This is a frequent misconception of the speed improvements from 10.2. Yes, Quartz Extreme uses AGP accelerated graphics for a faster GUI. However, 10.2 incorporates many other improvements that make the user experience much faster, as well.
You will see a speed-up from 10.2. It would not be as fast as if you had Quartz Extreme capable graphics, but you will still see quite a speed-up.
I think you are right about keeping the inventory simple (something Jobs is good at, for the betterment of Apple owners everywhere).
When I was buying my G4/933, Apple was having trouble keeping the Combo (DVD/CD-RW) in inventory. I wanted both a DVD and CD-RW, so I ended up paying the extra few hundred for the Superdrive (the other option was just a CD-RW).
In the end, I am glad I got the DVD burner ability, but at the time the money seemed like a lot.
Actually Apple came close to doing this a while back and almost got blasted for it.
The original G4/MP machines, http://manuals.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/M anuals/specs/desktops/L05546A_EN.pdf , were knocked because it was seen as Motorola and IBM being unable to provide faster G4 chips.
The machines were offered in 400, 450x2, and 500x2 MHz.
I am sitting here with my G4/933, jealous of the new machines. I am really glad they have finally decided that dual optical drives could be important. While I have recently become glad that I go the Superdrive (having to brun 3.2 gigs worth of pictures for friends), I really wish I had the ability to burn CD's faster than 8x. Yes, I could go with a Firewire burner, but that seems like a lot of money when I already have a decent burner. A cheap iternal CD-RW would fit the bill perfectly.
I do not see why each option has a DVD drive, though. I would think that most people that would want dual optical drives would want either DVD-R/CD-RW or DVD/CD-RW as one drive, and CD-RW in the second. How often does one person need two DVD drives?
In the meant time, I suppose I can just wait for Jaguar (10.2) to ship. Apparently it is almost as fast as a harware upgrade on a CD.
I never used a Newton, despite being a big Apple fan. I just never had the money when they were available.
When I hear "from Newton", though, I think of older technology. The Newton may have been great, but it was out a long time ago. Just rolling a Newton technology into the newest version of OS X seems like something I would not get excited about.
So my guess is that it is just a marketing decision.
The other thing (I do not think this) is that there are people that are going to look and equate Newton with "market failure." Once again, the marketing types are nt going to want people to think that about a new technology.
Inkwell may be based on Newton's recognition, but marketing does have some reasons not to make that obvious.
As a cat owner, I resent the comment at the end of the submission. Apparently the original submitter is against cats and dogs because they are more mainstream pets, and therefore are not ideal "nerd" pets.
In fact, I have found cats to be ideal for the nerd lifestyle. They require a minimum of maintance and require little attention.
I have also found that cats are very fond of lounging on top of CRT monitors during late night sessions. My cat has never forgiven me for getting my 17" LCD.
Cats have plenty of personality and tend to be fairly reclusive. Smell is a minimum, as well.
It is also still possible that Apple is selling as many iPods as they can make at the current prices. If that is the case, there is no reason to lower the prices, since they cannot increase sales.
Actually, as someone who is working on a security taskforce at a school, the key is to make it difficult to do things without your badge.
Want to make copies? Swipe your badge. Want to eat in the company cafeteria? Show your badge. Need to get into the restroom, access this part of the building...?
I think you get the picture.
You can require badges to be displayed, but a better motivator would be to make it inconvenient not to have your badge with you.
I would like to point out that the TARDIS system costs about $20,000. Raytheon's STARS system starts at about $245,000 and takes a while to be installed.
I agree that there are places that require radar. As you say, though, there are a lot of airfields out there without any radar at all. A $20,000 system to give these places radar? I think that is money well spent. The FAA does not seem to think so, though, deciding instead to wait for the STARS system to be put in place and then using that to send data.
I read an article about a year ago (I wish I could find it now) that talked about radar systems at smaller airports.
Two systems had been developed, one by some guy who worked at such a smaller airport, and one was developed by someone like Raytheon Co.
The system was basically this: The smaller airport would be fed the radar system from a nearby large airport. So if you were flying into Bowman Field, in Louisville, KY, they would be getting fed the signal from Louisville International Airport (SDF). It allowed smaller airports to have the technology of larger airports without having to expend as much money to get it.
The gentlemen who had developed his sytem basically used existing wiring coming from the larger airport and simply sent the signal across that. He hooked up a screen, and had a perfectly good signal. The FAA went on to ask him (he was an FAA employee already) to develop the technology for wide-spread deployment, which he did.
Along comes Raytheon Co. (or whomever the company was) and decides that is a lucritive contract to get. The company comes up with a system costing about ten times as much and about 80% as effective.
Who does the FAA end up going with? Let me answer the question this way: The FAA emplyee did not contribute to any campaigns.
I was very active on several BBSs in the 502 area code (Louisville, KY). I had some SysOp privs on some of the boards and even had access to a FidoNet feed. My handle was "Merlyn" (once I got on the Internet, someone was already using that on IRC, so I had to change it - thus my Slashdot user ID of "Singularity" with UID #2031)
Once a month (first Saturday of the month) we would have a physical meeting (called "The Meat") at a local mall.
I remember being envied for my 2400 baud modem hooked up to my Apple//gs.
This was about 1991-1993 or so.
I have not talked with any of those people since. Is there any website devoted to reuniting (as it was) any people from these boards?
I did a simple search a few months ago, and foud a few dead message boards dedicated to boards that were mainly out in the Bay Area, but nothing more than that.
"Obviously there are more PC-only viruses out there, but there are still over 7,000 macro viruses which can hit either Mac or PC platforms."
I run OS X. I do not have MS Office installed. I use Eudora for mail, and iCab for the web. What macro viruses can I get hit with? The statement above is based around the incorrect assuption that all Macs have MS Office installed on them.
Antivirus firm Symantec said that over three quarters of Mac users are under the illusion that they are not a target for virus writers and hackers.
As a Mac OS X user, I would agree with the statement "[I] am not a major target for virus writers and hackers."
I am definitely not under the impression that crackers could not go after my box. I take precautions as a result of that. However, I think that, as others on this story have pointed out, the sheer number os MS boxes out there make them a much more appealing target.
The article makes baseless assumptions and jumps in logic that no sane person would ever make.
i am just pointing out two flaws in it. There are more.
I am wondering why they cut to Jobs in the middle of the question, as if to almost capture him doing that.
If you watch the video, the guy is asking a quesiton for about a minute or so. Then they cut to Jobs, who rubs his eyes, and then "adjusts his glasses." Then they immediately cut back to the questioner, who is still asking the quesiton.
I have read a lot about Jobs and have seen that a lot of times he takes things personally. I can only guess that he did not want to answer the question, had decided what he was goign to say, and the guy was still asking the "idiotic" question.
Mars has a diverse enough geology that 500m would definitely not cover everything. JPL's Mars Profile Page has a decent description of some of the more major features of the Martian terrain.
I also wonder if the scientists in the original article came to the 500m figure. Did they just look at the radius of Mars and go from there, or did they take into account that some of the canyons on Mars are 6km deep.
Cable was no competition for cable *for you*. That means two things:
1) You needed the specific features. Some people do not. In that case, cable is competition for DSL.
2) Where you are, cable does not offer static IP or the ability to run servers. That is not a limitation of IP over cable, but rather policy set by your local cable company.
In other words, you are making generalizations based on *your* specific case.
Are the moderators on crack for marking this Insightful?
I still see very little reason for people to run http servers off of what should be basic access. Quite a few DSL and cable companies throw in server space with the deal to keep people from doing this.
The ability to say "Hey, I am running my own server" does not justify it.
If there is some actual commerical or hobby need for it, I am positive that a dedicated server (either co-lo'ed or shared) would be a much better idea.
While I believe that the costs will be cheaper than conventional warcraft, lines like this, from the X-45 page, get me:
Because of their small size, lack of pilot interfaces and training requirements, reusability and long-term storage capability, UCAVs are projected to cost up to 65 percent less to produce than future manned fighter aircraft, and up to 75 percent less to operate and maintain than current systems.
I believe there will most certainly still be training costs - someone still has to fly the planes, regardless of where the person is in reference to the plane. Granted, it will be cheaper to train, since the person can do more in a simulator and does not have to worry about airtime, but training costs are still definitely there.
The other thing is transmitters and the actual "cockpit" (where the "pilot" would be stationed). Moving all of the controls of numerous planes to an off-plane location will require incredible amounts of technology and construction. That is also a recurring cost, as more and more remote controls would have to be built.
I also wonder if they include things like replacement parts and ground crews in their figure that it will cost "75 percent less to operate and maintain." I think that parts and labor are going to be constant, event with new planes. Pilots are obviously an expensive part of military aircraft, but I have to wonder if simply moving the pilot to the ground is going to save 75%.
I once read that al Qaeda does a lot of communication via the exchange of floppies and Zip disks, things that Echelon would not be able to eavesdrop on.
This reminds me a lot of Sneakers. At the end, they realize that the device in question could not be used to spy on the Russians, but would be used to spy on Americans and other domestic agencies.
Re:wonderful, *IF* you've got a Radeon or GF2...
on
Quartz Extreme Demo Movie
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Yes, how dare Apple develop new technology that utilizes the latest (and future) hardware to its fullest!
Exactly! I am still upset that Apple is adding AltiVec enhancements. If iMacs and iBooks cannot benifit from it, Apple should never start adding it to the OS until every machine offered by Apple has had at least a G4 for at least a year (so as to prevent anyone from yelling "But I just bought my iBook six months ago, and it will not support it!")
/sarcasm
All indications show that Jaguar will offer a speed-up for non-QE capable machines.
Perhaps Apple could have written QE with the Rage Pro in mind. I am guessing doing that would seriously prevent the major speed-up we are going to see instead. Doing so would be ignoring the increased bandwidth offered by AGP 4x and the increased capabilities of having 32 megs of VRAM on-board.
I am glad to see Apple writing software for the future with the past in mind, but not driving development.
You should never rely on any technology, especially cell phones, while in the backcountry.
There is no replacement for people trained in first aid and proper supplies.
The last thing I would ever take into the backcountry with me is my cell phone. That is one of the reasons I go *to* the backcountry - to get away from all of that stuff.
I am also trying to figure out why you were backpacking with a ham radio, but I suppose that is just me.
You are suggesting that there is a line to be drawn between sport and game. I, myself, believe there is a difference between the two, but it is interesting where you draw the line.
For waht it is worth, my definition of "sport" is a copetition with a clearly defined standard of winning that requires some physical activity.
Pool, for example, is a great example. You suggest that pool is not a sport. Under my definition, though, pool would be a sport since it is easy to determine a winner and it does require some physical activity.
Chess, on the other hand, has a clear winner but does not require physical action.
The reason I had to create my definition is for my least favorte "sport" - figure skating. While figure skating, and gymnastics both require an unbelievable amount of athleticism, neither have what I would consider to be a clearly defined "winner." Any activity that is judged for its winner simply cannot be a sport in my opinion.
You are badly confusing email spam and usenet spam.
I am guessing that RR's NNTP servers require either some sort of authentication to post from there or require that they be on RR's network somewhere.
Generally, I have seen that most larger ISP's have relatively secure NNTP servers. There may be bugs, but most crackers do not go after NNTP servers, open SMTP relays are much more useful.
As a result, I would say that most people posting to Usenet with a RR Organization header are actually located on RR's network.
I am a person who does not go by my actual first name. Indeed, the name I go by is not actually listed on my birth certificate. The first initial of the name I go by does not match the first letter of my first name, either (I go by Hank Zimmerman, and my name is actually Charles Zimmerman)
There are quite a few people like me. I always find it a problem when someone wants to use my first name as part of my log-in/email address.
In a business setting, it means explaining why the name in the email address does not match the name of the person they just met. For all contacts, it means that the person trying to email me needs to remember my *real* name.
If a system is put in place such as last_name.first_initial or first_name.last_name, do not simply go by the name listed according to the HR department.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a frequent misconception of the speed improvements from 10.2. Yes, Quartz Extreme uses AGP accelerated graphics for a faster GUI. However, 10.2 incorporates many other improvements that make the user experience much faster, as well.
You will see a speed-up from 10.2. It would not be as fast as if you had Quartz Extreme capable graphics, but you will still see quite a speed-up.
I think you are right about keeping the inventory simple (something Jobs is good at, for the betterment of Apple owners everywhere).
When I was buying my G4/933, Apple was having trouble keeping the Combo (DVD/CD-RW) in inventory. I wanted both a DVD and CD-RW, so I ended up paying the extra few hundred for the Superdrive (the other option was just a CD-RW).
In the end, I am glad I got the DVD burner ability, but at the time the money seemed like a lot.
Actually Apple came close to doing this a while back and almost got blasted for it.
M anuals/specs/desktops/L05546A_EN.pdf , were knocked because it was seen as Motorola and IBM being unable to provide faster G4 chips.
The original G4/MP machines, http://manuals.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/
The machines were offered in 400, 450x2, and 500x2 MHz.
I am sitting here with my G4/933, jealous of the new machines. I am really glad they have finally decided that dual optical drives could be important. While I have recently become glad that I go the Superdrive (having to brun 3.2 gigs worth of pictures for friends), I really wish I had the ability to burn CD's faster than 8x. Yes, I could go with a Firewire burner, but that seems like a lot of money when I already have a decent burner. A cheap iternal CD-RW would fit the bill perfectly.
I do not see why each option has a DVD drive, though. I would think that most people that would want dual optical drives would want either DVD-R/CD-RW or DVD/CD-RW as one drive, and CD-RW in the second. How often does one person need two DVD drives?
In the meant time, I suppose I can just wait for Jaguar (10.2) to ship. Apparently it is almost as fast as a harware upgrade on a CD.
I never used a Newton, despite being a big Apple fan. I just never had the money when they were available.
When I hear "from Newton", though, I think of older technology. The Newton may have been great, but it was out a long time ago. Just rolling a Newton technology into the newest version of OS X seems like something I would not get excited about.
So my guess is that it is just a marketing decision.
The other thing (I do not think this) is that there are people that are going to look and equate Newton with "market failure." Once again, the marketing types are nt going to want people to think that about a new technology.
Inkwell may be based on Newton's recognition, but marketing does have some reasons not to make that obvious.
As a cat owner, I resent the comment at the end of the submission. Apparently the original submitter is against cats and dogs because they are more mainstream pets, and therefore are not ideal "nerd" pets.
In fact, I have found cats to be ideal for the nerd lifestyle. They require a minimum of maintance and require little attention.
I have also found that cats are very fond of lounging on top of CRT monitors during late night sessions. My cat has never forgiven me for getting my 17" LCD.
Cats have plenty of personality and tend to be fairly reclusive. Smell is a minimum, as well.
It is also still possible that Apple is selling as many iPods as they can make at the current prices. If that is the case, there is no reason to lower the prices, since they cannot increase sales.
Heaven forbid that companies that pay taxes also get something out of the deal.
I think the code should be placed into the public domain with no restrictions.
If you want to take the code and integrate it into your closed-source commercial software, you should be able to.
If you want to take the code and integrate it into your GPL code, you should be able to do that, as well.
Actually, as someone who is working on a security taskforce at a school, the key is to make it difficult to do things without your badge.
Want to make copies? Swipe your badge.
Want to eat in the company cafeteria? Show your badge.
Need to get into the restroom, access this part of the building...?
I think you get the picture.
You can require badges to be displayed, but a better motivator would be to make it inconvenient not to have your badge with you.
I would like to point out that the TARDIS system costs about $20,000. Raytheon's STARS system starts at about $245,000 and takes a while to be installed.
I agree that there are places that require radar. As you say, though, there are a lot of airfields out there without any radar at all. A $20,000 system to give these places radar? I think that is money well spent. The FAA does not seem to think so, though, deciding instead to wait for the STARS system to be put in place and then using that to send data.
I read an article about a year ago (I wish I could find it now) that talked about radar systems at smaller airports.
Two systems had been developed, one by some guy who worked at such a smaller airport, and one was developed by someone like Raytheon Co.
The system was basically this: The smaller airport would be fed the radar system from a nearby large airport. So if you were flying into Bowman Field, in Louisville, KY, they would be getting fed the signal from Louisville International Airport (SDF). It allowed smaller airports to have the technology of larger airports without having to expend as much money to get it.
The gentlemen who had developed his sytem basically used existing wiring coming from the larger airport and simply sent the signal across that. He hooked up a screen, and had a perfectly good signal. The FAA went on to ask him (he was an FAA employee already) to develop the technology for wide-spread deployment, which he did.
Along comes Raytheon Co. (or whomever the company was) and decides that is a lucritive contract to get. The company comes up with a system costing about ten times as much and about 80% as effective.
Who does the FAA end up going with? Let me answer the question this way: The FAA emplyee did not contribute to any campaigns.
I was very active on several BBSs in the 502 area code (Louisville, KY). I had some SysOp privs on some of the boards and even had access to a FidoNet feed. My handle was "Merlyn" (once I got on the Internet, someone was already using that on IRC, so I had to change it - thus my Slashdot user ID of "Singularity" with UID #2031)
//gs.
Once a month (first Saturday of the month) we would have a physical meeting (called "The Meat") at a local mall.
I remember being envied for my 2400 baud modem hooked up to my Apple
This was about 1991-1993 or so.
I have not talked with any of those people since. Is there any website devoted to reuniting (as it was) any people from these boards?
I did a simple search a few months ago, and foud a few dead message boards dedicated to boards that were mainly out in the Bay Area, but nothing more than that.
"Obviously there are more PC-only viruses out there, but there are still over 7,000 macro viruses which can hit either Mac or PC platforms."
I run OS X. I do not have MS Office installed. I use Eudora for mail, and iCab for the web. What macro viruses can I get hit with? The statement above is based around the incorrect assuption that all Macs have MS Office installed on them.
Antivirus firm Symantec said that over three quarters of Mac users are under the illusion that they are not a target for virus writers and hackers.
As a Mac OS X user, I would agree with the statement "[I] am not a major target for virus writers and hackers."
I am definitely not under the impression that crackers could not go after my box. I take precautions as a result of that. However, I think that, as others on this story have pointed out, the sheer number os MS boxes out there make them a much more appealing target.
The article makes baseless assumptions and jumps in logic that no sane person would ever make.
i am just pointing out two flaws in it. There are more.
I am wondering why they cut to Jobs in the middle of the question, as if to almost capture him doing that.
If you watch the video, the guy is asking a quesiton for about a minute or so. Then they cut to Jobs, who rubs his eyes, and then "adjusts his glasses." Then they immediately cut back to the questioner, who is still asking the quesiton.
I have read a lot about Jobs and have seen that a lot of times he takes things personally. I can only guess that he did not want to answer the question, had decided what he was goign to say, and the guy was still asking the "idiotic" question.
Mars has a diverse enough geology that 500m would definitely not cover everything. JPL's Mars Profile Page has a decent description of some of the more major features of the Martian terrain.
I also wonder if the scientists in the original article came to the 500m figure. Did they just look at the radius of Mars and go from there, or did they take into account that some of the canyons on Mars are 6km deep.
Cable was no competition for cable *for you*. That means two things:
1) You needed the specific features. Some people do not. In that case, cable is competition for DSL.
2) Where you are, cable does not offer static IP or the ability to run servers. That is not a limitation of IP over cable, but rather policy set by your local cable company.
In other words, you are making generalizations based on *your* specific case.
Are the moderators on crack for marking this Insightful?
I still see very little reason for people to run http servers off of what should be basic access. Quite a few DSL and cable companies throw in server space with the deal to keep people from doing this.
The ability to say "Hey, I am running my own server" does not justify it.
If there is some actual commerical or hobby need for it, I am positive that a dedicated server (either co-lo'ed or shared) would be a much better idea.
While I believe that the costs will be cheaper than conventional warcraft, lines like this, from the X-45 page, get me:
Because of their small size, lack of pilot interfaces and training requirements, reusability and long-term storage capability, UCAVs are projected to cost up to 65 percent less to produce than future manned fighter aircraft, and up to 75 percent less to operate and maintain than current systems.
I believe there will most certainly still be training costs - someone still has to fly the planes, regardless of where the person is in reference to the plane. Granted, it will be cheaper to train, since the person can do more in a simulator and does not have to worry about airtime, but training costs are still definitely there.
The other thing is transmitters and the actual "cockpit" (where the "pilot" would be stationed). Moving all of the controls of numerous planes to an off-plane location will require incredible amounts of technology and construction. That is also a recurring cost, as more and more remote controls would have to be built.
I also wonder if they include things like replacement parts and ground crews in their figure that it will cost "75 percent less to operate and maintain." I think that parts and labor are going to be constant, event with new planes. Pilots are obviously an expensive part of military aircraft, but I have to wonder if simply moving the pilot to the ground is going to save 75%.
I once read that al Qaeda does a lot of communication via the exchange of floppies and Zip disks, things that Echelon would not be able to eavesdrop on.
This reminds me a lot of Sneakers. At the end, they realize that the device in question could not be used to spy on the Russians, but would be used to spy on Americans and other domestic agencies.
Yes, how dare Apple develop new technology that utilizes the latest (and future) hardware to its fullest!
Exactly! I am still upset that Apple is adding AltiVec enhancements. If iMacs and iBooks cannot benifit from it, Apple should never start adding it to the OS until every machine offered by Apple has had at least a G4 for at least a year (so as to prevent anyone from yelling "But I just bought my iBook six months ago, and it will not support it!")
/sarcasm
All indications show that Jaguar will offer a speed-up for non-QE capable machines.
Perhaps Apple could have written QE with the Rage Pro in mind. I am guessing doing that would seriously prevent the major speed-up we are going to see instead. Doing so would be ignoring the increased bandwidth offered by AGP 4x and the increased capabilities of having 32 megs of VRAM on-board.
I am glad to see Apple writing software for the future with the past in mind, but not driving development.
You should never rely on any technology, especially cell phones, while in the backcountry.
There is no replacement for people trained in first aid and proper supplies.
The last thing I would ever take into the backcountry with me is my cell phone. That is one of the reasons I go *to* the backcountry - to get away from all of that stuff.
I am also trying to figure out why you were backpacking with a ham radio, but I suppose that is just me.
You are suggesting that there is a line to be drawn between sport and game. I, myself, believe there is a difference between the two, but it is interesting where you draw the line.
For waht it is worth, my definition of "sport" is a copetition with a clearly defined standard of winning that requires some physical activity.
Pool, for example, is a great example. You suggest that pool is not a sport. Under my definition, though, pool would be a sport since it is easy to determine a winner and it does require some physical activity.
Chess, on the other hand, has a clear winner but does not require physical action.
The reason I had to create my definition is for my least favorte "sport" - figure skating. While figure skating, and gymnastics both require an unbelievable amount of athleticism, neither have what I would consider to be a clearly defined "winner." Any activity that is judged for its winner simply cannot be a sport in my opinion.
Part of my job is providing social activities to a bunch of science/math high school students.
So I arranged to take a group of them to see Episode 2 and even got to count it as doing part of my job.
images.slashdot.org, for one, is running on Apache Apache/2.0.35 (Unix) on Linux.
The main site does not seem to be running 2.0 yet, but some of the other servers are.
With tornadoes, though, a few minutes can make all the difference.
I do not have definite stats, but I would guess that getting to your basement (or bathroom) would increase your survival chances greatly.
This only takes a minute or two at most.
Yes, it could definitely be improved upon. In the mean time, though, it is better than no warning at all.
You are badly confusing email spam and usenet spam.
I am guessing that RR's NNTP servers require either some sort of authentication to post from there or require that they be on RR's network somewhere.
Generally, I have seen that most larger ISP's have relatively secure NNTP servers. There may be bugs, but most crackers do not go after NNTP servers, open SMTP relays are much more useful.
As a result, I would say that most people posting to Usenet with a RR Organization header are actually located on RR's network.
I am a person who does not go by my actual first name. Indeed, the name I go by is not actually listed on my birth certificate. The first initial of the name I go by does not match the first letter of my first name, either (I go by Hank Zimmerman, and my name is actually Charles Zimmerman)
There are quite a few people like me. I always find it a problem when someone wants to use my first name as part of my log-in/email address.
In a business setting, it means explaining why the name in the email address does not match the name of the person they just met. For all contacts, it means that the person trying to email me needs to remember my *real* name.
If a system is put in place such as last_name.first_initial or first_name.last_name, do not simply go by the name listed according to the HR department.