No, it seems to me that they grasp the fact that their label is selling DRM'd CDs, and they're asking Apple to add more DRM to iTunes so they don't lose business from not being able to sell well to the digital music market.
Of course they make no appologies, they want the DRM. Someone needs to explain to the band that this is like dumping a tour bus load on all their fans at once.
It sends a stream to the AirPort which converts it to an audio signal. nothign specifies it must control a STEREO, it controls an external device which produces audio. Quicktime is a poor example, as other programs allow this to happen too (play MIDI to a device), but AirPort, i forgot about that, that might have some ground.
...and once science conquers all these challenges and delivers this reliable service to your home...
You'll pay them for every machine in the house, individually! Just like cel phones! Hey, my cingular bill for just last month alone with over $1000, and my phone has been disconnected for 3 months now! I can't WAIT for WIRELESS INTERNET!
Since those registers would be accessed often wouldn't the memory used for emulating them be perpetually in L1 cache? Still somewhat slower than a register, but not nearly as bad as DRAM.
Perhaps, but that also, of course depends on the type of emulation you're using. If the emulation is application-based, then it can only run as fast at the OS allows the emulator code to execute, and the emulation must be delayed by being swapped in and out of the cache quite frequently as other applications take control momentarily. Low level emulation (I'll call it kernel level) would be much faster as these imposing limits have been removed but the speed would still take a hit from running native on hardware at comparable clock speeds, unless the PowerPC sucks more than ever imagined (which, considering current performace, is not likely).
His point with regards to Apple is that developers who write desktop apps will probably prefer to write them for OSX instead of Linux, once the Apple x86 migration is done.
...and once again Dvorak proves he's a moron. If the reason no one bought Mac until now was that it is a PowerPC-based platform, if that is what you're all telling yourselves, then you are just as naive and silly as ever before.
To develop for the Mac, you still need to learn Cocca, or Carbon. Objective C. The little gotchas of the Mac systems. HFS+. Quartz. It's still Mac programming. Just because it has an Intel chip at it's heart does not mean that it will be any different to program for in the least, except for the possibility of some endian issues.
As for console-based apps, OS X is already BSD, and any app that can cross that platform gap can already run on OS X, and many Linux console apps do just that already. Linux is at this point still in charge of it's own future and, IMHO, doesn't have the right people working towards the right goals at the right times. At least, that's who the whole GNOME/KDE/Linux being ready for the desktop thing seems to look.
Oh and something i forgot in my other reply: PowerPC was originally faster, much, much faster than comparable x86 technology of the time. Unfortunately, we left it in the hands of Motorola to develop it. After all, good old Moto had served us well with their 68k line of CPUs since the early days and now that it was time to bring in the new it seemed only right to give them the chance to accellerate their design, fabrication, and sales with this newfound holy grail of technology.
Instead, they just kept doing what they where doing before, and the rapid design changes in the Intel and AMD lines quickly started kicking our asses, to the point where PowerPC sucked.
IBM took over for the G5, and it was amazing. New plant, new core, new company, AMAZING throuput at much lower clock and pretty damn low power consumption. Couple that with an OS designed for it and there you go.
To this day, a Dual 2.5GHz G5 still pounds a 3+GHz P4/AMD whatev into the ground (unless you're gaming). Problem is, new plant, new core, new company. IBM is having fab problems and can't push the chips much higher for a time to come. Apple, who have learned harsh lessons about not having a backup plan, have been watching Intel for some time now and see that they're on the move with something big, real soon. Something they asked IBM for and IBM couldn't deliver, at least not for a while. By that time, x86 will have moved ahead to the point of EASILY and OBVIOUSLY eating the PowerPC 970 series for breakfast.
Motorola is still, by the way, the manufacturer of the G4, so any machine that hasn't got a G5 in it is still hindered by their asses.
All in all, it's a big mess, and to move to a unified manufacturer who is willing and able to be accomodating, can meet demand for high volume orders without problem is a godsend. Apple is too big now to say "Wait 5 years and we'll be ahead again!", they have to stay on top and moving ahead at all times because if they lose steam now they could collapse.
This is a big move for them and not to be taken lightly. I only hope they're doing what is right...I'd love to get my hands on the developer kit, that's for sure.
I remember reasong somewhere that one of the big problems with PowerPC emulation on the x86 was the fact that PPC chips had more registers than x86, thus forcing some of those registers to be used from RAM or swapped as appropriate, either of which caused a loss of all possible advantages of having registers.
Looks likely then that this move is also being made to help the transition Apple will be making to Intel architecture, and it will largely benifit the PC world as well.
...IP, which Apple has a great pull in getting licensed to whomever as one-third of the PowerPC Consortium. It might take a lot of talking at each other by the suits, but, speaking form a business perspective, it could be worked out.
Well, perhaps they're going to simply fab the design for the existing PowerPC chips, but that would be a low blow by Apple, I'm not sure IBM would accept licensing their fabrication tech. to Intel so that Apple can get the volume they need...
What may have happened here is that Apple might have allowed Intel to develop and test (very quietly, of course) its own version of a PPC chip, and the results now are making IBM look like the Motorola of 2005.
I, for one, am extremely disapointed in the PowerPC Consortium's results. Why is performance supposedly so much lower than everyone expected? Why is it that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all depending on IBM when Apple can't get a high enough yeild? Those three consoles combined will outsell the Macintosh in comming years (oh, it doesn't deserve to be the truth, but it is), how is IBM going to keep up?
...or perhaps, <sarcasm>since C|Net and ZDNet are known for their accuracy and tech-savvyness</sarcasm>, we're going to see Macs with Intel chipsets and IBM CPUs. Remember, not a single company has commented on this. All we have are "sources familliar with the situation". If Apple announces this switch just weeks after Tiger was released, after everyone is just about to get settled into it...well everyone would jump ship.
The real problem Apple has had with software is that many developers who code for the Mac are either niche market software makers who know they will turn a huge profit in the Mac market (Propellerhead Software, is a good example), and the rest because they know and love the Mac for what it is. I know it's popular opinion that Macs are "not real computers", but believe me, under the hood they are not toys.
In fact, given that statement, I have to wonder if the PPC chips are plenty fast, and Apple can't bring themselves to admit to be dissatisfied with the state of OS X?
...and that is the problem with this story. Their sources could be just as speculative (and rambling...I know) as myself.
Note: The article only says Intel, NOT x86. If Apple switches to x86 processors you can kiss them goodbye, guarenteed.
Re:Gamers never know what's good for them
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
I just spent 9 straight hours playing "Conker's Bad Fur Day" for the first time (N64)...Let me tell you, a game with well designed AI is a beautiful thing.
What will happen after they graduate and find that almost everybody else is using Microsoft Office on Windows?
Wait a minute...are you infering, on Slashdot, no less, that it is difficult to figure out how to use a WORD PROCESSOR? Granted, Microsoft's specialty certainly isn't interface design, but...but...really now.
Big companies have have PR/advertising departments for decades. How is a blog any different from that?
PR/Advertising is paid by the company to do what it takes to make them look good. Possibly disgruntled employees bitching on the internet don't come with that same guarentee. Plus, they're not trained to make statements properly, which can lead to misunderstandings and a whole lot more work for the PR department.
You need to type the URL directly into your voice-activated copy of ResEdit, running on Windows 95, to make sure there are enough "real-life" references that geeks won't complain.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it seems to me that they grasp the fact that their label is selling DRM'd CDs, and they're asking Apple to add more DRM to iTunes so they don't lose business from not being able to sell well to the digital music market.
Of course they make no appologies, they want the DRM. Someone needs to explain to the band that this is like dumping a tour bus load on all their fans at once.
Has Microsoft announced an official retail price at all or is it still speculation? I saw no mention of it in the press release.
For the iPod Nano, yes, that's intuitive and cool...on a cel phone however, it might be quicker to use a keypad. Just sayin'
It sends a stream to the AirPort which converts it to an audio signal. nothign specifies it must control a STEREO, it controls an external device which produces audio. Quicktime is a poor example, as other programs allow this to happen too (play MIDI to a device), but AirPort, i forgot about that, that might have some ground.
...and once science conquers all these challenges and delivers this reliable service to your home...
You'll pay them for every machine in the house, individually! Just like cel phones! Hey, my cingular bill for just last month alone with over $1000, and my phone has been disconnected for 3 months now! I can't WAIT for WIRELESS INTERNET!
At first i wondered if the corpse plant was where they made soylent green...I need coffee...
To develop for the Mac, you still need to learn Cocca, or Carbon. Objective C. The little gotchas of the Mac systems. HFS+. Quartz. It's still Mac programming. Just because it has an Intel chip at it's heart does not mean that it will be any different to program for in the least, except for the possibility of some endian issues.
As for console-based apps, OS X is already BSD, and any app that can cross that platform gap can already run on OS X, and many Linux console apps do just that already. Linux is at this point still in charge of it's own future and, IMHO, doesn't have the right people working towards the right goals at the right times. At least, that's who the whole GNOME/KDE/Linux being ready for the desktop thing seems to look.
Oh and something i forgot in my other reply: PowerPC was originally faster, much, much faster than comparable x86 technology of the time. Unfortunately, we left it in the hands of Motorola to develop it. After all, good old Moto had served us well with their 68k line of CPUs since the early days and now that it was time to bring in the new it seemed only right to give them the chance to accellerate their design, fabrication, and sales with this newfound holy grail of technology.
Instead, they just kept doing what they where doing before, and the rapid design changes in the Intel and AMD lines quickly started kicking our asses, to the point where PowerPC sucked.
IBM took over for the G5, and it was amazing. New plant, new core, new company, AMAZING throuput at much lower clock and pretty damn low power consumption. Couple that with an OS designed for it and there you go.
To this day, a Dual 2.5GHz G5 still pounds a 3+GHz P4/AMD whatev into the ground (unless you're gaming). Problem is, new plant, new core, new company. IBM is having fab problems and can't push the chips much higher for a time to come. Apple, who have learned harsh lessons about not having a backup plan, have been watching Intel for some time now and see that they're on the move with something big, real soon. Something they asked IBM for and IBM couldn't deliver, at least not for a while. By that time, x86 will have moved ahead to the point of EASILY and OBVIOUSLY eating the PowerPC 970 series for breakfast.
Motorola is still, by the way, the manufacturer of the G4, so any machine that hasn't got a G5 in it is still hindered by their asses.
All in all, it's a big mess, and to move to a unified manufacturer who is willing and able to be accomodating, can meet demand for high volume orders without problem is a godsend. Apple is too big now to say "Wait 5 years and we'll be ahead again!", they have to stay on top and moving ahead at all times because if they lose steam now they could collapse.
This is a big move for them and not to be taken lightly. I only hope they're doing what is right...I'd love to get my hands on the developer kit, that's for sure.
Oh yea, good call! I wonder what is going to happen along those lines?
...of cliches...
Because of intelligence-insulting comments fromthe PC peanut gallery, we've all become trained to want nothign to do with your crowd. Make sense now?
You'll be the first to bitch when you can't run OS X on any x86 machine you want, too.
I remember reasong somewhere that one of the big problems with PowerPC emulation on the x86 was the fact that PPC chips had more registers than x86, thus forcing some of those registers to be used from RAM or swapped as appropriate, either of which caused a loss of all possible advantages of having registers.
Looks likely then that this move is also being made to help the transition Apple will be making to Intel architecture, and it will largely benifit the PC world as well.
...just in time for the Apple switch to Intel products?
I'm still kind of miffed about that but if they run new dual-core chips it might not be so bad.
...IP, which Apple has a great pull in getting licensed to whomever as one-third of the PowerPC Consortium. It might take a lot of talking at each other by the suits, but, speaking form a business perspective, it could be worked out.
Well, perhaps they're going to simply fab the design for the existing PowerPC chips, but that would be a low blow by Apple, I'm not sure IBM would accept licensing their fabrication tech. to Intel so that Apple can get the volume they need...
What may have happened here is that Apple might have allowed Intel to develop and test (very quietly, of course) its own version of a PPC chip, and the results now are making IBM look like the Motorola of 2005.
I, for one, am extremely disapointed in the PowerPC Consortium's results. Why is performance supposedly so much lower than everyone expected? Why is it that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all depending on IBM when Apple can't get a high enough yeild? Those three consoles combined will outsell the Macintosh in comming years (oh, it doesn't deserve to be the truth, but it is), how is IBM going to keep up?
...or perhaps, <sarcasm>since C|Net and ZDNet are known for their accuracy and tech-savvyness</sarcasm>, we're going to see Macs with Intel chipsets and IBM CPUs. Remember, not a single company has commented on this. All we have are "sources familliar with the situation". If Apple announces this switch just weeks after Tiger was released, after everyone is just about to get settled into it...well everyone would jump ship.
The real problem Apple has had with software is that many developers who code for the Mac are either niche market software makers who know they will turn a huge profit in the Mac market (Propellerhead Software, is a good example), and the rest because they know and love the Mac for what it is. I know it's popular opinion that Macs are "not real computers", but believe me, under the hood they are not toys.
In fact, given that statement, I have to wonder if the PPC chips are plenty fast, and Apple can't bring themselves to admit to be dissatisfied with the state of OS X?
...and that is the problem with this story. Their sources could be just as speculative (and rambling...I know) as myself.
Note: The article only says Intel, NOT x86. If Apple switches to x86 processors you can kiss them goodbye, guarenteed.
I just spent 9 straight hours playing "Conker's Bad Fur Day" for the first time (N64)...Let me tell you, a game with well designed AI is a beautiful thing.
You need to type the URL directly into your voice-activated copy of ResEdit, running on Windows 95, to make sure there are enough "real-life" references that geeks won't complain.