Don't tell me that www.macaddict.com needs an enterprise server./. runs on a P2/450 with 512M of RAM. Are you telling me that Apple doesn't make a computer of this calibre?
True, but it does need a stable server, and the old Mac OS just didn't cut it. It was never the hardware that was lacking but the software.
I expect most Mac sites will move to OS X Server or one of the PowerPC Linux distro's when its time to upgrade. But they aren't going to throw away a fairly new $10,000 Unix workstation just so they can be "all Mac".
Yes there is, they call it Linux;-]
Uh huh. What if you want to run Photoshop, some games or give a computer to your grandmother.
Gee, I hate to rain on your hardware superiority parade but if Apple is so busy kicking ass and Mac is such a superior platform then why is www.macaddict.com using Netscape Enterprise 2.0 on an Irix box to run a "Mac" web site? And why for that matter is www.apple.com running Netscape 3.0 on a Solaris box?
Before OS X Server was released, where and when did Apple claim that Macs were suitable for enterprise servers? Hmmmm?
And if your platform is so great, why does it take about 15 minutes to install and configure 8.5 on a Mac and days or weeks on yours?
Each platform has its own advantages; there's no such thing as a one trick pony in computers.
Well OF COURSE Steve Jobs said the rumor was b.s. What did you expect him to say?
The fact remains, Apple is going to have a much more portable codebase with OS X, and they have every reason to have *survival*, not allegiance to Motorola, as a top priority.
I belive him because there's no chance that Apple will ditch a processor with the great future for the dead end that is x86.
Just because the code is portable and Apple CAN make such a move doesn't mean they WILL. Personally, I think Apple could make a lot of money by making an Intel version of OS X, but they aren't going to ditch the PowerPC anytime soon.
YEllowBox as the development platform (Replaced-Mac API WWDC 1998)
It still is.
Newton
Apple is working with 3Com to build a Palm Pilot with Newton technologies.
OpenDoc
The whole point of OpenDoc was to reduce the size of programs by using libraries, and to reduce software development time. Thats what the Yellow Box is all about. Why support OpenDoc (which only had about 5 apps made for it) when you have a kickass API like the YB?
Rhapsody on intel Rhapsody on all hardware sold by Apple at that time (G3 only support)
Aside from the usual arguments about Apple still being a hardware company, you also need to consider this: Apple doesn't support non-G3's for two reasons, to get the damn thing out the door and cost.
If Apple had support for Intel hardware and older Macs, the OS would still cost $1000, maybe more. I'm much happier that they dropped the price to $500 (which means was able to order it for $200 since I'm a student).
BTW, Server should work on any PCI Power Mac and the iMac just fine, as well as G3 laptops. You just can't complain to Apple if something doesn't work.
Linux has a future on Macs if Apple abandons their policy of not releasing developer info for their hardware.
Of course they release hardware specs for developers. The only information they don't release is whats on the ROM chips (easily bypassed if you want to run Linux) and the Mezzine specs, which is the expansion slot on the rev A, B and possibly D iMacs. But I can tell you that that's also irrelevant, since I have a Voodoo 2 card in mine.
USB support works just fine for keyboards and mice. I got a 3 button USB mouse from Belkin and it just worked- didn't have to fiddle with it at all to get it to work.
The only problems are that I think the USB modules only work for keyboard and mice, and they aren't hot-swappable.
No future with that piece of crap iMac mouse!!
on
Motorola G4 Chip News
·
· Score: 1
Anybody who bashes the iMac mouse hasn't bothered to use it for more than five minutes. Nice weight, nice size, and yes its easy to tell which side is up.
The story about Apple moving to Intel hardware is bull. Appleinsider went straight to the horses mouth, and Steve Jobs said the story was "total fiction."
And BTW, Intel is no more of an open company than Apple is. Propreitary sockets, anyone?
The point was that the article was pointing out Linux's inferior scaling and logging capabilities when compared to commercial Unix brands like Solaris and AIX. However, it didn't bother to mention that NT has these same falacies (and more), thereby implying that NT was better than Linux.
The story line has been done to death already in SF literature
Where exactly has a story been done were an AI takes over the earth and uses human bodies for energy?
the action has been done 100x better in just about any film out of Hong Kong
Uh, not really. The fake sound effects, the jumping 20 feet into the air and the hookey plots? Not to mention the typical movie were a single white ninja beats the tar out of 200 black ninjas without getting a scratch. Yes there are a lot of great fights in HK movies, but there's a lot of crap as well.
The whole "love conquers all" ending was so ridiculous that I had to grab on to the arm-rests to keep myself from bolting out of the theater in disgust at the lame Hollywood crap that passes for a story
What was so terrible about that? If you are going to get all flustered over such nonissues and nitpick irrelevant details, stay away from your TV, your local theater and especially books.
But never before have I ever seen so many, blatant reproductions of tradmark style elements under one title. The most visible rip offs were of: Jet Li's portrayal of Huang Fei Huang and John Woo's gun fight choreography. But I also noticed a couple Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat and Tsui Hark elements as well.
Who cares? New ideas in entertaiment are almost impossible to find, and I'm sure John Woo and the other names on your list were inspired by others as well (Woo was hardly the first guy to use two guns per person in a fight sceen). Besides, imitation is the highest form of flattery.
You can hardly blame them. BP makes some good points on how the license should be reworded, but most of the other guys (like RMS) just started raving without actually reading the ASPL.
What I find dissapointing is the way many Linux people claim they want companies to go open source, but flame them when they try.
make use of that code in a useful way independently of the creators, and without many restrictions.
But you can already do that. Don't violate any patents, don't try to sell your modified code, make your changes public and you can do whatever you want to it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I urge everyone to boycott Apple's license. It does not meet the *community's* definition of what open source is. We need to signal that to them politely, but firmly.
As I believe somebody already said, maybe it doesn't meet your defenition, but for the people who have actually bothered to read the ASPL, it is open source.
No offense to you Bruce, but I think you're just quibbling over some of the wording.
And let's hope nobody else tries this for a long time after that...
Christ, it hasn't even been out for two weeks and you're ready to write Apple's efforts off, permanently.
Did you guys ever think that this might not be the way to get commercial companies to start open sourcing their products if you shred them on their first attempts? BP is being rational and pointing out some of his reservations about the license. Thats going to be a lot more productive (and helpful to the open source community) than flamming Apple and boycotting Darwin.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't tell me that www.macaddict.com needs an enterprise server. /. runs on a P2/450 with 512M of RAM. Are you telling me that Apple doesn't make a computer of this calibre?
;-]
True, but it does need a stable server, and the old Mac OS just didn't cut it. It was never the hardware that was lacking but the software.
I expect most Mac sites will move to OS X Server or one of the PowerPC Linux distro's when its time to upgrade. But they aren't going to throw away a fairly new $10,000 Unix workstation just so they can be "all Mac".
Yes there is, they call it Linux
Uh huh. What if you want to run Photoshop, some games or give a computer to your grandmother.
Gee, I hate to rain on your hardware superiority parade but if Apple is so busy kicking ass and Mac is such a superior platform then why is www.macaddict.com using Netscape Enterprise 2.0 on an Irix box to run a "Mac" web site? And why for that matter is www.apple.com running Netscape 3.0 on a Solaris box?
Before OS X Server was released, where and when did Apple claim that Macs were suitable for enterprise servers? Hmmmm?
And if your platform is so great, why does it take about 15 minutes to install and configure 8.5 on a Mac and days or weeks on yours?
Each platform has its own advantages; there's no such thing as a one trick pony in computers.
(not FireWire, no such thing as FireWire speakers)
Actually, I did see a hugeass pair of Firewire speakers in a catalog. They also had a hugeass price: $4700.
Well OF COURSE Steve Jobs said the rumor was b.s. What did you expect him to say?
The fact remains, Apple is going to have a much more portable codebase with OS X, and they have every reason to have *survival*, not allegiance to Motorola, as a top priority.
I belive him because there's no chance that Apple will ditch a processor with the great future for the dead end that is x86.
Just because the code is portable and Apple CAN make such a move doesn't mean they WILL. Personally, I think Apple could make a lot of money by making an Intel version of OS X, but they aren't going to ditch the PowerPC anytime soon.
And remember that Apple supported the future of:
YEllowBox as the development platform (Replaced-Mac API WWDC 1998)
It still is.
Newton
Apple is working with 3Com to build a Palm Pilot with Newton technologies.
OpenDoc
The whole point of OpenDoc was to reduce the size of programs by using libraries, and to reduce software development time. Thats what the Yellow Box is all about. Why support OpenDoc (which only had about 5 apps made for it) when you have a kickass API like the YB?
Rhapsody on intel
Rhapsody on all hardware sold by Apple at that time (G3 only support)
Aside from the usual arguments about Apple still being a hardware company, you also need to consider this: Apple doesn't support non-G3's for two reasons, to get the damn thing out the door and cost.
If Apple had support for Intel hardware and older Macs, the OS would still cost $1000, maybe more. I'm much happier that they dropped the price to $500 (which means was able to order it for $200 since I'm a student).
BTW, Server should work on any PCI Power Mac and the iMac just fine, as well as G3 laptops. You just can't complain to Apple if something doesn't work.
Oh yes, that would kick ass. I want one of those quad proccessor boxes. :)
Linux has a future on Macs if Apple abandons their policy of not releasing developer info for their hardware.
Of course they release hardware specs for developers. The only information they don't release is whats on the ROM chips (easily bypassed if you want to run Linux) and the Mezzine specs, which is the expansion slot on the rev A, B and possibly D iMacs. But I can tell you that that's also irrelevant, since I have a Voodoo 2 card in mine.
USB support works just fine for keyboards and mice. I got a 3 button USB mouse from Belkin and it just worked- didn't have to fiddle with it at all to get it to work.
The only problems are that I think the USB modules only work for keyboard and mice, and they aren't hot-swappable.
Anybody who bashes the iMac mouse hasn't bothered to use it for more than five minutes. Nice weight, nice size, and yes its easy to tell which side is up.
The story about Apple moving to Intel hardware is bull. Appleinsider went straight to the horses mouth, and Steve Jobs said the story was "total fiction."
And BTW, Intel is no more of an open company than Apple is. Propreitary sockets, anyone?
That was supposed to be AND Circut City
:-)
Ok, its dying, but I'm just glad that DVIX AND are finally on their way to loser hell......
where did Stu mention NT?
The point was that the article was pointing out Linux's inferior scaling and logging capabilities when compared to commercial Unix brands like Solaris and AIX. However, it didn't bother to mention that NT has these same falacies (and more), thereby implying that NT was better than Linux.
The story line has been done to death already in SF literature
Where exactly has a story been done were an AI takes over the earth and uses human bodies for energy?
the action has been done 100x better in just about any film out of Hong Kong
Uh, not really. The fake sound effects, the jumping 20 feet into the air and the hookey plots? Not to mention the typical movie were a single white ninja beats the tar out of 200 black ninjas without getting a scratch. Yes there are a lot of great fights in HK movies, but there's a lot of crap as well.
The whole "love conquers all" ending was so ridiculous that I had to grab on to the arm-rests to keep myself from bolting out of the theater in disgust at the lame Hollywood crap that passes for a story
What was so terrible about that? If you are going to get all flustered over such nonissues and nitpick irrelevant details, stay away from your TV, your local theater and especially books.
But never before have I ever seen so many, blatant reproductions of tradmark style elements under one title. The most visible rip offs were of: Jet Li's portrayal of Huang Fei Huang and John Woo's gun fight choreography. But I also noticed a couple Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat and Tsui Hark elements as well.
Who cares? New ideas in entertaiment are almost impossible to find, and I'm sure John Woo and the other names on your list were inspired by others as well (Woo was hardly the first guy to use two guns per person in a fight sceen). Besides, imitation is the highest form of flattery.
You can hardly blame them. BP makes some good points on how the license should be reworded, but most of the other guys (like RMS) just started raving without actually reading the ASPL.
What I find dissapointing is the way many Linux people claim they want companies to go open source, but flame them when they try.
make use of that code in a useful way independently of the creators, and without many restrictions.
But you can already do that. Don't violate any patents, don't try to sell your modified code, make your changes public and you can do whatever you want to it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I urge everyone to boycott Apple's license. It does not meet the *community's* definition of what open source is. We need to signal that to them politely, but firmly.
As I believe somebody already said, maybe it doesn't meet your defenition, but for the people who have actually bothered to read the ASPL, it is open source.
No offense to you Bruce, but I think you're just quibbling over some of the wording.
And let's hope nobody else tries this for a long time after that...
Christ, it hasn't even been out for two weeks and you're ready to write Apple's efforts off, permanently.
Did you guys ever think that this might not be the way to get commercial companies to start open sourcing their products if you shred them on their first attempts? BP is being rational and pointing out some of his reservations about the license. Thats going to be a lot more productive (and helpful to the open source community) than flamming Apple and boycotting Darwin.