Not everyone wants a wireless mouse that... pollutes the environment...
No kidding: The other day, I found my wireless mouse spraying all my hairspray out the window, burning tires, and just running the engine on its brand-new SUV. Fucker.
if you install the drivers and use this mouse and someone also decides to use it (as in you are an admin, and you installed these mice at a library for example,) most users will be confused and surprised when they unexpectedely will get popup menues etc.
First of all, I doubt a library is going to buy a bunch of $50 mice. So, let's assume this situation has the Mighty Mouse shipping with new Macs that this hypothetical library has purchased. In this situation, the mouse will act like a one button mouse with a scroll ball by default. A user who "right-clicks" will not get a context menu, and if the Admin sets it up for himself to get multiple buttons, it won't affect the guest account. Everybody wins. That's just good design.
Unlike earlier versions of Mac OS, which were limited to a one-button mouse, Carbon is designed to support multiple mouse buttons. (Theoretically, it can handle as many as 65,535 buttons, though the most you're likely to encounter in practice is 3.)
If you use it to leech bandwidth from your neighbor, then the local law CAN and WILL arrest you.
Incidentally, does anyone know what U.S. laws would allow such an arrest? It seems to me that it is hard for the end user to know the intent of the network provider. How is it legal to sit in the coffee shop and surf on an open network and not in your living room? Is the end user supposed to be able to distinguish between a dumbass who puts his WiFi router on his LAN with default settings and a philanthropist who knowingly shares it?
Re:I argued about increased business and royalty
on
The Case for Free WiFi?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Mac/PPC is not dead. It is deprecated at worst. For the next few years, both Mac/PPC and Mac/Intel will be full citizens for Mac software. Of course there will be software that will not run on one of the two supported platforms, but the majority of software won't care what chip is under the hood.
If Apple would re-release the Yellow Box for Windows so that developers could write one codebase (using the Cocoa frameworks) and compile to PPC/Mac, Intel/Mac, and Intel/Win, it would go a long way toward creating the ideal cross-platform development system.
I'm hoping and expecting the Yellow Box to be released as an integral part of QuickTime for Windows, so that Cocoa apps compiled for Windows would simply require QuickTime for Windows.
When a user uses a Cocoa app on Windows and thinks, "Gosh, this app sure does work well. I wish everything worked this well." Well, it does on a Mac, and they'd find that out. It would drive a lot of sales of new Macintoshes.
This is why they need to re-release the Yellow Box for Windows (a Win32 implementation of the Cocoa API). What I think they should do is put it into QuickTime for Windows, so that application developers could write to Cocoa on the Mac, compile it to Mac/PPC, Mac/Intel, Win/Intel and deliver to both mainstream platforms with a single codebase (with the requirement that you have to have QuickTime for Windows to use the Windows version).
This would do a lot, in my opinion, to drive the sales of Macintoshes as dev boxes for the new write once run anywhere apps.
Which is exactly why Apple should ship Cocoa frameworks for Windows (probably rolled into QuickTime for Windows).
When you can write an app once with Cocoa and the same codebase compiles to run on both major operating systems (with the requirement for QuickTime to run on Windows), you are going to save yourself a lot of time and trouble and use it. Users get a native app on either platform. Everybody wins!
That's like the holy grail of portable code. I hope they do it.
While Apple never officially acknowledged the Red Box project, the rumors for the Red Box said it was not envisioned as a virtual machine for booting another OS, but actually as an implementation of the Win32 API, like WINE does for Linux on x86.
I think that the best thing for Apple to do in conjunction with this would be to re-release the Yellow Box for Windows, though they should do it covertly by simply making the frameworks a part of the QuickTime for Windows install.
If QuickTime for Windows could provide Cocoa Foundation and AppKit frameworks for Windows, devs could develop once on a Mac, compile for PPC/Mac, Intel/Mac, and Intel/Win, and then ship one disc that runs on Mac or Windows (with a system requirement for QuickTime on the latter).
How many devs do you think would buy a Macintosh if they knew they could use it to write one codebase that deploys simultaneously on both major platforms?
My guess: a whole lot.
Writing to the Cocoa API would suddenly be a very VERY marketable skill.
From The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines:"The term x86 is a generic term used throughout this book to refer to the class of microprocessors manufactured by Intel. This book uses the term x86 as a synonym for IA-32 (Intel Architecture 32-bit)."
Looks pretty clear that IA-32 is the supported ISA.
From StarWars.com databank: The term Kessel Run came to encompass a number of smuggler methods designed to separate spice cargoes from licensed Imperial shippers. One particular method saw the quick distribution of spice along a slowly moving train of cargo freighters, while another approach was just a pure contest of raw speed that skirted dangerously close to the black holes of the Maw Cluster. A smuggler that managed to shave off a sizable portion of the 18-parsec Kessel Run had bragging rights indeed.
I noticed something profound: QuickTime 7 is built on Cocoa (that's why it is Mac-only right now). In order to run on Windows, Apple will have to revive the "Yellow Box" (the Cocoa frameworks on Windows), at least in part. I'm hoping that this means they are about to re-release the Yellow Box with full updates. That would immediately and immensely increase the market for Cocoa apps. And if the Cocoa frameworks are simply included in the QuickTime 7 install, then Cocoa apps compiled to x86 for the Yellow Box could simply list QuickTime 7 as a system requirement.:)
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding: The other day, I found my wireless mouse spraying all my hairspray out the window, burning tires, and just running the engine on its brand-new SUV. Fucker.
First of all, I doubt a library is going to buy a bunch of $50 mice. So, let's assume this situation has the Mighty Mouse shipping with new Macs that this hypothetical library has purchased. In this situation, the mouse will act like a one button mouse with a scroll ball by default. A user who "right-clicks" will not get a context menu, and if the Admin sets it up for himself to get multiple buttons, it won't affect the guest account. Everybody wins. That's just good design.
Yeah, it doesn't open for me on Word 2002 as a document. It opens up with all the xml tags shown.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes, Anakin.
(Sorry, I just had to...)
Despite the several reasons described by many other posters here? Riiiight.
<sarcasm>Your opinion clearly trumps the facts. You should be president.</sarcasm>
Unlike earlier versions of Mac OS, which were limited to a one-button mouse, Carbon is designed to support multiple mouse buttons. (Theoretically, it can handle as many as 65,535 buttons, though the most you're likely to encounter in practice is 3.)
Incidentally, does anyone know what U.S. laws would allow such an arrest? It seems to me that it is hard for the end user to know the intent of the network provider. How is it legal to sit in the coffee shop and surf on an open network and not in your living room? Is the end user supposed to be able to distinguish between a dumbass who puts his WiFi router on his LAN with default settings and a philanthropist who knowingly shares it?
In Soviet Russia, WiFi freed you! Oh wait...
...yellowTab's Zeta?
Sam: Um, we'll talk about this on the bus, okay?
Geek: Well, no, see the thing is I've got kind of a problem. Floppy disks are pretty expensive and the thing is I made a bet with my friends...
Mac/PPC is not dead. It is deprecated at worst. For the next few years, both Mac/PPC and Mac/Intel will be full citizens for Mac software. Of course there will be software that will not run on one of the two supported platforms, but the majority of software won't care what chip is under the hood.
If Apple would re-release the Yellow Box for Windows so that developers could write one codebase (using the Cocoa frameworks) and compile to PPC/Mac, Intel/Mac, and Intel/Win, it would go a long way toward creating the ideal cross-platform development system.
I'm hoping and expecting the Yellow Box to be released as an integral part of QuickTime for Windows, so that Cocoa apps compiled for Windows would simply require QuickTime for Windows.
When a user uses a Cocoa app on Windows and thinks, "Gosh, this app sure does work well. I wish everything worked this well." Well, it does on a Mac, and they'd find that out. It would drive a lot of sales of new Macintoshes.
This is why they need to re-release the Yellow Box for Windows (a Win32 implementation of the Cocoa API). What I think they should do is put it into QuickTime for Windows, so that application developers could write to Cocoa on the Mac, compile it to Mac/PPC, Mac/Intel, Win/Intel and deliver to both mainstream platforms with a single codebase (with the requirement that you have to have QuickTime for Windows to use the Windows version).
This would do a lot, in my opinion, to drive the sales of Macintoshes as dev boxes for the new write once run anywhere apps.
Which is exactly why Apple should ship Cocoa frameworks for Windows (probably rolled into QuickTime for Windows).
When you can write an app once with Cocoa and the same codebase compiles to run on both major operating systems (with the requirement for QuickTime to run on Windows), you are going to save yourself a lot of time and trouble and use it. Users get a native app on either platform. Everybody wins!
That's like the holy grail of portable code. I hope they do it.
While Apple never officially acknowledged the Red Box project, the rumors for the Red Box said it was not envisioned as a virtual machine for booting another OS, but actually as an implementation of the Win32 API, like WINE does for Linux on x86.
I think that the best thing for Apple to do in conjunction with this would be to re-release the Yellow Box for Windows, though they should do it covertly by simply making the frameworks a part of the QuickTime for Windows install.
If QuickTime for Windows could provide Cocoa Foundation and AppKit frameworks for Windows, devs could develop once on a Mac, compile for PPC/Mac, Intel/Mac, and Intel/Win, and then ship one disc that runs on Mac or Windows (with a system requirement for QuickTime on the latter).
How many devs do you think would buy a Macintosh if they knew they could use it to write one codebase that deploys simultaneously on both major platforms?
My guess: a whole lot.
Writing to the Cocoa API would suddenly be a very VERY marketable skill.
Looks pretty clear that IA-32 is the supported ISA.
From StarWars.com databank:
The term Kessel Run came to encompass a number of smuggler methods designed to separate spice cargoes from licensed Imperial shippers. One particular method saw the quick distribution of spice along a slowly moving train of cargo freighters, while another approach was just a pure contest of raw speed that skirted dangerously close to the black holes of the Maw Cluster. A smuggler that managed to shave off a sizable portion of the 18-parsec Kessel Run had bragging rights indeed.
I noticed something profound: QuickTime 7 is built on Cocoa (that's why it is Mac-only right now). In order to run on Windows, Apple will have to revive the "Yellow Box" (the Cocoa frameworks on Windows), at least in part. I'm hoping that this means they are about to re-release the Yellow Box with full updates. That would immediately and immensely increase the market for Cocoa apps. And if the Cocoa frameworks are simply included in the QuickTime 7 install, then Cocoa apps compiled to x86 for the Yellow Box could simply list QuickTime 7 as a system requirement. :)
This doc is invaluable for Win32 programmers moving to Mac OS X.
So, by your reasoning, Windows is great?
Sorry, I used to have it. It was shown on Computer Chronicles on PBS, which I taped. Unfortunately, I recently chucked all my VHS tapes.
There are a few different companies that sell Piecepack sets, or you can make your own from the published specs.
It looks like even the mirror is down, but here is the Google Cache of the article.