i don't know that other os, but on the Mac OS X version i got 253 pages of "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." over and over and over again, it kinda looks like a/. toll post!
got any other cuteness in word to reveil? (or in any other office program)
Uh, fine, but the poster's point was that G4s perform better than P4s despite their lower clock speed. This article definitely doesn't corroborate that claim.
i still haven't gotten around to reading the artical (don't you love hearsay!) but what i gather from it isn't that the PPC G4 is faster, it's that the PowerMac G4 is faster. i'm not claiming anything more. having a proccessor that runs cool enough that you can stuff 2 into a system with minimal cooling alows for things like this;)
Does anyone actually think that the processor in the computer somehow affects "usability"?
have you ever used a TiBook in your lap? my 500 MHz PowerBook G4 gets pretty warm, i'd hate to see what would happen with a desktop P4. (like most high end P4 notebooks!) i think a hot notebook definatatly reduses usability, yes, even with the G4 CPU:P
Re:"Performance Boost" a result of the MHz myth?
on
Intel Inside For Apple?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But the main problem with this test is that he's testing a dual processor G4 against a single processor Pentium in a multi-threaded app doing highly parallelizable work!! How can we make sense of those results?
easy, it is 2 off the shelf systems, you plug it in and see that one system performs better then a diffrent system. (last i checked, there wern't any dual P4 systems avalible.) this test shows that apples high end system beet out sony's system (i'm asuming it's their high end system but i didn't read the artical)
the test i'd like to see is apples high end system up against a high end athlon system 1, 2, 4 CPU's it doesn't matter, the athlon will smoke the apple in perfomance, but the apple will smoke the athlon in usability.
I keep a template of the email handy, so that only a few seconds are required to make the complaint to both the webmaster AND two others who are as high up in the firm as I can discover in a quick web search.
could you post a copy of this template for those of us who are to lazy to generate our own? thanks
and 10.0 was Cheetah 9 was Sonata 8.6 was Veronica 8.5 was Allegro Mac OS 8.0 was Tempo the ill fated System 8 was Copland (and Gershwin was to be System 9!) 7.6 was Harmony 7.5 was Mozart 7.0 was blue - hence the term BlueBox! (the internal name for classic) hell, the code name for the Macintosh was.... Macintosh, they couldn't think of a real name for the computer and they almost went with the acronym MAC - Mouse Activated Computer (or to us geeks: Meaningless Acronym Computer)
and then there is hardware...
PowerBook G3 - PDQ PowerBook G3 Series - Wallstreet PowerBook G3 USB - Lombard PowerBook G3 FireWire - Pismo TiBook - Mercury
the 1st iMac was the C-1 the 1st iBook was the P-1
Blue & White G3 - Yosemite with the El Capitan G4 PCI graphics - Yikes! (it was basically a Yosemite retrofitted with a G4) again, the case was El Capitan G4 100 MHz bus's with AGP - Sawtooth still with El Capitan G4 133 MHz bus's - Quicksilver with a modified El Capitan
it isn't an emulator thought, it runs native PPC binaries on a PPC, just like OS/2 warp ran native x86 binaris on x86 CPU's
a few of other examples of multi OS's include: WINE, (Windows under linux/x86) MOL, (MacOS On Linux/PPC) and SheepShaver (MacOS on BeOS/PPC). none of those had/have ANY emulation, they were/are hacks to run one OS in a VM ontop of another.
I have a LOT of software back from when I first got a PowerMac 6100 running System 7.5.5 that wont run in OS 9... it wouldn't even run in OS 8!
i'm in the same boat, i have software the only barely runs in OS 8 and refuses to run in 9. about a month ago i was feeling dangourus, and i opened it under classic. it works FINE, i was pleasantly surprised:D
1) they keep the number of their product lines fairly small these days
apple's product line 1 year ago today: 1 tower with choice 3 (or 4?) CPUs speeds (one dual) 2 laptops 1 (iBook) with a single CPU but choice of optical drive, and 1 (TiBook) with a choice of 2 CPU's and choice of optical drive 1 desktop all in one with choice of (forgotten) cpu's and opticla drive (i think)
apples product line today: 1 tower with choice of 3 CPU speeds (one dual) 3 laptops - 1 (iBook) with choice of speed and optical drive, 1 (TiBook) with choice of speed, and 1 (14" iBook) with no choice at all (i call call the 14" iBook a 3rd laptop because it is a whole different motherboard!) 4 desktop all in ones! 2 (iMac, iMac G4 with 17" screen) with no choice at all. 1 (eMac) with choice of CPU speed and choice of optical drive, 1 (iMac G4) with choice of CPU speed and optical drive. (i call the iMac G4 17" a diffrent modle because it has a diffrent GPU on it's motherboard) 1 1u rack server with choice of number of CPUS
i think apple has outgrown it's 4 product quadrant and i think they can easily release a desktop mac. with ought moving much farther away from it's simple line up of last year. on the other hand, i think apple needs to kill the G3 iMac and then that will make room for your headless eMac:D
2) unless Apple is planning on making a large run at the business desktop it probably wouldn't make much sense for them to do it
they have to do it sooner or later, the time has never been riper then to do it now!
Microsoft is not compelled to sell the makers new OS licenses, any more than Toyota can be compelled to keep selling the 2002 models, or Dell Inspiron 4200s (or whatever.)
you probably are being transpaently proxied. a few years ago apple made a deal with Akamai to proxy all there content, thats why an apple download will max my DSL, my ISP has there own set of akamai servers:D
don't forget that it wants to be a classic app, it doen'st perform well unless i renice it -18, and even then the interface is slow and unresponsive, with the spinning wheel of death up 2/3 of the time:puke:
it's too late for me, but since i've already clicked, i can mirror the artical:)
E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac June 17, 2002 By John C. Dvorak
Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Mac has become the AS/400 of desktop computing, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Apple never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Windows platform?
I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Mac buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Macintosh computer as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's look at the recent Apple offerings. The company made the e-Mac available to the public after initially saying it wouldn't do so. The e-Mac is the educational version of the i-Mac, and similar to the original i-Mac, built with a display in a fancy package. The company also rolled out some blade computers for Mac-heads who like running massive Web sites with Mac technology. The obvious next iteration of the Mac will be the current Luxo-looking i-Mac with a bigger screen and probably new colors. After that, what is Apple going to do?
Remember that in 1984 the Mac arrived amidst a flurry of experimental activity, much of which was triggered by the Xerox Star and the Apple Lisa. The Lisa was designed with ideas lifted from the Xerox Star. The Mac was an improvement, but apparently there hasn't been a new idea since.
There was a moment around 1992 when IBM and Apple were going to consolidate the Mac into a PowerPC architecture. The two companies entered into a joint venture called Taligent to develop the next generation OS. This was actually a good idea. This group incorporated Apple's so-called Pink development folks, but it eventually fell apart, leaving Apple with a development gap from which it never fully recovered. During this era there was much talk about a common reference platform that could standardize the PowerPC chip as a serious competitor to x86 processors. IBM began working out the details of its DesktopOS, a complex architecture that was to use personality modules that would let it pretend to be anything it wanted. This ambitious concept never saw the light of day.
The Taligent fiasco was unraveling amidst a series of inconsequential Apple CEOs who ran Apple like a tire company. After they nearly tanked the operation, Steve Jobs was brought back to add some flair, but underneath the glitz the new Mac was still the old Mac. OS X, with its underlying Unix kernel, an update. The new kernel was necessary to better manage today's networked multimedia.
The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.
Having said that, why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh? The answer is obvious if we look at recent history and compare it to the era when the Mac was invented. Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the Xerox Star in over 20 years. All the R&D money has been diverted, mismanaged, killed by zealous bean counters, or simply wasted. Most of the big R&D labs have been closed or cut back. All the R&D seems to be in semiconductor technologies, which is because that particular business is more of a psychopathic rat-race than anything else and you get eaten by the rats if you miss a step.
So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called Mac. Apple has nothing it could possibly replace it with. There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away.
In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but up with hormones, and patched with reconstructive surgery, instead. The Mac will go in the only direction possible: haute design. In fact this is the only direction for computing in general. The next era will be like the car business in the 1950's. Lots of chrome, big fins, and a new model every year. Form over substance. If you, the reader, see it differently, I'd like to know how. Get in the discussion and tell me.
the cube didn't have fan to run when it got hot. (unless you had the higher end GPU, then THAT had a fan!)
the cube was convection cooling all the way, unfortionaly, there just inst enough space in a 1U rack to convection cool, unless you mount your racks verticaly!:)
theres that, and there should be 4X the heat in this thing, the cube had a single 500 MHz G4, (and a massive heat sink) thest things have 2 1000 MHz G4's in them, although these G4's have SOI so that'll throw my 4X heat thing out of wack;)
Slashdot Mirror
not when i tested...
Starting testing...
Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.
Testing complete for http://www.google.com. Result:
Reported as inaccessible in China
i don't know that other os, but on the Mac OS X version i got 253 pages of "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." over and over and over again, it kinda looks like a /. toll post!
got any other cuteness in word to reveil? (or in any other office program)
how can you tell? that post was a copy paste! (but you are right, i AM a bad spealer)
call me a conspiracy theorist
ok, your a conspiracy theorist
to tell you would be a violation of my NDA. sorry
and how do you know it's not a lead heat sink? (were's my ROTFL emoticon?!)
Uh, fine, but the poster's point was that G4s perform better than P4s despite their lower clock speed. This article definitely doesn't corroborate that claim.
;)
:P
i still haven't gotten around to reading the artical (don't you love hearsay!) but what i gather from it isn't that the PPC G4 is faster, it's that the PowerMac G4 is faster. i'm not claiming anything more. having a proccessor that runs cool enough that you can stuff 2 into a system with minimal cooling alows for things like this
Does anyone actually think that the processor in the computer somehow affects "usability"?
have you ever used a TiBook in your lap? my 500 MHz PowerBook G4 gets pretty warm, i'd hate to see what would happen with a desktop P4. (like most high end P4 notebooks!) i think a hot notebook definatatly reduses usability, yes, even with the G4 CPU
But the main problem with this test is that he's testing a dual processor G4 against a single processor Pentium in a multi-threaded app doing highly parallelizable work!! How can we make sense of those results?
easy, it is 2 off the shelf systems, you plug it in and see that one system performs better then a diffrent system. (last i checked, there wern't any dual P4 systems avalible.) this test shows that apples high end system beet out sony's system (i'm asuming it's their high end system but i didn't read the artical)
the test i'd like to see is apples high end system up against a high end athlon system 1, 2, 4 CPU's it doesn't matter, the athlon will smoke the apple in perfomance, but the apple will smoke the athlon in usability.
I keep a template of the email handy, so that only a few seconds are required to make the complaint to both the webmaster AND two others who are as high up in the firm as I can discover in a quick web search.
could you post a copy of this template for those of us who are to lazy to generate our own? thanks
and 10.0 was Cheetah
9 was Sonata
8.6 was Veronica
8.5 was Allegro
Mac OS 8.0 was Tempo
the ill fated System 8 was Copland (and Gershwin was to be System 9!)
7.6 was Harmony
7.5 was Mozart
7.0 was blue - hence the term BlueBox! (the internal name for classic)
hell, the code name for the Macintosh was.... Macintosh, they couldn't think of a real name for the computer and they almost went with the acronym MAC - Mouse Activated Computer (or to us geeks: Meaningless Acronym Computer)
and then there is hardware...
PowerBook G3 - PDQ
PowerBook G3 Series - Wallstreet
PowerBook G3 USB - Lombard
PowerBook G3 FireWire - Pismo
TiBook - Mercury
the 1st iMac was the C-1
the 1st iBook was the P-1
Blue & White G3 - Yosemite with the El Capitan
G4 PCI graphics - Yikes! (it was basically a Yosemite retrofitted with a G4) again, the case was El Capitan
G4 100 MHz bus's with AGP - Sawtooth still with El Capitan
G4 133 MHz bus's - Quicksilver with a modified El Capitan
it isn't an emulator thought, it runs native PPC binaries on a PPC, just like OS/2 warp ran native x86 binaris on x86 CPU's
a few of other examples of multi OS's include: WINE, (Windows under linux/x86) MOL, (MacOS On Linux/PPC) and SheepShaver (MacOS on BeOS/PPC). none of those had/have ANY emulation, they were/are hacks to run one OS in a VM ontop of another.
I have a LOT of software back from when I first got a PowerMac 6100 running System 7.5.5 that wont run in OS 9... it wouldn't even run in OS 8!
:D
i'm in the same boat, i have software the only barely runs in OS 8 and refuses to run in 9. about a month ago i was feeling dangourus, and i opened it under classic. it works FINE, i was pleasantly surprised
1) they keep the number of their product lines fairly small these days
:D
apple's product line 1 year ago today:
1 tower with choice 3 (or 4?) CPUs speeds (one dual)
2 laptops 1 (iBook) with a single CPU but choice of optical drive, and 1 (TiBook) with a choice of 2 CPU's and choice of optical drive
1 desktop all in one with choice of (forgotten) cpu's and opticla drive (i think)
apples product line today:
1 tower with choice of 3 CPU speeds (one dual)
3 laptops - 1 (iBook) with choice of speed and optical drive, 1 (TiBook) with choice of speed, and 1 (14" iBook) with no choice at all (i call call the 14" iBook a 3rd laptop because it is a whole different motherboard!)
4 desktop all in ones! 2 (iMac, iMac G4 with 17" screen) with no choice at all. 1 (eMac) with choice of CPU speed and choice of optical drive, 1 (iMac G4) with choice of CPU speed and optical drive. (i call the iMac G4 17" a diffrent modle because it has a diffrent GPU on it's motherboard)
1 1u rack server with choice of number of CPUS
i think apple has outgrown it's 4 product quadrant and i think they can easily release a desktop mac. with ought moving much farther away from it's simple line up of last year. on the other hand, i think apple needs to kill the G3 iMac and then that will make room for your headless eMac
2) unless Apple is planning on making a large run at the business desktop it probably wouldn't make much sense for them to do it
they have to do it sooner or later, the time has never been riper then to do it now!
why is it making me post as AC? i told it to log in and i didn't check the AC box!
Microsoft is not compelled to sell the makers new OS licenses, any more than Toyota can be compelled to keep selling the 2002 models, or Dell Inspiron 4200s (or whatever.)
/me ducks
when did toyota start making Dell Insirons?
you probably are being transpaently proxied. a few years ago apple made a deal with Akamai to proxy all there content, thats why an apple download will max my DSL, my ISP has there own set of akamai servers :D
most of the time they do pratice what they preach :)
don't forget that it wants to be a classic app, it doen'st perform well unless i renice it -18, and even then the interface is slow and unresponsive, with the spinning wheel of death up 2/3 of the time :puke:
it's too late for me, but since i've already clicked, i can mirror the artical :)
E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac
June 17, 2002
By John C. Dvorak
Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Mac has become the AS/400 of desktop computing, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Apple never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Windows platform?
I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Mac buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Macintosh computer as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's look at the recent Apple offerings. The company made the e-Mac available to the public after initially saying it wouldn't do so. The e-Mac is the educational version of the i-Mac, and similar to the original i-Mac, built with a display in a fancy package. The company also rolled out some blade computers for Mac-heads who like running massive Web sites with Mac technology. The obvious next iteration of the Mac will be the current Luxo-looking i-Mac with a bigger screen and probably new colors. After that, what is Apple going to do?
Remember that in 1984 the Mac arrived amidst a flurry of experimental activity, much of which was triggered by the Xerox Star and the Apple Lisa. The Lisa was designed with ideas lifted from the Xerox Star. The Mac was an improvement, but apparently there hasn't been a new idea since.
There was a moment around 1992 when IBM and Apple were going to consolidate the Mac into a PowerPC architecture. The two companies entered into a joint venture called Taligent to develop the next generation OS. This was actually a good idea. This group incorporated Apple's so-called Pink development folks, but it eventually fell apart, leaving Apple with a development gap from which it never fully recovered. During this era there was much talk about a common reference platform that could standardize the PowerPC chip as a serious competitor to x86 processors. IBM began working out the details of its DesktopOS, a complex architecture that was to use personality modules that would let it pretend to be anything it wanted. This ambitious concept never saw the light of day.
The Taligent fiasco was unraveling amidst a series of inconsequential Apple CEOs who ran Apple like a tire company. After they nearly tanked the operation, Steve Jobs was brought back to add some flair, but underneath the glitz the new Mac was still the old Mac. OS X, with its underlying Unix kernel, an update. The new kernel was necessary to better manage today's networked multimedia.
The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.
Having said that, why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh? The answer is obvious if we look at recent history and compare it to the era when the Mac was invented. Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the Xerox Star in over 20 years. All the R&D money has been diverted, mismanaged, killed by zealous bean counters, or simply wasted. Most of the big R&D labs have been closed or cut back. All the R&D seems to be in semiconductor technologies, which is because that particular business is more of a psychopathic rat-race than anything else and you get eaten by the rats if you miss a step.
So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called Mac. Apple has nothing it could possibly replace it with. There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away.
In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but up with hormones, and patched with reconstructive surgery, instead. The Mac will go in the only direction possible: haute design. In fact this is the only direction for computing in general. The next era will be like the car business in the 1950's. Lots of chrome, big fins, and a new model every year. Form over substance. If you, the reader, see it differently, I'd like to know how. Get in the discussion and tell me.
SMB2 (US) was a launch title for the GBA, it was called Super Mario Advance
thats funny, i was just playing Dr. Mario on my NES, no need for fancy graphics there, still fun to doodlyise someon! :D
:D
sure i could have just as easly played it on my GB, GBC, GBA, SNES, or N64, but i played the original
the cube didn't have fan to run when it got hot. (unless you had the higher end GPU, then THAT had a fan!)
:)
;)
the cube was convection cooling all the way, unfortionaly, there just inst enough space in a 1U rack to convection cool, unless you mount your racks verticaly!
theres that, and there should be 4X the heat in this thing, the cube had a single 500 MHz G4, (and a massive heat sink) thest things have 2 1000 MHz G4's in them, although these G4's have SOI so that'll throw my 4X heat thing out of wack
i guess it helps to remember those tags huh? oh well ;)
OpenMac is a good place to ask these quiestions, just follow the link, get the OpenMac Application and ask away!
what does this do to DragThing? DragThing's whole point is to be tabbed pallets!