but the list sounds like a "why I don't want to do it" list rather than "Why it can't be done" list.
It's more like "Why we chose not to do it." It's apparent that they looked at doing it with extensions to X11, but decided that they'd have to deviate so much, so why do it anyway?
it is my opinion that, for the reasons previously stated, it makes the whole system less usable
Remember that whenever we're talking about this kind of stuff, the statement is what makes it more or less usable for you. Quartz does a lot of things, but it doesn't do the one thing you want. That's fine, use what does it for you. Ain't competition great?
Exactly. It isn't as usable as X11. It doesn't have the flexibility or the capability.
It is not as flexible because X11 didn't have the capabilities Apple wanted, and tacking them on would have removed the flexibility of X11 anyway. Sometimes you just have to leave the old tech behind in order to move forward, that's something Microsoft hasn't realized yet either.
Just remember it has a few downsides: It uses more power than your average player, it doesn't stack due to its shape, and it puts out a little fan noise. The main advantage is that it's expandable to do just about anything with a system update as long as it can logically be done in software alone.
If I want to run iTunes on my laptop and display it on my desktop, why can't I?
Because the Mac UI is not made for networking. It is made for GPU accelerated, multi-layer composited local display. Apple decided not to go the X11 route because it wouldn't look much like X11 once all the extra features they planned were in it, making it not compatible with any other X11 system, thus blowing the point of having X11 in the first place.
That's true. You have to use Apple's remoting software for remote graphical administration. But most of Apple's configuration can actually be done through the shell. For example, you have to use the shell if you want access to the more advanced power management settings. Thus, a terminal session should give you what you need.
The software update for that came out a while ago.
The hardware specs were set, the small questions being software. The differences between 1.0 and 1.1 were pretty big, but could all be done in software except the 256 MB local storage.
The differences between 1.1 and 1.2 are related to online interactivity, the only hardware differences being 1 GB local storage and Ethernet. The PS3 has both of those, so 1.2 profile compatibility is only a system update away.
(the iMac power supply, your external drive, and its power supply if it's not bus-powered)
The iMac has an internal power supply. Unless I want to get a tower (which I don't), I'm going to need external hard drives anyway. So I have a nice, clean, small setup, one monitor-sized thing on my desk with a few cables coming out of it, keyboard/mouse, and an external hard drive on a shelf above. Even a laptop would be taking up more space on my desk.
Unless you're a really unusual Mac buyer, it's not the fact that it's an all-in-one that makes it perfect, it's the software that's running on it.
It's my first Mac, my first all-on-one. I finally got exactly what I wanted. And I do Boot Camp for my windows needs.
And if Apple still made something like the Cube, are you ABSOLUTELY sure you wouldn't have ended up with one?
Hmmm, perfectly quiet, with bluetooth eliminating some of that rat's nest of cables... no, probably not. Tempting and close, but still not as good a fit as the iMac for me.
The arguments for expandability, reliability, etc., that you use against all-in-ones apply to laptops. If a person can reasonably dismiss those concerns to buy a laptop, then he can reasonably dismiss them for an all-in-one if he doesn't care about portability.
There are no dumb computer purchases except where a person without any knowledge, research or consideration bought a computer that wasn't right for him. This most often happens when the sales rep was trying to fill a commission and led the victim to a system that doesn't fit him, or when a newbie grabs the first shiny thing he sees at Wal-Mart.
Purchases made after consideration and research are all valid and reasonable, as they fit that person's individual needs and wants. The iMac is apparently not good for you. That's fine. Just don't project your specific wants and needs onto me, since the iMac is perfect for me.
The Panasonic Q. It was a Nintendo Game Cube with DVD player functionality added. But the game-playing guts were exactly the same as a regular Game Cube so it didn't interfere with game development.
I have opened up BOTH boxes the same number of times, and for the same reason... to add RAM
So did I with the iMac, took less than a minute.
there simply is no Mac that I could envisage buying other than a laptop.
I hope you realize that an iMac is essentially a Macbook Pro with a big screen, desktop hard drive, ATI graphics and a faster top-end processor, without the integrated keyboard, track pad and battery. All the arguments about the form factor go out the window if you think laptops are okay.
The guy at my game shop lost his for three months.
1-3 weeks several times in a row isn't good either.
I wouldn't suggest a 360 as your only game machine as odds are you'll be without it for a while. But we'll have to wait to see what impact the Falcon chip has on returns. It may make things better.
I have a small corner desk with no room around it. The iMac pretty much takes up the room on the main desk (as a 24" monitor would), the printer, books and (quiet!) external drives take up the rest on the shelves. Anything else but a mini would be cumbersome, and noisy (did I mention that I HATE computer fan noise and HDD whine?). The iMac was perfect. The most I ever hear is the optical drive in those not-too-often times I use it.
"It's not the hardware that really makes it "it just works", it's the software."
It's a combination. And I don't see much place on my desk for a min-ITX.
How "good" a computer is depends on each person. For what I want, after a lot of researching, assessing, and using my 25+ year computing experience, I decided the iMac was perfect for my needs. I like it almost as much as I liked my brand-new Atari 400.
My iMac is no wider than a 24" monitor I'd want, so space is good for me. The mini was too under-specced for me (like the small, slow HDD you mentioned) so it wasn't an option. The MacPro was just too much space for my tiny desk.
Yes, if I had been in the market for a Windows machine I would have bought this if it came with Windows. It's a better deal than the Dell or Gateway all-in-ones.
What I meant about the hardware just working is that I don't want to tinker anymore, so I have no need for a tower or anything else that isn't an all-in-one.
I never understood this "hate speech" attitude of "Let's drive it underground, then it'll go away." So incredibly naive. That's right, let it fester, never seeing the light of day or be rationally countered in the public square.
It's kind of like the attitude in our War On (Some) Drugs.
The TSA seems to be able to implement all sorts of insane, useless rules on a moment's notice.
But when it comes to a rule that averts something that actually has a reasonable chance of endangering a flight, they wait months after the hazard was known to the whole world before taking any action.
I've been the other way for a very long time. I've built large and small towers and upgraded one box 10 years and more. I must have spent a huge percentage of my free time and money tinkering, buying bigger desks, etc. I don't have time for that anymore, and it isn't worth my money-making time anyway.
I need something fairly powerful that takes up very little space in/on my already crowded desk, produces no audible fan/disk whine, and just lets me work in peace and quiet.
Now I have it.
My computer has finally become a tool rather than an end in itself.
Slashdot Mirror
It would depend on the player design. They're screwed if they've put all of their stream decoding in hardware, otherwise, not.
One of the authors of Quartz explained it here on Slashdot.
Just remember it has a few downsides: It uses more power than your average player, it doesn't stack due to its shape, and it puts out a little fan noise. The main advantage is that it's expandable to do just about anything with a system update as long as it can logically be done in software alone.
The PS3 does 24p, the 1.9 update fixed the last of the problems with it.
As of firmware 1.8 it upsampled DVDs and PS2 games through software.
As of 2.1 it's Blu-Ray 1.1 profile, and supports DiVX and WMV.
Remember, the Cell processor is powerful enough to do any of this, so the PS3 doesn't require a dedicated chip for anything.
It's one of the best and most flexible Blu-Ray players on the market.
That's true. You have to use Apple's remoting software for remote graphical administration. But most of Apple's configuration can actually be done through the shell. For example, you have to use the shell if you want access to the more advanced power management settings. Thus, a terminal session should give you what you need.
The software update for that came out a while ago.
The hardware specs were set, the small questions being software. The differences between 1.0 and 1.1 were pretty big, but could all be done in software except the 256 MB local storage.
The differences between 1.1 and 1.2 are related to online interactivity, the only hardware differences being 1 GB local storage and Ethernet. The PS3 has both of those, so 1.2 profile compatibility is only a system update away.
X11 is on your OS X install disk. Then install Fink and get access to 8,226 OS X compatible UNIX programs.
The arguments for expandability, reliability, etc., that you use against all-in-ones apply to laptops. If a person can reasonably dismiss those concerns to buy a laptop, then he can reasonably dismiss them for an all-in-one if he doesn't care about portability.
There are no dumb computer purchases except where a person without any knowledge, research or consideration bought a computer that wasn't right for him. This most often happens when the sales rep was trying to fill a commission and led the victim to a system that doesn't fit him, or when a newbie grabs the first shiny thing he sees at Wal-Mart.
Purchases made after consideration and research are all valid and reasonable, as they fit that person's individual needs and wants. The iMac is apparently not good for you. That's fine. Just don't project your specific wants and needs onto me, since the iMac is perfect for me.
The Panasonic Q. It was a Nintendo Game Cube with DVD player functionality added. But the game-playing guts were exactly the same as a regular Game Cube so it didn't interfere with game development.
I guess I'm not a complete online junkie because when I say "met" I mean someone I've actually met, not exchanged some bits with over a network.
I just met a guy at Wal-Mart, his took six weeks. I think our sampling is off, but I haven't met a person who had his back in under a month.
The guy at my game shop lost his for three months.
1-3 weeks several times in a row isn't good either.
I wouldn't suggest a 360 as your only game machine as odds are you'll be without it for a while. But we'll have to wait to see what impact the Falcon chip has on returns. It may make things better.
I have a small corner desk with no room around it. The iMac pretty much takes up the room on the main desk (as a 24" monitor would), the printer, books and (quiet!) external drives take up the rest on the shelves. Anything else but a mini would be cumbersome, and noisy (did I mention that I HATE computer fan noise and HDD whine?). The iMac was perfect. The most I ever hear is the optical drive in those not-too-often times I use it.
If you don't mind losing your console for a couple months at a time.
"It's not the hardware that really makes it "it just works", it's the software."
It's a combination. And I don't see much place on my desk for a min-ITX.
How "good" a computer is depends on each person. For what I want, after a lot of researching, assessing, and using my 25+ year computing experience, I decided the iMac was perfect for my needs. I like it almost as much as I liked my brand-new Atari 400.
My iMac is no wider than a 24" monitor I'd want, so space is good for me. The mini was too under-specced for me (like the small, slow HDD you mentioned) so it wasn't an option. The MacPro was just too much space for my tiny desk.
Yes, if I had been in the market for a Windows machine I would have bought this if it came with Windows. It's a better deal than the Dell or Gateway all-in-ones.
What I meant about the hardware just working is that I don't want to tinker anymore, so I have no need for a tower or anything else that isn't an all-in-one.
It apparently took him years to realize that America's Army is out.
I never understood this "hate speech" attitude of "Let's drive it underground, then it'll go away." So incredibly naive. That's right, let it fester, never seeing the light of day or be rationally countered in the public square.
It's kind of like the attitude in our War On (Some) Drugs.
The TSA seems to be able to implement all sorts of insane, useless rules on a moment's notice.
But when it comes to a rule that averts something that actually has a reasonable chance of endangering a flight, they wait months after the hazard was known to the whole world before taking any action.
I've been the other way for a very long time. I've built large and small towers and upgraded one box 10 years and more. I must have spent a huge percentage of my free time and money tinkering, buying bigger desks, etc. I don't have time for that anymore, and it isn't worth my money-making time anyway.
I need something fairly powerful that takes up very little space in/on my already crowded desk, produces no audible fan/disk whine, and just lets me work in peace and quiet.
Now I have it.
My computer has finally become a tool rather than an end in itself.