Well you can use strong encryption to protect critical data even in the case of lost physical security (which you are correct about).
In Mac OS X 10.3 you will have the ability to have your home folder encrypted (using AES-128). Other OSes have similar features....of course given time even strong encryption will fail you.
Being arrested doesn't equate with something being illegal. Arresting someone is just one possible recourse to insure the person appears in course, etc. as needed and is seldom used for many classes of crimes.
For example it is illegal to drive faster then the speed limit but you don't normally get arrested for that. You usually get fined instead.
In this case they got sued for copy right violations; illegally sharing copy righted music.
I had the same problem with my dad, files all over the place, not knowing what he had, etc.
Then I got him to pick up and use iTunes and the iTunes Music store. He has no problems now even when using his iPod (it is set to auto-sync with his music collection on plugin). That and he is legally acquiring his music.
iTunes deals with file management for you and automatically indexes the music you have, it even shares this database with other applications (like iMovie, iDVD, etc.). I hope Apple makes this database a service third-parties can easily access.
It sounds like windows folks may have an iTunes of their own by xmas (at least an iTunes Music Store.
"I can't really comment on the lesbians you've been around, except to suggest that perhaps they weren't really lesbians, but instead "adult performers" only claiming to like other women to get you to pay them more."
Now that is funny!
Re:ARRRRRGGGGHHHH! What?!? No audio input?
on
New iMacs (and iPods)
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I believe they understand the market fairly well.
Of the 10 iPod users I know not one is interested... a couple would like to see an FM tuner but none want recording ability.
Re:only cool if it runs the same os as the g4 towe
on
New iMacs (and iPods)
·
· Score: 1
...not sure why I am responding to an AC...
I think you misinterpreted some figures. Mac OS X has well over 100,000 active users... so that number must have been talking about something else. Even if you don't believe the 7 million user number (which comes from Mac OS X sales figures) consider that Apple has sold 100s of thousand of computer systems that are only supported by Mac OS X (close to a million by now). If you look at web browser usage and pick out Safari hits you will note that the number of Mac OS X users is far greater then 1 million as well. (note having Mac OS 9 installed on a system does not mean the system can boot into Mac OS 9, classic in Mac OS X can run it however on unsupported hardware)
It also looks like Apple is set to sell 200+ PowerMac G5 in the first month after release (shipping). Expect 800+ in the next year.
---
On Mac OS X 10.2 and 10.3 I have tested my own fibre channel driver with 256 in flight (issued to the external device) SCSI commands. The 256 limit in this case comes from limits I put in place in my driver to reflect resource limitations of the adapter. I could reconfigure to run with more in flight IOs (up to an adapter max of 1024) but at the cost of the max IO size (as configured 4MB). I have also had well over a 512MB of IO requests in flight.
I believe you may be seeing a limit of the file system not of IOKit or the SCSI sub-system... (not sure the source of your reported 64 IO limit). It could also be a limit of the driver you are using on Mac OS X for your fibre channel adapter...
Mac OS X has one of the lowest and consistent latency of any main stream preemptively scheduled operating system (remember Mac OS 9 is not truly preemptively scheduled, in fact a lot of what you talk about above had to be done at interrupt on Mac OS 9 to insure correct timing, stalling the OS of course in the process). The audio sub-system if far better designed then what existed in Mac OS 9.
Also if you believe you have found issues report them... Bug Reporter.
Mac OS X is obviously a different OS and hence doing things the "9 way" isn't guaranteed to get the same results on Mac OS X (in fact may "9 way" things are not allowed and for good reason)... time to rethink designs. Adapt or be left behind.
Finally Apple has said they will maintain selling the PowerMac G4 1.25 for those folks that want/need Mac OS 9.2.2. It was even worded "as long as people what them we will be keep making them" (or something close to that). Apple will not maintain support for Mac OS 9.2.2 on any other systems going forward. They are not doing further development on Mac OS 9.2.2.
About 2/3 full of Music (all legal) and the rest a backup Mac OS X install and a miscellaneous update packages.
I use my iPod to cary around OS/software updates so I can drop them on systems the don't have network access or very slow network access.
Re:64bit performance gains...
on
AMD64 Preview
·
· Score: 1
Your wrong...
Either you will be using 32 bit addresses or 64 bits addresses and that depends on how you compile your code. It doesn't vary based on the amount of RAM in the system, it is locked in at compile time.
Actually don't blame Apple for the stores in your area carrying the 30GB over the other versions. It is most likely the stores trying to force you to buy the high-end version because they make more money off of the sale.
Go buy it from the Apple online store if you want the 10GB model.
What if the OS install defaults to automatic download and install of security patches (only those such patches). Yet it also provides a way to disactivate the automatic install (and/or download) aspect.
This would cover the folks that never update their systems because they don't know how/why/when. It would also cover the folks that are aware and want to control the update process.
From Apple's developer hardware docs (available on their developer site, no login required)...
70 RAM Expansion Preliminary Apple Computer, Inc. July 2, 2003 For all microprocessor speeds and for both DDR400 (PC3200) and DDR333 (PC2700) SDRAM DIMMs, the Power Mac G5 supports CAS latencies of 2, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5.
C H A P T E R 4 Expansion DIMM Specifications The RAM expansion slots accept 184-pin DDR SDRAM DIMMs that are 2.5 volt, unbuffered, 8-byte, nonparity, and DDR400-compliant (PC3200) or DDR333-compliant (PC2700). Important DDR266 (PC2100) or slower DIMMs do not work in the Power Mac G5 computer. Important DIMMs with any of the following features are not supported in the Power Mac G5 computer: registers or buffers, PLLs, ECC, parity, or EDO RAM.
No 64 bit library re-linking is needed or supported in 10.2.7.
The libraries / frameworks provided by the OS, in particular the vector and math libraries have support for using 64 bit math on PPC970 (G5). This is done internally and transparently for those applications that link against it. The kernel has improvements to allow drivers to be compatible with greater then 4GB physical addresses when doing DMA.
No official talk from Apple yet about 64 bit addressing for processes/applications, just how to do 64 bit general purpose math and optimize for the G5.
Re:The last of the Apple-based OSX machines?
on
G5s Start Shipping
·
· Score: 1
Actually most of the software on Mac OS X at the Unix level are BSD tools not Linux based variants. Very few things that are considered Linux are in Mac OS X by default.
If you said BSD you would be more correct.
Re:beware the differences between the 1.6 & th
on
G5s Start Shipping
·
· Score: 1
It is not that much different, it has basically the same chip set. It just has fewer memory slots and a lower end PCI bridge in line on the HT bus.
I or fellow family members have used the Apple products I have bought for relatively long periods of time, 3+ year on average. Some have been in use for over 7 years (my IIci was used even longer then that, but I finally retired a couple of year ago).
In my experience most Mac's get handed down / around in families and companies, more often then trashed.
Yeah those sites don't list all of the folks that don't have said issue(s). Remember the scope and numbers involved.
If it is under warranty Apple with generally replace it in a rather should period of time, sometimes they cross ship (depending on the issue and users desires).
I myself have owned 10s of PowerBooks and only one has ever developed a problem, at that was with a broken screen ribbon cable (it looks like it was damaged during manufacturing). It was replaced by Apple in 3 days (shipped my laptop to them in box they sent to me next day, got it back 2 days later). They covered all shipping.
In my experience the norm is much different then you find on the "problem" discussion sites.
ATA66 can support greater then > 120GB drives if the controller support 48b LBAs. ATA66 was defined as part of the same standard revision that define 48b support, AFAICR it simply wasn't required.
So having ATA66 doesn't automatically imply that you cannot use larger then 120GB drives... in the case of the Cube, to my knowledge, its controller does not support 48b LBAs (as you noted).
Apple's implementation does start up a new JVM instance for every applet/application but the JVM's all use shared code and loaded jar instances. So it is like starting up a new task which links against the same set of shared libraries/frameworks as other tasks.
Additionally Apple provides, by default, installations of 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 in a fixed and standardized location, generally following the deployment style other the frameworks provided on the system. They are also updated automatically as needed via the normal Apple Software Update process, just like any other framework/application/etc...
They go out of their way to discourage application developers from installing their own JRE's, it is not needed, it wastes space, and actually could lead to compatibility issues (the JRE they install could be in compatible with the OS version installed, etc.)
Apple tests and maintains correct versions of their JREs for you, they are considered as part of the OS. This is very nice. Why should Java be different then any other OS framework?
I do find it funny that it is worded as saying that Apple has "also agreed to include Sun's Java". Apple goes out of their way to provide Java on Mac OS X, its Apple's JVM/etc. implementation not Sun's.
How many 'bits' a CPU has isn't about addressing at all. Ok, I guess tell that to the CPU which does use ordered bits to address memory... bits do play into addressing and this is the main aspect of toting (by the vendors) 64 bit support in the newer processors.
You cannot address more memory then you have bits for, so 32 bit systems (ones with VM systems that support 32 addressing) are locked at a per process limit of 4GBs (usually less because of shared/mapped memory regions). Sure some current so called 32b CPUs can address 36b or more of physical RAM (including the current G4), however this doesn't benefit processes unless the hardware wrapped around the CPU supports that additional bits and the OSes VM supports using them. Also if the CPU doesn't have an integer/general purpose execution unit that is say 36 bits wide but only 32 bit wide all address calculations are penalized (sure some short cuts could be taken). So most OSes don't support address that is greater then the native integer/general purpose processing wide of the CPU they run on.
The PPC 970 supports virtual memory addressing using up to 64 bits, the Opteron support up to 48 bits, and the Itanium support up to 64 bits (all are _huge_ virtual addressing spaces, I mean 1.8e16 KBytes should be enough for anyone). In the realm of physical RAM addressing the PPC 970 supports up to 42 bits (4TB), Opteron up to 40 bits (1TB), and the Itanium up to 44 bits (16TB).
No the performance difference comes when you have to deal with integers larger then 2^[num bits]. [snip] Yes, well sort of (ignoring address calculations) and anyways I didn't say otherwise in my prior post. Also I guess you ignored the rest of my post...
Having native 64 bit wide integer processing will help, not all things, but many things. As I noted may of the counters, offsets, etc. in the Mac OS X kernel are 64 bits wide. Having the abilities to natively process 64 bit wide numbers will help reduce overhead in those. Also having 64 bit wide integer/general purpose support you can now do greater then 32b address calculations, so memory look ups aren't penalized, etc. Finally many scientific, engineering, and even some audio/video processing algorithms purposely prefer using large integers instead of FP for precision reasons.
Anyway having support for "x" bits doesn't necissarily translate into preformance improvements... but 64b is good floor to be at and software (codecs, etc.) will grow to leverage it.
Why is this post getting modded as "informative", it isn't that informed.
Seriously now... 64b addressing isn't about speed its about being able to address lots of memory. Many professional, engineering, scientific and even some prosumer task can easily use more then 4GB of memory, even greater then 8GB of memory (current system limit in the new PowerMac G5s).
Yes many CPUs including what Apple calls the G4 have instruction to deal with 64b or larger data (64b for FP / 16x8b/4x32b/2x64b/128b for vector) but now the integer unit natively supports 64b as well. Having native 64b integer support can be a boon for many things as well. For one the Mac OS X kernel makes heavy use of 64b integers for all kinds of things, so does many audio, engineering and scientific processing tasks. So the PowerMac G5 will be helpful in this regard.
As to the trolling about Apple's claims... go look over the following website and PDFs for a better understanding of the new systems and just what Apple is saying about it. Then judge things...
Slashdot Mirror
(my first post is missing... sorry if this results in a duplicate)
The default 80GB used in the new PowerMac G4s is 4200 RPM but you can get a 5400 RPM as a build to order option.
Well you can use strong encryption to protect critical data even in the case of lost physical security (which you are correct about).
...of course given time even strong encryption will fail you.
In Mac OS X 10.3 you will have the ability to have your home folder encrypted (using AES-128). Other OSes have similar features.
Your statement is confusing...
Being arrested doesn't equate with something being illegal. Arresting someone is just one possible recourse to insure the person appears in course, etc. as needed and is seldom used for many classes of crimes.
For example it is illegal to drive faster then the speed limit but you don't normally get arrested for that. You usually get fined instead.
In this case they got sued for copy right violations; illegally sharing copy righted music.
I had the same problem with my dad, files all over the place, not knowing what he had, etc.
Then I got him to pick up and use iTunes and the iTunes Music store. He has no problems now even when using his iPod (it is set to auto-sync with his music collection on plugin). That and he is legally acquiring his music.
iTunes deals with file management for you and automatically indexes the music you have, it even shares this database with other applications (like iMovie, iDVD, etc.). I hope Apple makes this database a service third-parties can easily access.
It sounds like windows folks may have an iTunes of their own by xmas (at least an iTunes Music Store.
"I can't really comment on the lesbians you've been around, except to suggest that perhaps they weren't really lesbians, but instead "adult performers" only claiming to like other women to get you to pay them more."
Now that is funny!
I believe they understand the market fairly well.
Of the 10 iPod users I know not one is interested... a couple would like to see an FM tuner but none want recording ability.
...not sure why I am responding to an AC...
I think you misinterpreted some figures. Mac OS X has well over 100,000 active users... so that number must have been talking about something else. Even if you don't believe the 7 million user number (which comes from Mac OS X sales figures) consider that Apple has sold 100s of thousand of computer systems that are only supported by Mac OS X (close to a million by now). If you look at web browser usage and pick out Safari hits you will note that the number of Mac OS X users is far greater then 1 million as well. (note having Mac OS 9 installed on a system does not mean the system can boot into Mac OS 9, classic in Mac OS X can run it however on unsupported hardware)
It also looks like Apple is set to sell 200+ PowerMac G5 in the first month after release (shipping). Expect 800+ in the next year.
---
On Mac OS X 10.2 and 10.3 I have tested my own fibre channel driver with 256 in flight (issued to the external device) SCSI commands. The 256 limit in this case comes from limits I put in place in my driver to reflect resource limitations of the adapter. I could reconfigure to run with more in flight IOs (up to an adapter max of 1024) but at the cost of the max IO size (as configured 4MB). I have also had well over a 512MB of IO requests in flight.
I believe you may be seeing a limit of the file system not of IOKit or the SCSI sub-system... (not sure the source of your reported 64 IO limit). It could also be a limit of the driver you are using on Mac OS X for your fibre channel adapter...
Mac OS X has one of the lowest and consistent latency of any main stream preemptively scheduled operating system (remember Mac OS 9 is not truly preemptively scheduled, in fact a lot of what you talk about above had to be done at interrupt on Mac OS 9 to insure correct timing, stalling the OS of course in the process). The audio sub-system if far better designed then what existed in Mac OS 9.
Also if you believe you have found issues report them... Bug Reporter.
Mac OS X is obviously a different OS and hence doing things the "9 way" isn't guaranteed to get the same results on Mac OS X (in fact may "9 way" things are not allowed and for good reason)... time to rethink designs. Adapt or be left behind.
Finally Apple has said they will maintain selling the PowerMac G4 1.25 for those folks that want/need Mac OS 9.2.2. It was even worded "as long as people what them we will be keep making them" (or something close to that). Apple will not maintain support for Mac OS 9.2.2 on any other systems going forward. They are not doing further development on Mac OS 9.2.2.
(Is your shift key broken?)
I have a 30GB iPod and it is nearly always full.
About 2/3 full of Music (all legal) and the rest a backup Mac OS X install and a miscellaneous update packages.
I use my iPod to cary around OS/software updates so I can drop them on systems the don't have network access or very slow network access.
Your wrong...
Either you will be using 32 bit addresses or 64 bits addresses and that depends on how you compile your code. It doesn't vary based on the amount of RAM in the system, it is locked in at compile time.
Actually don't blame Apple for the stores in your area carrying the 30GB over the other versions. It is most likely the stores trying to force you to buy the high-end version because they make more money off of the sale.
Go buy it from the Apple online store if you want the 10GB model.
Wow... too much misinformation in this post to even bother correcting it.
Please put your tin foil hat back on.
What if the OS install defaults to automatic download and install of security patches (only those such patches). Yet it also provides a way to disactivate the automatic install (and/or download) aspect.
This would cover the folks that never update their systems because they don't know how/why/when. It would also cover the folks that are aware and want to control the update process.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
From Apple's developer hardware docs (available on their developer site, no login required)...
70 RAM Expansion
Preliminary Apple Computer, Inc. July 2, 2003
For all microprocessor speeds and for both DDR400 (PC3200) and DDR333
(PC2700) SDRAM DIMMs, the Power Mac G5 supports CAS latencies of 2, 2.5, 3, 4,
and 5.
C H A P T E R 4
Expansion
DIMM Specifications
The RAM expansion slots accept 184-pin DDR SDRAM DIMMs that are 2.5 volt,
unbuffered, 8-byte, nonparity, and DDR400-compliant (PC3200) or
DDR333-compliant (PC2700).
Important
DDR266 (PC2100) or slower DIMMs do not work in the
Power Mac G5 computer.
Important
DIMMs with any of the following features are not supported
in the Power Mac G5 computer: registers or buffers, PLLs,
ECC, parity, or EDO RAM.
No 64 bit library re-linking is needed or supported in 10.2.7.
The libraries / frameworks provided by the OS, in particular the vector and math libraries have support for using 64 bit math on PPC970 (G5). This is done internally and transparently for those applications that link against it. The kernel has improvements to allow drivers to be compatible with greater then 4GB physical addresses when doing DMA.
No official talk from Apple yet about 64 bit addressing for processes/applications, just how to do 64 bit general purpose math and optimize for the G5.
Actually most of the software on Mac OS X at the Unix level are BSD tools not Linux based variants. Very few things that are considered Linux are in Mac OS X by default.
If you said BSD you would be more correct.
It is not that much different, it has basically the same chip set. It just has fewer memory slots and a lower end PCI bridge in line on the HT bus.
Go grok this.
No the 1.6 is based on the NEW architecture, it just happens to have less slots and few other cost saving changes.
Go grok this.
I or fellow family members have used the Apple products I have bought for relatively long periods of time, 3+ year on average. Some have been in use for over 7 years (my IIci was used even longer then that, but I finally retired a couple of year ago).
In my experience most Mac's get handed down / around in families and companies, more often then trashed.
Yeah those sites don't list all of the folks that don't have said issue(s). Remember the scope and numbers involved.
If it is under warranty Apple with generally replace it in a rather should period of time, sometimes they cross ship (depending on the issue and users desires).
I myself have owned 10s of PowerBooks and only one has ever developed a problem, at that was with a broken screen ribbon cable (it looks like it was damaged during manufacturing). It was replaced by Apple in 3 days (shipped my laptop to them in box they sent to me next day, got it back 2 days later). They covered all shipping.
In my experience the norm is much different then you find on the "problem" discussion sites.
Just a quick note...
ATA66 can support greater then > 120GB drives if the controller support 48b LBAs. ATA66 was defined as part of the same standard revision that define 48b support, AFAICR it simply wasn't required.
So having ATA66 doesn't automatically imply that you cannot use larger then 120GB drives... in the case of the Cube, to my knowledge, its controller does not support 48b LBAs (as you noted).
You forgot Objective-C, it is a "dynamic" OOP language.
Apple's implementation does start up a new JVM instance for every applet/application but the JVM's all use shared code and loaded jar instances. So it is like starting up a new task which links against the same set of shared libraries/frameworks as other tasks.
Additionally Apple provides, by default, installations of 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 in a fixed and standardized location, generally following the deployment style other the frameworks provided on the system. They are also updated automatically as needed via the normal Apple Software Update process, just like any other framework/application/etc...
They go out of their way to discourage application developers from installing their own JRE's, it is not needed, it wastes space, and actually could lead to compatibility issues (the JRE they install could be in compatible with the OS version installed, etc.)
Apple tests and maintains correct versions of their JREs for you, they are considered as part of the OS. This is very nice. Why should Java be different then any other OS framework?
I do find it funny that it is worded as saying that Apple has "also agreed to include Sun's Java". Apple goes out of their way to provide Java on Mac OS X, its Apple's JVM/etc. implementation not Sun's.
How many 'bits' a CPU has isn't about addressing at all.
Ok, I guess tell that to the CPU which does use ordered bits to address memory... bits do play into addressing and this is the main aspect of toting (by the vendors) 64 bit support in the newer processors.
You cannot address more memory then you have bits for, so 32 bit systems (ones with VM systems that support 32 addressing) are locked at a per process limit of 4GBs (usually less because of shared/mapped memory regions). Sure some current so called 32b CPUs can address 36b or more of physical RAM (including the current G4), however this doesn't benefit processes unless the hardware wrapped around the CPU supports that additional bits and the OSes VM supports using them. Also if the CPU doesn't have an integer/general purpose execution unit that is say 36 bits wide but only 32 bit wide all address calculations are penalized (sure some short cuts could be taken). So most OSes don't support address that is greater then the native integer/general purpose processing wide of the CPU they run on.
The PPC 970 supports virtual memory addressing using up to 64 bits, the Opteron support up to 48 bits, and the Itanium support up to 64 bits (all are _huge_ virtual addressing spaces, I mean 1.8e16 KBytes should be enough for anyone). In the realm of physical RAM addressing the PPC 970 supports up to 42 bits (4TB), Opteron up to 40 bits (1TB), and the Itanium up to 44 bits (16TB).
No the performance difference comes when you have to deal with integers larger then 2^[num bits]. [snip]
Yes, well sort of (ignoring address calculations) and anyways I didn't say otherwise in my prior post. Also I guess you ignored the rest of my post...
Having native 64 bit wide integer processing will help, not all things, but many things. As I noted may of the counters, offsets, etc. in the Mac OS X kernel are 64 bits wide. Having the abilities to natively process 64 bit wide numbers will help reduce overhead in those. Also having 64 bit wide integer/general purpose support you can now do greater then 32b address calculations, so memory look ups aren't penalized, etc. Finally many scientific, engineering, and even some audio/video processing algorithms purposely prefer using large integers instead of FP for precision reasons.
Anyway having support for "x" bits doesn't necissarily translate into preformance improvements... but 64b is good floor to be at and software (codecs, etc.) will grow to leverage it.
Why is this post getting modded as "informative", it isn't that informed.
Seriously now... 64b addressing isn't about speed its about being able to address lots of memory. Many professional, engineering, scientific and even some prosumer task can easily use more then 4GB of memory, even greater then 8GB of memory (current system limit in the new PowerMac G5s).
Yes many CPUs including what Apple calls the G4 have instruction to deal with 64b or larger data (64b for FP / 16x8b/4x32b/2x64b/128b for vector) but now the integer unit natively supports 64b as well. Having native 64b integer support can be a boon for many things as well. For one the Mac OS X kernel makes heavy use of 64b integers for all kinds of things, so does many audio, engineering and scientific processing tasks. So the PowerMac G5 will be helpful in this regard.
As to the trolling about Apple's claims... go look over the following website and PDFs for a better understanding of the new systems and just what Apple is saying about it. Then judge things...
PowerMac G5
PowerMac G5 Overview (PDF)
PowerMac G5 Performance (PDF)
G5 [PPC970] Processor Overview (PDF)
It most likely will only be a developer preview shown on Monday.
Apple has not released any normal developer betas yet for 10.3, so we have at least 1-2 months before release (most likely in September).