Re:You guys are so easy to fool
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
They are NOT made of the same plastic.
The IR window is a plastic that is transparent to infrared they keys are not transparent to most/all wavelengths in and around the visible spectrum (and then some). The two plastics most likely have differing responses to temperature. The power connector is a different type of plastic from the keyboard as well.
With that said judging by the damage in the pictures to the system the oven was most likely on broil with the laptop facing up or at least with the top closer to a heating element.
One thing that people seem to ignore is the possibility of doing a one time binary conversion from PPC to x86 instructions. It doesn't have to be emulated or dynamically compiled.
Basically an Apple provided tool could read a user's PPC binary (say PhotoShop) and recompile that into a x86 binary and store that version on disk. Mix that with a dynamic recompiler that possibly could improve the converted binary as it is used. You most likely wouldn't get the best binary in the world but it would function.
In other words you wouldn't need the original source or the developer to recompile and release their app.
Easy no but it is do able. Who would support it is another issue..
-Shawn
(I don't see Mac OS X on x86 anytime soon, not with in the next 2-4 years.)
What you outline is a side effect of doing this... one that may increase sales of current hardware to folks that feel they need Mac OS 9. I think Apple would consider this a plus but it is NOT the reason it is being done (not that anything is really being done other then new hardware being designed and implemented).
The real reason this is being done is not for the side effect but because it costs time, resources, and money to update, test, package and release Mac OS 9 for the new hardware. Mac OS 9 is going away and Apple doesn't want, doesn't have the resources, to keep updating it. They are focus on Mac OS X fully.
But apple makes their own hardware! this argument holds true for PC's because my DVD palyer, viedo card, sound card,..., and operating system are all made by different companies. Macs on the other hand are almost all hardware produced by Macintosh.
...and Apple is supposed to have teams of engineers update and TEST older Mac OS versions, ones that are end-of-life, for all future hardware that Apple may produce?
Sounds like a good business plan to me... (hint it isn't).
All products come to an end, Mac OS 9 has reached that for use on new hardware (at least Apple will not test or support it, it may still work on some new systems).
This is a crappy decision, it would be like dell producing computers that will not run 95/98 or older linux kernels.
Actually Dell and others have done that... (however Linux is usually updated by some folks in the community, while MS usually release new version of Windows for a price)
Apple isn't making hardware that won't boot Mac OS 9. Apple is making new hardware, with new mother boards, new CPUs, etc. to further improve the hardware lines.
The side effect of this results in Mac OS 9 not being able to boot on the hardware (because it doesn't have what was called a system enabler for the platform). Mac OS X has a similar issue.
The difference is Mac OS 9 is EOL so Apple has, wisely, decided not to update it any longer to support the newer hardware. In the least they have decided to no longer test and support it on the new hardware (saves them a LOT of testing time). Mac OS X is under active development and hence will be updated to work on the new hardware.
Apple makes that hardware platform so the have the right and ability to change it as needed. In Wintel world similar things happen but MUCH more slowly because of the large number of vendors. It is surprising how well MS is able to support the sea of Intel/AMD based hardware. Linux is doing well today because of a LOT of work by folks with all kinds of hardware. Apple doesn't have the same amount of resources.
All software vendors have a minimum hardware requirement and a recommended hardware requirement. They also have an envelope of supports platforms for any given release of the product.
In this case Apple is EOLing (end of life) Mac OS 9 (Apple told developers this 6+ months ago and hinted at it over 2 years ago when they talked about a single OS strategy going forward). All software vendors also EOL things and when done they stop being updated for new platforms (unless a support contract requires something).
Does Mac OS 6 boot on todays systems? NO, etc. This not any different.
Anyway, folks can run Mac OS 9 in Classic on Mac OS X on the new systems. A majority of Mac OS 9 apps run just fine in Classic. For those that don't then folks can maintain systems that run Mac OS 9 (all hardware Apple has shipped is supported by Mac OS 9, at least anything with a PowerPC in it).
About a year ago we had dual 800 MHz systems with 100MHz FSB, PC133 RAM (133 MHz), 2MB of L3 via a 200 MHz bus and single channel ATA/66. Just over one year later we have 1250 MHz systems with 166 MHz FSB, PC2700 RAM (166 MHz double pumped or 333 MHz data rate), 2MB of L3 via a 294 MHz[1] bus double pumped, and dual channel ATA (one ATA/100 and the other ATA/66).
So in a year... 1.56x increase in CPU clock speed (ignoring other CPU enhancements). 2.5x increase in RAM throughput. 1.66x increase in FSB throughput. 2.94x increase in L3 throughput (possibly only 2.5x). over a doubling in internal disk storage support (not counting SCSI options).
Looking over things on the Intel/AMD side...
AMD had about a year ago 1.53GHz chips (1800+ Athlon XP) today 1.8Ghz (2200+ Athlon XP) (FSB speeds did not changed). Intel had about a year ago 2Ghz P4s with FSB of 266MHz (133Mhz dual pumped) and today 2.53GHz P4s with FSB of 533MHz (133MHz quad pumped, AFAIK).
So in a year... AMD... 1.18x increase in CPU clock speed. no change in FSB (from what I see).
Intel... 1.27x increase in CPU clock speed. 2.01x increase in FSB throughput.
AMD/Intel system have been using PC2100 for a while and are now starting to use PC2700 (some are starting to use DDR400 and/or going dual channel to RAM). This is side stepping the issue of RDRAM.
Again just as a frame of reference...
[1] Apple's current specs don't add up fully on this, one states that it stops at 500MHz DDR but the throughput numbers lead me to believe it is running faster then 500MHz DDR for the top end system.
p.s. I am doing the above math with a fever of 102+ so I may have messed up someplace... just don't tell the pink elephant sitting next me.
I finally understand a little more about what you are trying to say...
Cocoa doesn't provide you _direct_ access to core OS features either (for example Quartz). For those you have to drop down an use C (core foundation is C based). Now in the case of using Cocoa from ObjC that is easy to do because ObjC is a superset of C. So no mangling needed.
Now Java and C don't mix well without the use of JNI, bridging, or some type of native compilation. So if you need something like that it shouldn't be hard to write wrappers for the aspects of core foundation you need.
Also more frameworks are coming out that are available to ObjC/C developers that don't have a Java language version available (at least not yet). So I see your point on this. Again it shouldn't be extremely hard to write glue to do what is needed.
I haven't seen any WWDC sessions that state that Apple will not attempt to expose more frameworks into Java or that the existing support in Cocoa for Java will be going away (please point one that may have said stuff like that).
It sounds like a good business to be in if interested... I can see people wanting Java variants of framework and aspects of CF.
Sorry, it is just reality of things on Mac OS X, that some things are more available to non-Java developers (most OSes are this way). I would say the Mac OS X has better support for those that want to program using the Java language then most other OSes that I have worked on.
(FYI... I usually clump all core OS functions (core graphics, etc.) under CF to keep statements short)
What? Quartz Extreme is an extension to Quartz that is 100% transparent to developers (in almost all situations). You don't need to do anything!
Or said another way... QE is available to Java programmers either via Cocoa or J2SE. Both dev platforms use Quartz to do drawing and Quartz will utilize QE automatically if the needed video hardware exists in the system.
As I said in another post... yes, most low-level things are not directly available in Apple's J2SE without writing glue. However you really don't need access to these things for a vast majority of applications/situations (Apple grafts the J2SE over core technologies for you). This is true of any platform that has J2SE or J2EE running on it (some don't even bother to do native rendering).
If you want lower level access consider Cocoa-Java or some other development platform on Mac OS X... or write glue if you feel you must.
Apple does provide access to some low level things if and when it makes sense... for example they currently provide packages to work with audio and quicktime. I expect to see others come into existence as needed. If you have a particular need talk with the folks at Apple. If enough people have the same need Apple may provide it.
Anyway... Java2 is a peer to Cocoa and Carbon on Mac OS X. Java (the language) is also very much a peer to Objective-C for use with Cocoa.
I am personally looking forward to 1.4 on Mac OS X... I expect to see great performance and capabilities (mostly why they are taking time to release it).
Great response and dead on! (yet he calls you uninformed?)
To expand on things a little for folks that may not know...
Cocoa is a set frameworks (think versionable libraries) and is termed by Apple a development platform. A development platform, under Apple's definition, describes a set of tools, APIs and libraries that are complete and self consistent, that can be used to fully (in most cases) develop Applications for Mac OS X.
Cocoa is available to those that want to program in the following languages: Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, (and with a little work plain C). When I say "Java" here I mean the language not the Java2 the platform.
In other words I can develop Mac OS X native applications using the Cocoa platform (including interface builder) and write my code using the Java language. This is very cool... you get to write in Java and get an 100% native compiled application (no speed penalty from a VM).
In addition to Cocoa Apple provides three other development platforms: Java2 (J2SE), Carbon, and Classic. Graphically... Mac OS X as layers of system software
Classic is basically a compatibility environment for legacy Mac OS 8/9 applications and shouldn't be used for active development.
Carbon is mostly a C based and is designed as a way for legacy applications (Mac OS apps) to be ported to Mac OS X in a short amount of time. It is all considered a peer development environment to Cocoa (one that can/should actively be used especially for C/C++ code bases).
This leaves us with Java2. This is Apple's implementation of Sun's Java2 standard edition (currently shipping 1.3.1). Apple has done a huge amount of work getting Java2 into Mac OS X and leveraging Mac OS X features as possible. In other words programming in Java2 (and staying in those APIs) is programming to use CoreGraphics (Quartz). Apple deals with this for you and you can stick with the Java2 API that you are used too. This is Apple's goal... to make J2SE a peer platform with little to no performance penalties.
There goal is NOT to create a full set of APIs, ones not already defined in J2SE, so someone can access CoreGraphic directly (however they do provide some methods). Apple will use the standard J2SE APIs in favor of providing additional packages, except in cases for features not found in J2SE (quicktime for example).
So if you want a natively complied Application use Cocoa or Carbon. If you want to do so writing in the Java language then Cocoa is your only solution. If you want a J2SE based Application then you can do that as well.
If you want to call out to specific Mac OS X features (basically going outside of J2SE API set) you can do so using JNI/JDirect and/or Apple's com.apple.mrj package (also com.apple.audio and quicktime packages).
For more on the development platforms on Mac OS X read over the following...
Application Environments
I think you attended the wrong sessions at WWDC. If you want to learn more about Cocoa (and how it uses CoreGraphics) then you should have gone to one of the many sessions related to it (300-306). Cocoa is available to programmers who want to code in Java (using the Java language) as well as those that want to program in ObjC (using the objective c language).
I guess you mainly attended the Java sessions (400-408) which targeted pure Java programmers (as in J2SE/JRE/VM).
Coding to use Cocoa in Java doesn't utilize a VM at all.
I am curious... which sessions you attended at WWDC?
Basically I think you have your understanding of Cocoa a little off... Cocoa != ObjectiveC
I think you need to go back and read the Cocoa Java tutorial for a better understanding of how Cocoa is available to those that want to code in Java.
Apple even provides ways to make pure Java applications (ones that don't use Cocoa) double click launchable like any other app.
Granted the java bridge they have isn't really used or promoted any more. Mainly because you now directly use Cocoa from java.
That aside Apple is very much moving toward/sustaining Java as a peer language to ObjC/C/C++, at least for the GUI side of things. They also want to make the JRE on Mac OS X one of the best they can.
I have Quicken running just fine on my Mac OS X system. I guess the title should be "Personal Finance Software for Unix*? (*not including Mac OS X)".;-)
Right after all the reports about the massive money pit that is AOL and how it is hurting Time Warner why do these companies rush into mergers?
What? HP/Compaq did not rush into this merger. A select few have been working on it for over a year. With thousands working on the merge plans over the last six months. HP & Compaq have spent a lot of time and energy into making sure this merger was right and to get working as soon as possible.
And why right after the Enron and Global-Crossing fiascos is no one examining the benefits to the CEOs of the companies?
Who says they aren't? The SEC and private investigators have been watching this thing closely. Hell even Hewlett "Jr." has been doing this will a twist of misinformation. The simple fact is the details of this merge have be discussed very openly for more so the most other merges before it (partly thank to the proxy fight).
While the Compaq-HP deal was announced last year there was alot of criticism about the benefits to both companies, where has it all gone?
It has continued (just look at the proxy fight) but the people in the know about how the merge is going to take place have increased their belief that it can and will work based on their research (with Hewlett being an obvious exception). Do people realize that HP/Compaq had hundreds of people from both companies setup with free access to all information about both companies over 6 months ago? It is not like HP or Compaq jump over the fence without knowing what is on the other side.
Was this a self defense merger? Were the two companies afraid that with out a merger they wouldn't be able to compete with other companies?
Yes. HP & Compaq did this not because some body had a dream one night or some CEO saw money to be made but because both companies needed a change to compete with IBM, SUN & DELL. Basically both companies have been trying to grow in the same market areas and gain the same skill sets. Neither of them had been able to grow what they needed as fast as they needed... this merge can achieve this (with hard work and some sacrifice).
Well I suppose I can look foward to good printers being sold with lousy computers and less hope of HP ever having decent Mac support.
HP is about much more then printers and consumer computers... That is what this merge is about. It is about growing the server division, storage division, enterprise software division, solution & consulting, marketing and sales force all while improving the ability of the consumer computer division to better compete with the like of Dell. Basically consumer computers and low-end servers are mostly commodity items, the money to be made lives else where now.
The don't do to bad with Mac printer support but it could always be better.
During the last century, more people were killed by their own governments than were killed in wars.
Really? Care to back that bold assertion up with an actual fact?
Funny you ask that... closed societies can more easily hide the facts and hence the magnitude of the killings is hard to ascertain. I think few still deny that millions of people died in an artificial famine under Stalin, in labor camps under Hilter/Stalin/Mao/etc, or directly murdered by the state (under Hilter/Stalin/Mao/etc). The question is really how many.
Also it depends on what you classify as a war (civil wars and coups could be under the bucket of government killed, etc.). Further it depends on what killings you split out in a war as fighting deaths, labor camps, etc. I would say his statement is close to the truth if not the truth.
After 2 minutes using google I found a good summary site...
Fact: not one tank ran over a student in Tiananmen Square
I think that was his point. The media was a whitness to the events going on in Tiananmen Square. This gave the governement pause in taking stronger action (not the only factor but still a factor). In a closed society it is much easier to cover up things that you really don't want people to know about and as a result they have more "freedom" to commit atrocities.
I am all for genetic research with the goal being advanced medicines, therapies and detection. I also support the use of cloning for the replication of cells, tissues, and organs.
In my opinion the use of cloning for the replication of an individual is wrong, not because someone is being cloned but solely because the clone, using current technology, will most likely have a reduced life, a propensity for various ailments (include immune deficiency). Sure children conceived by normal means may have similar issues however they are far less likely.
This event shows that the parties involved used a clear lack of ethical judgment and shows selfishness on the part of the "parents".
Bluetooth would be a VERY slow hard drive interface.
Printers do make sense, as does keyboards, mice, and other low data rate devices... basically BlueTooth will replace IR based links and some USB links.
However, you'll notice that Edison only patented his idea of passing electricity though a special filament in order to make light. He did not patent the idea of making light. He patented the idea for a phonograph which could reproduce sounds encoded on a wax cilender. He did not patent the idea of recording and playing back music.
True... it is not so much that people try to patent the obvious or what you could call ethereal but that the patent office lets people do this every now and then.
Most of the time they do this right... I guess they just haven't fully figured out how to deal with "software" patents.
Slashdot Mirror
They are NOT made of the same plastic.
The IR window is a plastic that is transparent to infrared they keys are not transparent to most/all wavelengths in and around the visible spectrum (and then some). The two plastics most likely have differing responses to temperature. The power connector is a different type of plastic from the keyboard as well.
With that said judging by the damage in the pictures to the system the oven was most likely on broil with the laptop facing up or at least with the top closer to a heating element.
One thing that people seem to ignore is the possibility of doing a one time binary conversion from PPC to x86 instructions. It doesn't have to be emulated or dynamically compiled.
Basically an Apple provided tool could read a user's PPC binary (say PhotoShop) and recompile that into a x86 binary and store that version on disk. Mix that with a dynamic recompiler that possibly could improve the converted binary as it is used. You most likely wouldn't get the best binary in the world but it would function.
In other words you wouldn't need the original source or the developer to recompile and release their app.
Easy no but it is do able. Who would support it is another issue..
-Shawn
(I don't see Mac OS X on x86 anytime soon, not with in the next 2-4 years.)
This is far from a marketing ploy...
What you outline is a side effect of doing this... one that may increase sales of current hardware to folks that feel they need Mac OS 9. I think Apple would consider this a plus but it is NOT the reason it is being done (not that anything is really being done other then new hardware being designed and implemented).
The real reason this is being done is not for the side effect but because it costs time, resources, and money to update, test, package and release Mac OS 9 for the new hardware. Mac OS 9 is going away and Apple doesn't want, doesn't have the resources, to keep updating it. They are focus on Mac OS X fully.
Sounds like a good business plan to me... (hint it isn't).
All products come to an end, Mac OS 9 has reached that for use on new hardware (at least Apple will not test or support it, it may still work on some new systems).
Mac OS 8/7/6/etc. don't support todays hardware.
Actually Dell and others have done that... (however Linux is usually updated by some folks in the community, while MS usually release new version of Windows for a price)
Apple isn't making hardware that won't boot Mac OS 9. Apple is making new hardware, with new mother boards, new CPUs, etc. to further improve the hardware lines.
The side effect of this results in Mac OS 9 not being able to boot on the hardware (because it doesn't have what was called a system enabler for the platform). Mac OS X has a similar issue.
The difference is Mac OS 9 is EOL so Apple has, wisely, decided not to update it any longer to support the newer hardware. In the least they have decided to no longer test and support it on the new hardware (saves them a LOT of testing time). Mac OS X is under active development and hence will be updated to work on the new hardware.
Apple makes that hardware platform so the have the right and ability to change it as needed. In Wintel world similar things happen but MUCH more slowly because of the large number of vendors. It is surprising how well MS is able to support the sea of Intel/AMD based hardware. Linux is doing well today because of a LOT of work by folks with all kinds of hardware. Apple doesn't have the same amount of resources.
Yeah!
All software vendors have a minimum hardware requirement and a recommended hardware requirement. They also have an envelope of supports platforms for any given release of the product.
In this case Apple is EOLing (end of life) Mac OS 9 (Apple told developers this 6+ months ago and hinted at it over 2 years ago when they talked about a single OS strategy going forward). All software vendors also EOL things and when done they stop being updated for new platforms (unless a support contract requires something).
Does Mac OS 6 boot on todays systems? NO, etc. This not any different.
Anyway, folks can run Mac OS 9 in Classic on Mac OS X on the new systems. A majority of Mac OS 9 apps run just fine in Classic. For those that don't then folks can maintain systems that run Mac OS 9 (all hardware Apple has shipped is supported by Mac OS 9, at least anything with a PowerPC in it).
Things change...
Looks like I may have click on August 2000 spec docs at some point by mistake.
The other values are correct.
About a year ago we had dual 800 MHz systems with 100MHz FSB, PC133 RAM (133 MHz), 2MB of L3 via a 200 MHz bus and single channel ATA/66. Just over one year later we have 1250 MHz systems with 166 MHz FSB, PC2700 RAM (166 MHz double pumped or 333 MHz data rate), 2MB of L3 via a 294 MHz[1] bus double pumped, and dual channel ATA (one ATA/100 and the other ATA/66).
So in a year...
1.56x increase in CPU clock speed (ignoring other CPU enhancements).
2.5x increase in RAM throughput.
1.66x increase in FSB throughput.
2.94x increase in L3 throughput (possibly only 2.5x).
over a doubling in internal disk storage support (not counting SCSI options).
Looking over things on the Intel/AMD side...
AMD had about a year ago 1.53GHz chips (1800+ Athlon XP) today 1.8Ghz (2200+ Athlon XP) (FSB speeds did not changed). Intel had about a year ago 2Ghz P4s with FSB of 266MHz (133Mhz dual pumped) and today 2.53GHz P4s with FSB of 533MHz (133MHz quad pumped, AFAIK).
So in a year...
AMD...
1.18x increase in CPU clock speed.
no change in FSB (from what I see).
Intel...
1.27x increase in CPU clock speed.
2.01x increase in FSB throughput.
AMD/Intel system have been using PC2100 for a while and are now starting to use PC2700 (some are starting to use DDR400 and/or going dual channel to RAM). This is side stepping the issue of RDRAM.
Again just as a frame of reference...
[1] Apple's current specs don't add up fully on this, one states that it stops at 500MHz DDR but the throughput numbers lead me to believe it is running faster then 500MHz DDR for the top end system.
p.s. I am doing the above math with a fever of 102+ so I may have messed up someplace... just don't tell the pink elephant sitting next me.
I finally understand a little more about what you are trying to say...
Cocoa doesn't provide you _direct_ access to core OS features either (for example Quartz). For those you have to drop down an use C (core foundation is C based). Now in the case of using Cocoa from ObjC that is easy to do because ObjC is a superset of C. So no mangling needed.
Now Java and C don't mix well without the use of JNI, bridging, or some type of native compilation. So if you need something like that it shouldn't be hard to write wrappers for the aspects of core foundation you need.
Also more frameworks are coming out that are available to ObjC/C developers that don't have a Java language version available (at least not yet). So I see your point on this. Again it shouldn't be extremely hard to write glue to do what is needed.
I haven't seen any WWDC sessions that state that Apple will not attempt to expose more frameworks into Java or that the existing support in Cocoa for Java will be going away (please point one that may have said stuff like that).
It sounds like a good business to be in if interested... I can see people wanting Java variants of framework and aspects of CF.
Sorry, it is just reality of things on Mac OS X, that some things are more available to non-Java developers (most OSes are this way). I would say the Mac OS X has better support for those that want to program using the Java language then most other OSes that I have worked on.
(FYI... I usually clump all core OS functions (core graphics, etc.) under CF to keep statements short)
What? Quartz Extreme is an extension to Quartz that is 100% transparent to developers (in almost all situations). You don't need to do anything!
Or said another way... QE is available to Java programmers either via Cocoa or J2SE. Both dev platforms use Quartz to do drawing and Quartz will utilize QE automatically if the needed video hardware exists in the system.
As I said in another post... yes, most low-level things are not directly available in Apple's J2SE without writing glue. However you really don't need access to these things for a vast majority of applications/situations (Apple grafts the J2SE over core technologies for you). This is true of any platform that has J2SE or J2EE running on it (some don't even bother to do native rendering).
If you want lower level access consider Cocoa-Java or some other development platform on Mac OS X... or write glue if you feel you must.
Apple does provide access to some low level things if and when it makes sense... for example they currently provide packages to work with audio and quicktime. I expect to see others come into existence as needed. If you have a particular need talk with the folks at Apple. If enough people have the same need Apple may provide it.
Anyway... Java2 is a peer to Cocoa and Carbon on Mac OS X. Java (the language) is also very much a peer to Objective-C for use with Cocoa.
I am personally looking forward to 1.4 on Mac OS X... I expect to see great performance and capabilities (mostly why they are taking time to release it).
To expand on things a little for folks that may not know...
Cocoa is a set frameworks (think versionable libraries) and is termed by Apple a development platform. A development platform, under Apple's definition, describes a set of tools, APIs and libraries that are complete and self consistent, that can be used to fully (in most cases) develop Applications for Mac OS X.
Cocoa is available to those that want to program in the following languages: Objective-C, Objective-C++, Java, (and with a little work plain C). When I say "Java" here I mean the language not the Java2 the platform.
In other words I can develop Mac OS X native applications using the Cocoa platform (including interface builder) and write my code using the Java language. This is very cool... you get to write in Java and get an 100% native compiled application (no speed penalty from a VM).
In addition to Cocoa Apple provides three other development platforms: Java2 (J2SE), Carbon, and Classic. Graphically... Mac OS X as layers of system software
Classic is basically a compatibility environment for legacy Mac OS 8/9 applications and shouldn't be used for active development.
Carbon is mostly a C based and is designed as a way for legacy applications (Mac OS apps) to be ported to Mac OS X in a short amount of time. It is all considered a peer development environment to Cocoa (one that can/should actively be used especially for C/C++ code bases).
This leaves us with Java2. This is Apple's implementation of Sun's Java2 standard edition (currently shipping 1.3.1). Apple has done a huge amount of work getting Java2 into Mac OS X and leveraging Mac OS X features as possible. In other words programming in Java2 (and staying in those APIs) is programming to use CoreGraphics (Quartz). Apple deals with this for you and you can stick with the Java2 API that you are used too. This is Apple's goal... to make J2SE a peer platform with little to no performance penalties.
There goal is NOT to create a full set of APIs, ones not already defined in J2SE, so someone can access CoreGraphic directly (however they do provide some methods). Apple will use the standard J2SE APIs in favor of providing additional packages, except in cases for features not found in J2SE (quicktime for example).
So if you want a natively complied Application use Cocoa or Carbon. If you want to do so writing in the Java language then Cocoa is your only solution. If you want a J2SE based Application then you can do that as well.
If you want to call out to specific Mac OS X features (basically going outside of J2SE API set) you can do so using JNI/JDirect and/or Apple's com.apple.mrj package (also com.apple.audio and quicktime packages).
For more on the development platforms on Mac OS X read over the following... Application Environments
Yes, Mac OS X will be released on the 24th.
I think you attended the wrong sessions at WWDC. If you want to learn more about Cocoa (and how it uses CoreGraphics) then you should have gone to one of the many sessions related to it (300-306). Cocoa is available to programmers who want to code in Java (using the Java language) as well as those that want to program in ObjC (using the objective c language).
I guess you mainly attended the Java sessions (400-408) which targeted pure Java programmers (as in J2SE/JRE/VM).
Coding to use Cocoa in Java doesn't utilize a VM at all.
I am curious... which sessions you attended at WWDC?
Does that mean the following java versions of the Cocoa frameworks don't exist?
- Foundation
- Application Kit
Or that PB doesn't allow the creation of Cocoa based java applications?Basically I think you have your understanding of Cocoa a little off... Cocoa != ObjectiveC
I think you need to go back and read the Cocoa Java tutorial for a better understanding of how Cocoa is available to those that want to code in Java.
Apple even provides ways to make pure Java applications (ones that don't use Cocoa) double click launchable like any other app.
Granted the java bridge they have isn't really used or promoted any more. Mainly because you now directly use Cocoa from java. That aside Apple is very much moving toward/sustaining Java as a peer language to ObjC/C/C++, at least for the GUI side of things. They also want to make the JRE on Mac OS X one of the best they can.
If you want it infallible remove the human from the equation.
No matter how perfect the system one can still CLAIM that it didn't count their vote the way the wanted.
People simply have to expect some level of noise in the vote counts...
I have Quicken running just fine on my Mac OS X system. I guess the title should be "Personal Finance Software for Unix*? (*not including Mac OS X)". ;-)
Anyway, google found these...
Good summary page...
http://vip.hex.net/~cbbrowne/finances.html
Various packages...
http://www.moneydance.com/
http://cbb.sourceforge.net/
http://www.thekompany.com/products/kapital/
Go visit the xserve storage page.
Each drive has its own independent ATA/100 bus all provided by the main system ASIC.
It is true that SCSI can be faster but at higher cost. Also nothing is stopping people from by external SCSI RAIDs, Fibre Channel RAIDs, etc.
I guess I shouldn't post a response until I drink my first cup o' coffee in the morning. Sorry about the butchered English.
(...cowering in the corner waiting for the grammar police to come knocking...)
Who says they aren't? The SEC and private investigators have been watching this thing closely. Hell even Hewlett "Jr." has been doing this will a twist of misinformation. The simple fact is the details of this merge have be discussed very openly for more so the most other merges before it (partly thank to the proxy fight).
It has continued (just look at the proxy fight) but the people in the know about how the merge is going to take place have increased their belief that it can and will work based on their research (with Hewlett being an obvious exception). Do people realize that HP/Compaq had hundreds of people from both companies setup with free access to all information about both companies over 6 months ago? It is not like HP or Compaq jump over the fence without knowing what is on the other side.
Yes. HP & Compaq did this not because some body had a dream one night or some CEO saw money to be made but because both companies needed a change to compete with IBM, SUN & DELL. Basically both companies have been trying to grow in the same market areas and gain the same skill sets. Neither of them had been able to grow what they needed as fast as they needed... this merge can achieve this (with hard work and some sacrifice).
HP is about much more then printers and consumer computers... That is what this merge is about. It is about growing the server division, storage division, enterprise software division, solution & consulting, marketing and sales force all while improving the ability of the consumer computer division to better compete with the like of Dell. Basically consumer computers and low-end servers are mostly commodity items, the money to be made lives else where now.
The don't do to bad with Mac printer support but it could always be better.
Why don't they try the same "analysis" on some other vocations like plumbers, sanitary engineers, p0rn stars, etc.
Lets see what other conspiracies exist.
Hey AC... care to give examples of how Apple is "nixing development" of Darwin on x86?
The source is sitting their do what you want with it.
Really? Care to back that bold assertion up with an actual fact?
Funny you ask that... closed societies can more easily hide the facts and hence the magnitude of the killings is hard to ascertain. I think few still deny that millions of people died in an artificial famine under Stalin, in labor camps under Hilter/Stalin/Mao/etc, or directly murdered by the state (under Hilter/Stalin/Mao/etc). The question is really how many.
Also it depends on what you classify as a war (civil wars and coups could be under the bucket of government killed, etc.). Further it depends on what killings you split out in a war as fighting deaths, labor camps, etc. I would say his statement is close to the truth if not the truth.
After 2 minutes using google I found a good summary site...
1 & 2
Fact: not one tank ran over a student in Tiananmen Square
I think that was his point. The media was a whitness to the events going on in Tiananmen Square. This gave the governement pause in taking stronger action (not the only factor but still a factor). In a closed society it is much easier to cover up things that you really don't want people to know about and as a result they have more "freedom" to commit atrocities.
Hewlett-Packard also sells various NAS solutions.
I don't expect an issue for them because they can easily afford any licensing fees.
I agree.
I am all for genetic research with the goal being advanced medicines, therapies and detection. I also support the use of cloning for the replication of cells, tissues, and organs.
In my opinion the use of cloning for the replication of an individual is wrong, not because someone is being cloned but solely because the clone, using current technology, will most likely have a reduced life, a propensity for various ailments (include immune deficiency). Sure children conceived by normal means may have similar issues however they are far less likely.
This event shows that the parties involved used a clear lack of ethical judgment and shows selfishness on the part of the "parents".
Bluetooth would be a VERY slow hard drive interface.
Printers do make sense, as does keyboards, mice, and other low data rate devices... basically BlueTooth will replace IR based links and some USB links.
True... it is not so much that people try to patent the obvious or what you could call ethereal but that the patent office lets people do this every now and then.
Most of the time they do this right... I guess they just haven't fully figured out how to deal with "software" patents.