Yout T616 experience is a little different from mine, but I agree that using Bluetooth is a real battery hog.
I added a bunch of contacts to my address book at work today - mostly business stuff. When I went to lunch, I set off iSync.
Upon arriving home this evening, I used iSync on my home machine, synced my phone with my computer...and realized my phone was still in the car. Now that's cool.
Until version 7, Photoshop had a 30,000 pixel dimension limit.
In CS, that limit has effectively been removed.
Massive files are easily manipulable in Photoshop - just not quickly manipulable.
As a large format user who drum scans his negs and chromes, I'm anxious for an update that will remove the 2GB per process limit in OS X so I can actually use the 8GB of RAM in this G5 for Photoshop.
As for the "from memory" issue, I can assure you that most practiced photographers are easily able to make a print (or guide their printer) without a chrome right in front of them. How do you think people have been making prints from color neg all these years?
This guy gets it. Why do all the investigative work, millions of dollars in interface work and even more investment in UI testing to have someone rip off you interface two weeks after you release?
Having done UI work and hired UI consultants before, I've seen the amount of work it takes to get a consumer-facing product sorted out. Having a properly designed product reduces support calls and increases adoption - especially for a free product like iTunes.
Rob Glaser of RealNetworks, though, claims that not opening the iPod (big or small) to other formats is a real mistake; he wants to see iPod support other proprietary formats (like, say, Real's).
In other news, The head of GM thinks that Germany's Porsche should install Chevrolet LT1 engines in the new 911. "It'll give them a chance to reach a larger audience with that car." a spokesman for the company said.
Coupla years ago, I helped write the microprocessor reference manuals for the PP5002C.
There's nothing WMA-specific about the chip. It's (as the above poster noted) basically two ARM7 cores, cache, and some I/O logic that makes it especially well-suited to low-power devices.
Portal Player did not design the PP5002C for the iPod; it is equally well at home playing AIFF, mp3, AAC, whatever - another WMA-compatible player could as easily use the PP5002 as a CPU - but an extremely capable little media CPU is all that it is - there's nothing WMA specific about the PP5002.
There is no good PocketPC synchronisation tool for Macs
I beg to differ. MissingSync/PocketPC is a hell of a nice piece of software, and isn't even the only game in town for Mac/PocketPC syncing.
Palm f'ed up by not including Mac support of some kind into Cobalt or the HotSync component. They're just removed one more differentiator between themselves and their largest competitor.
Rather than being able to market "The flat-out best PDA for Mac users who are going to buy a PDA", they've made a clear and bold statment that no longer will they support users who haven't already paid a nice big tithe to Palm's biggest competitor.
Once again for the business school dropouts: PalmSource has taken one simple step to ensure that every one of their customers has given PalmSource's #1 competitor money first.
It's clearly been an issue for some weeks, Apple should have introduced this before now.
Give them a break. When there's an issue like this, it takes several weeks just to get engineering and manufacturing to help the customer support side of the Apple world chase down, isolate, and put in place a fix for a problem like this.
While I'm sure the threat of a class-action suit lit a fire under the folks at AppleCare (who are charged with implementing these REA programs), I can assure you that they've also got a good feedback and reporting mechanism in place that probably made them aware of this problem months ago.
Again, it's no insta-fix. Had Apple announced this program a few weeks ago, without knowing the scope of the problem or having a 100% fix (or flushing service inventory of bad parts, etc.), customers would be complaining right and left that there were no parts. This happened in 1995-6 with the PowerBook 5300 series computer and Performa 52/5300 series computer REA programs, and I can assure you that AppleCare never wants to repeat that debacle with ANY product.
Interesting fact:
The serial number range also tells you exactly when the affected machines were manufactured.
UV220XXXXXX to UV318XXXXXX
Indicates affected machines were built between the 20th week of 2002 and the 18th week of 2003 - at least if Apple's serial number shorthand is still the same as when I worked there.
Apple had a higher-ed program for equipping labs with Macs in the late 1980s and early 1990s called "Wheels for the MInd".
The Susan Kare-style logo at the top of the WotM letterhead was the same featured in the Folklore site. Pretty cool, if you ask me. Still cool, even if you don't.
I started surfing folklore.org earlier this evening and I was nearly finished reading everything when...
Slashdot hit.
I had an idea, so checked here withi 20 minutes, and sure enough, it was the banner story. Shit. I was almost done reading the whole story of Macintosh as interpreted by Andy H.
Those early digital watches were the ultimate status symbol for a time. (No pun intended.)
While I think digital watches have come a long way, I still think a mechanical spring is a more intelligent motivator for a timepiece than a battery. If pressed, I might be able to build a spring from scrap metal. While I could also construct a crude battery from discarded veggies and coins, it wouldn't power my Casio.
On the other hand (again, no pun intended), the Casio DW-5600 G-Shock watch I bought during my second year of college (1992) is a remarkable piece of engineering. I replaced the battery in it for the first time...last week. It's taken many a spill off my bike (while attached to my arm, unfortunately) and still works well, while I doubt that the dozens of tiny parts in a traditional spring watch would have held together as well.
My kids (teenagers) almost fell out of their chairs laughing at the "special effects"
Oh, those effects are "special", all right.
As a kid, I always wondered why half of each Pertwee/Baker/and later episode seemed to be shot on film, and the other half on video. I was told it was a union requirement enforced on the BBC; the unions wanted equal time for film and video cinematography, and that's just what us viewers got.
I'm sure this made life just that must tougher for the special effects folks.
You're right - but these numbers are almost unmanageable with current technology, and there's still no effective way to consistently characterize a digital sensor to determine it's particular reaction to light.
I'm stressing the qualitative differences between different emulsions - quantify for me the random grain structure of one film versus another. Say, Tri-X versus Technical Pan. You can do it - but depending on the developer, teperature, and other factors (like flashing the film) the grain structure may change radiacally among films from the same batch of emulsion.
Digital sensors offer amazing consistency, but they do so at the expense of potential creative avenues and by adding massive complexity. If my view camera won't work, there are only several things to check - but if my machine won't boot, or Photoshop encounters an error...you get my drift. The layers of complexity in digital imaging go very deep indeed.
As an aside, one other thing I enjoy about film: it doesn't need batteries. I carry two batteries in my view camera kit; they're both spares for my light meter.
Show me a one-shot (not a scanning back) 20-square inch digital sensor or a smaller sensor that equals the resolution of this much Fuji Provia, and I'll buy you a Canon 1Ds. Seriously.
You cannot - CANNOT produce a 600 MB file in 1/250th of a second with the quality of 4X5 inch film. Period. Film has the inherent advantage of being easily scaled in size to fit the image circle of the lens you're using, and it's also vastly cheaper per square foot - I don't see this advantage going away for a long, long time.
Put another way, I can use a $500.00 camera and lens bought on eBay and film that costs $2.50/sheet to make an image equivalent to about a 60megapixel file - in 1/500th of a second.
I shoot digital too - and enjoy it. For fine art and very large prints, there is still no true equal to having lots of square inches of film. For everyday folks (the same ones who bought 110 film...then Disc film...then Advantix), digital is more than adequate.
Digital is also a lot tougher to characterize easily; like the 'look' of Fuji Velvia? Want that in a sensor? Sorry - not even a custom color profile can make up for the variations between cameras and manufacturers.
Every model of sensor has it's own unique gamut and response to light, and there's no getting around this; on the other hand, a particular brand of film has a far more consistent reaction to light across several film sizes than a smattering of digital cameras from 3-14 megapixels.
I hate it when geeks try to reduce stuff like this to numbers - there are many more considerations than simple resolution or ease-of-use ask any professional photographer.
I don't have the time nor the experiance [sic] with music to know or find independant [sic] music that I like. However, I would prefer not to give any money to the RIAA. So, if an option to exclude them did exist, I would use it.
--
Then get informed.
Stop expecting Apple to jeopardize business relationships solely so that you can continue to be an ignorant shopper.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but if the entire reason the iTMS exists and is commercially viable is because of the RIAA, what motivation is there for Apple feature a seach option that alows you to exclude publishing members of the RIAA from a music search?
With the consolidation going on in the music industry right now, I'd think a bright, web-using person like you could search for music then figure out whether it's published by members of a group you want to support.
I've been using 98 on my main studio/gaming machine for years. Using the 98lite patch helps a lot. I haven't bluescreened in over 18 months, unless a CD was dirty.
Beggin' your forgiveness, but doesn't it seem a little stupid that a data error on read-only media could cause the OS to crash?
What specific problems does Win98 have with dirty/imperfect media?
We make high-quality scans of film for photographers, and I'm a little puzzled by the article abstract here.
Film (given enough square inches) has a capacity that exceeds any commercially available digital sensor. for instance, our Heidelberg Tango scanner has a true scanning resolution of 10,780dpi. The photomultiplier tubes in the scanner (one each of red, geen, and blue) are looking at liquid-mounted film through optically clear mylar sheets from fractions of an inch away through a microscope lens. There's a picture of the scanner and some other info on our web site.
Combined with a scanner, gigapixels of resolution are easily available without upsampling, up-resing, or other resolution-creating tricks.
My 4X5 view camera with fine-grained slide film captures about 1.4GP usable resolution at 8bits per channel in a fraction of a second. Go to an 8X10 camera and film at that scanning resolution (5000dpi) and you quadruple the number of pixels - although Photoshop can't open the resulting file because it's too big.
Compared to digital composition, shooting on film and drum scanning is faster and cheaper if your time is valued as a professional. I don't expect that this situation will last forever, but this "gigapixel barrier" article ignores some very relevant options when there is plenty of time to make a photograph and quality is paramount.
Jeez, what the hell is it with the automatic assumption that Apple has persecuted their employee, stolen that person's software, and will incorporate it with no attribution or reward?
When I worked there, employees who came up with cool stuff that could be incorporated into the OS KNEW that anything they developed for "personal use" on comapny-owned hardware or at the company at all could be picked up by Apple. When this did happen, the employee was usually reqarded with a bnus of some sort.
There's no "big brother" style theft here. Employees know that anything they create at work or on Apple-owned equipment can be taken by the company - but when that happens, the employee is rewarded anyway.
No. But it did run on an Apple machine - the Network Server 500 and 700 machines.
This unique and capable hardware wasn't a Macintosh, but did run AIX. They were initially available with 132 and 150MHz PowerPC 604 chips, and while the SMP 200MHz 604 model was killed before intro, many dual processor boards made their way through my group at Apple.
There were two other ROM sets for the Network Server 500 and 700. The Mac OS ROMs never worked very well, and the NT ROMs never worked that I knew of, but I heard whispers that it ran NT/PPC 3.5, same as Motorola's PowerStack series. Neither of these products were ever released or acknowledged by Apple that I know of.
Among the most memorable Macintosh computers I've recently owned or still have:
-A Macintosh IIfx with an 824GC card and two 824 cards, and 80MB drive and a 20MB drive, with System 6.0.7 and System 7.1. This is my "Hellcats over the Pacific" machine. 'Nuff said.
-A Macintosh SE/30 I use for accessing old floppy disks. Like-new (no burn-in), 20MB of RAM, System 7.1, and an 80MB SCSI hard drive.
-A VIC-20
-An Original Macintosh PowerBook G3 200MHz, with 256k L2 cache. Apple never sold this configuration.
-An Apple///, with 512k of RAM and a 5MB Corvus Systems hard disk.
-A Macintosh 512k upgraded with a Dove 1MB memory upgrade and 800k floppy drive.
-A PowerBook 540c mounted on a clear plastic Apple portable development stand. (These were molded plastic 'Ls' with a u-shaped lip for holding the panel and partitioned standoffs for the logic board and other modules.
-A PowerMac 7100/80 with a 1GB HP hard drive and 72MB of RAM.
I once used an Apple Network Server 700/200SMP with Mac OS ROMs. Cool machine that lost it's ethernet connection on each reboot. Ran AppleShare on it...just for the perverse joy of it.
Among the most memorable Macintosh computers I've recently owned or still have:
-A Macintosh IIfx with an 824GC card and two 824 cards, and 80MB drive and a 20MB drive, with System 6.0.7 and System 7.1. This is my "Hellcats over the Pacific" machine. 'Nuff said.
-A Macintosh SE/30 I use for accessing old floppy disks. Like-new (no burn-in), 20MB of RAM, System 7.1, and an 80MB SCSI hard drive.
-A VIC-20
-An Original Macintosh PowerBook G3 200MHz, with 256k L2 cache. Apple never sold this configuration.
-An Apple///, with 512k of RAM and a 5MB Corvus Systems hard disk.
-A Macintosh 512k upgraded with a Dove 1MB memory upgrade and 800k floppy drive.
-A PowerBook 540c mounted on a clear plastic Apple portable development stand. (These were molded plastic 'Ls' with a u-shaped lip for holding the panel and partitioned standoffs for the logic board and other modules.
-A PowerMac 7100/80 with a 1GB HP hard drive and 72MB of RAM.
I once used an Apple Network Server 700/200SMP with Mac OS ROMs. Cool machine that lost it's ethernet connection on each reboot. Ran AppleShare on it...just for the perverse joy of it.
The value of that time just cannot be overstated. Look at eBay: there's nothing difficult about what they do, it's not (relatively) hard to replicate. But who goes to Amazon or other places for auctions? Almost nobody (again, relatively). Why? Mindshare.
What would you have had them do? Delay a product (Mac iTMS and Itunes4) that was ready to make them money back form their investment? That would have been irresponsible in the face of Apple's shareholders and dangerous to Apple as a company.
Adding more members to the development team to hurry a product isn't like Apple either; they do most things so well because small close-knit teams focus on goals, rather than bringing on more and more brute force in order to shave a few days off a schedule.
Apple will produce the Windows version as soon as possible; they had a complete product for the Mac four months ago, so it was prudent that they release it and start recouping the investment as soon as possible. It's probable that Apple doesn't accelerate development of WiniTMS and WiniTunes by brute force because that isn't how they do things; they know it isn't a wise use of development resources.
Slashdot Mirror
I promise you that the logic board for the G3 AIO is far more similar to the Power Mac G3 Beige than to the iMac.
The G3 AIO has the same logic board as the PM G3. The iMac has the same logic board layout as the PowerBook G3 Series.
While the three machines had certain controllers in common, the PowerBook trumped the PowerMac in terms of commonailty with the iMac.
I hate to be so pedantic, but there is a clear difference.
Yout T616 experience is a little different from mine, but I agree that using Bluetooth is a real battery hog.
I added a bunch of contacts to my address book at work today - mostly business stuff. When I went to lunch, I set off iSync.
Upon arriving home this evening, I used iSync on my home machine, synced my phone with my computer...and realized my phone was still in the car. Now that's cool.
But if I could only hit the cell tower form home.
In CS, that limit has effectively been removed.
Massive files are easily manipulable in Photoshop - just not quickly manipulable.
As a large format user who drum scans his negs and chromes, I'm anxious for an update that will remove the 2GB per process limit in OS X so I can actually use the 8GB of RAM in this G5 for Photoshop.
As for the "from memory" issue, I can assure you that most practiced photographers are easily able to make a print (or guide their printer) without a chrome right in front of them. How do you think people have been making prints from color neg all these years?
I've never said this before, but...
Mod parent up.
This guy gets it. Why do all the investigative work, millions of dollars in interface work and even more investment in UI testing to have someone rip off you interface two weeks after you release?
Having done UI work and hired UI consultants before, I've seen the amount of work it takes to get a consumer-facing product sorted out. Having a properly designed product reduces support calls and increases adoption - especially for a free product like iTunes.
In other news, The head of GM thinks that Germany's Porsche should install Chevrolet LT1 engines in the new 911. "It'll give them a chance to reach a larger audience with that car." a spokesman for the company said.
Coupla years ago, I helped write the microprocessor reference manuals for the PP5002C.
There's nothing WMA-specific about the chip. It's (as the above poster noted) basically two ARM7 cores, cache, and some I/O logic that makes it especially well-suited to low-power devices.
Portal Player did not design the PP5002C for the iPod; it is equally well at home playing AIFF, mp3, AAC, whatever - another WMA-compatible player could as easily use the PP5002 as a CPU - but an extremely capable little media CPU is all that it is - there's nothing WMA specific about the PP5002.
I wish I had mod points for you. You get it.
I beg to differ. MissingSync/PocketPC is a hell of a nice piece of software, and isn't even the only game in town for Mac/PocketPC syncing.
Palm f'ed up by not including Mac support of some kind into Cobalt or the HotSync component. They're just removed one more differentiator between themselves and their largest competitor.
Rather than being able to market "The flat-out best PDA for Mac users who are going to buy a PDA", they've made a clear and bold statment that no longer will they support users who haven't already paid a nice big tithe to Palm's biggest competitor.
Once again for the business school dropouts: PalmSource has taken one simple step to ensure that every one of their customers has given PalmSource's #1 competitor money first.
Way to go, guys.
Give them a break. When there's an issue like this, it takes several weeks just to get engineering and manufacturing to help the customer support side of the Apple world chase down, isolate, and put in place a fix for a problem like this.
While I'm sure the threat of a class-action suit lit a fire under the folks at AppleCare (who are charged with implementing these REA programs), I can assure you that they've also got a good feedback and reporting mechanism in place that probably made them aware of this problem months ago.
Again, it's no insta-fix. Had Apple announced this program a few weeks ago, without knowing the scope of the problem or having a 100% fix (or flushing service inventory of bad parts, etc.), customers would be complaining right and left that there were no parts. This happened in 1995-6 with the PowerBook 5300 series computer and Performa 52/5300 series computer REA programs, and I can assure you that AppleCare never wants to repeat that debacle with ANY product.
Interesting fact:
The serial number range also tells you exactly when the affected machines were manufactured.
UV220XXXXXX to UV318XXXXXX
Indicates affected machines were built between the 20th week of 2002 and the 18th week of 2003 - at least if Apple's serial number shorthand is still the same as when I worked there.
Apple had a higher-ed program for equipping labs with Macs in the late 1980s and early 1990s called "Wheels for the MInd".
The Susan Kare-style logo at the top of the WotM letterhead was the same featured in the Folklore site. Pretty cool, if you ask me. Still cool, even if you don't.
I started surfing folklore.org earlier this evening and I was nearly finished reading everything when...
Slashdot hit.
I had an idea, so checked here withi 20 minutes, and sure enough, it was the banner story. Shit. I was almost done reading the whole story of Macintosh as interpreted by Andy H.
Those early digital watches were the ultimate status symbol for a time. (No pun intended.)
While I think digital watches have come a long way, I still think a mechanical spring is a more intelligent motivator for a timepiece than a battery. If pressed, I might be able to build a spring from scrap metal. While I could also construct a crude battery from discarded veggies and coins, it wouldn't power my Casio.
On the other hand (again, no pun intended), the Casio DW-5600 G-Shock watch I bought during my second year of college (1992) is a remarkable piece of engineering. I replaced the battery in it for the first time...last week. It's taken many a spill off my bike (while attached to my arm, unfortunately) and still works well, while I doubt that the dozens of tiny parts in a traditional spring watch would have held together as well.
Whoops. I made an oopsy.
"School of Capitalism"
Thanks for pointing that out. It's late at night in this part of the world. I guess I get a B for speling.
(Yes, that was intentional.)
SEMESTER 2, 2003
PRODUCTIVITY 101 3 HRS 80% C
ECONOMICS 307 3 HRS 100% A
CREATIVITY 92 3 HRS 67% D
GOV'T STUDIES 203 3 HRS 100% A
COSC 507 ADVANCED 3 HRS 78% C
MONO 302 3 HRS 100% A
BORE 405 3 HRS 100% A
THFT 305 3 HRS 100% A
LIES 205 3 HRS 100% A
SCUR 101 3 HRS 20% F
MONO 400 3 HRS 100% A
CONV 101 3 HRS 10% F
HID 205 3 HRS 70% C
OVERALL AVG. 78% C
This explains why mediocre rules the market.
Oh, those effects are "special", all right.
As a kid, I always wondered why half of each Pertwee/Baker/and later episode seemed to be shot on film, and the other half on video. I was told it was a union requirement enforced on the BBC; the unions wanted equal time for film and video cinematography, and that's just what us viewers got.
I'm sure this made life just that must tougher for the special effects folks.
You're right - but these numbers are almost unmanageable with current technology, and there's still no effective way to consistently characterize a digital sensor to determine it's particular reaction to light.
I'm stressing the qualitative differences between different emulsions - quantify for me the random grain structure of one film versus another. Say, Tri-X versus Technical Pan. You can do it - but depending on the developer, teperature, and other factors (like flashing the film) the grain structure may change radiacally among films from the same batch of emulsion.
Digital sensors offer amazing consistency, but they do so at the expense of potential creative avenues and by adding massive complexity. If my view camera won't work, there are only several things to check - but if my machine won't boot, or Photoshop encounters an error...you get my drift. The layers of complexity in digital imaging go very deep indeed.
As an aside, one other thing I enjoy about film: it doesn't need batteries. I carry two batteries in my view camera kit; they're both spares for my light meter.
Hey -
I shoot 4X5 film.
Show me a one-shot (not a scanning back) 20-square inch digital sensor or a smaller sensor that equals the resolution of this much Fuji Provia, and I'll buy you a Canon 1Ds. Seriously.
You cannot - CANNOT produce a 600 MB file in 1/250th of a second with the quality of 4X5 inch film. Period. Film has the inherent advantage of being easily scaled in size to fit the image circle of the lens you're using, and it's also vastly cheaper per square foot - I don't see this advantage going away for a long, long time.
Put another way, I can use a $500.00 camera and lens bought on eBay and film that costs $2.50/sheet to make an image equivalent to about a 60megapixel file - in 1/500th of a second.
I shoot digital too - and enjoy it. For fine art and very large prints, there is still no true equal to having lots of square inches of film. For everyday folks (the same ones who bought 110 film...then Disc film...then Advantix), digital is more than adequate.
Digital is also a lot tougher to characterize easily; like the 'look' of Fuji Velvia? Want that in a sensor? Sorry - not even a custom color profile can make up for the variations between cameras and manufacturers.
Every model of sensor has it's own unique gamut and response to light, and there's no getting around this; on the other hand, a particular brand of film has a far more consistent reaction to light across several film sizes than a smattering of digital cameras from 3-14 megapixels.
I hate it when geeks try to reduce stuff like this to numbers - there are many more considerations than simple resolution or ease-of-use ask any professional photographer.
--
Then get informed.
Stop expecting Apple to jeopardize business relationships solely so that you can continue to be an ignorant shopper.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but if the entire reason the iTMS exists and is commercially viable is because of the RIAA, what motivation is there for Apple feature a seach option that alows you to exclude publishing members of the RIAA from a music search?
With the consolidation going on in the music industry right now, I'd think a bright, web-using person like you could search for music then figure out whether it's published by members of a group you want to support.
Beggin' your forgiveness, but doesn't it seem a little stupid that a data error on read-only media could cause the OS to crash?
What specific problems does Win98 have with dirty/imperfect media?
Film (given enough square inches) has a capacity that exceeds any commercially available digital sensor. for instance, our Heidelberg Tango scanner has a true scanning resolution of 10,780dpi. The photomultiplier tubes in the scanner (one each of red, geen, and blue) are looking at liquid-mounted film through optically clear mylar sheets from fractions of an inch away through a microscope lens. There's a picture of the scanner and some other info on our web site.
Combined with a scanner, gigapixels of resolution are easily available without upsampling, up-resing, or other resolution-creating tricks.
My 4X5 view camera with fine-grained slide film captures about 1.4GP usable resolution at 8bits per channel in a fraction of a second. Go to an 8X10 camera and film at that scanning resolution (5000dpi) and you quadruple the number of pixels - although Photoshop can't open the resulting file because it's too big.
Compared to digital composition, shooting on film and drum scanning is faster and cheaper if your time is valued as a professional. I don't expect that this situation will last forever, but this "gigapixel barrier" article ignores some very relevant options when there is plenty of time to make a photograph and quality is paramount.
Not looking like assholes in public?
Jeez, what the hell is it with the automatic assumption that Apple has persecuted their employee, stolen that person's software, and will incorporate it with no attribution or reward?
When I worked there, employees who came up with cool stuff that could be incorporated into the OS KNEW that anything they developed for "personal use" on comapny-owned hardware or at the company at all could be picked up by Apple. When this did happen, the employee was usually reqarded with a bnus of some sort.
There's no "big brother" style theft here. Employees know that anything they create at work or on Apple-owned equipment can be taken by the company - but when that happens, the employee is rewarded anyway.
No. But it did run on an Apple machine - the Network Server 500 and 700 machines.
This unique and capable hardware wasn't a Macintosh, but did run AIX. They were initially available with 132 and 150MHz PowerPC 604 chips, and while the SMP 200MHz 604 model was killed before intro, many dual processor boards made their way through my group at Apple.
There were two other ROM sets for the Network Server 500 and 700. The Mac OS ROMs never worked very well, and the NT ROMs never worked that I knew of, but I heard whispers that it ran NT/PPC 3.5, same as Motorola's PowerStack series. Neither of these products were ever released or acknowledged by Apple that I know of.
Among the most memorable Macintosh computers I've recently owned or still have:
-A Macintosh IIfx with an 824GC card and two 824 cards, and 80MB drive and a 20MB drive, with System 6.0.7 and System 7.1. This is my "Hellcats over the Pacific" machine. 'Nuff said.
-A Macintosh SE/30 I use for accessing old floppy disks. Like-new (no burn-in), 20MB of RAM, System 7.1, and an 80MB SCSI hard drive.
-A VIC-20
-An Original Macintosh PowerBook G3 200MHz, with 256k L2 cache. Apple never sold this configuration.
-An Apple
-A Macintosh 512k upgraded with a Dove 1MB memory upgrade and 800k floppy drive.
-A PowerBook 540c mounted on a clear plastic Apple portable development stand. (These were molded plastic 'Ls' with a u-shaped lip for holding the panel and partitioned standoffs for the logic board and other modules.
-A PowerMac 7100/80 with a 1GB HP hard drive and 72MB of RAM.
I once used an Apple Network Server 700/200SMP with Mac OS ROMs. Cool machine that lost it's ethernet connection on each reboot. Ran AppleShare on it...just for the perverse joy of it.
Among the most memorable Macintosh computers I've recently owned or still have: -A Macintosh IIfx with an 824GC card and two 824 cards, and 80MB drive and a 20MB drive, with System 6.0.7 and System 7.1. This is my "Hellcats over the Pacific" machine. 'Nuff said. -A Macintosh SE/30 I use for accessing old floppy disks. Like-new (no burn-in), 20MB of RAM, System 7.1, and an 80MB SCSI hard drive. -A VIC-20 -An Original Macintosh PowerBook G3 200MHz, with 256k L2 cache. Apple never sold this configuration. -An Apple ///, with 512k of RAM and a 5MB Corvus Systems hard disk.
-A Macintosh 512k upgraded with a Dove 1MB memory upgrade and 800k floppy drive.
-A PowerBook 540c mounted on a clear plastic Apple portable development stand. (These were molded plastic 'Ls' with a u-shaped lip for holding the panel and partitioned standoffs for the logic board and other modules.
-A PowerMac 7100/80 with a 1GB HP hard drive and 72MB of RAM.
I once used an Apple Network Server 700/200SMP with Mac OS ROMs. Cool machine that lost it's ethernet connection on each reboot. Ran AppleShare on it...just for the perverse joy of it.
What would you have had them do? Delay a product (Mac iTMS and Itunes4) that was ready to make them money back form their investment? That would have been irresponsible in the face of Apple's shareholders and dangerous to Apple as a company.
Adding more members to the development team to hurry a product isn't like Apple either; they do most things so well because small close-knit teams focus on goals, rather than bringing on more and more brute force in order to shave a few days off a schedule.
Apple will produce the Windows version as soon as possible; they had a complete product for the Mac four months ago, so it was prudent that they release it and start recouping the investment as soon as possible. It's probable that Apple doesn't accelerate development of WiniTMS and WiniTunes by brute force because that isn't how they do things; they know it isn't a wise use of development resources.