I don't think you are a fool at all. During the G3/G4 era one of the Apple's targets was the fact that the G3/G4s outperformed the Pentiums. The G5s were a point of pride. On laptops, phones and tablets they still sell performance. But everyone has dropped their high performance desktop lines. Take a look at how meager the offering are at Dell compared to when you bought your PowerMac. The last poweredge I bougtht had their 14 drive configuration (RAID 50) was upgradable to 196g of ram... I don't see anything like that now.
Hopefully Apple does wow people with their 2013 offering and has something to win over all of the remaining Workstation users from Windows. But in general I agree. Apple is moving away from server. Apple doesn't use OSX for iCloud servers.
But you shouldn't exaggerate, in terms of no more server OS they still have server, its just free / cheap and aimed squarely at small business: http://www.apple.com/osx/server/
As an aside if you like the old Workstation with lots of umph on the G5s have you ever consider the IBM pseries with the G7s? There you could get a real upgrade: 512g rom, 32 G7 processors each one 2-3x as fast (in terms of work) as what you have, overlapping memory so the CPUs aren't sitting around pulling NO-OPs... IBM at least still makes beefy Unix computation machines.
Its worse than that. They have to be shipped carefully. EPEAT wants recycling to be doable by unskilled labor. I understand why EPEAT did what they did in not certifying.
But EPEAT changed their approach today. They now want to work with Apple on a standard for these completely closed devices. They need new standards if electronics are going to be integrated as per smartphones and the Apple systems.
I think the reason that GreenPeace targets Apple is that Apple is probably the only computer manufacturer that would care much what Greenpeace things. Apple's brand and their marketing appeal to:
High Openness (which is an effective proxy for liberal) Low Dogmatism (i.e. non religious, which tilts liberal) Low Modesty (which is going to correlate strongly with socially liberal) High Perfectionism Sense of Superiority (proxy for economically advantaged)
Greenpeace can hurt Apple's air of cool. Greenpeace can't hurt Dell's air of cool since they don't have one.
Says who? EPEAT is welcoming them back. The liberal bloggers who already have the story, are happy to have Apple back in their camp. For example the Huffington Post headline was, "Apple Gets Its 'Green' Back." Liberals love the EPA and love Apple. Why would they want to see this fight continue?
I think the/. summary has this a bit backwards. Just read the letter from EPEAT:
We look forward to Apple’s strong and creative thoughts on ongoing standards development. The outcome must reward new directions for both design and sustainability, simultaneously supporting the environment and the market for all manufacturers’ elegant and high-performance products.
An interesting question for EPEAT is how to reward innovations that are not yet envisioned with standards that are fixed at a point in time. Diverse goals, optional points awarded for innovations not yet described, and flexibility within specified parameters to make this happen are all on the table in EPEAT stakeholder discussions. And of course, timely standards development, as with newly created Imaging Equipment and Television standards, and the current refresh of the PC/Display standard, is critical as well.
This was a messy situation and I think EPEAT did the right thing here in moving forward on recycling standards for computers and smartphones with closed cases and non removable batteries. So I'm happy that we are going to end up with better standards for recycling and at the same time Apple doesn't break with the environmental groups. This is a win-win in terms of policy that probably wouldn't have happened if Apple hadn't publicly stormed off. But/. shouldn't be writing this up as Apple caving to criticism. Their policies on recycling (i.e. the need for an expert recycler like http://www.werecycle.com/ ) haven't changed its EPEAT that is altering policy.
For those who do read the article and didn't understand what the debate was about. Here is a good slide show from google about the advantages of SPDY. Which also explicate the issues in "HTTP routers" in the article: http://www.slideshare.net/bjarlestam/spdy-11723049
No, I don't think you're right about this. As you say, the ATI x1900xt (the card in my Mac Pro) has windows 64-bit drivers. I've run one under Vista 64! Secondly, if what you are claiming as a major graphics change would be true, I could swap in a $50 graphic card into my Mac Pro and be fine to install ML. But I can't...It's more arbitrary than that.
First off let me point they haven't written a Mac driver. NT kernel and the Xnu kernel are nothing like one another. So lets say it would take ATI a few man weeks to fix the driver problem. The ATI card change is the change in the graphic subsystem. You have one more problem. Because there is no KEXT support your EFI won't work. You need to reflash your firmware. But yes, you have me right:
a) A port of a driver and / or a $50 replacement b) A new firmware
and your system runs Mountain Lion fine. That's what the people who are hacking the preview onto their older MacPros are doing. You've mentioned Chameleon so you are familiar with the community. So in other words:
a) Yes apple faced a real technical problem. This isn't arbitrary and they had good reason to make the shift they did in ML. b) Yes it could have been fixed with a complex install but not with anything simple. Which is pretty much what's happening. The people who can handle the reflash and understand the issue can load ML but Apple doesn't have to support that complexity in the field. And they won't have to support it as times goes on, rather the open source community will. I guess I can see a position for the Apple store offering to do this for say $100 labor. You do have a point there, given that they haven't updated the MacPro they should probably throw you all a bone on this one.
You're claiming installing the Mac Port replaces the builtin smb functionality?
New protocols don't go through committees they just happen. That's the great thing about using a generic TCP/IP or UDP/IP base. New protocols prove themselves by finding a market; protocol revisions prove themselves by finding a consensus.
That's a really good idea! Make the HTTP shift coordinate with the IPV4/IPV6 shift and then we can assume 1 domain per IP. I'm having a tough time seeing how that breaks down. Any mods out there should mod you up for best idea of the day.
Of course we have manufacturing in the United States, we still represent about 20% of the global manufacturing production of the world. In terms of US goods i.e. those made by US companies but built abroad because of the high dollar, the number might be closer to 50%. You should look at the actual data before making those sorts of claims.
And absolutely what a huge shift in the current account deficit would look like in a floating currency is a large devaluation.
OK I read the email chain now. At least my read of the chain I don't agree with the Ars summary (linked above) that it was Intel. Rather it seems like Microsoft was soft on the issue that Vista would require more expensive hardware at the time, while they had never been soft about that with Longhorn. Once you fail to make that clear then the disruption becomes, from the OEM's standpoint pointless. In other words they had this problem because they were still considering Intel integrated graphics only systems as not being totally beyond the pale for Vista. Had it been clear to consumers that there would be years of Microsoft selling XP on lower end systems and Vista on higher end systems they wouldn't have experienced a disruption.... Vista can't be both "the new OS" and "the more demanding OS with cooler stuff" unless you are going to drive a universal price increase through the market.
But thank you for pointing out that email chain is now public.
Not really. You can't have it both ways. A large trade deficit requires a currency account surplus and visa versa. If the Chinese "try and make good" net net that looks like the Chinese importing vast amounts of American goods. Which brings manufacturing back to the USA.
It can be (and often is) true that reducing latency increases throughput too.
I'm unclear why. Keep going how does reducing throughput to reduce latency result in more throughput?
OS X has some realtime features in its scheduler. The highest priority bands get the CPU no matter what as soon as they're not blocked, but they're expected to block often enough that other processes don't get starved.
Interesting. That's good to know. Then why can processes in the background make the system unresponsive?
The official story with Metro so far is that "it works great with mouse and keyboard". I personally disagree with tha
As does everyone whose tried it. So lets just say, it doesn't work with mouse and keyboard only.
If the trackpad supports panning, pinch to zoom, and swipes from the sides to access the common UI elements, it should be pretty much as good as touch
I use Lion with a MBP touchpad everyday. I own an iPhone and an IPad3. Touchpads are not as good as touch for touch interface. We'll have to see about Microsoft's implementation but so far it leans heavily towards touch. Which is why I think they should push for touch being mandatory.
All over this thread I'm defending Apple for not allowing systems that can't load 32 bit graphics drivers (i.e. need 32 bit KEXT in Lion) to not upgrade to Mountain Lion. I sincerely hope that Microsoft has turned over a new leaf and will do the same.
But if they do allow mouse and keyboard or some sort of limited implementation, then they repeat the mistake the made with Vista.
So what are the differences in the "graphics subsystems" that you're talking about?
The graphics system on Lion allows for KEXTs (32 bit extensions) in drivers. There is an actual code wrapper that goes between the graphics card and the driver on Mountain Lion which is 64 bit hence no KEXT support.
We're not talking about supporting a parallel architecture or even outdated hardware!
That's exactly what you are talking about. Supporting 32 bit only hardware. If Apple had a 64 bit driver for your card it would run Mountain Lion. In fact it wouldn't shock me if a 64 bit Linux driver gets ported over and then ML does run.
I'm not sure how getting samba from ports is supposed to solve Finder browse issues or Finder samba access problems on Lion workstations?
Because you would be running the full featured samba and not the reduced functionality. Lion moved from Samba 2 to Apple's Samba clone. Ports has Samba 3.
Its specs are inferior in every way to the vastly more expensive (and expandable and upgradeable) Mac Pro.
No its specs in terms of driver support are not inferior and that's where you are getting snagged.
I agree it doesn't require it, but it is designed for it. Hopefully Microsoft won't repeat the mistakes of Vista and to get the Windows 8 sticker OEMs will have to build systems that do support the entire range of inputs. Metro is likely a downgrade if you aren't using some kinds of touch.
Because if they believe in Windows then they believe in the whole idea that their work environment and their home environment should be similar. I.E. they want Office. And they want Office documents which are casually browsable (i.e. touch screen), always on, syncing with the cloud (Microsoft365...). That's Windows 8 and Windows 8 hardware. Their current system can't do that.
If they don't want Office then they often have no reason to be part of the Microsoft eco system.
The spending which is large is on networking and that's being born by consumers. Take a look at smartphone sales and the concurrent spending on over the air bandwidth.
Yes. Apple officially support Windows they created a free system for dual booting ( http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4818 ). There are a ton of good VM solutions http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/ being the most popular. If you just want to blow away OSX and install Linux or Windows that's easy as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple hasn't run print ads for a very long time. What are you talking about?
Yes. They are designed to appeal to low dogmatism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE = think different
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XeANoNL0qo = rejects her parents advice and does what she thinks is right because its cooler
or even the latest ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP1YAatv1Mc focuses on hipness and whims like I'm not going to clean up I want to eat tomato soup and dance.
Its hard to think of many companies not selling rock music or skateboarding or something like that with the same irreverent tone.
I don't think you are a fool at all. During the G3/G4 era one of the Apple's targets was the fact that the G3/G4s outperformed the Pentiums. The G5s were a point of pride. On laptops, phones and tablets they still sell performance. But everyone has dropped their high performance desktop lines. Take a look at how meager the offering are at Dell compared to when you bought your PowerMac. The last poweredge I bougtht had their 14 drive configuration (RAID 50) was upgradable to 196g of ram... I don't see anything like that now.
Hopefully Apple does wow people with their 2013 offering and has something to win over all of the remaining Workstation users from Windows. But in general I agree. Apple is moving away from server. Apple doesn't use OSX for iCloud servers.
But you shouldn't exaggerate, in terms of no more server OS they still have server, its just free / cheap and aimed squarely at small business: http://www.apple.com/osx/server/
As an aside if you like the old Workstation with lots of umph on the G5s have you ever consider the IBM pseries with the G7s? There you could get a real upgrade: 512g rom, 32 G7 processors each one 2-3x as fast (in terms of work) as what you have, overlapping memory so the CPUs aren't sitting around pulling NO-OPs... IBM at least still makes beefy Unix computation machines.
Its worse than that. They have to be shipped carefully. EPEAT wants recycling to be doable by unskilled labor. I understand why EPEAT did what they did in not certifying.
But EPEAT changed their approach today. They now want to work with Apple on a standard for these completely closed devices. They need new standards if electronics are going to be integrated as per smartphones and the Apple systems.
I think the reason that GreenPeace targets Apple is that Apple is probably the only computer manufacturer that would care much what Greenpeace things. Apple's brand and their marketing appeal to:
High Openness (which is an effective proxy for liberal)
Low Dogmatism (i.e. non religious, which tilts liberal)
Low Modesty (which is going to correlate strongly with socially liberal)
High Perfectionism
Sense of Superiority (proxy for economically advantaged)
Greenpeace can hurt Apple's air of cool. Greenpeace can't hurt Dell's air of cool since they don't have one.
The damage that was done is permanent.
Says who? EPEAT is welcoming them back. The liberal bloggers who already have the story, are happy to have Apple back in their camp. For example the Huffington Post headline was, "Apple Gets Its 'Green' Back." Liberals love the EPA and love Apple. Why would they want to see this fight continue?
I think the /. summary has this a bit backwards. Just read the letter from EPEAT:
This was a messy situation and I think EPEAT did the right thing here in moving forward on recycling standards for computers and smartphones with closed cases and non removable batteries. So I'm happy that we are going to end up with better standards for recycling and at the same time Apple doesn't break with the environmental groups. This is a win-win in terms of policy that probably wouldn't have happened if Apple hadn't publicly stormed off. But /. shouldn't be writing this up as Apple caving to criticism. Their policies on recycling (i.e. the need for an expert recycler like http://www.werecycle.com/ ) haven't changed its EPEAT that is altering policy.
For those who do read the article and didn't understand what the debate was about. Here is a good slide show from google about the advantages of SPDY. Which also explicate the issues in "HTTP routers" in the article: http://www.slideshare.net/bjarlestam/spdy-11723049
No, I don't think you're right about this. As you say, the ATI x1900xt (the card in my Mac Pro) has windows 64-bit drivers. I've run one under Vista 64! Secondly, if what you are claiming as a major graphics change would be true, I could swap in a $50 graphic card into my Mac Pro and be fine to install ML. But I can't...It's more arbitrary than that.
First off let me point they haven't written a Mac driver. NT kernel and the Xnu kernel are nothing like one another. So lets say it would take ATI a few man weeks to fix the driver problem. The ATI card change is the change in the graphic subsystem. You have one more problem. Because there is no KEXT support your EFI won't work. You need to reflash your firmware. But yes, you have me right:
a) A port of a driver and / or a $50 replacement
b) A new firmware
and your system runs Mountain Lion fine. That's what the people who are hacking the preview onto their older MacPros are doing. You've mentioned Chameleon so you are familiar with the community. So in other words:
a) Yes apple faced a real technical problem. This isn't arbitrary and they had good reason to make the shift they did in ML.
b) Yes it could have been fixed with a complex install but not with anything simple. Which is pretty much what's happening. The people who can handle the reflash and understand the issue can load ML but Apple doesn't have to support that complexity in the field. And they won't have to support it as times goes on, rather the open source community will. I guess I can see a position for the Apple store offering to do this for say $100 labor. You do have a point there, given that they haven't updated the MacPro they should probably throw you all a bone on this one.
You're claiming installing the Mac Port replaces the builtin smb functionality?
Why not? Here are instructions: http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20120401160655922
XNU is modular SMB is just a module you can replace it.
Well remember Apple recommends you call their designated recycler (http://www.werecycle.com/ )and not attempt anything yourself.
New protocols don't go through committees they just happen. That's the great thing about using a generic TCP/IP or UDP/IP base. New protocols prove themselves by finding a market; protocol revisions prove themselves by finding a consensus.
That's a really good idea! Make the HTTP shift coordinate with the IPV4/IPV6 shift and then we can assume 1 domain per IP. I'm having a tough time seeing how that breaks down. Any mods out there should mod you up for best idea of the day.
Of course we have manufacturing in the United States, we still represent about 20% of the global manufacturing production of the world. In terms of US goods i.e. those made by US companies but built abroad because of the high dollar, the number might be closer to 50%. You should look at the actual data before making those sorts of claims.
And absolutely what a huge shift in the current account deficit would look like in a floating currency is a large devaluation.
OK I read the email chain now. At least my read of the chain I don't agree with the Ars summary (linked above) that it was Intel. Rather it seems like Microsoft was soft on the issue that Vista would require more expensive hardware at the time, while they had never been soft about that with Longhorn. Once you fail to make that clear then the disruption becomes, from the OEM's standpoint pointless. In other words they had this problem because they were still considering Intel integrated graphics only systems as not being totally beyond the pale for Vista. Had it been clear to consumers that there would be years of Microsoft selling XP on lower end systems and Vista on higher end systems they wouldn't have experienced a disruption.... Vista can't be both "the new OS" and "the more demanding OS with cooler stuff" unless you are going to drive a universal price increase through the market.
But thank you for pointing out that email chain is now public.
Not really. You can't have it both ways. A large trade deficit requires a currency account surplus and visa versa. If the Chinese "try and make good" net net that looks like the Chinese importing vast amounts of American goods. Which brings manufacturing back to the USA.
Good comment, you should get an account.
It can be (and often is) true that reducing latency increases throughput too.
I'm unclear why. Keep going how does reducing throughput to reduce latency result in more throughput?
OS X has some realtime features in its scheduler. The highest priority bands get the CPU no matter what as soon as they're not blocked, but they're expected to block often enough that other processes don't get starved.
Interesting. That's good to know. Then why can processes in the background make the system unresponsive?
The official story with Metro so far is that "it works great with mouse and keyboard". I personally disagree with tha
As does everyone whose tried it. So lets just say, it doesn't work with mouse and keyboard only.
If the trackpad supports panning, pinch to zoom, and swipes from the sides to access the common UI elements, it should be pretty much as good as touch
I use Lion with a MBP touchpad everyday. I own an iPhone and an IPad3. Touchpads are not as good as touch for touch interface. We'll have to see about Microsoft's implementation but so far it leans heavily towards touch. Which is why I think they should push for touch being mandatory.
All over this thread I'm defending Apple for not allowing systems that can't load 32 bit graphics drivers (i.e. need 32 bit KEXT in Lion) to not upgrade to Mountain Lion. I sincerely hope that Microsoft has turned over a new leaf and will do the same.
But if they do allow mouse and keyboard or some sort of limited implementation, then they repeat the mistake the made with Vista.
Why would Intel want people to be able to use cheaper hardware, i.e. cheaper CPUs? And why would Microsoft care what Intel marketing wanted?
So what are the differences in the "graphics subsystems" that you're talking about?
The graphics system on Lion allows for KEXTs (32 bit extensions) in drivers. There is an actual code wrapper that goes between the graphics card and the driver on Mountain Lion which is 64 bit hence no KEXT support.
We're not talking about supporting a parallel architecture or even outdated hardware!
That's exactly what you are talking about. Supporting 32 bit only hardware. If Apple had a 64 bit driver for your card it would run Mountain Lion. In fact it wouldn't shock me if a 64 bit Linux driver gets ported over and then ML does run.
I'm not sure how getting samba from ports is supposed to solve Finder browse issues or Finder samba access problems on Lion workstations?
Because you would be running the full featured samba and not the reduced functionality. Lion moved from Samba 2 to Apple's Samba clone. Ports has Samba 3.
Its specs are inferior in every way to the vastly more expensive (and expandable and upgradeable) Mac Pro.
No its specs in terms of driver support are not inferior and that's where you are getting snagged.
Look it up. It has to do with what video card / EFI the rest of the system far exceeds the spec.
If you were on the inside let me ask you something. Of the 3 major enhancements for Longhorn:
1) Aero interface
2) Document security (Palladium)
3) Windows File System
What happened to #2 and #3. Why didn't Microsoft push ahead with Longhorn / Vista being a major step up from XP?
I agree it doesn't require it, but it is designed for it. Hopefully Microsoft won't repeat the mistakes of Vista and to get the Windows 8 sticker OEMs will have to build systems that do support the entire range of inputs. Metro is likely a downgrade if you aren't using some kinds of touch.
Because if they believe in Windows then they believe in the whole idea that their work environment and their home environment should be similar. I.E. they want Office. And they want Office documents which are casually browsable (i.e. touch screen), always on, syncing with the cloud (Microsoft365...). That's Windows 8 and Windows 8 hardware. Their current system can't do that.
If they don't want Office then they often have no reason to be part of the Microsoft eco system.
Technology != PCs
The spending which is large is on networking and that's being born by consumers. Take a look at smartphone sales and the concurrent spending on over the air bandwidth.
Yes. Apple officially support Windows they created a free system for dual booting ( http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4818 ). There are a ton of good VM solutions http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/ being the most popular. If you just want to blow away OSX and install Linux or Windows that's easy as well.