You must be seeing a bugged version of the winners layout. It uses a rounded lead in/out block scheme, it isn't boxy. It is also less cluttered then the runner up.
"I suppose I would slightly disagree with both of you. The purpose of patents, from the standpoint of the people who set up the whole patent system (the government) is to encourage innovation by allowing inventors a chance to make money exclusively for a short period but only if they agreed to share the essence of their invention and how it works."
Fixed that for ya.:)
The intent was two folds... 1) ensure the sharing of ideas to increase the knowledge pool, and 2) ensure inventors could profit off their inventions for a reasonable amount of time to see a return on investment. In other words... it wasn't just about granting exclusivity, it was also about getting trade secret out in the open to foster new and better ideas.
Alistair you are generally correct. A lot of the Mac OS X / Darwin kernel (XNU) is Apple grown and NeXT before that but several aspects have and continue be infused with content from FreeBSD and others (Apple also submits things back upstream). The aspects that came from FreeBSD are generally still available via the open source version of XNU PowerPC source tree (it is coded to support both PowerPC and x86) and items outside of XNU are available from the source trees for both x86 and PowerPC.
Of course drivers for devices only found on PowerPC aren't available in the x86 source tree (which makes sense). Also drivers for x86 hardware isn't available nor has it been stated by Apple if they will or will not be made available (for all we know Apple could be waiting for the unification coming in 10.5).
The only real loss to developers is not having IOKit from the x86 source tree however the IOKit available from the PowerPC tree is likely nearly the same if not the same (it contains some ifdefs for x86, etc.).
Apple continues to make available the BSD userland and tool chain for each point release of Mac OS X via releasing the related Darwin source tree (both PowerPC and Intel).
Also Apple has many active open source projects using BSD, LGPL, and their own APSL that they either wholly developed or have greatly enhanced.
Apple doesn't pay any money to the RIAA when a song is sold on iTMS. They pay the record company that holds the rights to the song (the one they licensed distribution rights from). The RIAA is a trade organization not a corporation....
Ok would you pay easily 2-5 time more for a dedicated 5 Mbps link then you currently pay?
That would more closely reflect the bandwidth costs that the ISP sees if you maxed out that 5 Mbps link 24/7. You should be happy that ISP don't charge you the true costs since they realize that most folks don't max their links 24/7... what they sell is burst bandwidth rates... unless you have paid for a dedicated link (not your typical residential link).
Also traffic shaping isn't only about limiting bandwidth it is often about optimizing bandwidth for the ISP customers so that a majority of customers have timing critical traffic (gaming, VoIP, Video conferencing, etc.) operate at the rates they need while allowing time indifferent traffic like P2P to continue but not interfere with other traffic.
The reality is the ISPs upstream bandwidth (and/or concentration point bandwidth) isn't unlimited nor is it free to the ISP and the prices they charge you are below what the true costs are if things are maxed 24/7 or if they had to install and maintain the exact upstream bandwidth to cover all their customers going 100% on their links.
One is brain dead simple to use and works, the other is a pain in the ass and may not work. One will be supported by Apple (the software that allows Windows on Mac not Windows support), the other isn't. One will be part of the standard operating system (in the not so distance future), the other isn't.
XOM is likely to cause more problems then Boot Camp.
They haven't figured out how to do what? What does making it available ASAP instead of on a schedule that their major corporate customers have strongly requested have to do with "number and caliber of computer science researchers" at Microsoft.
Regardless they will and do relevant testing, takes days to weeks depending on scope of change its effects... sometimes the effects ripple out to third-parties which can further delay deployment.
I generally don't like Windows the product or many of MS current and prior practices but I do understand the issue they face when releasing a patch into such a large and diverse customer ecosystem.
I was responding to comments about Mac OS X not having software, software developers and that said developers aren't using Apple specific technologies (like Cocoa) by making a point that to date Mac OS X has spawned a large increase (accelerating in recent months) in Macintosh developers and on lists often discussing Mac OS X only technologies.
1) Games are a special case since the often have little to no strong bindings to the UI of the operating system or specific features of the operating system. They are often far easier to port to any number of operating systems (or hardware). So it is still likely that developers will port games to Mac OS X just like they have been (and like they will do to various gaming consoles).
2) If someone wants to buy a possibly cheaper version of a game and run it in windows so be it but don't ignore that you would have to get Windows on your Mac (which costs money, has to be setup, maintained, etc.). In other words running Windows on you Mac isn't zero cost or even a one time cost (in time or money). Also the market will respond to pricing pressures so the delta between prices will likely narrow.
3) Mac users, ones that like to use Mac OS X, will demand by way of voice and purchasing power Mac native versions of the software they want to have/use. If a developer choses not to provide a Mac native version they leave the door open for a competitor to come in a fill that need. Yes some developer may use the Windows option as an escape hatch but by doing so they put themselves at a disadvantage to a developer that takes the time to port to or directly developer for Mac OS X.
4) It is likely that having the Windows option (ideally via virtualization, aka guest OS) will fuel Macintosh hardware sales by removing additional (often perceived) barriers in the market place. This will expand the exposure and usage of Mac OS X which will expand the market for Mac OS X native software... that will fuel developers to attempt to claim that market.
Yes it is early to know the effects of things such as this but I think in a year or two my view of how this will play-out will be proven.
It doesn't matter if OS X is technically better than Windows if nobody writes software for it
A lot of small and big companies are developing and delivering a LOT of software for Mac OS X. On Mac OS X you have software, often of good quality, for every type of task. If you have been a member of the developer community you would have noticed that since Mac OS X came out the traffic on Cocoa, Core Audio, OpenGL, Java, (even Carbon) developer lists has steadily increased (radically in some cases in the last couple of years). There are more folks then ever before developing software directly for Mac OS X using Cocoa.
In short: dual core, like most parallelized technologies, doesn't do nearly as much as you think it does, and won't until our compilers and schedulers get much better than they are now.
Yeah just like color correction of images/etc done by ColorSync (done by default in Quartz) on Mac OS X doesn't split the task into N-1 threads (when N > 1 and N being the number of cores). On my quad core system I see the time to color correct images I display take less then 1/3 the time it does when I disable all but one of the cores. Similar things happen in Core Image, Core Audio, Core Video, etc....and a much of this is vectorized code to begin with (aka already darn fast for what it does).
If you use Apple's Shark tool to do a system trace you can see this stuff taking place and the advantages it has... especially so given that I as a developer didn't have to do a thing other then use the provided frameworks to reap the benefits.
Don't discount how helpful multiple cores can be now with current operating systems, compilers, schedulers and applications. A lot of tasks that folks do today (encode/decode audio, video, images, encryption, compression, etc.) deal with stream processing and that often can benefit from splitting the load into multiple threads if multiple cores (physical or otherwise) are available.
Remember, two active applications, or two threads in an active application, does not mean those two processes or threads get to be piped to separate cores or processors. ...but it does mean that those two "active" applications (with X number of threads) can have 2 threads execute concurrently, one on each core (assuming little resource contention taking place in other places).
(In point of fact, both were context switching in and out of both CPUs pretty regularly). So? If the both had the need of CPU resources at the same time they could likely get them at the same time since the system had dual processors.
Umm no. Aqua is the look and feel of the Mac OS X GUI. Quartz (aka Core Graphic) is the graphics subsystem that Mac OS X uses. Quartz Extreme is the hardware accelerated window compositing/scrolling variant of Quartz.
I believe you are thinking of IOKit when you say "Quartz is used to sync the microkernel (Mach derivative) with the BSD Compatibility Layer (freeBSD derived) to create an established and elegant interface to the kernel services, etc.".
No XP doesn't support EFI booting, Windows 2003 64 bit does at this time. The Gateway system has EFI _with_ legacy BIOS support allowing XP to boot on it.
Slashdot Mirror
ok ok... s/hands/penis/ ...better?
You must be seeing a bugged version of the winners layout. It uses a rounded lead in/out block scheme, it isn't boxy. It is also less cluttered then the runner up.
IMHO I like it.
Review the developer notes for the MacIntel systems... iMac, Mac Mini, MBP 17", MBP 15", MB 13".
Anyway they all are standard Core processors and standard Intel chip sets.
...and "Kings play chess on funny green squares" pops back in my head...
"I suppose I would slightly disagree with both of you. The purpose of patents, from the standpoint of the people who set up the whole patent system (the government) is to encourage innovation by allowing inventors a chance to make money exclusively for a short period but only if they agreed to share the essence of their invention and how it works."
:)
Fixed that for ya.
The intent was two folds... 1) ensure the sharing of ideas to increase the knowledge pool, and 2) ensure inventors could profit off their inventions for a reasonable amount of time to see a return on investment. In other words... it wasn't just about granting exclusivity, it was also about getting trade secret out in the open to foster new and better ideas.
If you don't already know you can get Intel and PowerPC kernel debug kits to help symbolize panics, etc. You can then peer at the XNU available from the PowerPC source tree and usually understand what is taking place.
Alistair you are generally correct. A lot of the Mac OS X / Darwin kernel (XNU) is Apple grown and NeXT before that but several aspects have and continue be infused with content from FreeBSD and others (Apple also submits things back upstream). The aspects that came from FreeBSD are generally still available via the open source version of XNU PowerPC source tree (it is coded to support both PowerPC and x86) and items outside of XNU are available from the source trees for both x86 and PowerPC.
Of course drivers for devices only found on PowerPC aren't available in the x86 source tree (which makes sense). Also drivers for x86 hardware isn't available nor has it been stated by Apple if they will or will not be made available (for all we know Apple could be waiting for the unification coming in 10.5).
The only real loss to developers is not having IOKit from the x86 source tree however the IOKit available from the PowerPC tree is likely nearly the same if not the same (it contains some ifdefs for x86, etc.).
Why not get informed first before speculating...
Apple continues to make available the BSD userland and tool chain for each point release of Mac OS X via releasing the related Darwin source tree (both PowerPC and Intel).
Also Apple has many active open source projects using BSD, LGPL, and their own APSL that they either wholly developed or have greatly enhanced.
Apple WebKit && Offical WebKit
Darwin Streaming Server
I have those days as well :)
5.2 gHz WTF are you talking about?
The Core 2 Extreme processor is clocked at 3.34 GHz with a 1.34 GT/s FSB.
Apple doesn't pay any money to the RIAA when a song is sold on iTMS. They pay the record company that holds the rights to the song (the one they licensed distribution rights from). The RIAA is a trade organization not a corporation....
Might want to review the following to better understand fragmentation and how HFS+ suffered and fights the issue...
HFS plus fragmentation
Also XFS doesn't use journalling, it is a transactional file system that ensures on disk structures are always consistent, no need for a journal.
He was trotting out a very tired and stupid argument that GW is beneficial.
GW is potentially beneficial and potentially harmful depending on local effects of GW...
Ok would you pay easily 2-5 time more for a dedicated 5 Mbps link then you currently pay?
... what they sell is burst bandwidth rates ... unless you have paid for a dedicated link (not your typical residential link).
That would more closely reflect the bandwidth costs that the ISP sees if you maxed out that 5 Mbps link 24/7. You should be happy that ISP don't charge you the true costs since they realize that most folks don't max their links 24/7
Also traffic shaping isn't only about limiting bandwidth it is often about optimizing bandwidth for the ISP customers so that a majority of customers have timing critical traffic (gaming, VoIP, Video conferencing, etc.) operate at the rates they need while allowing time indifferent traffic like P2P to continue but not interfere with other traffic.
The reality is the ISPs upstream bandwidth (and/or concentration point bandwidth) isn't unlimited nor is it free to the ISP and the prices they charge you are below what the true costs are if things are maxed 24/7 or if they had to install and maintain the exact upstream bandwidth to cover all their customers going 100% on their links.
One is brain dead simple to use and works, the other is a pain in the ass and may not work. One will be supported by Apple (the software that allows Windows on Mac not Windows support), the other isn't. One will be part of the standard operating system (in the not so distance future), the other isn't.
XOM is likely to cause more problems then Boot Camp.
They haven't figured out how to do what? What does making it available ASAP instead of on a schedule that their major corporate customers have strongly requested have to do with "number and caliber of computer science researchers" at Microsoft.
Regardless they will and do relevant testing, takes days to weeks depending on scope of change its effects... sometimes the effects ripple out to third-parties which can further delay deployment.
I generally don't like Windows the product or many of MS current and prior practices but I do understand the issue they face when releasing a patch into such a large and diverse customer ecosystem.
Hey Al Gore invented the Internet... he knows what he is talking about.
Review this graphical history of unix.
I was responding to comments about Mac OS X not having software, software developers and that said developers aren't using Apple specific technologies (like Cocoa) by making a point that to date Mac OS X has spawned a large increase (accelerating in recent months) in Macintosh developers and on lists often discussing Mac OS X only technologies.
1) Games are a special case since the often have little to no strong bindings to the UI of the operating system or specific features of the operating system. They are often far easier to port to any number of operating systems (or hardware). So it is still likely that developers will port games to Mac OS X just like they have been (and like they will do to various gaming consoles).
2) If someone wants to buy a possibly cheaper version of a game and run it in windows so be it but don't ignore that you would have to get Windows on your Mac (which costs money, has to be setup, maintained, etc.). In other words running Windows on you Mac isn't zero cost or even a one time cost (in time or money). Also the market will respond to pricing pressures so the delta between prices will likely narrow.
3) Mac users, ones that like to use Mac OS X, will demand by way of voice and purchasing power Mac native versions of the software they want to have/use. If a developer choses not to provide a Mac native version they leave the door open for a competitor to come in a fill that need. Yes some developer may use the Windows option as an escape hatch but by doing so they put themselves at a disadvantage to a developer that takes the time to port to or directly developer for Mac OS X.
4) It is likely that having the Windows option (ideally via virtualization, aka guest OS) will fuel Macintosh hardware sales by removing additional (often perceived) barriers in the market place. This will expand the exposure and usage of Mac OS X which will expand the market for Mac OS X native software... that will fuel developers to attempt to claim that market.
Yes it is early to know the effects of things such as this but I think in a year or two my view of how this will play-out will be proven.
It doesn't matter if OS X is technically better than Windows if nobody writes software for it
A lot of small and big companies are developing and delivering a LOT of software for Mac OS X. On Mac OS X you have software, often of good quality, for every type of task. If you have been a member of the developer community you would have noticed that since Mac OS X came out the traffic on Cocoa, Core Audio, OpenGL, Java, (even Carbon) developer lists has steadily increased (radically in some cases in the last couple of years). There are more folks then ever before developing software directly for Mac OS X using Cocoa.
In short: dual core, like most parallelized technologies, doesn't do nearly as much as you think it does, and won't until our compilers and schedulers get much better than they are now.
...and a much of this is vectorized code to begin with (aka already darn fast for what it does).
Yeah just like color correction of images/etc done by ColorSync (done by default in Quartz) on Mac OS X doesn't split the task into N-1 threads (when N > 1 and N being the number of cores). On my quad core system I see the time to color correct images I display take less then 1/3 the time it does when I disable all but one of the cores. Similar things happen in Core Image, Core Audio, Core Video, etc.
If you use Apple's Shark tool to do a system trace you can see this stuff taking place and the advantages it has... especially so given that I as a developer didn't have to do a thing other then use the provided frameworks to reap the benefits.
Don't discount how helpful multiple cores can be now with current operating systems, compilers, schedulers and applications. A lot of tasks that folks do today (encode/decode audio, video, images, encryption, compression, etc.) deal with stream processing and that often can benefit from splitting the load into multiple threads if multiple cores (physical or otherwise) are available.
Remember, two active applications, or two threads in an active application, does not mean those two processes or threads get to be piped to separate cores or processors. ...but it does mean that those two "active" applications (with X number of threads) can have 2 threads execute concurrently, one on each core (assuming little resource contention taking place in other places).
(In point of fact, both were context switching in and out of both CPUs pretty regularly). So? If the both had the need of CPU resources at the same time they could likely get them at the same time since the system had dual processors.
If you shoot a high velocity bullet into water it explodes into pieces (handguns are low velocity and water can be used to trap such bullets).
At these speeds (if impact is close or beyond super sonic) hitting water will basically have the same effect as hitting a more solid surface.
Umm no. Aqua is the look and feel of the Mac OS X GUI. Quartz (aka Core Graphic) is the graphics subsystem that Mac OS X uses. Quartz Extreme is the hardware accelerated window compositing/scrolling variant of Quartz.
I believe you are thinking of IOKit when you say "Quartz is used to sync the microkernel (Mach derivative) with the BSD Compatibility Layer (freeBSD derived) to create an established and elegant interface to the kernel services, etc.".
You should review... Mac OS X System Architecture
XP already supports EFI booting
No XP doesn't support EFI booting, Windows 2003 64 bit does at this time. The Gateway system has EFI _with_ legacy BIOS support allowing XP to boot on it.