9, the OS stayed in the lower portion of the memory for the most part, so you'd run into more app crashing and less OS crashing. You'd blame Photoshop for the incident rather than the OS, while it was really the hardware failing you.
Instead of the Apple hardware test, consider this third-party tool.
A-MEN, except I'd tend to vouch for the OS 8 (or System 7 with the Aaron extension) as the prettiest-yet-most-functional OS I've ever had my hands on. OS X may bring some new things to the table, but it just doesn't feel as refined as the classic Mac OS became over its 15-year tenure.
The thing is, a road can only handle so much traffic before the efficiency goes *way down.* Take a run-of-the-mill four-lane roadway. When you have a certain amount of traffic, it flows quite quickly. Add another 25% to the total number of cars. The traffic stoll flows quickly. Add another 25% beyond that, though, and you end up with a four-lane parking lot. How many times have you run into a patch of traffic that is slow for no apparent reason? Once you pass a certian point, though, traffic just eases and you're on your way. By spreading out the traffic more evenly, every road gets only the amount of traffic it can handle efficiently and everyone gets where they're going quicker.
Say what you will, but I have been an occasional user. Do you know why it's never been a regular habit? Because I know people that have been regular users. I have seen how they're effected long-term. I don't need a study to tell me that habitual marijuana use leads to impaired intellect.
In all fairness, System 7 supported custom icons, but it took the document's creator app to actually implement the functionality. The first programs I saw that actually took advantage of it were GraphicConverter and Photoshop; saving a JPEG from your Netscape Navigator 2.1 browser left you with the Netscape-document icon.
And you're behaving as a dick.
If someone had had posted something like "Oh, that explains the events of Star Trek: TOS episode twelve" you would have just passed on by. But no, you just had to make that random attack.
Thanks for helping to keep the Slashdot S/N ratio low.
It was upgradeable in the sense you could do a motherboard swap. All the machines with that style of case used a pin-compatible connector on the front of the motherboard for the SCSI (CD-ROM), power, front buttons, and IR sensor. You could take the aforementioned 6360 motherboard and put it into your 636CD chassis rather painlessly.
Sure, not the epitome of upgradeability, but I still think it fits the letter fo the claim fairly well.
By the way, as an owner of a 636CD myself, how was a person to find out about these class-action suits? We certainly were never notified, and I know we submitted all the registration materials. Was Apple required to contact us, or were we just supposed to know these things by magic?
He was talking about the Performa 6360, which is a PPC model on a 603 - it will run Linux.
*After I learned my friends SONY surround sound system couldn't play CD-Rs, I decided Sony had gone too far.
This would be an old DVD player. Pressed CDs reflect color wavelengths that are in a range all DVD players can read, while CD-Rs are different enough that a DVD read laser can't discern the data. Newer DVD players have a dual-laser setup that allows them to read both DVDs and CD-Rs.
It's not some evil conspiracy, it's just a limit of the technology from a few years ago. I don't recall seeing any DVD players recently that could not read CD-Rs, in fact most brag loudly that they can play MP3 CDs.
In Moz-mail, I can right click a link and either open a link normally OR open in a new tab.
Can I do that with the separate apps?
No, actually what they've been missing is the underlying system. It's easy to brute-force a search by reading every file on the hard drive sequentially. The current Mac OS system can one-up that by periodically doing a sequential indexing of all files, so the index can be consulted when a user does a search by content.
What Spotlight and WinFS promise is the ability to search a continuously-updated index. You open a search, and search for an MP3 with a certain tag. Three results show up. Then, you copy over an additional folder of MP3s - and your still-open search window updates to include the additional file.
The search subsystem is inserted into the filesystem, so that the file-finding system always knows what's going on. It's informed when a file is copied, modified, deleted, and so on.
Now, this is just the search-engine interface. What the underlying tech enables is far more important. It allows a new way of locating files and arranging by the file itself, not a spatial/tree construct. This is important because the purpose of a filesystem is to organize and locate files. A tree was sufficient when the averag person had a few dozen files on a disk. It was still pretty good when people got to a few hundred, or even a few thousand. Now, with the tens of thousands of files that the average user has roaming his hard drive, the traditional tree layout is no longer sufficient. Finding and using information has become a chore for the user instead of a service provided by the OS. The new features of Windows and Mac OS X are aimed at making the organization of files helpful again.
No, it's more they support Mozilla-based browsers like Mozilla.
Why do YOU exist when I already exist?
He's not quite as redundant as you.
Yeah, about that meiosis: we're going to have to ask you to stop. Do whatever it takes; we can even take care of the "problem" for you with a simple outpatient surgery.
I really want to know who the people are that are buying high, in order to afford us the opportunity to sell high. For as smart as a lot of people in the market are, there sure seem to be quite a few dumb ones too.
That's the way I'm looking at it - after all, it's money I didn't have before. I made money instead of lost, so there's not really anything to complain about.
I'm irritated that I bought at $23/share then sold a couple weeks ago at $73/share. Yeah, 200% profit, but I could have made it to 250% profit! Or more!
And yes, I'm entirely serious about this. The thing is, being me, it was only 20 shares. Still, an extra grand I didn't know I'd have a few years ago...best investment I've ever made. Well, best one I've made and cashed out already. The others are yet to be seen.
Wikipedia is rather apt to be corrupted...is there any formal press coverage of the sale? Perhaps a NewsWire/Reuters clip or something of the sort?
I honestly think that with a few improvements, the commodity PC could be a good home to OS X. As it stands, though, the generic x86 computer is crap.
For example, OpenFirmware could make worlds of difference. If the x86 folks had made that transition around the time Apple did, we'd all be better off - but everyone is still using a hacked-up BIOS from twenty-odd years ago.
The PC99 spec was supposed to get rid of legacy ports like PS/2, serial, and parallel. It's now six years later and virtually every Windows PC still has these ports.
I think that's a big problem for the acceptance of Apple in this area - Apple relies on their low inertia to respond quickly to changing demands. Once you have licensees and the like, change cannot be made as rapidly; few markets are a slow to adopt new technology as the consumer PC market.
The Frotune article makes it sound like MS still owns the stock, but I keep hearing from various people (inclusing yourself, obviously) that MS sold the stock years ago. Who's right? Do you have a reference besides another Slashdot comment?
I vote for a twofold change:
.de TLD and so forth.
First, modify the standard a little bit. Only allow characters from one language set to be used in a given domain name (No mixing Swedish characters with Russian)
Second, clearly show next to the URL what "language" it is written in.
Another possible workaround (also involving changes to the standard) would be to only allow the use of the German-specific charcters in domains in the
This is the best OT thread EVER!
Not on the sub-$500 model.
And if you read the $600 model's spec sheet, it doesn't specify that it actually has integrated wireless, but that it has "wireless capability." That seems mighty suspicios given that they list specifics for both the wired ethernet and the modem.
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.