I agree. Especially after seeing Garfield and the only bits I liked were those already in the trailer, so the movie for me was just triailer + boring bits.
I had already said that before, but there was actually a "Mac OS X" for Intel; it was called OpenStep and it flopped. Mac OS X is actually more an evolution of NeXTStep/OpenStep with a "Mac OS 9 emulator".
Also, does someone remember BeOS? Their business model didn't seem to make much sense.
Some people might buy another OS, but most will just stay with the one offered on the machine.
Lately, I have been thinking that Apple Mac OS X is more like a free "BSD distro" bundled with a computer. Like TiVO is a special Linux distro with a vanilla x86.
Rendezvous is not something targeted to medium/large enterprises (even if I just heard something about someone at UCLA being able to access all their computers for some "instant-on-grid-calculation with it). But if you have a home network (TiVo, HiFi with something like AirTunes Express, and iTunes in your PC/Mac), this is great.
No, this isn't a solution for everything, but neither is using a cannon to kill flies.
The only drawback are that games came later (if ever) to Macs. So maybe an Xbox or PS2 will make sense.
The funny thing about windows is that it's a "business computer" where, probably the most used app "before the WWW" was solitaire (now it's probably the browser to access eBay or games sites).
Well, US-based organizations (from Sun to FSF) tend to be more "lawyer aware". But even Linux is moving into that direction now.
This "They won't accept patches unless the copyright is assigned to them" is just the price of doing business in the US. Mostly to have copyrights clear and avoid SCO-like messes. Even if SCO claim is completely without merit (and that I believe so), you need to prove it.
or, as someone said sometimes around 50 BCE said, "the wife of Julius Caesar doesn't only need to be honest" - don't remember the exact term - "she also needs to look like it".
Suppose that someone has some java changes introduced and then, 1 year later, SCO claims it came from their code!!!!
Re:So will we see Darwin open sourced?
on
Evaluating Open Source
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The CIA (and the Navy) bought Oracle V1 and V2, not really to use it - who could use it at the time, but as a kind of "federal funding" to help promising technology (kind of VC fund). I think Oracle3 was rewritten to be in C (and as such, portable) and it was kind of somewhat usable; V4 was usable and I actually deployed it in production!
Well, it's very hard to create benchmarks that effectively compare architectures. And vendors (all vendors) muddle the waters. But actually some x86 (Xeons) are more expensive then PPCs. Some other great chip architectures like Alpha died (or dieing) because of neglect from their corporate owners; The x86 succeed in part because of the Wintel duopoly. There was a Windows NT port for the Alpha (and PPC, but I think this was only in beta) but it didn't went anywhere.
As for your "photoshop" comments, probably you are thinking about Apple's benchmarks; they use photoshop because that's what a big part of their marketshare cares about.
AS for cache, I don't know about the 8Mb for the Opteron, but the G5 has 512k of L2 and 64Kb of L1. I guess that with 8Mb it might improve a lot also.
As for things like the most used CPUs, probably the x86 don't have that claim. Things like the Z80 probably outnumber them a lot; and they are much cheaper than x86s.
This isn't a valid argument "If PowerPC (for example) is SOOOO much better, why doesn't it wipe the floor with x86? Sure, it's competetive, but it does not annihilate x86 ". Unfortunately, the best tech solution doesn't always win.
Otherwise a pseudo-OS from a company I won't name wouldn't have conquered monopoly status....
Yes, but it was more a public alpha/beta than a released product. OpenStep was a released product, so they actually tried to sell it and make $$ with it. It seems that they had the same success as BeOS.
Some people will buy it, but most of the "crowd" just uses whatever comes with the computer.
Not exactly "Apple" but a company founded with some ex-Apple people and that went back to Apple some years ago: NeXT.
After failing with their hw sales, NeXT released OpenStep, the ancester of the actual Mac OS X, for x86. It was also a failure. It's a big risk for a company like Apple, to hurt their hw business with such previous experiences.
Next and OpenStep: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id =4042
>"how fast/expensive a box do I need to get a normal experience"
Maybe when Intel or other release a CPU faster than the G5, so that it can compensate from the emulation.
Seriously, one of the major problems is the small number of registers in the x86 family. It was always easier to emulate x86 in RISC CPUs than the reverse.
Unfortunately, MS bought the company that made emulation soft for Macs (VirtualPC) and now they are taking more than 1 year to release a G5-supported version. OK, there is always bosch, but it's probably as slow as the PearPC.
Save on hardware using x86 stuff??? not likely. First, most of the stuff inside a Mac and a PC are actually identical, except for the CPU. And then if you compare a Mac with something more than a machine with memory-to-boot-but-not-to-anything-else:
this isn't any issue of "moral relativism". First, is actually the law. Some of MS behavior is illegal just because it was considered a monopoly. Second, you are comparing the impact of a small "corner shop" to a "WalMart". Third, patents and copyrights were actually created to protect small and independent inventors. they are not "inherently" evil. The GPL relies heavily on copyright protection. Now it's true that both patents and copyrights have been been really abused lately, but no system is perfect.
Also don't forget that some things described as "obvious" weren't so initially. For example, the Amazon "one-click".. According to the "legend", when Bezos saw the first "implementation", it had a "Are you sure?" question after you used the one-click. How many of the developers out there won't do the same thing, adding a confirmation button? But that would have made the "one-click" actually a two-click.
Also, in these litigation-happy times, companies are using patents also as 'self-protection' (or 'retribution'). Maybe it's some kind of new version of the MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction)...
Apple is a company owned by their shareholders; the same with Microsoft, IBM, etc. And their behavior isn't all that different, except one little detail: one of them is a monopoly. If some kind of behavior is legal (even if someone don't like it too much) for a smaller company, one that owns 90%+ of the market can't behave the same way.
now for the "control both the hw and sw" myth... Apple just uses an older business model, where they assemble a machine and it's OS (hw is basically a PC's, with the difference of an IBM/Motorola RISC chip).
But this is true, that Apple "is not your friend". The same with MS, and IBM and HP, Dell, Sun, etc. Companies are not "friends", they are businesses and they will choose one course of action over another to make $$ or, at most, sometimes to win some goodwill (and probably someone is measuring this in $$ terms).
That's true. But there is also a matter of $$/performance. And in here the G5s are the cheapest. Check the prices for a Dell with 2 Itanium2. Not exactly "Wal-Mart PC" prices.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be an interesting development, to say the least
I agree. Especially after seeing Garfield and the only bits I liked were those already in the trailer, so the movie for me was just triailer + boring bits.
he wants something windows only and to sell windows-lite for $40 for it.
The big "My documents" bag for everything is just a throwback to the dinossaurs time, before there was things like hierarchical filesystems.
And the search needs to be for more than just file names. OS X "Tiger" allows, for example, to find a reference to a name inside a PDF file.
If you don't like buying DRM-music, just buy the CDs if you want to legally own it.
I had already said that before, but there was actually a "Mac OS X" for Intel; it was called OpenStep and it flopped.
Mac OS X is actually more an evolution of NeXTStep/OpenStep with a "Mac OS 9 emulator".
Also, does someone remember BeOS? Their business model didn't seem to make much sense.
Some people might buy another OS, but most will just stay with the one offered on the machine.
Lately, I have been thinking that Apple Mac OS X is more like a free "BSD distro" bundled with a computer. Like TiVO is a special Linux distro with a vanilla x86.
Rendezvous is not something targeted to medium/large enterprises (even if I just heard something about someone at UCLA being able to access all their computers for some "instant-on-grid-calculation with it).
But if you have a home network (TiVo, HiFi with something like AirTunes Express, and iTunes in your PC/Mac), this is great.
No, this isn't a solution for everything, but neither is using a cannon to kill flies.
like the AMD chips....
That's not true. The CPU is IBM's but the I/O controllers and other chips are all Apple made.
4 bi ts_1.html
check this InfoWorld comparison of Opteron systems with the XserveG5,
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/06/18/25FE6
idem.
The only drawback are that games came later (if ever) to Macs. So maybe an Xbox or PS2 will make sense.
The funny thing about windows is that it's a "business computer" where, probably the most used app "before the WWW" was solitaire (now it's probably the browser to access eBay or games sites).
A few years ago, that company from the Pacific Northwest tried to buy Intuit and it was stopped by regulators (Money + Quicken!).
Probably, if you can't compete with them, just buy them. "Hey, I have a few tens of billions of dollars burning in my pocket"..
Well, US-based organizations (from Sun to FSF) tend to be more "lawyer aware". But even Linux is moving into that direction now.
This "They won't accept patches unless the copyright is assigned to them" is just the price of doing business in the US. Mostly to have copyrights clear and avoid SCO-like messes. Even if SCO claim is completely without merit (and that I believe so), you need to prove it.
or, as someone said sometimes around 50 BCE said, "the wife of Julius Caesar doesn't only need to be honest" - don't remember the exact term - "she also needs to look like it".
Suppose that someone has some java changes introduced and then, 1 year later, SCO claims it came from their code!!!!
Darwin is open sourced. You can download it from
i n/
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darw
Aqua is NOT.
And at opendarwin you can find a x86 port of darwin.
The CIA (and the Navy) bought Oracle V1 and V2, not really to use it - who could use it at the time, but as a kind of "federal funding" to help promising technology (kind of VC fund).
I think Oracle3 was rewritten to be in C (and as such, portable) and it was kind of somewhat usable; V4 was usable and I actually deployed it in production!
That you are VERY, VERY wrong.
Of course a $200 WalMartPC is cheaper than a dual G5, but a dual G5 is cheaper than a Dell 2xXeon (not even talking about an Itanium).
And I heard a senior officer at Wolfram (Mathematica) saying that they couldn't really compare speeds because the Dell 2xXeon was so inferior.
I have no idea about the new AMDs, but this was last year (July 2003), so there might be some news next month at WWDC.
you are assuming that compilers like GCC are equaly optimized for all platforms?
Well, it's very hard to create benchmarks that effectively compare architectures. And vendors (all vendors) muddle the waters.
But actually some x86 (Xeons) are more expensive then PPCs. Some other great chip architectures like Alpha died (or dieing) because of neglect from their corporate owners;
The x86 succeed in part because of the Wintel duopoly. There was a Windows NT port for the Alpha (and PPC, but I think this was only in beta) but it didn't went anywhere.
As for your "photoshop" comments, probably you are thinking about Apple's benchmarks; they use photoshop because that's what a big part of their marketshare cares about.
AS for cache, I don't know about the 8Mb for the Opteron, but the G5 has 512k of L2 and 64Kb of L1. I guess that with 8Mb it might improve a lot also.
As for things like the most used CPUs, probably the x86 don't have that claim. Things like the Z80 probably outnumber them a lot; and they are much cheaper than x86s.
This isn't a valid argument "If PowerPC (for example) is SOOOO much better, why doesn't it wipe the floor with x86? Sure, it's competetive, but it does not annihilate x86
". Unfortunately, the best tech solution doesn't always win.
Otherwise a pseudo-OS from a company I won't name wouldn't have conquered monopoly status....
Yes, but it was more a public alpha/beta than a released product. OpenStep was a released product, so they actually tried to sell it and make $$ with it.
It seems that they had the same success as BeOS.
Some people will buy it, but most of the "crowd" just uses whatever comes with the computer.
Not exactly "Apple" but a company founded with some ex-Apple people and that went back to Apple some years ago: NeXT.
d =4042
After failing with their hw sales, NeXT released OpenStep, the ancester of the actual Mac OS X, for x86. It was also a failure. It's a big risk for a company like Apple, to hurt their hw business with such previous experiences.
Next and OpenStep:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_i
>"how fast/expensive a box do I need to get a normal experience"
Maybe when Intel or other release a CPU faster than the G5, so that it can compensate from the emulation.
Seriously, one of the major problems is the small number of registers in the x86 family. It was always easier to emulate x86 in RISC CPUs than the reverse.
Unfortunately, MS bought the company that made emulation soft for Macs (VirtualPC) and now they are taking more than 1 year to release a G5-supported version. OK, there is always bosch, but it's probably as slow as the PearPC.
Save on hardware using x86 stuff??? not likely. First, most of the stuff inside a Mac and a PC are actually identical, except for the CPU. And then if you compare a Mac with something more than a machine with memory-to-boot-but-not-to-anything-else:
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/wlg/4895
this isn't any issue of "moral relativism". First, is actually the law. Some of MS behavior is illegal just because it was considered a monopoly.
Second, you are comparing the impact of a small "corner shop" to a "WalMart".
Third, patents and copyrights were actually created to protect small and independent inventors. they are not "inherently" evil. The GPL relies heavily on copyright protection. Now it's true that both patents and copyrights have been been really abused lately, but no system is perfect.
Also don't forget that some things described as "obvious" weren't so initially. For example, the Amazon "one-click".. According to the "legend", when Bezos saw the first "implementation", it had a "Are you sure?" question after you used the one-click. How many of the developers out there won't do the same thing, adding a confirmation button? But that would have made the "one-click" actually a two-click.
Also, in these litigation-happy times, companies are using patents also as 'self-protection' (or 'retribution'). Maybe it's some kind of new version of the MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction)...
Apple is a company owned by their shareholders; the same with Microsoft, IBM, etc. And their behavior isn't all that different, except one little detail: one of them is a monopoly.
If some kind of behavior is legal (even if someone don't like it too much) for a smaller company, one that owns 90%+ of the market can't behave the same way.
now for the "control both the hw and sw" myth... Apple just uses an older business model, where they assemble a machine and it's OS (hw is basically a PC's, with the difference of an IBM/Motorola RISC chip).
But this is true, that Apple "is not your friend". The same with MS, and IBM and HP, Dell, Sun, etc. Companies are not "friends", they are businesses and they will choose one course of action over another to make $$ or, at most, sometimes to win some goodwill (and probably someone is measuring this in $$ terms).
That's true. But there is also a matter of $$/performance. And in here the G5s are the cheapest.
Check the prices for a Dell with 2 Itanium2. Not exactly "Wal-Mart PC" prices.