Mac bashing has all been done before. I'm used to it by now. It's tired, old, and unoriginal. Although I do think it's really funny that I'm still singled out for discussing my mac pride and opinions in a forum about MACS. Go figure. I guess macophobes just seek out people to bash out of jealousy.
The thing is, in the days when Mac bashing was slightly more fashionable it was (often) done by people who had a relatively good grasp on technology.
Nowadays it's the other way around. The people quickest to bash Macs are the ones who read a couple issues of PC Magazine, watch TechTV, and like the image of being a 'geek' though they are technically inept. In other words, it's the people who know the least about technology.
I dunno, when I see a Mac-basher I think of a white kid in Nebraska who 'hates' niggers, but wears baggy pants and listens to Eminem and 50 Cent all day; half of his 'world' is a black one. Windows users are the same, except half of their world is a Mac one, and a half-assed imitation of it at that. They're experiencing an identity crisis.
You consider something this big a PDA in the modern handheld sense of the word? I mean, if you want to go with a definition like that then Tandy's pocket computers were PDAs too.
The Newton pretty much marks the emergence of anything remotely similar to what we now know as a PDA.
But let's say everyone switched from Wintel PCs to the Mac platform. Wont we be slammed with viruses and spyware again thanks to the commonality of everyone using the same system?
I believe that depends on what you mean by "everyone." Do you mean 90% of the computers in the world begin running OS X, or do you mean a sizable number (say 25-50%) start using Macs? If 90% of the computers in the world start using Macs, that's quite probable; but the likelihood of anyone monopolizing the OS market the way MS has in the future is very unlikely. So, I suppose my answer to you is "probably not, though possibly."
Really I think you mentioned a keyword in your post -- "commonality." The immense amount of viruses and exploits out there today are because we're in a desktop monoculture. Take Apache vs. IIS as an example; Apache is the dominant web server, but IIS seems exploited more frequently. Apache probably is inherently more secure, and better audited, but the fact that there's other (perhaps more morally satisfying targets) turns people's attention from solely attacking it. I think this post of mine explains the sociological reasons the unwelcome dictator will always be the target of attacks.
The best thing in my opinion is that nobody dominates. A level playing field makes things better, even for Microsoft. And in the event OS X ever gained a marketshare comparable to Windows I'd still put my money on Cupertino, whose conceptualization of 'innovation' has been a bit more true, On top of that, since a great number of critical services in OS X are based on open source projects, there's almost an invisible alliance between two partners, that MS lacks.
MS has its hands in far too many cookie jars to give their OS the attention it deserves, and they will have no incentive to until they're hegemony is threatened.
Why would you spend $800 an a 1.25 Ghz (!) machine and even more for 512 MB ram (!!) to do email, internet, documents, etc.? If the "etc" is not too heavy, any second-hand $200 PC or $300 laptop is enough.
Because OS X doesn't run on x86 laptops from 1998, and that's what he wants to run?
Nothing wrong with a 1.2ghz G4 by the way, though I hate to get into the whole 'megahertz myth' argument, so maybe next time.
My dad bought an eMac a few months ago. The extra $200 for a system that runs OS X makes up for the hours I'd have to spend removing spyware, patching, and keeping anti-virus definitions up to date. Not to mention those wonderful moments when nothing but a complete reinstall will do.
Maybe the lack of good games was a reason for the relative failure of the Master System.
SMS was really only a failure in the US. There were games being made for it probably until the mid-90's. On the rare occasion when there were both SMS and NES versions of a game, the SMS version was usually better (Double Dragon; Ninja Gaiden are good examples).
I was the owner of a Master System, so . . . I've always held a grudge against Nintendo. Though I bought a Gamecube last year, so go figure. Maybe the cubeness and PPC CPU appealed to my Mac loving side.
Schools have tight budgets and may not be able to afford a full-time network administrator. I'd choose whatever platform meant the least amount of troubles. Windows is pretty much ruled out there.
And our PCs never seemed to get viruses, while our Macs were constantly being infected.
I actually do not doubt it, but I think it's attributable to Mac users being on the Internet before most PC users, and increasing their risk of infection in the mid-90's, especially at universities. Lab environments coupled with the Internet let viruses spread like wildfire.
When I spoke of frequency, I was referring to the amount of viruses made for PCs vs. Macs. As it stands now, I believe there's no more than a handful of Mac viruses, and all of them for classic, or are Word macros. Even in the early and mid-90's, the PC viruses outnumbered MacOS's.
if linux was as widely used as windows I'm sure there'd be widespread security issues. there's always going to be someone looking for and exploiting holes.
Possibly, however attacks against MS are a bit different. Whereas someone may attack a UNIX machine out of pure boredom, challenge, or to get information, there's an added moral justification in the eyes of many to attack MS machines.
If you're running Linux, you made that decision. Nothing feels forced upon you; it wasn't bundled with your machine, and it's customizable to your liking. The story is similar if you purchased a Mac. Users of alternative operating systems have a special attachment to them, and are probably looking for security holes to protect their systems, rather than exploit them.
Every MS exploit is just further proof that standardizing the entire world on one OS is a really bad idea. People will feel stripped of choice, and react. If the market were 25% Linux, 25% Mac, 50% Windows do you really think attacks would be spread equally amongst them all? I doubt it. People would still concentrate on MS, because even at 50% it is perceived as a potential bully.
The same reason people target Windows is the same reason white kids in Iowa spray paint "2 Pac" on the back of a barn: no one wants to be the oppressor. They'd be better off using their energy to propagate alternatives to their friends and family, though.
There's another quality of open source that makes it less vulnerable to exploits: it is decentralized. There's really not a single entity for anyone to hate when you speak of Linux; no one cares about Linus, because he's not some authoritarian figure that dictates an overall product. Open source projects aren't some large, unfriendly corporation that alienates the users. In fact, if you want to talk directly to a project's developers, you usually can without much hassle. With commercial products you're likely to wait in a queue for support, and then only receive a template response of commonly asked questions.
By making many core parts of the OS open source, OS X has lessened its attack potential as well, even though it is a corporate creation. Not to mention, those who use Macs willfully pay a premium, and are not forced into it. Speaking of which, even when Macs did have a market share comparable to PCs, they never seemed to be targeted with the same frequency.
Never having had a PS1, backwards compatibility on the PS2 was a big deal for me, it was like getting two systems in one.
Not to mention, if you're young and on a budget you can pick up two or more used PS1 games for the price of one new PS2 game. This was one of the cool things about having an Atari 7800: you could buy 2600 games for $2-4 a piece in the late 80's.
I don't think ANYONE expected backwards compatibility, and it hasn't really been an industry standard. Playstation/Playstation 2 was THE major exception in U.S. console gaming.
Hmm, not really.
Atari 7800 could play 2600 games. Gameboy Advance can play Gameboy games dating back to 1988. Sega Genesis had the Powerbase converter for about $50, that let you play all your old Master System games; Gamegear could play SMS games as well.
This all probably started with the Colecovision's 2600 adapter, in an attempt to get 2600 owners to easily convert.
Maybe not every console has done it, but backwards compatibility has been around in the industry for a while. I believe even the 5200 had a 2600 adapter in the works, which was supposed to be one of its selling points. More manufactures probably would have attempted it if the architecture jumps weren't so huge. Yet, since chips are becoming outdated so much faster nowadays, it isn't economically unreasonable to include two; maybe backwards compatibility will become standard.
But really, why offer backwards compatibility when you can resell an emulated version of the same game for its original selling price 15 years later? (See Nintendo's rereleasing of NES games for GBA).
Hardware encoders (usually MPEG2) look superior and are generally smoother, taking the load off your CPU. Do not assume that since you have quad-processor super PC that it's enough to output great/smooth video. A hardware MPEG2 encoder is still superior.
Unless of course you want to play video games through your TV tuner, then encoding of any kind becomes undesirable, since it creates enough delay to make every game unplayable.
as far as I know(please correct me if I am wrong), you really can't play consoles on it since the cards have a 1.5 second or so delay from when the video comes in to when you see it.
This is true with Firewire or USB TV devices; PCI ones are fine. For your Mac, take a look at this card. I bought the DVR version in January and its been relatively good (the software annoys me sometimes). Like you, I also have a Gamecube, and used it pretty regularly with the Alchemy card.
I use a Mac, and it's hard to find someware for internal PCI tuners.
I'm using an AlchemyTV DVR in my PowerMac. It's a PCI TV card with remote and DVR software. For about $20 less you can get the same card without the remote or DVR capabilities.
Another option is finding an old bt848-based card and experimenting with iTV.
As I see it, the main reason to go with internal rather than external is latency. If you're planning to play video games through your TV card, anything USB or FW is out of the question. Also don't forget that if you own a DV cam with video-in, and a VCR you can use as a tuner, you probably don't need to buy a TV card at all.
If you're not planning to attach a console to your TV card, I think the best option would be investing in a DV bridge of some sort, and attaching a VCR. Though you might not care about it now, being able to edit analog captures, either from television or VHS with iMovie/FCP/FCE is a nice luxury.
After I bought my PowerMac a couple years ago, then an iBook, I talked my dad into buying an eMac to replace the old p166 I gave him . ..
I have to admit I always disliked computers with built-in CRTs, but the eMac is pretty slick. If I'm ever on a budget in the future and can only afford an intro model, I probably wouldn't rule out the eMac. It appears to have a goofy form factor when viewed on -line, but in person it looks pretty attractive. I'll second the other folks' recommendations about the swivel stand; the way it attaches to the bottom is very cool and sturdy.
No complaints here so far. Though Applecare doesn't seem like a bad idea, since it's not exactly easy to service on your own.
Hrm, Linux sucks because of "lack of originality"? Hey, I'm the first person to admit that there are problems with the Linux desktop, but that's just silly.
Notice I mentioned originality with a lot of other qualities, qualities that when lacking together, make for a really poor experience. Lack of creative innovation is only one issue out of many that makes the Linux desktop experience lackluster.
Perhaps a better word choice would have been innovative ideas or new applications. What has KDE or Gnome brought to the table that hasn't been borrowed from somewhere else? What 'killer apps' has Linux produced? None really. Linux has its strength in being a rock solid server that costs absolutely nothing but the price of media or bandwidth. It also makes a great OS to install when you're on a budget, and have a strong enough sense of right and wrong not to install an MS product.
I use my computer to GET WORK DONE, as do millions of other people. I don't care if it's original or unoriginal; I care if it's secure, stable and performs well.
Well, that's probably my main gripe with Linux on the desktop: I don't get work done. I spent half my time battling with different package, or other types of dependencies every time I wanted to install a program that my distribution had not officially released a package for yet. Linux desktop installations will be a failure with average consumers until they can download, double click, install a program, and have a shortcut for it on their desktop in a couple minutes.
Or how about being able to walk into CompUSA and buy a scanner or similar device without checking 15 web sites before leaving the house to see if its compatible with Linux? And even if it is compatible with Linux, chances are you'll have to screw around for 2 hours before you get anything working. I'm sure you know the agony of buying a new video card, then spending the night making X11 work right with it, just so you can check your E-Mail before going to sleep.
If you're a coder Linux is a dream, and so is OS X for that matter. The only difference being, when I need to type 50 page papers for graduate school, I don't have to haggle with OpenOffice's clunky interface.
And to be honest, what good is OS stability when half the apps act like they're beta, even at the 1.0 mark? Show me a contender for Photoshop, Office, Final Cut Pro, and a slew of other apps. How about decent audio software for Linux? How about an easy way of authoring DVDs in Linux (something on par with iDVD)? Does that even exist?
When your wife brings you your tea, do you reject it because it's "unoriginal"? Do you stop going on trains because they're "unoriginal"? Tools to get things done
Nope, but if she put too much sugar in it, or it was too black -- or it was the wrong flavor, I'd probably complain. If the train only went 1/3 the speed of another competitor, I'd probably be willing to pay extra for the faster train, if I could afford it. That's a better analogy between OS X and Linux (and even Windows).
I'm totally for the idea of OSS, and I truly believe that's where the future of software is. Yet, until Linux produces something on par with OS X, I'm going to keep shelling out money to Apple.
Linux has mastered the server market. What can touch Apache? What admin wants to leap through 50 menus to accomplish what would only be a 1 line change in a config file? Developers pay attention to bugs in major Linux apps because so many people rely on them; on the other hand, the 1% of the people using Linux as a desktop all use 20 different E-Mail clients, and a bug report in your favorite client is just a drop in a bucket of some developer who probably works two jobs, goes to school, and then codes his little project on the side.
One last thing: as someone who relies on multiple languages, Linux language support, ESPECIALLY across different applications absolutely sucks.
With all that said, if one day Apple goes away, I'll be back running Linux, not Windows.
And that's the real key, Apple still has it's same base of loyal users it's had forever while Linux is growing in leaps and bounds each year.
If anything, Apple is losing some of its traditional fan base due to the switch to OS X. On the other hand, former desktop Linux users like myself have started buying Macs in droves because of OS X, but still left Linux on the servers . ..
Just as the nature of Windows sucks due to its predatory father, unoriginal design, and poor security, Linux on the desktop sucks due to its unorganized nature and lack of homogeneity (and also lack of originality in some respects).
Now all of that doesn't much matter to me on a server: I set it up, lock it down, keep it updated, and forget about it. My desktop however, I'm staring at and navigating hours a day. It needs to be as simple as possible. Linux does not offer that, at least as well as OS X does, and due to its scattered nature, probably never will without some big name pushing for standardization.
What Linux does, and really any good alternative OS does is show people that there is a another, and oftentimes better way of getting work done. The first OS that showed me this fact was BeOS, which led me to Linux soon after, then finally to OS X. In other words, alternatives made me incredibly picky about what I used, since I perceived there to be a choice.
So though I'm advocating OS X . . . I really appreciate any diversity that crops up, because it forces people to start looking at alternatives. One less person running Windows means one less individual out there propagating Adolph Gates' plan for total information lock down and control.
You're looking at this all the wrong way. I don't want a second, third, or even fourth. I want abundant alternatives just like there were in the 80's. How many game manufactures during that time supported three or four platforms at once (Atari, Apple ][, c64, PC). The more competition that's allowed to exist in the market, the more creative things we'll see pop up; however, when one guy is allowed to dominate the entire field things become stagnant, predictable, and boring -- just like they have been since MS monopolized the industry.
Now if there's MORE than two or three alternatives, and each has a substantial user-base, no manufacture can consider it merely any OS niche. In fact, if the target market is always like this, programmers will try and make their code more portable from the very beginning, knowing it will likely need to run on multiple platforms.
The more I consider it, the more I think the educational system is a total croc.
It's just 12 years of busy work to keep you out of the job market. I think I could've entered college at age 14 or 15 and been successful.
I can't think of one useful thing I learned in school past sixth grade. Once you can read proficiently there's no need for school; you should be able to A) follow your own interests, and B) research them on your own. Just about any worthwhile hobby or interest will require a historical, cultural, or scientific awareness to be successful at it. Independent research will give you an understanding of history, mathematics, language, or science as it relates to your own interests, and one will be MORE likely to appreciate it being able to see how it all fits in with their own pursuits. And if you're not willing to take the time to research something, your heart probably wasn't with it in the first place (This filters out more than half of CS majors, who think programming is an easy way to make money, or were forced into it by their family).
School serves no other purpose than class stratification, making sure certain groups remain 'in their place' through lunchroom segregation. Alma maters and pep rallies are early steps in preparation for blind patriotism and corporate loyalism. The best thing I ever did in life was totally blow off school.
These kids need to find a way to channel their energy into something positive.
BTW, one of the reasons public schools SUCK so much is because the education programs at universities do their best to filter out anyone slightly creative, interesting, or different. Anyone interested in breaking the whole mold of teacher as unquestionable authority, depositing information into empty minds gets thrown aside, or just flat out irritated after one year. They look for structure addicts, and throw out anyone else. If you didn't enter the program as a drone, you'll come out as one.
I see your point though. After it broke I took a look at the dark side (x86) and couldn't find anything comparable to the iBook within the same price range, and even if I did there's a question of Linux compatibility, since I refuse to run another MS OS again.
When I compare my one failure to some of my friends' PC failures, I suppose I'm being bitchy.
My 800mhz iBook was manufactured in June 2003 and thus not covered by their replacement program (since it's still under warranty), yet its logic board failed last week. I wonder when the later iBook models go out of warranty if this program will be extended to cover them as well. Since I have a PowerMac I've literally used my iBook 3-4 times every month since owning it, so it's not like it was used much; hell, it still smells brand new . ..
Also, I wish I could hear some clear reports of WHAT or if there's anything different with the new logic boards that will ensure they don't keep failing again. Some reports from those who've had their iBooks repaired since this program started would be nice. Frankly I'm thinking of selling my iBook as soon as it comes back and springing for either a 12" PB or G4 iBook. Though i don't use the machine often, when I need it, I need it to work. It's sad I have to consider buying a more expensive model even though I don't need/want its features, but am afraid of the one I already own failing.
You also might want to check out Privoxy. A new version, including one for OS X was released two days ago. I've been running it on my home network ever since it replaced the Junkbuster project. Install it on one network machine (perhaps a web, or mail server) and all your network's compuers have ad/pop up filtering, plus it can do caching with Squid.
Have they actually identified the problem and found a way to stop it from reoccurring? Free service or not, continuing to be plagued by faulty logic boards would suck.
Also, since they're specifying machines made within a certain date, and with a specific serial number, does this mean only those machines were susceptible to logic board failures? I personally haven't had any problems with the iBook I bought in July, and neither has my friend's that was manufactured in March 2003, though his serial number is different than those listed as eligible for repair. How is it that certain machines (like my friend's) manufactured between May 2002 and April 2003 aren't eligible? What exactly is different in how his and mine were manufactured that make them 'safe?' From the looks of his serial number it may be a refurbished machine.
Just curious. Maybe someone with experience disassembling them can shed some slight on this.
Every once in a while I feel a twinge of guilt over using an OS (Mac OS X) that, while based on an open-source foundation, isn't truly free the way Linux is. I believe strongly in the F/OSS model and would love to see it take over the software world, so shouldn't I be doing my part?
Well, we're in a Microsoft hegemony right now. Basically, adopting any non-MS OS is going to help the open source movement, since one is helping to destroy a monoculture mentality (amongst friends, coworkers, students, whatever -- it helps). Even something as small as suggesting an individual use Mozilla over IE, helps. More OS diversity means a greater need for adoption of open standards, something all of us benefit from.
There's also the question of "If given the chance to monopolize an industry, would Apple perform just as horribly?" That's a legitimate question, and I think Jobs answered it in this article.
Slashdot Mirror
Mac bashing has all been done before. I'm used to it by now. It's tired, old, and unoriginal. Although I do think it's really funny that I'm still singled out for discussing my mac pride and opinions in a forum about MACS. Go figure. I guess macophobes just seek out people to bash out of jealousy.
The thing is, in the days when Mac bashing was slightly more fashionable it was (often) done by people who had a relatively good grasp on technology.
Nowadays it's the other way around. The people quickest to bash Macs are the ones who read a couple issues of PC Magazine, watch TechTV, and like the image of being a 'geek' though they are technically inept. In other words, it's the people who know the least about technology.
I dunno, when I see a Mac-basher I think of a white kid in Nebraska who 'hates' niggers, but wears baggy pants and listens to Eminem and 50 Cent all day; half of his 'world' is a black one. Windows users are the same, except half of their world is a Mac one, and a half-assed imitation of it at that. They're experiencing an identity crisis.
You consider something this big a PDA in the modern handheld sense of the word? I mean, if you want to go with a definition like that then Tandy's pocket computers were PDAs too.
The Newton pretty much marks the emergence of anything remotely similar to what we now know as a PDA.
But let's say everyone switched from Wintel PCs to the Mac platform. Wont we be slammed with viruses and spyware again thanks to the commonality of everyone using the same system?
I believe that depends on what you mean by "everyone." Do you mean 90% of the computers in the world begin running OS X, or do you mean a sizable number (say 25-50%) start using Macs? If 90% of the computers in the world start using Macs, that's quite probable; but the likelihood of anyone monopolizing the OS market the way MS has in the future is very unlikely. So, I suppose my answer to you is "probably not, though possibly."
Really I think you mentioned a keyword in your post -- "commonality." The immense amount of viruses and exploits out there today are because we're in a desktop monoculture. Take Apache vs. IIS as an example; Apache is the dominant web server, but IIS seems exploited more frequently. Apache probably is inherently more secure, and better audited, but the fact that there's other (perhaps more morally satisfying targets) turns people's attention from solely attacking it. I think this post of mine explains the sociological reasons the unwelcome dictator will always be the target of attacks.
The best thing in my opinion is that nobody dominates. A level playing field makes things better, even for Microsoft. And in the event OS X ever gained a marketshare comparable to Windows I'd still put my money on Cupertino, whose conceptualization of 'innovation' has been a bit more true, On top of that, since a great number of critical services in OS X are based on open source projects, there's almost an invisible alliance between two partners, that MS lacks.
MS has its hands in far too many cookie jars to give their OS the attention it deserves, and they will have no incentive to until they're hegemony is threatened.
Why would you spend $800 an a 1.25 Ghz (!) machine and even more for 512 MB ram (!!) to do email, internet, documents, etc.? If the "etc" is not too heavy, any second-hand $200 PC or $300 laptop is enough.
Because OS X doesn't run on x86 laptops from 1998, and that's what he wants to run?
Nothing wrong with a 1.2ghz G4 by the way, though I hate to get into the whole 'megahertz myth' argument, so maybe next time.
My dad bought an eMac a few months ago. The extra $200 for a system that runs OS X makes up for the hours I'd have to spend removing spyware, patching, and keeping anti-virus definitions up to date. Not to mention those wonderful moments when nothing but a complete reinstall will do.
Maybe the lack of good games was a reason for the relative failure of the Master System.
SMS was really only a failure in the US. There were games being made for it probably until the mid-90's. On the rare occasion when there were both SMS and NES versions of a game, the SMS version was usually better (Double Dragon; Ninja Gaiden are good examples).
I was the owner of a Master System, so . . . I've always held a grudge against Nintendo. Though I bought a Gamecube last year, so go figure. Maybe the cubeness and PPC CPU appealed to my Mac loving side.
Schools have tight budgets and may not be able to afford a full-time network administrator. I'd choose whatever platform meant the least amount of troubles. Windows is pretty much ruled out there.
And our PCs never seemed to get viruses, while our Macs were constantly being infected.
I actually do not doubt it, but I think it's attributable to Mac users being on the Internet before most PC users, and increasing their risk of infection in the mid-90's, especially at universities. Lab environments coupled with the Internet let viruses spread like wildfire.
When I spoke of frequency, I was referring to the amount of viruses made for PCs vs. Macs. As it stands now, I believe there's no more than a handful of Mac viruses, and all of them for classic, or are Word macros. Even in the early and mid-90's, the PC viruses outnumbered MacOS's.
But no, I don't doubt what you're saying at all.
if linux was as widely used as windows I'm sure there'd be widespread security issues. there's always going to be someone looking for and exploiting holes.
Possibly, however attacks against MS are a bit different. Whereas someone may attack a UNIX machine out of pure boredom, challenge, or to get information, there's an added moral justification in the eyes of many to attack MS machines.
If you're running Linux, you made that decision. Nothing feels forced upon you; it wasn't bundled with your machine, and it's customizable to your liking. The story is similar if you purchased a Mac. Users of alternative operating systems have a special attachment to them, and are probably looking for security holes to protect their systems, rather than exploit them.
Every MS exploit is just further proof that standardizing the entire world on one OS is a really bad idea. People will feel stripped of choice, and react. If the market were 25% Linux, 25% Mac, 50% Windows do you really think attacks would be spread equally amongst them all? I doubt it. People would still concentrate on MS, because even at 50% it is perceived as a potential bully.
The same reason people target Windows is the same reason white kids in Iowa spray paint "2 Pac" on the back of a barn: no one wants to be the oppressor. They'd be better off using their energy to propagate alternatives to their friends and family, though.
There's another quality of open source that makes it less vulnerable to exploits: it is decentralized. There's really not a single entity for anyone to hate when you speak of Linux; no one cares about Linus, because he's not some authoritarian figure that dictates an overall product. Open source projects aren't some large, unfriendly corporation that alienates the users. In fact, if you want to talk directly to a project's developers, you usually can without much hassle. With commercial products you're likely to wait in a queue for support, and then only receive a template response of commonly asked questions.
By making many core parts of the OS open source, OS X has lessened its attack potential as well, even though it is a corporate creation. Not to mention, those who use Macs willfully pay a premium, and are not forced into it. Speaking of which, even when Macs did have a market share comparable to PCs, they never seemed to be targeted with the same frequency.
Never having had a PS1, backwards compatibility on the PS2 was a big deal for me, it was like getting two systems in one.
Not to mention, if you're young and on a budget you can pick up two or more used PS1 games for the price of one new PS2 game. This was one of the cool things about having an Atari 7800: you could buy 2600 games for $2-4 a piece in the late 80's.
I don't think ANYONE expected backwards compatibility, and it hasn't really been an industry standard. Playstation/Playstation 2 was THE major exception in U.S. console gaming.
Hmm, not really.
Atari 7800 could play 2600 games.
Gameboy Advance can play Gameboy games dating back to 1988.
Sega Genesis had the Powerbase converter for about $50, that let you play all your old Master System games; Gamegear could play SMS games as well.
This all probably started with the Colecovision's 2600 adapter, in an attempt to get 2600 owners to easily convert.
Maybe not every console has done it, but backwards compatibility has been around in the industry for a while. I believe even the 5200 had a 2600 adapter in the works, which was supposed to be one of its selling points. More manufactures probably would have attempted it if the architecture jumps weren't so huge. Yet, since chips are becoming outdated so much faster nowadays, it isn't economically unreasonable to include two; maybe backwards compatibility will become standard.
But really, why offer backwards compatibility when you can resell an emulated version of the same game for its original selling price 15 years later? (See Nintendo's rereleasing of NES games for GBA).
Hardware encoders (usually MPEG2) look superior and are generally smoother, taking the load off your CPU. Do not assume that since you have quad-processor super PC that it's enough to output great/smooth video. A hardware MPEG2 encoder is still superior.
Unless of course you want to play video games through your TV tuner, then encoding of any kind becomes undesirable, since it creates enough delay to make every game unplayable.
as far as I know(please correct me if I am wrong), you really can't play consoles on it since the cards have a 1.5 second or so delay from when the video comes in to when you see it.
This is true with Firewire or USB TV devices; PCI ones are fine. For your Mac, take a look at this card. I bought the DVR version in January and its been relatively good (the software annoys me sometimes). Like you, I also have a Gamecube, and used it pretty regularly with the Alchemy card.
I use a Mac, and it's hard to find someware for internal PCI tuners.
I'm using an AlchemyTV DVR in my PowerMac. It's a PCI TV card with remote and DVR software. For about $20 less you can get the same card without the remote or DVR capabilities.
Another option is finding an old bt848-based card and experimenting with iTV.
As I see it, the main reason to go with internal rather than external is latency. If you're planning to play video games through your TV card, anything USB or FW is out of the question. Also don't forget that if you own a DV cam with video-in, and a VCR you can use as a tuner, you probably don't need to buy a TV card at all.
If you're not planning to attach a console to your TV card, I think the best option would be investing in a DV bridge of some sort, and attaching a VCR. Though you might not care about it now, being able to edit analog captures, either from television or VHS with iMovie/FCP/FCE is a nice luxury.
(Here's a little tip, though: When you get your Mac, wipe it and reinstall without the language packs but make sure to include X11 and XCode.
Or he could just use Monolingual.
After I bought my PowerMac a couple years ago, then an iBook, I talked my dad into buying an eMac to replace the old p166 I gave him . . .
I have to admit I always disliked computers with built-in CRTs, but the eMac is pretty slick. If I'm ever on a budget in the future and can only afford an intro model, I probably wouldn't rule out the eMac. It appears to have a goofy form factor when viewed on -line, but in person it looks pretty attractive. I'll second the other folks' recommendations about the swivel stand; the way it attaches to the bottom is very cool and sturdy.
No complaints here so far. Though Applecare doesn't seem like a bad idea, since it's not exactly easy to service on your own.
it still ain't pancakes.
Hrm, Linux sucks because of "lack of originality"? Hey, I'm the first person to admit that there are problems with the Linux desktop, but that's just silly.
Notice I mentioned originality with a lot of other qualities, qualities that when lacking together, make for a really poor experience. Lack of creative innovation is only one issue out of many that makes the Linux desktop experience lackluster.
Perhaps a better word choice would have been innovative ideas or new applications. What has KDE or Gnome brought to the table that hasn't been borrowed from somewhere else? What 'killer apps' has Linux produced? None really. Linux has its strength in being a rock solid server that costs absolutely nothing but the price of media or bandwidth. It also makes a great OS to install when you're on a budget, and have a strong enough sense of right and wrong not to install an MS product.
I use my computer to GET WORK DONE, as do millions of other people. I don't care if it's original or unoriginal; I care if it's secure, stable and performs well.
Well, that's probably my main gripe with Linux on the desktop: I don't get work done. I spent half my time battling with different package, or other types of dependencies every time I wanted to install a program that my distribution had not officially released a package for yet. Linux desktop installations will be a failure with average consumers until they can download, double click, install a program, and have a shortcut for it on their desktop in a couple minutes.
Or how about being able to walk into CompUSA and buy a scanner or similar device without checking 15 web sites before leaving the house to see if its compatible with Linux? And even if it is compatible with Linux, chances are you'll have to screw around for 2 hours before you get anything working. I'm sure you know the agony of buying a new video card, then spending the night making X11 work right with it, just so you can check your E-Mail before going to sleep.
If you're a coder Linux is a dream, and so is OS X for that matter. The only difference being, when I need to type 50 page papers for graduate school, I don't have to haggle with OpenOffice's clunky interface.
And to be honest, what good is OS stability when half the apps act like they're beta, even at the 1.0 mark? Show me a contender for Photoshop, Office, Final Cut Pro, and a slew of other apps. How about decent audio software for Linux? How about an easy way of authoring DVDs in Linux (something on par with iDVD)? Does that even exist?
When your wife brings you your tea, do you reject it because it's "unoriginal"? Do you stop going on trains because they're "unoriginal"? Tools to get things done
Nope, but if she put too much sugar in it, or it was too black -- or it was the wrong flavor, I'd probably complain. If the train only went 1/3 the speed of another competitor, I'd probably be willing to pay extra for the faster train, if I could afford it. That's a better analogy between OS X and Linux (and even Windows).
I'm totally for the idea of OSS, and I truly believe that's where the future of software is. Yet, until Linux produces something on par with OS X, I'm going to keep shelling out money to Apple.
Linux has mastered the server market. What can touch Apache? What admin wants to leap through 50 menus to accomplish what would only be a 1 line change in a config file? Developers pay attention to bugs in major Linux apps because so many people rely on them; on the other hand, the 1% of the people using Linux as a desktop all use 20 different E-Mail clients, and a bug report in your favorite client is just a drop in a bucket of some developer who probably works two jobs, goes to school, and then codes his little project on the side.
One last thing: as someone who relies on multiple languages, Linux language support, ESPECIALLY across different applications absolutely sucks.
With all that said, if one day Apple goes away, I'll be back running Linux, not Windows.
And that's the real key, Apple still has it's same base of loyal users it's had forever while Linux is growing in leaps and bounds each year.
.
If anything, Apple is losing some of its traditional fan base due to the switch to OS X. On the other hand, former desktop Linux users like myself have started buying Macs in droves because of OS X, but still left Linux on the servers . .
Just as the nature of Windows sucks due to its predatory father, unoriginal design, and poor security, Linux on the desktop sucks due to its unorganized nature and lack of homogeneity (and also lack of originality in some respects).
Now all of that doesn't much matter to me on a server: I set it up, lock it down, keep it updated, and forget about it. My desktop however, I'm staring at and navigating hours a day. It needs to be as simple as possible. Linux does not offer that, at least as well as OS X does, and due to its scattered nature, probably never will without some big name pushing for standardization.
What Linux does, and really any good alternative OS does is show people that there is a another, and oftentimes better way of getting work done. The first OS that showed me this fact was BeOS, which led me to Linux soon after, then finally to OS X. In other words, alternatives made me incredibly picky about what I used, since I perceived there to be a choice.
So though I'm advocating OS X . . . I really appreciate any diversity that crops up, because it forces people to start looking at alternatives. One less person running Windows means one less individual out there propagating Adolph Gates' plan for total information lock down and control.
You're looking at this all the wrong way. I don't want a second, third, or even fourth. I want abundant alternatives just like there were in the 80's. How many game manufactures during that time supported three or four platforms at once (Atari, Apple ][, c64, PC). The more competition that's allowed to exist in the market, the more creative things we'll see pop up; however, when one guy is allowed to dominate the entire field things become stagnant, predictable, and boring -- just like they have been since MS monopolized the industry.
Now if there's MORE than two or three alternatives, and each has a substantial user-base, no manufacture can consider it merely any OS niche. In fact, if the target market is always like this, programmers will try and make their code more portable from the very beginning, knowing it will likely need to run on multiple platforms.
The more I consider it, the more I think the educational system is a total croc.
It's just 12 years of busy work to keep you out of the job market. I think I could've entered college at age 14 or 15 and been successful.
I can't think of one useful thing I learned in school past sixth grade. Once you can read proficiently there's no need for school; you should be able to A) follow your own interests, and B) research them on your own. Just about any worthwhile hobby or interest will require a historical, cultural, or scientific awareness to be successful at it. Independent research will give you an understanding of history, mathematics, language, or science as it relates to your own interests, and one will be MORE likely to appreciate it being able to see how it all fits in with their own pursuits. And if you're not willing to take the time to research something, your heart probably wasn't with it in the first place (This filters out more than half of CS majors, who think programming is an easy way to make money, or were forced into it by their family).
School serves no other purpose than class stratification, making sure certain groups remain 'in their place' through lunchroom segregation. Alma maters and pep rallies are early steps in preparation for blind patriotism and corporate loyalism. The best thing I ever did in life was totally blow off school.
These kids need to find a way to channel their energy into something positive.
BTW, one of the reasons public schools SUCK so much is because the education programs at universities do their best to filter out anyone slightly creative, interesting, or different. Anyone interested in breaking the whole mold of teacher as unquestionable authority, depositing information into empty minds gets thrown aside, or just flat out irritated after one year. They look for structure addicts, and throw out anyone else. If you didn't enter the program as a drone, you'll come out as one.
No thanks :)
I see your point though. After it broke I took a look at the dark side (x86) and couldn't find anything comparable to the iBook within the same price range, and even if I did there's a question of Linux compatibility, since I refuse to run another MS OS again.
When I compare my one failure to some of my friends' PC failures, I suppose I'm being bitchy.
My 800mhz iBook was manufactured in June 2003 and thus not covered by their replacement program (since it's still under warranty), yet its logic board failed last week. I wonder when the later iBook models go out of warranty if this program will be extended to cover them as well. Since I have a PowerMac I've literally used my iBook 3-4 times every month since owning it, so it's not like it was used much; hell, it still smells brand new . . .
Also, I wish I could hear some clear reports of WHAT or if there's anything different with the new logic boards that will ensure they don't keep failing again. Some reports from those who've had their iBooks repaired since this program started would be nice. Frankly I'm thinking of selling my iBook as soon as it comes back and springing for either a 12" PB or G4 iBook. Though i don't use the machine often, when I need it, I need it to work. It's sad I have to consider buying a more expensive model even though I don't need/want its features, but am afraid of the one I already own failing.
first post bitches
I"M RICK JAMES BITCH
show me somethin
You also might want to check out Privoxy. A new version, including one for OS X was released two days ago. I've been running it on my home network ever since it replaced the Junkbuster project. Install it on one network machine (perhaps a web, or mail server) and all your network's compuers have ad/pop up filtering, plus it can do caching with Squid.
Have they actually identified the problem and found a way to stop it from reoccurring? Free service or not, continuing to be plagued by faulty logic boards would suck.
Also, since they're specifying machines made within a certain date, and with a specific serial number, does this mean only those machines were susceptible to logic board failures? I personally haven't had any problems with the iBook I bought in July, and neither has my friend's that was manufactured in March 2003, though his serial number is different than those listed as eligible for repair. How is it that certain machines (like my friend's) manufactured between May 2002 and April 2003 aren't eligible? What exactly is different in how his and mine were manufactured that make them 'safe?' From the looks of his serial number it may be a refurbished machine.
Just curious. Maybe someone with experience disassembling them can shed some slight on this.
Every once in a while I feel a twinge of guilt over using an OS (Mac OS X) that, while based on an open-source foundation, isn't truly free the way Linux is. I believe strongly in the F/OSS model and would love to see it take over the software world, so shouldn't I be doing my part?
Well, we're in a Microsoft hegemony right now. Basically, adopting any non-MS OS is going to help the open source movement, since one is helping to destroy a monoculture mentality (amongst friends, coworkers, students, whatever -- it helps). Even something as small as suggesting an individual use Mozilla over IE, helps. More OS diversity means a greater need for adoption of open standards, something all of us benefit from.
There's also the question of "If given the chance to monopolize an industry, would Apple perform just as horribly?" That's a legitimate question, and I think Jobs answered it in this article.