BTW, I do some programming, and I've often got 3 or 4 terminal windows open. I can easily read their contents and/or title bars at a glance and tell which is which. Maybe the quality of the scaling makes the difference.
Most Mac users will have 5 or 6 different graphics open (my case) or several movies, or scenes from films (if they do video editing), a couple of word processing docs, or excel spreadsheets, etc. These are all quite easily distinguishable when scaled just enough so that all open windows will fit on screen at once. In fact, the quality of the scaling is such that I can easily still read text in a word processing document that has been shrunk to 1/2 size (i.e., 1/4 normal area). With expose, the whole window shrinks, including the title bar, scroll bars, etc. All windows that are not hidden are tiled. This can be done on a per app basis, or for all windows of all applications that are not hidden.
In any event, Expose really *is* different than any of the following: 1. multiple desktops. This just spreads the problem out over a larger area. 2. Tile all windows. This keeps the window title bars and scrollers the same size as before (mistake), and, even worse, it actually changes window size and arrangement. With Expose, the windows go right back to their former size and arrangement with another key press (or by releasing the key if you've been holding it down). 3. Window lists. Much worse if your window content is easily visually recognizable, as is the case with most Mac users, even those with multiple terminal windows.
No, the X doesn't stand for uniX. The X is a roman numeral ten. Apple have been very clear about this from the earliest developer preview days. Which is why Steve Jobs, and everyone else at Apple, pronounces, and have always pronounced, Mac OS X as "Mac OS Ten, " *never* as "Mac OS Ecks."
Well, moderation wouldn't work for getting stories posted to the front page, but it could be workable if we could use our mod points to mod down a front page story. If it got modded down enough, then it would be taken off the front page altogether. That way, only worthwhile stories would remain on the front page for more than a half hour or so.
Please mod parent up. The iTMS is a loss leader for the sale of iPods to both Mac and Windows users. Even if Apple only garner a small share of Windows users (say, 10%), that would represent a many fold increase in iPod sales.
The fact that you, and most consumers, only listen to radio, doesn't prevent others from being ham operators.
The market will settle out into those who want unfettered access, and the masses who do not.
As long as those who want outbound connections remain vocal, and are willing to litigate for their free speech rights, they will have them, as will we all by dint of their efforts.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. No one said it would be a cake walk.
Worth noting that the G5 doubles its Photoshop performance when you give it 2GB of RAM instead of 1. I wonder how much RAM graphics professionals will be putting in their G5s?
Read your parent: "You can still only run OS X on a mac," means that you cannot run Mac OS X on any other kind of hardware. This is still true (i.e., Darwin is not Mac OS X). Your parent did not write "Mac OS X is the only OS you can run on a Mac."
Processor comparisons are only meaningful if some attempt is made to provide parity in other subsystms, such as mass storage, and graphics cards.
When you read the article, you'll see that all of the PCs were running with RAID arrays for mass storage. The G5 was not, even though RAID can be had for a Mac OS X system.
The G5 had a video card with half the video memory of the PCs.
In what sense can this be seen as a comparable test?
"We hamstrung a G5 by giving it a slower disk subsystem, and a video card with less memory, and it didn't perform as well as these workstations." Duh.
"The apathy vote abstains with full awareness and choice. I prefer to count the abstention vote as "support for the status quo", not "apathy.""
Thats a very convenient position for someone who's looking to rationalize the status quo.
But a simple conversation with the non-voting, apathetic plurality of Americans reveals the real reason: They care, but they know their votes won't actually change anything.
Why? Because we are presented, on election day, with a choice between two candidates, neither of whom would actually change anything significantly, and neither of whom really reflects the voters' views.
This "choice" has developed because, in order to get on the November ballot for any significant office, one has to have lots of money, monied institutional support, and/or support of one of the major parties, both of which cater to monied interests.
Voters know this. They know the "choices" presented to them we not made by them, or people like them, but by the rich and powerful. So they stay away in droves, which is the most effective political statement they can make: "Voting would only serve to legitimize this electoral farce, so I will abstain."
There are certain "spelling" errors that betray a lack of knowledge about the word in question.
Layman = lay man, that is, a man who is a member of the laity.
So typing "a laymen" is not a typo, but a display of ignorance about the meaning of the word. No one mistypes men for man. "msn," or "mzn,"mqn," but not "e" for "a," as they are not adjacent on a keyboard. Moreover, "men" is the plural form, so what would "a (note singular indefinite article) lay men (note plural form of noun)" be?
This was not a typo, but just someone using a word he had heard, but didn't know the meaning of. A few posts back in this article someone did the same thing with "per se", typing "pur sang" instead. These are not typos. These are people who need to consult a dictionary more often.
"copyright violation is not theft, as it does not take away the the ability of the original owner to use the product."
Copyright violation *does* take away the ability of the copyright holder to make money from the work. Taking away someone's ability to make money from something that he owns *is* theft.
The only economic reason a copyright holder wants copyright, is to control the commercial (i.e., money making) uses of the work.
If someone makes the work available for free, they have destroyed the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. Many fewer people will pay for that which is available for free, than will pay for that same thing if it cannot be had without paying for it.
I see that excuse you posted so often now. I can only assume it's a widespread meme among people looking to rationalize their violations of copyright law.
"Just like Macintosh did in 1984. And just look how many people swarmed to its easier-to-use machine. "
Umm, pretty much everybody. You appear to have not been around in that era, but the vast majority of users at that time used a command line shell (DOS or *nix), and openly laughed at the whole idea of a GUI.
What are they running now? That's right, a GUI, copied pretty much exactly from the Mac OS.
And, no, the Xerox Alto did *not* operate like the Mac OS - have you ever seen one in use? Apple paid Xerox for the right to use certain features of the Alto, but the Mac OS was a complete, ground up redesign of the WIMP GUI. In fact, so much so, that people nowadays think that all GUIs have always been like this.
However, GUIs were not like they are now until the Apple design team, led by Jeff Raskin, created the Lisa and the Mac. If you use Windows or X Windows, you're using the WIMP GUI first designed by Apple.
Darwin is a Mach based unix, on top of which one can run X Windows. It is *not* Mac OS X. Specifically, The Aqua user interface (which all native Mac OS X apps use), the Carbon APIs (which legacy Mac apps, like Internet Explorer, and Photoshop use), and Cocoa, (which newer Apps such as Mail and Safari use), are *not* open source.
Aqua, Carbon, and Cocoa are *not* part of Darwin. So, no, you cannot run Mac OS X just because there is an x86 version of Darwin. You can run yet another *nix on x86 with Darwin, but you cannot run Mac OS X.
Are people really this misinformed? How did parent get modded up?
How many times do people need to have it pointed out to them what financial suicide this would be?
Apple only develops Mac OS X as an enticement to hardware sales.
As soon as they released a version of Mac OS X for stock x86 hardware, they would remove any reason whatsoever for people to buy Apple hardware, since stock x86 hardware is cheaper. BTW, Apple only make a profit because they know they can charge a price premium for a complete solution (hardware and software) that works better than x86 with Windows.
Even if Apple charged $200 a copy for Mac OS X on x86, they could never make up for the lost profit due to plummeting Apple hardware sales.
This is precisely why the cloning experiment failed, and why Jobs pulled a fast one on OS version numbers in order to end the clone licenses.
So, no, Mac OS X for x86 will never happen. Stop waiting for it. You'll see the second coming of Christ, or the appearance of the Jewish Messiah first.
The whole Turing completeness argument is a straw man. If it were really true, we'd all still be coding individual 1s and 0s, since, after all, "You can do the same thing in one language that you can in any other."
The real issue is which language is more expressive. Since I can accomplish any task with any of the dozens of Turing complete languages, which language lets me accomplish the task at hand in the fewest lines of code?
The answer may vary from task to task, but if the task includes the requirement that the finished product be secure, then C loses, because it doesn't protect against one of the most common sorts of attack at the language level, buffer overruns. Common Lisp and Java do. To have this same sort of protection in C, I'd have to write all the additional lines necessary to implement my own runtime to prevent direct access to memory. Hey! I've just re-implemented *part* of Common Lisp, or *part* of Java.
Thus we come to Greenspun's 10th law of programming:
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
You wrote: "Oh well, I guess that's what makes people so interesting. The plethora of personalities. Doesn't mean he's right, though." Bill Joy's opinion that C is a really dangerous language isn't a quirk of his personality. It's an evaluation based on decades of experience as a pioneer in the computer industry, and a deep understanding of the fact that different languages really are better or worse.
No, it will throw an exception. Java doesn't allow direct access to memory, so buffers can't be maliciously overrun. Since this exception mechanism is not built into C at the language level, C is inherently more insecure. C opens the door to one of the most common kinds of attack, a buffer overrun, a type of attack to which Java software is immune.
Some languages actually prevent programmers from leaving certain security holes. C provides very little of this protection. Java provides more.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, I do some programming, and I've often got 3 or 4 terminal windows open. I can easily read their contents and/or title bars at a glance and tell which is which. Maybe the quality of the scaling makes the difference.
Most Mac users will have 5 or 6 different graphics open (my case) or several movies, or scenes from films (if they do video editing), a couple of word processing docs, or excel spreadsheets, etc. These are all quite easily distinguishable when scaled just enough so that all open windows will fit on screen at once. In fact, the quality of the scaling is such that I can easily still read text in a word processing document that has been shrunk to 1/2 size (i.e., 1/4 normal area). With expose, the whole window shrinks, including the title bar, scroll bars, etc. All windows that are not hidden are tiled. This can be done on a per app basis, or for all windows of all applications that are not hidden.
In any event, Expose really *is* different than any of the following:
1. multiple desktops. This just spreads the problem out over a larger area.
2. Tile all windows. This keeps the window title bars and scrollers the same size as before (mistake), and, even worse, it actually changes window size and arrangement. With Expose, the windows go right back to their former size and arrangement with another key press (or by releasing the key if you've been holding it down).
3. Window lists. Much worse if your window content is easily visually recognizable, as is the case with most Mac users, even those with multiple terminal windows.
No, the X doesn't stand for uniX. The X is a roman numeral ten. Apple have been very clear about this from the earliest developer preview days. Which is why Steve Jobs, and everyone else at Apple, pronounces, and have always pronounced, Mac OS X as "Mac OS Ten, " *never* as "Mac OS Ecks."
fox - foxen -- no
the pattern isn't generalizable.
the plural of box, is boxes.
"There's two S's in SCSI, so one of 'em gotta stand for "serial", right?"
Unless the first S if for "Small," and the second S is for "System," as in
Small Computer System Interface
Which is what SCSI is an acronym for. SCSI is a _parallel_ bus, not a serial bus.
Well, moderation wouldn't work for getting stories posted to the front page, but it could be workable if we could use our mod points to mod down a front page story. If it got modded down enough, then it would be taken off the front page altogether. That way, only worthwhile stories would remain on the front page for more than a half hour or so.
But Apple (Mac OS X) _is_ BSD Unix, so if BSD is dying, then Apple must be too. ;^)
Please mod parent up. The iTMS is a loss leader for the sale of iPods to both Mac and Windows users. Even if Apple only garner a small share of Windows users (say, 10%), that would represent a many fold increase in iPod sales.
The fact that you, and most consumers, only listen to radio, doesn't prevent others from being ham operators.
The market will settle out into those who want unfettered access, and the masses who do not.
As long as those who want outbound connections remain vocal, and are willing to litigate for their free speech rights, they will have them, as will we all by dint of their efforts.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. No one said it would be a cake walk.
Worth noting that the G5 doubles its Photoshop performance when you give it 2GB of RAM instead of 1. I wonder how much RAM graphics professionals will be putting in their G5s?
see MacAddict's Review of the G5 for details.
Read your parent: "You can still only run OS X on a mac," means that you cannot run Mac OS X on any other kind of hardware. This is still true (i.e., Darwin is not Mac OS X). Your parent did not write "Mac OS X is the only OS you can run on a Mac."
Processor comparisons are only meaningful if some attempt is made to provide parity in other subsystms, such as mass storage, and graphics cards.
When you read the article, you'll see that all of the PCs were running with RAID arrays for mass storage. The G5 was not, even though RAID can be had for a Mac OS X system.
The G5 had a video card with half the video memory of the PCs.
In what sense can this be seen as a comparable test?
"We hamstrung a G5 by giving it a slower disk subsystem, and a video card with less memory, and it didn't perform as well as these workstations." Duh.
"The apathy vote abstains with full awareness and choice. I prefer to count the abstention vote as "support for the status quo", not "apathy.""
Thats a very convenient position for someone who's looking to rationalize the status quo.
But a simple conversation with the non-voting, apathetic plurality of Americans reveals the real reason: They care, but they know their votes won't actually change anything.
Why? Because we are presented, on election day, with a choice between two candidates, neither of whom would actually change anything significantly, and neither of whom really reflects the voters' views.
This "choice" has developed because, in order to get on the November ballot for any significant office, one has to have lots of money, monied institutional support, and/or support of one of the major parties, both of which cater to monied interests.
Voters know this. They know the "choices" presented to them we not made by them, or people like them, but by the rich and powerful. So they stay away in droves, which is the most effective political statement they can make: "Voting would only serve to legitimize this electoral farce, so I will abstain."
Apple paid Xerox for their intellectual property before Apple ever released a GUI, so no, Apple didn't steal from Xerox.
MS was (foolishly) granted a license to the Mac OS look and feel by Apple, so no, MS did not steal from Xerox.
Who was it who stole the WIMP interface from Xerox again?
There are certain "spelling" errors that betray a lack of knowledge about the word in question.
Layman = lay man, that is, a man who is a member of the laity.
So typing "a laymen" is not a typo, but a display of ignorance about the meaning of the word. No one mistypes men for man. "msn," or "mzn,"mqn," but not "e" for "a," as they are not adjacent on a keyboard. Moreover, "men" is the plural form, so what would "a (note singular indefinite article) lay men (note plural form of noun)" be?
This was not a typo, but just someone using a word he had heard, but didn't know the meaning of. A few posts back in this article someone did the same thing with "per se", typing "pur sang" instead. These are not typos. These are people who need to consult a dictionary more often.
"copyright violation is not theft, as it does not take away the the ability of the original owner to use the product."
Copyright violation *does* take away the ability of the copyright holder to make money from the work. Taking away someone's ability to make money from something that he owns *is* theft.
The only economic reason a copyright holder wants copyright, is to control the commercial (i.e., money making) uses of the work.
If someone makes the work available for free, they have destroyed the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. Many fewer people will pay for that which is available for free, than will pay for that same thing if it cannot be had without paying for it.
I see that excuse you posted so often now. I can only assume it's a widespread meme among people looking to rationalize their violations of copyright law.
"Just like Macintosh did in 1984. And just look how many people swarmed to its easier-to-use machine. "
Umm, pretty much everybody. You appear to have not been around in that era, but the vast majority of users at that time used a command line shell (DOS or *nix), and openly laughed at the whole idea of a GUI.
What are they running now? That's right, a GUI, copied pretty much exactly from the Mac OS.
And, no, the Xerox Alto did *not* operate like the Mac OS - have you ever seen one in use? Apple paid Xerox for the right to use certain features of the Alto, but the Mac OS was a complete, ground up redesign of the WIMP GUI. In fact, so much so, that people nowadays think that all GUIs have always been like this.
However, GUIs were not like they are now until the Apple design team, led by Jeff Raskin, created the Lisa and the Mac. If you use Windows or X Windows, you're using the WIMP GUI first designed by Apple.
"And I wasn't aware that Linus was currently available as a source code distro."
Yes, Celera Genomics has sequenced Linus's DNA, so now you can get the source code to Linus himself!
Stop posting this irrelevant link.
Darwin is a Mach based unix, on top of which one can run X Windows. It is *not* Mac OS X. Specifically, The Aqua user interface (which all native Mac OS X apps use), the Carbon APIs (which legacy Mac apps, like Internet Explorer, and Photoshop use), and Cocoa, (which newer Apps such as Mail and Safari use), are *not* open source.
Aqua, Carbon, and Cocoa are *not* part of Darwin. So, no, you cannot run Mac OS X just because there is an x86 version of Darwin. You can run yet another *nix on x86 with Darwin, but you cannot run Mac OS X.
Are people really this misinformed? How did parent get modded up?
"there are many very good quality and 3rd party peripheral maker for PCs and this will never happen for Apple."
Hate to break it to you, but most of the exact same peripherals for PCs work with Macs. That's the whole point of open standards like USB.
How many times do people need to have it pointed out to them what financial suicide this would be?
Apple only develops Mac OS X as an enticement to hardware sales.
As soon as they released a version of Mac OS X for stock x86 hardware, they would remove any reason whatsoever for people to buy Apple hardware, since stock x86 hardware is cheaper. BTW, Apple only make a profit because they know they can charge a price premium for a complete solution (hardware and software) that works better than x86 with Windows.
Even if Apple charged $200 a copy for Mac OS X on x86, they could never make up for the lost profit due to plummeting Apple hardware sales.
This is precisely why the cloning experiment failed, and why Jobs pulled a fast one on OS version numbers in order to end the clone licenses.
So, no, Mac OS X for x86 will never happen. Stop waiting for it. You'll see the second coming of Christ, or the appearance of the Jewish Messiah first.
Anyone else notice how all the mac bashing posts are from ACs?
Mods, please mod these down as Trolls.
You are misinformed. Linux and freeBSD both run on Mac hardware, in addition to Mac OS of course, so you have multiple OS choices on Apple hardware.
The whole Turing completeness argument is a straw man. If it were really true, we'd all still be coding individual 1s and 0s, since, after all, "You can do the same thing in one language that you can in any other."
The real issue is which language is more expressive. Since I can accomplish any task with any of the dozens of Turing complete languages, which language lets me accomplish the task at hand in the fewest lines of code?
The answer may vary from task to task, but if the task includes the requirement that the finished product be secure, then C loses, because it doesn't protect against one of the most common sorts of attack at the language level, buffer overruns. Common Lisp and Java do. To have this same sort of protection in C, I'd have to write all the additional lines necessary to implement my own runtime to prevent direct access to memory. Hey! I've just re-implemented *part* of Common Lisp, or *part* of Java.
Thus we come to Greenspun's 10th law of programming:
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
You wrote:
"Oh well, I guess that's what makes people so interesting. The plethora of personalities. Doesn't mean he's right, though."
Bill Joy's opinion that C is a really dangerous language isn't a quirk of his personality. It's an evaluation based on decades of experience as a pioneer in the computer industry, and a deep understanding of the fact that different languages really are better or worse.
Oh really?
So If I tell Java to overrun a buffer, will it?
No, it will throw an exception. Java doesn't allow direct access to memory, so buffers can't be maliciously overrun. Since this exception mechanism is not built into C at the language level, C is inherently more insecure. C opens the door to one of the most common kinds of attack, a buffer overrun, a type of attack to which Java software is immune.
Some languages actually prevent programmers from leaving certain security holes. C provides very little of this protection. Java provides more.
Your parent's point is correct and valid when we consider only compression appropriate to the original medium.
.tiff -> .bmp -> .jpeg -> .bmp -> .tiff = a recognizably similar image.
.tiff -> .wav -> .mp3 -> .wav -> .tiff = unrecognizable garbage.
.aiff ->.wav -> .mp3 -> .wav ->.aiff = recognizably similar music
.aiff ->.wav -> .jpg -> .wav -> .aiff = unrecognizable noise.
For example:
Photograph ->
However:
Photograph ->
Similarly:
Music ->
But:
Music ->
This test allows us to identify the original medium.