Monitors. He's talking about "spanning" your desktop across multiple monitors, something not allowed with iBooks and older iMacs. They had video ports, but only for mirroring your display. This was not a limitation of the graphics hardware, but a limitation created by Apple to provide a reason to get a Powerbook or G5 tower. There are firmware hacks around to renable this ability; I hacked my G3 iBook and it can use a second monitor at up to 1600x1200.
Bad analogy. You're talking about private, personal information. How many homers Sammy Sosa hit last year is not private, personal information. More so since he is a celebrity.
If financial companies can sell my financial history without my permission and without giving me compensation for that information, there is NO way in hell that MLB can claim that they have the exlusive right to baseball statistics.
Neat article, but the guy only reached that price by buying his drives on eBay. He also used a lot of small drives (50 gigs) so this would take a LOT of power and put out a LOT of heat.
Sounds like the guy who was claiming that Brand X mp3 player beat the crap out of the iPod, when Brand X was larger, heavier, had less storage, and had a screen with a quarter of the resolution with half the frame rate.
I'm in medical school, and once you commit yourself to being a physician, you are expected to conduct yourself professionally in and out of school, just as you would on or off duty as a doctor, regardless of place or time.
So if you are accused of misconduct at your school, do your officials A) conduct an investigation, tell you what the charges are, and give you a chance to respond with an avenue for appeal or B) move right into the punishment phase? Because that's what all you apologists for the University keep missing: the irony and hypocrisy of committing gross procedural and ethical violations in the process of punishing a student for alleged violations of school policy. And speaking of those alleged violations...
"Daniel D'Angelo, an adjunct associate professor of behavioral sciences in the School of Dentistry, agreed. He reviewed the student's blog entries at the request of his parents before the conduct hearing. D'Angelo, who is a co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action.
"What he wrote was imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful," D'Angelo wrote in a letter to Anthony Ziebert, a professor who headed the student-faculty review committee that heard the case. "But no matter how much I or anyone else find these entries, rude, distasteful and imprudent, it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral.""
Universities have rules, too you know. One of them is due process, which this school completely skipped. The irony is they went after a student for an ethical lapse (even though their top ethics guy said it was crass but not unethical) but in the process did something very unethical. That is why the University deserves to get sued.
The mistake many people make is assuming that anything to the left of Strom Thurmond or Rick Santorum is "liberal", when that's not the case. Right now we have a conservative party made up of spineless cowards with no agenda and an ultraconservative party with general unity.
I guess I'm the only one on Slashdot who thinks it's reasonable for record labels to want to make some money.
That's alright, only on Slashdot would something so mind-numbingly obvious be moderated to +5. Of course they can make money. We just don't want them to be blood sucking leeches to both their customers and their bands at the same time they pay Congress to rewrite copyright laws for their benefit.
Well, because normally they pay for the promotional and distribution costs--in addition to production costs and artist's royalties and agency fees.
Much of that is paid back by the artist via recoupable costs.
Most artists appreciate that others take care of the workaday aspects of their art, and that's why they hire agents to court labels for contracts to provide those services in exchange for money.
And to prevent the lables from pulling their usual bs, as well as getting together with a label is usually the only way to make it "big" in the U.S.
Microsoft has a serious problem with one of their products, and everyone is willing to accept their lame excuse that it's an accidental manufacturing defect. Now if this were Apple, all the shrill Kool-Aid drinking Microsoft fanboys would be out in force, calling for the borg-like head of Steve Jobs.
Frankly, it makes me sick how Slashdot has become a haven for libeal, turtleneck wearing Microsoft fanatics over the last couple of years. All reason and logic get thrown out the window in the face of Bill Gates charisma and a shiny GUI.
Maybe to someone lacking in it. So here it is again, with more words: the GUI does not need to be able to access more than 4 gigabytes of memory. UNIX tools like top and bash do not need more than 4 gigabytes of memory. Services like ssh, smb and afp do not need access more than 4 gigabytes of memory. So what can make use of it? Applications, like Photoshop. So it doesn't matter if 99% of the OS and userland tools are not 64 bit aware, because they don't need to be. In fact, 64 bit code can be slower than 32 bit code. The only thing that matters is letting Photoshop use all 8 gigs of memory that you can stuff in a G5 tower.
Anyway, the next version of Photoshop will be shipping for 64-bit Windows, but Mac will be 32-bit only.
Probably because they figured making a version for the G5 would be a waste since Apple is moving to Intel. So just substitute Photoshop in my examples for some other application like Apeture or Final Cut Pro.
This is a religeous issue... logic and reality have no place in it.
Nor do they in your post, apparantly. Commercial support for a user-created operating system is going to be iffy, and everyone knows it. As opposed to support for a comercial companies products that have their name plastered over much of the hardware you can buy.
Of greater interest is the increasing shrill tone of the anti-MS screaming.
Not as interesting as the screaming MS appologists.
I also find this whole debate interesting coming from the "make sure you check the supported hardware list before you buy" Linux crowd.
Right, as if Vista is going to say on the box that Microsoft has disabled support for those drives. Oh, I also find it laughable when the herd of snobby Slashdoters criticize other Slashdotters for herd-like mentality. Usually it pops up in a story where Apple has done something unpopular, and people fall all overthemselves to post "now if this were Microsoft, people would be raising hell...."
Utter nonsense. Here's a hint: Windows XP. Windows Vista. Vista is NOT a completely new product, it is an UPDATE to an existing one. If this were something like Apple's OS X transition you might have a point, but it's not so you don't. It takes more effort to remove a feature than to leave it in place, especially with the gigantic code base that Windows has, and in this case was done simply for political reasons. If I owned one of those drives, and it had a "designed for Windows" sticker on it, I'd be pissed.
It's no different than if say, Adobe removed support for PNG in Photoshop CS. Arguing that Photoshop CS is a completely different product than Photoshop 7 because it's newer and has a different name, and there for nothing was "removed", is simply inane.
We broke away from England because of that principle
No, the primary issue was "taxation without representation."
and we fought two great wars on the continent to defend those principals (against Nazis!)
Really, I thought it was because they invaded a few countries.
First, America sent its sons and fathers to die to defeat Hitler; we changed our whole way of life to defeat him
How was that, exactly.
Segregation didn't occur because people were allowed to talk about it, Japanese weren't sent to internment camps because we were allowed to talk about it, and the experiments you speak were not the result of free speech, they were the result of secrecy and an unwillingness to challenge coventional wisdom.
What exactly is your point here. All of these abuses were done right out in the open, most of them democratically, even with the freedom of speech. It's not a panacea.
When you start to add it up, the loss of Apple for the gain of Microsoft and Sony was huge win for IBM.
But there's one thing everyone here seems to be hugely missing: margin. Yes, IBM will sell a buttload more embedded processors and console chips than 970's. But those chips have to be cheap, something Apple has never been. They are losing out on a low volume but high margin business; IBM could charge a premium for fast G5's with lots of cash, and Apple's professional market would snap them up. Sort of like what Nvidia does with it's Ultra products or Intel with their Pentium Extreme Editions.
But the joke is only funny until you realize that embeded and console chips are a high volume low margin business, whereas Macs are a low volume high margin business. Apple might "only" sell 3% of new computers, but how many other PC companies have made money since the bubble popped that aren't Apple or Dell?
Steve Jobs made me so mad saying lies about Power architecture
What lies would those be, exactly? Sure he played up the strengths of his product while glossing over the weaknesses, but that is what every. single. business. on the planet does.
Umm, no, Apple was never anywhere near their biggest customer.
They were for that type of PowerPC processor.
Apple was only notable for building PCs with power chips, but the vast majority of power chips never went into PCs.
Yep, mostly embeded chips, and now for consoles. But those chips have to be cheap, something Apple has never been. Selling your product in high quantities is a good way to make money, but so is charging higher margins.
Apple was a rather small customer
Whatever your business is, I'd like to work there, if you can casually give up 4 million units a year.
one that was constantly demanding special treatment.
IBM promised Apple they would deliver 3 ghz G5 chips within a year, two years ago. If expecting people keep their promises means you expect "special treatment", then every person on this planet "expects special treatment".
As if IBM doesn't have any control over the prices Apple pays. Yes, IBM is going to sell a lot of console chips, but those chips have to be cheap. And if there is one thing Apple has never been, it's cheap. The profit margins on big, expensive dual core chips with lots of cache would be much higher than on the Cell. See Intel and their "Extreme Edition" processors.
1. Apple support sucks compared to the rest of the field.
They have enterprise support. I haven't used it, so I can't say how good it is. Can you?
Heck, even MS manages to beat them at patching speed every now and then.
When. Apple has a long track record of fixing vunerabilities in a matter of days, whereas Microsoft has a habit of sitting on flaws for months or even years.
2. Which is the *other* company that thinks a mandatory GUI on a server is a good idea?
Never tried virtualizing with OS X. But, given that Macs have used partitioning for what, two decades now, maybe you're not trying. At all.
5. Apple's history in the server space is kind of... how to put it, 'thin.'
No, it's not. AIX.
Because we trust Steve Jobs' is not a valid purchase reason
Neither are baseless complaints from a feckless fanboy.
Let's put it this way - the only reason you'd want an XServe is if you're an Apple-only shop
Or if you want Apple's track record on stability. Or if you wanted reasonably powerful, low power chips. Or if you wanted their compeditve RAID options.
Slashdot Mirror
Spanning between what and what?
Monitors. He's talking about "spanning" your desktop across multiple monitors, something not allowed with iBooks and older iMacs. They had video ports, but only for mirroring your display. This was not a limitation of the graphics hardware, but a limitation created by Apple to provide a reason to get a Powerbook or G5 tower. There are firmware hacks around to renable this ability; I hacked my G3 iBook and it can use a second monitor at up to 1600x1200.
The analogy is
Bad analogy. You're talking about private, personal information. How many homers Sammy Sosa hit last year is not private, personal information. More so since he is a celebrity.
If financial companies can sell my financial history without my permission and without giving me compensation for that information, there is NO way in hell that MLB can claim that they have the exlusive right to baseball statistics.
Neat article, but the guy only reached that price by buying his drives on eBay. He also used a lot of small drives (50 gigs) so this would take a LOT of power and put out a LOT of heat.
Sounds like the guy who was claiming that Brand X mp3 player beat the crap out of the iPod, when Brand X was larger, heavier, had less storage, and had a screen with a quarter of the resolution with half the frame rate.
I'm in medical school, and once you commit yourself to being a physician, you are expected to conduct yourself professionally in and out of school, just as you would on or off duty as a doctor, regardless of place or time.
So if you are accused of misconduct at your school, do your officials A) conduct an investigation, tell you what the charges are, and give you a chance to respond with an avenue for appeal or B) move right into the punishment phase? Because that's what all you apologists for the University keep missing: the irony and hypocrisy of committing gross procedural and ethical violations in the process of punishing a student for alleged violations of school policy. And speaking of those alleged violations...
"Daniel D'Angelo, an adjunct associate professor of behavioral sciences in the School of Dentistry, agreed. He reviewed the student's blog entries at the request of his parents before the conduct hearing. D'Angelo, who is a co-director of Marquette's Ethics and Professionalism curriculum, determined that the postings did not justify disciplinary action.
"What he wrote was imprudent, immature and oftentimes distasteful," D'Angelo wrote in a letter to Anthony Ziebert, a professor who headed the student-faculty review committee that heard the case. "But no matter how much I or anyone else find these entries, rude, distasteful and imprudent, it doesn't make these entries unethical or immoral.""
It's not a free speech issue, it's a contract/policy/due process issue.
To test this theory, walk into a biker bar, announce you are going to exercise your first amendment rights, and then start insulting them.
You do that and let us know how many of those bikers are acquitted.
That's the problem. They ignored their own policies when they skipped due process and moved right into the punishment phase.
Universities have rules, too you know. One of them is due process, which this school completely skipped. The irony is they went after a student for an ethical lapse (even though their top ethics guy said it was crass but not unethical) but in the process did something very unethical. That is why the University deserves to get sued.
The mistake many people make is assuming that anything to the left of Strom Thurmond or Rick Santorum is "liberal", when that's not the case. Right now we have a conservative party made up of spineless cowards with no agenda and an ultraconservative party with general unity.
I guess I'm the only one on Slashdot who thinks it's reasonable for record labels to want to make some money.
That's alright, only on Slashdot would something so mind-numbingly obvious be moderated to +5. Of course they can make money. We just don't want them to be blood sucking leeches to both their customers and their bands at the same time they pay Congress to rewrite copyright laws for their benefit.
Well, because normally they pay for the promotional and distribution costs--in addition to production costs and artist's royalties and agency fees.
Much of that is paid back by the artist via recoupable costs.
Most artists appreciate that others take care of the workaday aspects of their art, and that's why they hire agents to court labels for contracts to provide those services in exchange for money.
And to prevent the lables from pulling their usual bs, as well as getting together with a label is usually the only way to make it "big" in the U.S.
A folloup, in case anyone missed the satire
Microsoft has a serious problem with one of their products, and everyone is willing to accept their lame excuse that it's an accidental manufacturing defect. Now if this were Apple, all the shrill Kool-Aid drinking Microsoft fanboys would be out in force, calling for the borg-like head of Steve Jobs.
Frankly, it makes me sick how Slashdot has become a haven for libeal, turtleneck wearing Microsoft fanatics over the last couple of years. All reason and logic get thrown out the window in the face of Bill Gates charisma and a shiny GUI.
Your comment makes no sense.
Maybe to someone lacking in it. So here it is again, with more words: the GUI does not need to be able to access more than 4 gigabytes of memory. UNIX tools like top and bash do not need more than 4 gigabytes of memory. Services like ssh, smb and afp do not need access more than 4 gigabytes of memory. So what can make use of it? Applications, like Photoshop. So it doesn't matter if 99% of the OS and userland tools are not 64 bit aware, because they don't need to be. In fact, 64 bit code can be slower than 32 bit code. The only thing that matters is letting Photoshop use all 8 gigs of memory that you can stuff in a G5 tower.
Anyway, the next version of Photoshop will be shipping for 64-bit Windows, but Mac will be 32-bit only.
Probably because they figured making a version for the G5 would be a waste since Apple is moving to Intel. So just substitute Photoshop in my examples for some other application like Apeture or Final Cut Pro.
This is a religeous issue... logic and reality have no place in it.
Nor do they in your post, apparantly. Commercial support for a user-created operating system is going to be iffy, and everyone knows it. As opposed to support for a comercial companies products that have their name plastered over much of the hardware you can buy.
Of greater interest is the increasing shrill tone of the anti-MS screaming.
Not as interesting as the screaming MS appologists.
I also find this whole debate interesting coming from the "make sure you check the supported hardware list before you buy" Linux crowd.
Right, as if Vista is going to say on the box that Microsoft has disabled support for those drives. Oh, I also find it laughable when the herd of snobby Slashdoters criticize other Slashdotters for herd-like mentality. Usually it pops up in a story where Apple has done something unpopular, and people fall all overthemselves to post "now if this were Microsoft, people would be raising hell...."
Utter nonsense. Here's a hint: Windows XP. Windows Vista. Vista is NOT a completely new product, it is an UPDATE to an existing one. If this were something like Apple's OS X transition you might have a point, but it's not so you don't. It takes more effort to remove a feature than to leave it in place, especially with the gigantic code base that Windows has, and in this case was done simply for political reasons. If I owned one of those drives, and it had a "designed for Windows" sticker on it, I'd be pissed.
It's no different than if say, Adobe removed support for PNG in Photoshop CS. Arguing that Photoshop CS is a completely different product than Photoshop 7 because it's newer and has a different name, and there for nothing was "removed", is simply inane.
We broke away from England because of that principle
No, the primary issue was "taxation without representation."
and we fought two great wars on the continent to defend those principals (against Nazis!)
Really, I thought it was because they invaded a few countries.
First, America sent its sons and fathers to die to defeat Hitler; we changed our whole way of life to defeat him
How was that, exactly.
Segregation didn't occur because people were allowed to talk about it, Japanese weren't sent to internment camps because we were allowed to talk about it, and the experiments you speak were not the result of free speech, they were the result of secrecy and an unwillingness to challenge coventional wisdom.
What exactly is your point here. All of these abuses were done right out in the open, most of them democratically, even with the freedom of speech. It's not a panacea.
Does it? Maybe by your definition.
It is the definition. The whole point of "freedom of speech" is being able to say what some might find objectionable.
Isn't the act of being perpetually offended a form of oppression?
No.
A devout Christian would not feel free in an environment filled with nudies.
Too bad that has nothing to do with speech.
64-bit is currently a non-factor for the Mac market, and will be until OSX 10.5 comes out. Right now the OS is still primarily 32-bit only
And that's all it needs to be. Finder doesn't need 64 bit memory addressing, only applications do.
When you start to add it up, the loss of Apple for the gain of Microsoft and Sony was huge win for IBM.
But there's one thing everyone here seems to be hugely missing: margin. Yes, IBM will sell a buttload more embedded processors and console chips than 970's. But those chips have to be cheap, something Apple has never been. They are losing out on a low volume but high margin business; IBM could charge a premium for fast G5's with lots of cash, and Apple's professional market would snap them up. Sort of like what Nvidia does with it's Ultra products or Intel with their Pentium Extreme Editions.
Apple makes only 3% share of PowerPC sales for IBM. (http://www.woolsock.ca/geeklove/2005/06/apple_and _ibm_w.html ) Yes, that small customer. Will be further joke when PS3 ships.
But the joke is only funny until you realize that embeded and console chips are a high volume low margin business, whereas Macs are a low volume high margin business. Apple might "only" sell 3% of new computers, but how many other PC companies have made money since the bubble popped that aren't Apple or Dell?
Steve Jobs made me so mad saying lies about Power architecture
What lies would those be, exactly? Sure he played up the strengths of his product while glossing over the weaknesses, but that is what every. single. business. on the planet does.
Umm, no, Apple was never anywhere near their biggest customer.
They were for that type of PowerPC processor.
Apple was only notable for building PCs with power chips, but the vast majority of power chips never went into PCs.
Yep, mostly embeded chips, and now for consoles. But those chips have to be cheap, something Apple has never been. Selling your product in high quantities is a good way to make money, but so is charging higher margins.
Apple was a rather small customer
Whatever your business is, I'd like to work there, if you can casually give up 4 million units a year.
one that was constantly demanding special treatment.
IBM promised Apple they would deliver 3 ghz G5 chips within a year, two years ago. If expecting people keep their promises means you expect "special treatment", then every person on this planet "expects special treatment".
As if IBM doesn't have any control over the prices Apple pays. Yes, IBM is going to sell a lot of console chips, but those chips have to be cheap. And if there is one thing Apple has never been, it's cheap. The profit margins on big, expensive dual core chips with lots of cache would be much higher than on the Cell. See Intel and their "Extreme Edition" processors.
1. Apple support sucks compared to the rest of the field.
... how to put it, 'thin.'
They have enterprise support. I haven't used it, so I can't say how good it is. Can you?
Heck, even MS manages to beat them at patching speed every now and then.
When. Apple has a long track record of fixing vunerabilities in a matter of days, whereas Microsoft has a habit of sitting on flaws for months or even years.
2. Which is the *other* company that thinks a mandatory GUI on a server is a good idea?
So turn it off.
3. Virtualisation? Partitioning? meh, who needs that, we've got lickable buttons here!
Never tried virtualizing with OS X. But, given that Macs have used partitioning for what, two decades now, maybe you're not trying. At all.
5. Apple's history in the server space is kind of
No, it's not. AIX.
Because we trust Steve Jobs' is not a valid purchase reason
Neither are baseless complaints from a feckless fanboy.
Let's put it this way - the only reason you'd want an XServe is if you're an Apple-only shop
Or if you want Apple's track record on stability. Or if you wanted reasonably powerful, low power chips. Or if you wanted their compeditve RAID options.
And so on.