The points in your post would have been relevant- if you were making them three or four years ago. Apple has quit the habbit of developing interesting but unviable products only to dump them later on.
Their bloatware problem rivals
What bloatware problem? Show me one piece of Mac OS software from 8.0 or later. Apple is one of the best companies around for deciding if something is a usefull feature, something that needs work or something that gets discarded. With that certain other company, they do 1 and 2 but never get to 3.
1. I don't like Apple's philosophy. (closed hardware, closed software)
Damn, you missed out on all the "Die, Apple, Die!" flames when they released Darwin. I can go over and download most of Apple's operating system code for nothing. Unless you were talking about the GUI, Quicktime (but they don't own the codecs), WebObjects or some of their other software.
As for the hardware, the only part that is closed is the ROM chips, and nothing prevents you from bypassing it, unless you are a lazy bunch of programmers living off of Intel's money.
and another undisclosed sum to settle a lawsuit. However, Apple had over a billion in cash sitting around at the time, plus assets that could have been liquified.
The 150 mill didn't do squat. It didn't change anything one way or the other.
My P3 500Mhz Intellistation does it at 8-9hours a unit. Nyah.
I would hope so, since his CPU is at least two years old and you have 200 mhz on him. It also depends on what OS you're using; Unix is a lot faster than the Mac OS or NT.
Re:4 GFLOPs, 3x Faster than A PIII, etc - selectiv
on
Apple announces the G4
·
· Score: 1
Because G3 and G4 have much more marketing appeal than meaningless numbers- 601, 603e, 604 etc.
Because USparc and Alpha really have no market outside of servers. I don't know how well the G4 stacks up against the other guys mhz for mhz, but a G4 would make a kickass server but you could also play games on it.
One of the great myths perpetuated by Apple and others is that cloning had to die for Apple to live. The fact is that the cloners had already agreed to pay much higher licensing fee's when Apple pulled licensing.
That's what Be tried to do, and look at how popular they've turned out.
Be didn't catch on for a number of reasons. For one thing, they're developing an OS targeted at multimedia but not making it for the main multimedia platform(Macs). For another, they have yet to get any big graphics software company (Quark, Adobe, Macromedia etc) to port any of their products to BEOS.
That's what Apple originally planned with Rhapsody, and they had to back track on that in order to convince developers to update their products.
Not exactly. They revised Rhapsody because it did not provide a good upgrade path for software developers. For an application to take advantage of the modern OS buzzwords, large parts of the code would have to be rewritten. Carbon lets developers keep most of their old code while allowing them to move to OSX.
Given MS & Intel's revenues and profits, it's a fair statement to say that the computing world values compatibility over performance/reliablitly/price/whatever other concern.
Of course the fact that both MS and Intel use questionable tactics against thier compeditors wouldn't have anything to do with thier dominance, would it?
-Carbon, which will allow existing Mac apps to run in a preemptive environment without modification
Carbon is a migration path. Basically it throws out 2,000 or so archaic API's and replaces them so developers can take advantage of OSX's modern features without a total rewrite of their codebase.
Its a frontend for rippers, encoders, and id3 tools (makes song title, artist name etc part of the mp3 file).
I've used it with cdparanioa and bladeenc, but haven't gotten the id3 stuff to work. I think you need xmcd to use the cddb stuff, but I could be wrong on that part.
One cavet: ripenc rips the cd, and then encodes the wav files, instead of starting to encode as soon as the first track is ripped.
Bladeenc seems slow, and I'm too lazy to try different encoders. I have dual 450 celerons running RH 6.0, and my 44x CDROM always finishes ripping (assuming the disk isn't scrated) before bladeenc is done.
You can find all this software and more by searching on freshmeat.net.
If Emachines had made a convienient all-in-one computer with a handle, Apple would not care. If they made a PC with translucent plastics, Apple would not care. It's the near exact copy of the iMac's design that they are complaining about.
Most people don't buy their clothes from this sort of designer, so the designers for the chain stores make their own pastel coloured short skirts & black jackets.
Right, because they are similar, not almost the same. However, if Kmart made a lookalike Versaci dress, used similar packaging, slogans etc, I'm sure Versaci would sue Kmart.
Linux will never kill the MacOS because Mac's have plug-it-in-and-it-works functionality, something Linux can only dream about and will proably never achieve.
With a Mac, I could just plug in an ethernet card, install any drivers, reboot and go. With Linux I have to spend two days piddlefarting around with the kernel and modules to get it to work.
N64 blew away the current PCs when it came out. (P166 with Voodoo 1) The dreamcast was much more powerful than PCs a year ago (when it came out) and is still a match for current PCs. PSX 2 will blow away an Athlon/NV 10 combo becuase of its specialization.
Blew away? No. Superior? Depends. But with the consol market you get a big advance every few years - and in between those advances you get stagnation.
Even if the PSX2 does leave top-of-the-line PC's in the dust, in two years it will look like cheap crap next to a 2 gigahertz K7 with a 256 video card.
Which brings me to another point: the Playstation 2 is vaporware. It is silly to compare future consols to current PC's without factoring in the rabid pace of PC hardware and software development.
Then their is ease of use, quality of games (when was the last time you saw a PSX game with a patch? How many times has Mario 64 crashed on you.)and a broader gaming library.
And when was the last time you downloaded a new level for Mario 64? A mod for Madden 98? Designed your own map for Final Fantasy 7? Create a new physics model for Tekken 3?
Consols will never come close to PC's for speed of development or flexibility of using mods. To do that, they'd have to become computers.
not really fast, but good enought for a desktop system. That's why most of IBM's lowend RS/6000 systems still use the 604e, it beats the hell out of the G3 at the same clock speeds, especially at FP.
Only at floating point. The G3 is much faster at integer calculations, so it depends on what you're doing.
And the reason IBM uses the 604e in servers is because it does SMP, while the G3 does not.
Apple won't go G4 (likely) untill they discontinue making all of there G3 systems -- and that may be a while.
Also wrong. The current Blue and White G3's were supposed to have them. Apple have the design ready to go (Sawtooth), and are just waiting for Motorola and IBM to start delivering the processors in sufficeint quantities to ship.
Of course Apple has only themselves to blame for delays in newer PPC's, as both Moto and IBM licensed the MacOS to other comapnies to build clones; Moto even had their own line of SuperMacs. Not only did this piss of IBM and especially Moto, but it also took away a big incentive for the two companies to push the PPC on the desktop. Moto wants to use the PPC for embeded stuff like microwaves and cell phones while IBM wants to use it for high end servers.
Because both Moto and IBM don't see themselves in the desktop market.
It's entirely possible, because both companies sub-licensed the MacOS to other companies, and Motorola even built their own line of SuperMac clones. Understandably, this pissed of some execs (mainly Moto's CEO) and is one of the reasons why PPC development is lagging behind.
If anything, Moto and IBM will push for these boards to get back as Jobs for stabbing them in the back. Hope they do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, you can call me "Rip" if you like. At least my user name doesn't profess to perform fellatio on theater-range ballistic missiles. ;)
:)
:) Actually, it comes from my early Quake days when I played with the keyboard becuase my mouse wouldn't work. So I got beat up. A lot.
Cheaper to make doesn't mean cheaper to buy. Sure, x86 may cost more to make, but when you churn them out in 10x quantities it brings the price down.
The points in your post would have been relevant- if you were making them three or four years ago. Apple has quit the habbit of developing interesting but unviable products only to dump them later on.
Their bloatware problem rivals
What bloatware problem? Show me one piece of Mac OS software from 8.0 or later. Apple is one of the best companies around for deciding if something is a usefull feature, something that needs work or something that gets discarded. With that certain other company, they do 1 and 2 but never get to 3.
1. I don't like Apple's philosophy. (closed hardware, closed software)
Damn, you missed out on all the "Die, Apple, Die!" flames when they released Darwin. I can go over and download most of Apple's operating system code for nothing. Unless you were talking about the GUI, Quicktime (but they don't own the codecs), WebObjects or some of their other software.
As for the hardware, the only part that is closed is the ROM chips, and nothing prevents you from bypassing it, unless you are a lazy bunch of programmers living off of Intel's money.
Its people like you that make my day just a little better than it was before.
and another undisclosed sum to settle a lawsuit. However, Apple had over a billion in cash sitting around at the time, plus assets that could have been liquified.
The 150 mill didn't do squat. It didn't change anything one way or the other.
My P3 500Mhz Intellistation does it at 8-9hours a unit. Nyah.
I would hope so, since his CPU is at least two years old and you have 200 mhz on him. It also depends on what OS you're using; Unix is a lot faster than the Mac OS or NT.
Because G3 and G4 have much more marketing appeal than meaningless numbers- 601, 603e, 604 etc.
Because USparc and Alpha really have no market outside of servers. I don't know how well the G4 stacks up against the other guys mhz for mhz, but a G4 would make a kickass server but you could also play games on it.
I wasn't aware Compaq was selling Alpha's as personal computers. I had the silly impression that they were for servers, thanks for correcting me.
OpenBSD has emphasis on security and stability
I belive FreeBSD goes for optimization on x86, although they are ports for other platforms (correct me if I'm wrong on this one....)
NetBSD's thing is that it you can run it on everything from a low end supercomputer to a toaster oven. I'm going to put it on my old Quadra soon.
One of the great myths perpetuated by Apple and others is that cloning had to die for Apple to live. The fact is that the cloners had already agreed to pay much higher licensing fee's when Apple pulled licensing.
That's what Be tried to do, and look at how popular they've turned out.
Be didn't catch on for a number of reasons. For one thing, they're developing an OS targeted at multimedia but not making it for the main multimedia platform(Macs). For another, they have yet to get any big graphics software company (Quark, Adobe, Macromedia etc) to port any of their products to BEOS.
That's what Apple originally planned with Rhapsody, and they had to back track on that in order to convince developers to update their products.
Not exactly. They revised Rhapsody because it did not provide a good upgrade path for software developers. For an application to take advantage of the modern OS buzzwords, large parts of the code would have to be rewritten. Carbon lets developers keep most of their old code while allowing them to move to OSX.
Given MS & Intel's revenues and profits, it's a fair statement to say that the computing world values compatibility over performance/reliablitly/price/whatever other concern.
Of course the fact that both MS and Intel use questionable tactics against thier compeditors wouldn't have anything to do with thier dominance, would it?
-Carbon, which will allow existing Mac apps to run in a preemptive environment without modification
Carbon is a migration path. Basically it throws out 2,000 or so archaic API's and replaces them so developers can take advantage of OSX's modern features without a total rewrite of their codebase.
that Apple's IPO was probably on par with Redhat's. And Netscape's.
:-)
Maybe Red Hat will follow the fine tradition set by these two companies and start screwing up in five years.
Its a frontend for rippers, encoders, and id3 tools (makes song title, artist name etc part of the mp3 file).
I've used it with cdparanioa and bladeenc, but haven't gotten the id3 stuff to work. I think you need xmcd to use the cddb stuff, but I could be wrong on that part.
One cavet: ripenc rips the cd, and then encodes the wav files, instead of starting to encode as soon as the first track is ripped.
Bladeenc seems slow, and I'm too lazy to try different encoders. I have dual 450 celerons running RH 6.0, and my 44x CDROM always finishes ripping (assuming the disk isn't scrated) before bladeenc is done.
You can find all this software and more by searching on freshmeat.net.
Fashions are not intellectual property IMO.
If Emachines had made a convienient all-in-one computer with a handle, Apple would not care. If they made a PC with translucent plastics, Apple would not care. It's the near exact copy of the iMac's design that they are complaining about.
Most people don't buy their clothes from this sort of designer, so the designers for the chain stores make their own pastel coloured short skirts & black jackets.
Right, because they are similar, not almost the same. However, if Kmart made a lookalike Versaci dress, used similar packaging, slogans etc, I'm sure Versaci would sue Kmart.
Is Apple suing them for ripping off a motherboard design? No, they're suing because this PC is a blatant rip off of the iMacs design.
Remember from who Apple got the idea for the mouse and the GUI for their OS. I don't recall anyone at Apple paying for it either.....
"Pirates" was drama, not an historically correct documentary. You see, Xerox did get paid- with Apple stock.
Sorry dude, Xerox got paid with stock from Apple.
Linux will never kill the MacOS because Mac's have plug-it-in-and-it-works functionality, something Linux can only dream about and will proably never achieve.
With a Mac, I could just plug in an ethernet card, install any drivers, reboot and go. With Linux I have to spend two days piddlefarting around with the kernel and modules to get it to work.
N64 blew away the current PCs when it came out. (P166 with Voodoo 1) The dreamcast was much more powerful than PCs a year ago (when it came out) and is still a match for current PCs. PSX 2 will blow away an Athlon/NV 10 combo becuase of its specialization.
Blew away? No. Superior? Depends. But with the consol market you get a big advance every few years - and in between those advances you get stagnation.
Even if the PSX2 does leave top-of-the-line PC's in the dust, in two years it will look like cheap crap next to a 2 gigahertz K7 with a 256 video card.
Which brings me to another point: the Playstation 2 is vaporware. It is silly to compare future consols to current PC's without factoring in the rabid pace of PC hardware and software development.
Then their is ease of use, quality of games (when was the last time you saw a PSX game with a patch? How many times has Mario 64 crashed on you.)and a broader gaming library.
And when was the last time you downloaded a new level for Mario 64? A mod for Madden 98? Designed your own map for Final Fantasy 7? Create a new physics model for Tekken 3?
Consols will never come close to PC's for speed of development or flexibility of using mods. To do that, they'd have to become computers.
OS X is based on both NeXT and BSD. Apple made a big deal a month or two ago about how OSX was going to be "syncronized" with FreeBSD.
not really fast, but good enought for a desktop system. That's why most of IBM's lowend RS/6000 systems still use the 604e, it beats the hell out of the G3 at the same clock speeds, especially at FP.
Only at floating point. The G3 is much faster at integer calculations, so it depends on what you're doing.
And the reason IBM uses the 604e in servers is because it does SMP, while the G3 does not.
Apple won't go G4 (likely) untill they discontinue making all of there G3 systems -- and that may be a while.
Also wrong. The current Blue and White G3's were supposed to have them. Apple have the design ready to go (Sawtooth), and are just waiting for Motorola and IBM to start delivering the processors in sufficeint quantities to ship.
Of course Apple has only themselves to blame for delays in newer PPC's, as both Moto and IBM licensed the MacOS to other comapnies to build clones; Moto even had their own line of SuperMacs. Not only did this piss of IBM and especially Moto, but it also took away a big incentive for the two companies to push the PPC on the desktop. Moto wants to use the PPC for embeded stuff like microwaves and cell phones while IBM wants to use it for high end servers.
Because both Moto and IBM don't see themselves in the desktop market.
It's entirely possible, because both companies sub-licensed the MacOS to other companies, and Motorola even built their own line of SuperMac clones. Understandably, this pissed of some execs (mainly Moto's CEO) and is one of the reasons why PPC development is lagging behind.
If anything, Moto and IBM will push for these boards to get back as Jobs for stabbing them in the back. Hope they do it.