My SO can pick up a remote control, figure it our without the manual, and operate the TV, VCR, and Hi-Fi. So can my parents. They are happy to set the message on their answering machine, program numbers into their phones, do combo-cooking with the microwave and generally use your average household technology without instruction... but not a computer.
TV, VCR, stereo -- all devices which perform one task almost exclusively (showing you a tv program, showing you you a movie, playing a CD). A computer is more difficult because it does (for argument's sake) everything. Telephone, oven, microwave, refrigerator, alarm clock -- they all perform one task.
I setup a computer for my grandmother this past weekend and I had about 90 minutes to teach her everything from startup to internet basics to solitaire to shutdown. Once she masters the mouse I don't think she'll have any trouble playing solitaire with it, which may be enough for her, as it saves her the trouble of shuffling the cards.
I'm sure if you teach someone to use the computer as if it were a single-task tool there would be no problem. But when you try to show them how to create a dialup connection, type up a letter in word, browse the web, explain the concept of files/folders etc, it's a bit much. Especially coming from a world of single-task consumer electronics like the ones you mentioned.
The whole idea that GUIs are easy to use is a myth, as is the idea that icons are somehow more meaningful to users. These ideas have been forced down our throats by marketing droids and the odd technical writer who things (s)he knows his/her stuff.
While they may not be "easy to use" per se, they're definitely easier to use for almost everything you would do on a daily basis. For me, things like server config and admin are much easier over command line. However, I currently have 11 windows open (6 IE, 1 mIRC, 1 folder, Outlook, Photoshop, 1 text file) and I can't imagine how this would be handled if not in a windowed gui. While the desktop metaphor may be incorrect, I don't see anything wrong with the hierarchical structure of the computer (although it has always bothered me that the "desktop" is the conceptual root of the computer even though it's physically a folder on the hard drive, and on windows it's buried pretty deep... but that's relatively minor).
Anyhow, I guess this can be viewed as a tradeoff like anything else. You can invest the time to learn the complicated things and reap huge benefits from the computer by doing many things on it, or you can just learn the very basics and only do one thing with it, in which case it will be a lot easier to use, but less useful overall. The mouse is a hump that everyone will have to cross, but has anyone between the age of 10 and 20 today not already mastered the mouse?
This reminds me of my girlfriend's nephew. Recently I have been playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein a lot. I finally finished the game and the kid (I think he's 16) was over so I let him play. He's rarely ever played a game without cheat codes, in fact he went through Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time completely following the strategy guide he bought page for page.
Anyway, I come home from work and he whines to me that this level is too hard. For anyone who's played the game, it's the one where you have to get the snooper rifle and not let any of the guards see you. So I sit down and tell him, yeah, this level was pretty tough, I had to play it about 5 or 6 times because I kept trying to kill the tower guard. I start playing and I notice he already has the snooper scope, which is odd since getting the gun is part of the mission and he's a long way from where the gun is stashed. Then I notice he also has 996 ammo. For those who haven't played, the snooper scope is an awesome sniper rifle, but you usually only get like 10 ammo with it to cover 4 maps, so you use it sparingly. Having 999 ammo, you don't need to do this.
So I made it about halfway through the level and I climb up a tower and accidentally fall out, and surprise! I take no damage. He also had god mode enabled.
At that point I was pretty disgusted with him. The joke was on him however, as since he already HAD the snooper scope, he couldn't pick up the one laying on the ground, which was part of the mission, and so he couldn't end the level even though all the enemies were dead.
I encourage more game makers to make games that actually require some level of skill, so that even if you have all the cheat codes you can't be a lamer like this kid. The only part of the game that can't be won by simply being invincible and this kid was completely unable to do anything. And I know I sound like an old man saying this, but this is just another symptom of how lazy kids today are. Or maybe just him, who knows. He's getting xbox for xmas and I bet he'll waste several dead trees printing out cheat codes for halo.
Actually, I never touched a system 7 machine in my life. My first Mac ran 8.0. I also spent a year developing Mac applications in codewarrior for 8.5 and 9.0. But yeah, you're probably right, I don't know anything about Apple.
BTW, what do you call MacOS's mechanism for determining the system configuration (OS version, etc)? Come on don't look it up Mr. smartypants. You ought to know this off the top of your head, being a MacOS expert and all.
im not pointing a finger here at you, but everytime i read slashdot , all i read is linux users bitching because apple doesn't give everything away for free. whatever happened to the idea of capitalism? apple makes hardware. they make a great OS to sell thier hardware. do you give your work away for free?
I see that you prefaced this comment with "I'm not pointing a finger at you" but I have to assume you're including me in this group. I have no problem with Apple keeping some (or even all) of its intellectual property proprietary. My beef here is with the (apparent) Mac zealots who're claiming that Apple is completely open and wonderfully philanthropic when it is simply not the case. Apple has made overtures toward openness, but they're still by far a proprietary company. Like I said, I have no problem with this. The completely-open business model has been proven almost completely impossible to sustain. The only company that is still at least 95% open (probably 100%, but I'll say 95 to appease the detractors) is Red Hat. I truly hope they succeed, because if/when they fail it will be a severe blow to the "open" business model. VA research/linux/software was also a severe blow.
I'll have to disagree with you on your first statement though. In my mind, Apple is a company that makes a great OS but pays for that OS with moderately overpriced hardware (please, don't start any flame wars over "APPLE IS / IS NOT OVERPRICED!!!!!!!11", this is just my opinion). I only got to use X for a couple of weeks but I was mightily impressed. Getting classic Mac OS apps to work on a BSD kernel is nothing short of magic as far as I'm concerned. When my financial state improves I'd like to get an iBook just for X. Truly amazing.
If Apple was a *proprietary* company as you claim - which, btw means that you are stating that it is *completely* proprietary
Please don't attempt to tell me what I mean. The vast majority of Apple's products are proprietary. As I said, aside from QTSS and Darwin, they have no open projects. They are standards-compliant with the hardware in the sense that they use SDRAM, etc. The beneficiary in this example is Apple as they simply look up a proven standard and use that as the base for their technology, rather than spending millions to develop a technology that may or may not work. They did not choose to use SDRAM because it will make it easier for people to run Linux PPC or any other nonsense, they did it because it was the best decision for them.
Also, using your logic, there is no middle ground, so Apple is either completely open or completely proprietary. You're either Richard Stallman, an idiot, or both.
The singlemindedness of some of the people on this thread saddens me. I see that Mac zealotry has now moved into the realm of "APPLE IS THE BEST BECAUSE THEY ARE OPEN SOURCE!" A combination "open source" zealot and Mac Zealot... god help us.
I have already stated that Apple has done far better than most other corporations in terms of openness. But people claiming that Apple is completely open, but the instances where they're not (already a contradiction) isn't their fault.
What about Sorenson, Quicktime, TrueType, Aqua themes, running MacOS on other hardware? Still these issues are ignored because "Well, Apple has to make money." People projecting this drivel are nauseatingly hypocritical. What's worse, they seem to actually believe their own garbage.
I have no problem with Apple not being completely open, or with Apple doing what's in their best interest (defending. I do have a problem when idiots insist they are "almost completely" open when the reality is that they are closer to being "almost completely" proprietary. Again, I have no problem with that, but stfu and face reality.
I went to the XAnim site and the blurb about Sorenson reads:
"Sorenson Video
The Sorenson video codec is so far exclusive to Apple's Quicktime through an agreement with Apple. XAnim supports quicktime files that have video and audio tracks and could easily support the Sorenson video codec, but Sorenson would have to want to and Apple would have to ok it. Highly unlikely. Apple's new OS X based on unix and so it'd be interesting to see if they eventually port Quicktime to linux.
You can contact Sorenson by sending email to: support@sorenson.com and their web page is http://www.sorenson.com/"
Sorensen codec (as pointed out by many other posters) is not owned or controlled by Apple.
I understand this. This is why it is called the Sorenson codec. However, if you think Apple has no say in the terms of their license with Sorenson then you don't understand the concept of a contract. I.e., two parties agreeing on terms.
"According to Mark Podlipec's XAnim site (May 10, 1999), he contacted Sorenson Vision to find out if he could license Sorenson Video for incorporation in the XAnim Unix X11 animation, audio, and video player. According to his Web site, Sorenson replied that Apple will not allow Sorenson to license Sorenson Video to others."
As for all parts of MacOS X that aren't in Darwin, some of this is because it includes code which is covered by patents owned by other companies (eg: the airport drivers) and some because Apple is in the business of making money.
I don't see how you can sit there and say "there is very little that Apple do that is proprietary anymore" and then turn around and say they can't open most of their stuff because of licensing issues. Regardless of the cause, they haven't opened up enough that I can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, or use Quicktime on non-Mac/Win platforms. These are the only portions of Apple's product line I care about. While I will agree that apple has been far more open than most "old school" technology companies, I maintain that your assertion that they are "not proprietary" is gravely false.
Finally, the boot rom, one poster below replied that this does not exist anymore, and I would tend to agree with that as the new world macintoshes have Open Firmware but I should note that this is a hardware area that I am not familiar with. However, it is entirely possible to run other operating systems on a Macintosh, you may want to check out LinuxPPC.org [linuxppc.org] as proof. That's right, Linux and FreeBSD both are available for Macintosh.
First, as I stated in a previous post, I am aware that the boot rom is no longer a hardware EEPROM. I don't have a mac in front of me right now so I cannot check this, but I recall there being a "boot rom" file in the system folder. Anyhow, this is a technicality. My point is/was that you cannot run MacOS on non-Apple hardware. Yes, I understand that they need to make money off hardware, but this doesn't change the fact that I still can't run MacOS on nearly-identical non-Apple hardware. Unless I am wrong on that count (that you can buy commodity non-Apple hardware and have MacOS work properly on it), your argument that Apple is "not proprietary" holds absolutely no water.
And yes, I am quite aware of LinuxPPC and the various other operating systems that can run on Apple hardware (I have installed LinuxPPC many times). But that has nothing to do with running MacOS on other systems, except perhaps proving that it is indeed possible and Apple is the one blocking it.
Noone is claiming that Apple is completely opensource, I was merely refuting the point that Apple is a proprietary company because it is simply not true any more - Apple is in fact one of the most standards complient and non-proprietary software companies out there today which isn't just selling another free software distribution.
You appear to be claiming that very thing. And it is in Apple's best interest to be standards-compliant, so they can reap the benefits of things like PC133 SDRAM and eventually DDR SDRAM, otherwise they'd end up in a mess like Intel is with RDRAM and the price of Macs would double.
As for apple's uber-open software and hardware: Where is it? Besides QTSS and Darwin, what have they opened? Can I get the source for iTunes2 (remove the encoding and decoding section and I can drop in any other encoder/decoder, that should take care of any patent issues)? How about Final Cut Pro, for $500, do I get the source?
Don't claim Apple is so open and then turn around and say "well, they do have to make money" when it's pointed out that they're not. Compared to many companies, they're pretty good, but they're not nearly as open as you've made them out to be. Also, it's not like they haven't benefitted from opening Darwin or QTSS, so I doubt they're doing this for philanthropic reasons.
In fact there is very little that Apple do that is proprietary anymore.
Sorensen codec, Quicktime itself (linux client yet?), all parts of MacOS X that aren't in Darwin. And don't they still have the boot rom thing so that you can only load MacOS on Apple hardware? Yeah, real open.
This isn't meant to bash Apple, but you seem to be claiming that they're almost completely "open source" and that's just not the case.
I just visited Windows Update with IE 5.5 SP2 and under "CRITICAL UPDATES AND SERVICE PACKS" it said there were no updates. What is the point of Windows Update if it's not up to date?
You can purchase pre-paid american express cards at 7-11 with cash. You can add more money to them also. I think this is what he was talking about, not visa buxx, which is just a credit card for kids where the parent gets to limit its use.
I'd link directly to the page on Nintendo's GC site (http://www.nintendogamecube.com/launch.html) but their whole site is a big flash animation. It's item #10 on the flash thing. Definitely looks cool, but $100 for a controller...
Well, they made the computer into a piece of furniture that grandma and aunt diane would like to have on their desks. I guess. I honestly thought it was stupid, and still am not too fond of it, but I can't really argue with Apple's sales figures.
When the iMac was unveiled it was considered by many to be nearly revolutionary. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not is another issue. However that was (I believe) in 1998, and it's nearly 2002 and the iMac of today is visually almost identical to the 1998 firstborn Bondi Blue iMac. Yeah, there have been color changes, hard drive upgrades, speed bumps, memory increases, and now even a slot-loading cd/dvd/whatever drive, but the external appearance is pretty much unchanged. Normally this wouldn't matter for a computer, but the iMac was a hit because of its style.
So it's time for something "revolutionary" again. I've heard rumors of the flat panel iMac from lame sites like Mac OS Rumors since at least the end of 1998. Actually this particular rumor (and its failure to materialize) was one reason I stopped reading MOSR and its ilk and realized what garbage they were.
So if Steve Jobs unveils a flat panel iMac, it won't be a big surprise. The difference now will be if he doesn't, analysts will be disappointed and Apple's stock price will probably take a minor hit.
Well, as I (think I) said, I haven't read any of his books myself. But that does sound like a really dumb thing for him to do. Taking out the entire collective? That's so dumb. Makes it difficult for anyone to take that book seriously, I'd guess. Taking out all the borg in the sector, ok, that's perfectly legit in star trek land. But to attempt to remove a major galactic player from the Star Trek world is a mistake.
Shatner brought Kirk back to life because the way they had him die in "Generations" was awful. It was really a slap in the face. I mean, he falls off a bridge? That's the best the writers could come up with? I really found this appalling. I understand that it was difficult for them to write a story around the transition from TOS to TNG, but "Generations" was pretty bad, and the way Kirk died added insult to injury. I haven't read any of Shatner's books but if he wanted to bring Kirk back just to give him a better death then IMO he has that right. Maybe the cycle of the TNG movies will be crap -> good -> crap -> good (Generations -> First Contact -> Insurrection -> Nemesis?). One can only hope.
Another questions: Why not incorporate any of the Voyager or DS9 cast? I missed the end of DS9 but from what I gather they pretty much tied up all the loose ends at the end, but Voyager was left wide open. So why not?
My comment was simply in reply to someone who stated that "if we hammer id's servers with downloads of the linux binary then they will be more linux friendly", or something along those lines. I was disputing that claim. I realize that you still need to have the full version + CD key to play the game. But the post to which I responded was implying that simply keeping their internet connection saturated would make id more linux-friendly (despite the fact that they are probably the most linux-friendly major developer there is, but that's beside the point). I was simply disputing that claim.
I guess you could infer what you suggested, but judging by what Mr. Carmack stated in the post to which I linked, it is not a viable market. I don't mean to quote him as "the voice of god" as many seem wont to do, but I think he, unlike the rest of those who frequent this board, is actually speaking from experience and not from some unguided assumption. This isn't meant as an attack, but unless you have similar first-hand knowledge of the Windows/Linux game industry (not that I do) then I don't really give your theory much credence in this matter.
And that will tell them exactly what? That people will download it for free? People are generally more than willing to try anything that's free. The challenge is to make money from it. Even John Carmack acknowledges that the Linux gaming market is essentially wothless from a business standpoint.
I would think that if we learned nothing else from the whole "dot com" era it's that people love free things but are completely unwilling to then pay for them. As numerous articles on even Slashdot have pointed out, people are willing to go to great lengths to give nothing back to the creators, installing junkbuster or even no longer going to certain sites that have ads. God forbid anyone try to make a dime on the stuff they're producing.
So sure, millions of downloads will tell id something, but nothing that will make them want to release a commercial Linux version. There's no market for it.
Slashdot Mirror
My SO can pick up a remote control, figure it our without the manual, and operate the TV, VCR, and Hi-Fi. So can my parents. They are happy to set the message on their answering machine, program numbers into their phones, do combo-cooking with the microwave and generally use your average household technology without instruction ... but not a computer.
TV, VCR, stereo -- all devices which perform one task almost exclusively (showing you a tv program, showing you you a movie, playing a CD). A computer is more difficult because it does (for argument's sake) everything. Telephone, oven, microwave, refrigerator, alarm clock -- they all perform one task.
I setup a computer for my grandmother this past weekend and I had about 90 minutes to teach her everything from startup to internet basics to solitaire to shutdown. Once she masters the mouse I don't think she'll have any trouble playing solitaire with it, which may be enough for her, as it saves her the trouble of shuffling the cards.
I'm sure if you teach someone to use the computer as if it were a single-task tool there would be no problem. But when you try to show them how to create a dialup connection, type up a letter in word, browse the web, explain the concept of files/folders etc, it's a bit much. Especially coming from a world of single-task consumer electronics like the ones you mentioned.
The whole idea that GUIs are easy to use is a myth, as is the idea that icons are somehow more meaningful to users. These ideas have been forced down our throats by marketing droids and the odd technical writer who things (s)he knows his/her stuff.
While they may not be "easy to use" per se, they're definitely easier to use for almost everything you would do on a daily basis. For me, things like server config and admin are much easier over command line. However, I currently have 11 windows open (6 IE, 1 mIRC, 1 folder, Outlook, Photoshop, 1 text file) and I can't imagine how this would be handled if not in a windowed gui. While the desktop metaphor may be incorrect, I don't see anything wrong with the hierarchical structure of the computer (although it has always bothered me that the "desktop" is the conceptual root of the computer even though it's physically a folder on the hard drive, and on windows it's buried pretty deep... but that's relatively minor).
Anyhow, I guess this can be viewed as a tradeoff like anything else. You can invest the time to learn the complicated things and reap huge benefits from the computer by doing many things on it, or you can just learn the very basics and only do one thing with it, in which case it will be a lot easier to use, but less useful overall. The mouse is a hump that everyone will have to cross, but has anyone between the age of 10 and 20 today not already mastered the mouse?
This reminds me of my girlfriend's nephew. Recently I have been playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein a lot. I finally finished the game and the kid (I think he's 16) was over so I let him play. He's rarely ever played a game without cheat codes, in fact he went through Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time completely following the strategy guide he bought page for page.
Anyway, I come home from work and he whines to me that this level is too hard. For anyone who's played the game, it's the one where you have to get the snooper rifle and not let any of the guards see you. So I sit down and tell him, yeah, this level was pretty tough, I had to play it about 5 or 6 times because I kept trying to kill the tower guard. I start playing and I notice he already has the snooper scope, which is odd since getting the gun is part of the mission and he's a long way from where the gun is stashed. Then I notice he also has 996 ammo. For those who haven't played, the snooper scope is an awesome sniper rifle, but you usually only get like 10 ammo with it to cover 4 maps, so you use it sparingly. Having 999 ammo, you don't need to do this.
So I made it about halfway through the level and I climb up a tower and accidentally fall out, and surprise! I take no damage. He also had god mode enabled.
At that point I was pretty disgusted with him. The joke was on him however, as since he already HAD the snooper scope, he couldn't pick up the one laying on the ground, which was part of the mission, and so he couldn't end the level even though all the enemies were dead.
I encourage more game makers to make games that actually require some level of skill, so that even if you have all the cheat codes you can't be a lamer like this kid. The only part of the game that can't be won by simply being invincible and this kid was completely unable to do anything. And I know I sound like an old man saying this, but this is just another symptom of how lazy kids today are. Or maybe just him, who knows. He's getting xbox for xmas and I bet he'll waste several dead trees printing out cheat codes for halo.
How anyone can consider this fun, I don't know.
I second that. I can't believe so many people said it wrong!!
30 lives in Contra! woohoo!
I encourage everyone to pay $300 for a DVD player with no remote control! The cure to all our ills.
Actually, I never touched a system 7 machine in my life. My first Mac ran 8.0. I also spent a year developing Mac applications in codewarrior for 8.5 and 9.0. But yeah, you're probably right, I don't know anything about Apple.
BTW, what do you call MacOS's mechanism for determining the system configuration (OS version, etc)? Come on don't look it up Mr. smartypants. You ought to know this off the top of your head, being a MacOS expert and all.
im not pointing a finger here at you, but everytime i read slashdot , all i read is linux users bitching because apple doesn't give everything away for free. whatever happened to the idea of capitalism? apple makes hardware. they make a great OS to sell thier hardware. do you give your work away for free?
I see that you prefaced this comment with "I'm not pointing a finger at you" but I have to assume you're including me in this group. I have no problem with Apple keeping some (or even all) of its intellectual property proprietary. My beef here is with the (apparent) Mac zealots who're claiming that Apple is completely open and wonderfully philanthropic when it is simply not the case. Apple has made overtures toward openness, but they're still by far a proprietary company. Like I said, I have no problem with this. The completely-open business model has been proven almost completely impossible to sustain. The only company that is still at least 95% open (probably 100%, but I'll say 95 to appease the detractors) is Red Hat. I truly hope they succeed, because if/when they fail it will be a severe blow to the "open" business model. VA research/linux/software was also a severe blow.
I'll have to disagree with you on your first statement though. In my mind, Apple is a company that makes a great OS but pays for that OS with moderately overpriced hardware (please, don't start any flame wars over "APPLE IS / IS NOT OVERPRICED!!!!!!!11", this is just my opinion). I only got to use X for a couple of weeks but I was mightily impressed. Getting classic Mac OS apps to work on a BSD kernel is nothing short of magic as far as I'm concerned. When my financial state improves I'd like to get an iBook just for X. Truly amazing.
I guess nobody does, since it hasn't been done yet, right?
If Apple was a *proprietary* company as you claim - which, btw means that you are stating that it is *completely* proprietary
Please don't attempt to tell me what I mean. The vast majority of Apple's products are proprietary. As I said, aside from QTSS and Darwin, they have no open projects. They are standards-compliant with the hardware in the sense that they use SDRAM, etc. The beneficiary in this example is Apple as they simply look up a proven standard and use that as the base for their technology, rather than spending millions to develop a technology that may or may not work. They did not choose to use SDRAM because it will make it easier for people to run Linux PPC or any other nonsense, they did it because it was the best decision for them.
Also, using your logic, there is no middle ground, so Apple is either completely open or completely proprietary. You're either Richard Stallman, an idiot, or both.
The singlemindedness of some of the people on this thread saddens me. I see that Mac zealotry has now moved into the realm of "APPLE IS THE BEST BECAUSE THEY ARE OPEN SOURCE!" A combination "open source" zealot and Mac Zealot... god help us.
I have already stated that Apple has done far better than most other corporations in terms of openness. But people claiming that Apple is completely open, but the instances where they're not (already a contradiction) isn't their fault.
What about Sorenson, Quicktime, TrueType, Aqua themes, running MacOS on other hardware? Still these issues are ignored because "Well, Apple has to make money." People projecting this drivel are nauseatingly hypocritical. What's worse, they seem to actually believe their own garbage.
I have no problem with Apple not being completely open, or with Apple doing what's in their best interest (defending. I do have a problem when idiots insist they are "almost completely" open when the reality is that they are closer to being "almost completely" proprietary. Again, I have no problem with that, but stfu and face reality.
I understand this. This is why it is called the Sorenson codec. However, if you think Apple has no say in the terms of their license with Sorenson then you don't understand the concept of a contract. I.e., two parties agreeing on terms.
Additionally, I found this: As for all parts of MacOS X that aren't in Darwin, some of this is because it includes code which is covered by patents owned by other companies (eg: the airport drivers) and some because Apple is in the business of making money.
I don't see how you can sit there and say "there is very little that Apple do that is proprietary anymore" and then turn around and say they can't open most of their stuff because of licensing issues. Regardless of the cause, they haven't opened up enough that I can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, or use Quicktime on non-Mac/Win platforms. These are the only portions of Apple's product line I care about. While I will agree that apple has been far more open than most "old school" technology companies, I maintain that your assertion that they are "not proprietary" is gravely false.
Finally, the boot rom, one poster below replied that this does not exist anymore, and I would tend to agree with that as the new world macintoshes have Open Firmware but I should note that this is a hardware area that I am not familiar with. However, it is entirely possible to run other operating systems on a Macintosh, you may want to check out LinuxPPC.org [linuxppc.org] as proof. That's right, Linux and FreeBSD both are available for Macintosh.
First, as I stated in a previous post, I am aware that the boot rom is no longer a hardware EEPROM. I don't have a mac in front of me right now so I cannot check this, but I recall there being a "boot rom" file in the system folder. Anyhow, this is a technicality. My point is/was that you cannot run MacOS on non-Apple hardware. Yes, I understand that they need to make money off hardware, but this doesn't change the fact that I still can't run MacOS on nearly-identical non-Apple hardware. Unless I am wrong on that count (that you can buy commodity non-Apple hardware and have MacOS work properly on it), your argument that Apple is "not proprietary" holds absolutely no water.
And yes, I am quite aware of LinuxPPC and the various other operating systems that can run on Apple hardware (I have installed LinuxPPC many times). But that has nothing to do with running MacOS on other systems, except perhaps proving that it is indeed possible and Apple is the one blocking it.
Noone is claiming that Apple is completely opensource, I was merely refuting the point that Apple is a proprietary company because it is simply not true any more - Apple is in fact one of the most standards complient and non-proprietary software companies out there today which isn't just selling another free software distribution.
You appear to be claiming that very thing. And it is in Apple's best interest to be standards-compliant, so they can reap the benefits of things like PC133 SDRAM and eventually DDR SDRAM, otherwise they'd end up in a mess like Intel is with RDRAM and the price of Macs would double.
As for apple's uber-open software and hardware: Where is it? Besides QTSS and Darwin, what have they opened? Can I get the source for iTunes2 (remove the encoding and decoding section and I can drop in any other encoder/decoder, that should take care of any patent issues)? How about Final Cut Pro, for $500, do I get the source?
Don't claim Apple is so open and then turn around and say "well, they do have to make money" when it's pointed out that they're not. Compared to many companies, they're pretty good, but they're not nearly as open as you've made them out to be. Also, it's not like they haven't benefitted from opening Darwin or QTSS, so I doubt they're doing this for philanthropic reasons.
I didn't mean actual hardware rom. The point of my question remains: can you run MacOS on non-Apple hardware or not?
In fact there is very little that Apple do that is proprietary anymore.
Sorensen codec, Quicktime itself (linux client yet?), all parts of MacOS X that aren't in Darwin. And don't they still have the boot rom thing so that you can only load MacOS on Apple hardware? Yeah, real open.
This isn't meant to bash Apple, but you seem to be claiming that they're almost completely "open source" and that's just not the case.
I just visited Windows Update with IE 5.5 SP2 and under "CRITICAL UPDATES AND SERVICE PACKS" it said there were no updates. What is the point of Windows Update if it's not up to date?
You can purchase pre-paid american express cards at 7-11 with cash. You can add more money to them also. I think this is what he was talking about, not visa buxx, which is just a credit card for kids where the parent gets to limit its use.
7 -11.asp
Here's some more info: http://home3.americanexpress.com/corp/latestnews/
addendum: I checked another link (http://www.7-eleven.com/internetcard/) and it looks like these are no longer available... so nevermind.
I'd link directly to the page on Nintendo's GC site (http://www.nintendogamecube.com/launch.html) but their whole site is a big flash animation. It's item #10 on the flash thing. Definitely looks cool, but $100 for a controller...
:-D
Wow, you're actually suggesting somebody create a souped up Civic? I think Miss Cleo on TV offers better advice.
Call me now!
Well, they made the computer into a piece of furniture that grandma and aunt diane would like to have on their desks. I guess. I honestly thought it was stupid, and still am not too fond of it, but I can't really argue with Apple's sales figures.
When the iMac was unveiled it was considered by many to be nearly revolutionary. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not is another issue. However that was (I believe) in 1998, and it's nearly 2002 and the iMac of today is visually almost identical to the 1998 firstborn Bondi Blue iMac. Yeah, there have been color changes, hard drive upgrades, speed bumps, memory increases, and now even a slot-loading cd/dvd/whatever drive, but the external appearance is pretty much unchanged. Normally this wouldn't matter for a computer, but the iMac was a hit because of its style.
So it's time for something "revolutionary" again. I've heard rumors of the flat panel iMac from lame sites like Mac OS Rumors since at least the end of 1998. Actually this particular rumor (and its failure to materialize) was one reason I stopped reading MOSR and its ilk and realized what garbage they were.
So if Steve Jobs unveils a flat panel iMac, it won't be a big surprise. The difference now will be if he doesn't, analysts will be disappointed and Apple's stock price will probably take a minor hit.
Well, that's fine, but I tend to think situations like the one you described are more the exception than the rule.
Well, as I (think I) said, I haven't read any of his books myself. But that does sound like a really dumb thing for him to do. Taking out the entire collective? That's so dumb. Makes it difficult for anyone to take that book seriously, I'd guess. Taking out all the borg in the sector, ok, that's perfectly legit in star trek land. But to attempt to remove a major galactic player from the Star Trek world is a mistake.
Shatner brought Kirk back to life because the way they had him die in "Generations" was awful. It was really a slap in the face. I mean, he falls off a bridge? That's the best the writers could come up with? I really found this appalling. I understand that it was difficult for them to write a story around the transition from TOS to TNG, but "Generations" was pretty bad, and the way Kirk died added insult to injury. I haven't read any of Shatner's books but if he wanted to bring Kirk back just to give him a better death then IMO he has that right. Maybe the cycle of the TNG movies will be crap -> good -> crap -> good (Generations -> First Contact -> Insurrection -> Nemesis?). One can only hope.
Another questions: Why not incorporate any of the Voyager or DS9 cast? I missed the end of DS9 but from what I gather they pretty much tied up all the loose ends at the end, but Voyager was left wide open. So why not?
My comment was simply in reply to someone who stated that "if we hammer id's servers with downloads of the linux binary then they will be more linux friendly", or something along those lines. I was disputing that claim. I realize that you still need to have the full version + CD key to play the game. But the post to which I responded was implying that simply keeping their internet connection saturated would make id more linux-friendly (despite the fact that they are probably the most linux-friendly major developer there is, but that's beside the point). I was simply disputing that claim.
I guess you could infer what you suggested, but judging by what Mr. Carmack stated in the post to which I linked, it is not a viable market. I don't mean to quote him as "the voice of god" as many seem wont to do, but I think he, unlike the rest of those who frequent this board, is actually speaking from experience and not from some unguided assumption. This isn't meant as an attack, but unless you have similar first-hand knowledge of the Windows/Linux game industry (not that I do) then I don't really give your theory much credence in this matter.
And that will tell them exactly what? That people will download it for free? People are generally more than willing to try anything that's free. The challenge is to make money from it. Even John Carmack acknowledges that the Linux gaming market is essentially wothless from a business standpoint.
I would think that if we learned nothing else from the whole "dot com" era it's that people love free things but are completely unwilling to then pay for them. As numerous articles on even Slashdot have pointed out, people are willing to go to great lengths to give nothing back to the creators, installing junkbuster or even no longer going to certain sites that have ads. God forbid anyone try to make a dime on the stuff they're producing.
So sure, millions of downloads will tell id something, but nothing that will make them want to release a commercial Linux version. There's no market for it.