64 K to 512 MB is 8192 times more not 1000 times more. 4 MHz to 1 GHz is 250 times more not 300 times more. Please consult a calculator before spouting off mathematical comparisons.
4 MHz to 1 GHz is 250x but the A5 is dual core so 500x - amdahl's share. But yeah, innumeracy is a societal problem.
What a load of crap. Please cite your reference where Apple claims 5x against a Quad 2.5 GHz G5. On Apple's Mac Pro pages I see: 1.8x, 1.8x, 1.6x, 1.4x and 1.4x on content creation. On SPECInt_rate_base2000 I see 2.1x and on SPECfp_rate_base2000 is see 1.6x.
Apple dumped PowerPC because IBM couldn't get to 3.0 GHz and they couldn't get to 2.0 GHz with a low power version for notebooks. It isn't complicated and no conspiracy theory is necessary.
As far as I know, just on the stack by default. I'm pretty sure you can call vm_protect() on kernel pages. I haven't done enough OS X kernel hacking to know all the details.
Right, so you want to know some basic buffer overflow exploitation techniques. I think I've got a book somewhere that some friends and I wrote, it covers that...
Yes, those weren't rhetorical questions. I am genuinely interested. If you can supply the name of a book that covers Mach and BSD hacking as it relates to OS X (even partially) I would be grateful. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to find the addresses of allocated pages.
What are you going to point EIP to? Not code on the stack since OS X uses the NX bit on the stack by default. Some code in a buffer? How do you find the address of the buffer? How do you inject the code into the buffer in the first place? I'm not saying it is impossible but it sure does sound difficult to find a useful hack with merely the return address overwritten on the stack.
If Vista supports EFI, then Boot Camp is not needed. The reason Boot Camp is needed is because Windows XP needs BIOS to boot.
This isn't exactly right. Boot Camp is also the boot loader and device drivers. Even if Vista does support EFI, OS X still needs a boot loader and under windows, you still need device drivers to make the Mac hardware work.
The 65nm chips in 2007 are going to be the underpowered and unimpressive AM2 versions of the Athlon 64 X2 lineup. Unless AMD has something up their sleeves (always a possibility) they aren't going to catch up with Intel for a while.
Microsoft has about $35 Billion in the bank. At $2,510,800 per day, that works out to about 38 years with its current cash. I'm thinking that the EU might want to up the fine if they want Microsoft to take them seriously.
Freescale's documentation still just says > 1.5 GHz. Which leads me to think 1.67GHz. It is possible that if Apple had ordered a million or two of the dual processor MPC8641D maybe they would have released them faster but given past history, I doubt it.
Re:How is he questioning the move to Intel?
on
Woz On Apple's Success
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I guess I don't equate "questioning the move to Intel" with "I still have some questions." The first implies that Woz doesn't agree with the move. The second says that he doesn't have enough information to completely satisfy himself. But given that Woz is first and foremost an engineer, I suspect that he is going to side with the engineering argument over the emotional one.
How is he questioning the move to Intel?
on
Woz On Apple's Success
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From the article:
"Still, the switch to Intel is a necessary one from an engineering standpoint, he said, because Apple needed a way to improve performance per watt. Mr. Wozniak would have liked Apple to continue using Motorola processors, but "Intel just did a very good logic design.""
Sounds like sound logic to me. No questioning there at all.
I think the Digidyne v. Data General case is interesting but you might be placing too much faith in its applicability here. The case is interesting both by its potential reach and because it was seen as an anti-business decision at the time by both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court which decided not to intervene.
The basic case was that Digidyne wanted Data General to license its NOVA operating system called RDOS to Digidyne's clone of a DG NOVA Mainframe. Data General refused and was eventually forced into licensing the OS software because it was ruled that restricting the license to only DG hardware was an illegal tying arrangement.
This seems like it might very well apply to Apple in the case of OS X on x86 hardware. But if you read the ruling you will see that any equipment manufacturer would have to overcome some pretty substantial obstacles to get the same ruling.
First, DG lost because RDOS was the only viable operating system software for NOVA and any clones. There was no other reasonable OS available for the clone makers. You can hardly claim the same for Apple with Mac OS X considering that currently both Windows and Linux work on x86 hardware. Claiming that those two OS's are not "uniquely desirable by buyers" would be a stretch.
To quote the 9th circuit decision:?"Although expressing some doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court assumed defendant's RDOS was superior to competing operating systems and was viewed as uniquely desirable by buyers. 529 F. Supp. at 816. We do not share the court's hesitancy about the adequacy of the proof of the strong preference of many customers for RDOS. It was a most popular product."
Even DG admitted that there was no viable alternative. Again from the record, "[RDOS is] the only full service operating system available for the NOVA."
Second, the court determined that to recreate RDOS would be prohibitively expensive and probably not practical. Again, with Linux and other free operating system software readily available, it is hard to believe that the courts would come to the same conclusion in the case of Apple and OS X.
I think it is a stretch to believe that the Digidyne case alone will force Apple to open up OS X to any x86 hardware vendor. IANAL.
Apple is one of the most recognizable brands in the history of marketing. Steve Jobs is not stupid. Your prediction doesn't make much sense in light of those two facts.
I can believe that Apple spins out their hardware manufacturing at some point in the future but to stop calling themselves Apple is not likely.
Bill Gates was correct once when he said that the effort being put into HD TV was misguided. Trying to specify a set of resolutions for HD TV was a mistake. I think that is the only thing he has ever said that I agreed with without reservation.
It looks like it comes pretty close but it is still the same vision as far as I can see. Self-aware robots. The description of, "They're still findin' out what logics will do, but everybody's got 'em." That is the closest I've seen to predicting ubiquitous computing and when you add in the centralized information service it is pretty remarkable for 1946.
Slashdot Mirror
64 K to 512 MB is 8192 times more not 1000 times more. 4 MHz to 1 GHz is 250 times more not 300 times more. Please consult a calculator before spouting off mathematical comparisons.
4 MHz to 1 GHz is 250x but the A5 is dual core so 500x - amdahl's share. But yeah, innumeracy is a societal problem.
I used to work for them in the early 90's. They made really amazing surround sound processors. It is kind of sad that Lexicon has fallen this far.
What's with all the pro-DRM articles recently? I thought /. readers were generally opposed to DRM. I think that is 4 in 2 days.
>Why, when there are so many ways to make a bomb truely inconspicuous, would you
>make one with FLASHING FUCKING LIGHTS?!?
I would now.
Safari doesn't render Acid2 correctly if you have the Flash plug-in turned off.
What a load of crap. Please cite your reference where Apple claims 5x against a Quad 2.5 GHz G5. On Apple's Mac Pro pages I see: 1.8x, 1.8x, 1.6x, 1.4x and 1.4x on content creation. On SPECInt_rate_base2000 I see 2.1x and on SPECfp_rate_base2000 is see 1.6x.
Apple-Mac Pro-Intel XeonApple dumped PowerPC because IBM couldn't get to 3.0 GHz and they couldn't get to 2.0 GHz with a low power version for notebooks. It isn't complicated and no conspiracy theory is necessary.
So, is NX support enabled on kernel pages?
As far as I know, just on the stack by default. I'm pretty sure you can call vm_protect() on kernel pages. I haven't done enough OS X kernel hacking to know all the details.
Right, so you want to know some basic buffer overflow exploitation techniques. I think I've got a book somewhere that some friends and I wrote, it covers that...
Yes, those weren't rhetorical questions. I am genuinely interested. If you can supply the name of a book that covers Mach and BSD hacking as it relates to OS X (even partially) I would be grateful. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to find the addresses of allocated pages.
What are you going to point EIP to? Not code on the stack since OS X uses the NX bit on the stack by default. Some code in a buffer? How do you find the address of the buffer? How do you inject the code into the buffer in the first place? I'm not saying it is impossible but it sure does sound difficult to find a useful hack with merely the return address overwritten on the stack.
I've got some bad news for you. AMD's K8L is seriously delayed. It looks like the K8L won't be out until 2008.
No AMD K8L processors until 2008, say sourcesThe 65nm chips in 2007 are going to be the underpowered and unimpressive AM2 versions of the Athlon 64 X2 lineup. Unless AMD has something up their sleeves (always a possibility) they aren't going to catch up with Intel for a while.
I think you have that a little wrong. It would take 4 years of no income at all. Even if Microsoft is unprofitable, that doesn't imply zero revenue.
Microsoft has about $35 Billion in the bank. At $2,510,800 per day, that works out to about 38 years with its current cash. I'm thinking that the EU might want to up the fine if they want Microsoft to take them seriously.
I went to the Coverity website and got the following when I clicked on their Product tab:
404
/products/nf_index.html was not found on this server.
It turns out that if you have Flash enabled, it works correctly (for very small values of correct.) Wow am I unimpressed.Not Found
The requested URL
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Two things, SMP and a 34-bit address bus for up to 16GB of RAM.
Freescale's documentation still just says > 1.5 GHz. Which leads me to think 1.67GHz. It is possible that if Apple had ordered a million or two of the dual processor MPC8641D maybe they would have released them faster but given past history, I doubt it.
I guess I don't equate "questioning the move to Intel" with "I still have some questions." The first implies that Woz doesn't agree with the move. The second says that he doesn't have enough information to completely satisfy himself. But given that Woz is first and foremost an engineer, I suspect that he is going to side with the engineering argument over the emotional one.
From the article:
"Still, the switch to Intel is a necessary one from an engineering standpoint, he said, because Apple needed a way to improve performance per watt. Mr. Wozniak would have liked Apple to continue using Motorola processors, but "Intel just did a very good logic design.""
Sounds like sound logic to me. No questioning there at all.
wow! rant of the year and me with no mod points. virtual +1 insightful
One question of Dvorak. If Apple were contemplating this, why would they make it so difficult to install Windows on the new Intel Macs?
Death of a Cane Toad
I think the Digidyne v. Data General case is interesting but you might be placing too much faith in its applicability here. The case is interesting both by its potential reach and because it was seen as an anti-business decision at the time by both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court which decided not to intervene.
The basic case was that Digidyne wanted Data General to license its NOVA operating system called RDOS to Digidyne's clone of a DG NOVA Mainframe. Data General refused and was eventually forced into licensing the OS software because it was ruled that restricting the license to only DG hardware was an illegal tying arrangement.
This seems like it might very well apply to Apple in the case of OS X on x86 hardware. But if you read the ruling you will see that any equipment manufacturer would have to overcome some pretty substantial obstacles to get the same ruling.
First, DG lost because RDOS was the only viable operating system software for NOVA and any clones. There was no other reasonable OS available for the clone makers. You can hardly claim the same for Apple with Mac OS X considering that currently both Windows and Linux work on x86 hardware. Claiming that those two OS's are not "uniquely desirable by buyers" would be a stretch.
To quote the 9th circuit decision:?"Although expressing some doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court assumed defendant's RDOS was superior to competing operating systems and was viewed as uniquely desirable by buyers. 529 F. Supp. at 816. We do not share the court's hesitancy about the adequacy of the proof of the strong preference of many customers for RDOS. It was a most popular product."
Even DG admitted that there was no viable alternative. Again from the record, "[RDOS is] the only full service operating system available for the NOVA."
Second, the court determined that to recreate RDOS would be prohibitively expensive and probably not practical. Again, with Linux and other free operating system software readily available, it is hard to believe that the courts would come to the same conclusion in the case of Apple and OS X.
I think it is a stretch to believe that the Digidyne case alone will force Apple to open up OS X to any x86 hardware vendor. IANAL.
"you missed the graphics. That comes with the shitty shared memory graphics"
No it comes with a ATi X1400 with 128 MB v. an ATi X1600 128 MB (optionally 256 MB) for the MacBook Pro.
Apple is one of the most recognizable brands in the history of marketing. Steve Jobs is not stupid. Your prediction doesn't make much sense in light of those two facts.
I can believe that Apple spins out their hardware manufacturing at some point in the future but to stop calling themselves Apple is not likely.
Bill Gates was correct once when he said that the effort being put into HD TV was misguided. Trying to specify a set of resolutions for HD TV was a mistake. I think that is the only thing he has ever said that I agreed with without reservation.
Only one chapter, is that the whole short story?
It looks like it comes pretty close but it is still the same vision as far as I can see. Self-aware robots. The description of, "They're still findin' out what logics will do, but everybody's got 'em." That is the closest I've seen to predicting ubiquitous computing and when you add in the centralized information service it is pretty remarkable for 1946.
Thanks.