I think that's a bit harsh, eh? If anything, Apple has stricter standards to some of their products, compared to GNU, simply because the products are meant for the consumer rather than the programmer who can stand to piddle around with something until it works. The deviations around GCC recently (2.95/96->3.0) are a prime example of that. I'm still downloading projects that require a particular version of GCC because the earlier version doesn't support something correctly (often templates) or the later version breaks something that was supported earlier. Needless to say, that is a royal pain in the neck. Also, considering OS X contains a few GNU products, you can say that for this product at least, they've inherited whichever standards GNU has:)
Much of this is common to the general architecture of Mach microkernels, of which there are at least a few. What makes Hurd different from all the other Mach microkernels? Is it only the OO based design and implementation of it? I'm not flaming or trolling, I'm just really interested in if Hurd should be considered an academic thing or if it actually brings something revolutionary/evolutionary to the kernel playing field.
The Darwin kernel is the Mach microkernel from NeXT plus I/O, FS and such specific to Darwin and then a BSD module for that side of things. So it isn't really a port of the FreeBSD kernel to Mach, the BSD compatibility is only a portion of the Darwin system. The reason I asked, though, is because Hurd talks about being a Mach kernel as well - it would seem that there wouldn't be that much of an advantage to reinventing the wheel over and over again. I'm not knocking Hurd by any means - I really don't have any decent knowledge of it, just from reading the Hurd main page, I don't get a sense of what makes it special/interesting/beneficial. In effect, what's all the big fuss about? Having an OO based design and kernel implementation is laudable, but besides making maintenance easier, what other benefits are the Hurd folks hoping to realize? Are they looking to put this in embedded devices? General application? I'm trying to get to the core of why Hurd should be regarded as more than an academic endeavor. Enlighten me, don't flame me, please!:)
I think its pretty common for retailers in the US to ship to Canada, so won't a tariff like this simply hurt the Canadian retailers that will need to mark-up their prices compared to American retailers? I can't imagine that Apple will change the price on the iPod simply because its being shipped to Canada - usually only the taxes of the country your business is in are applied, or am I totally off base?
If this does in fact only hurt Canada's retailers, I imagine there will be significant commercial opposition to this new tax.
As we all know, by now, Apple's OS X is also based on the Mach microkernel. The foundation of OS X is Darwin. Darwin is Open Source and it runs under x86 PCs and of course Apple hardware. So my question is quite simply, how is Hurd different? Is the Darwin kernel architecture not OO-based? Does Hurd bring other advantages to it that Darwin doesn't already have?
Let's see... um, brainwashed? How 'bout picking a platform for what it can do and what you can do with it instead of just locking yourself into one option? How 'bout supporting a company that's doing Cool Shit(tm) instead of just the same 'ol thing? With an attitude like yours, how can Transmeta hope to ever succeed? And RedHat, TurboLinux, Mandrake, and SuSE? Linux isn't Intel only, Linux is definitely not 'Wintel' and neither is Apple's OS X. And what about design? Pixar made animated shorts for this little beaut - isn't that enough of a geek factor? C'mon, quit toutin' the company line and do something different for a change. If you can't get Apple's new iMac + OS X to do what you need to do, you aren't the geek you pretend to be, that's for sure.
You're talking about being able to 'Alt' and then using the arrow keys to navigate around the menus, right? If that's it, I don't believe that that type of functionality is available. At least, not to my knowledge. That, however, is an interface design decision, and to my knowledge, only KDE supports that in Linux, next to Windows (probably because KDE likes to mimic the Windows UI whenever possible). My Ximian GNOME installation does not appear to have that functionality.
Maybe. I think many of the consumers of the new iMac will be ones that not only want a machine that is capable of getting work done on, but also one that looks good, so aesthetic design will play a large role for consumers of the new iMac.
From what I can tell of the picture, the Gateway model is essentially a stationary LCD screen with a motherboard tacked on back. If you check out the various videos on Apple's site, you'll hear the designer of the new iMac talk about a design just like that being tossed out the window by Jobs. To me, that's an obvious sign that aesthetics will play a large part in the market targeted by the new iMac.
Personally, having a screen that is adjustable in height, horizontal and vertical angle is actually quite useful (you can't change the landscape/portrait orientation, though). Depending on how I'm sitting at my desk any particular day (probably depending on how I slept the night before) I might want to adjust the angle of my screen. I find myself adjusting my Dell laptop's screen often, depending on how I'm sitting.
Don't forget that this new iMac is more than just aesthetics, too. Because of all its connectivity (external video, firewire, usb, gigabit ethernet, 56k modem, etc.) its also meant to coexist peacefully and productively with all your external devices. Same goes for the software installed: iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and iTools (online). Gateway can't counter that and I think that's a very important distinguishing characteristic.
My point was simply that much of Sun's business model depends on Java. Be it via licensing, services, applications - whatever. The point was not if the quality of their applications was good. That's a personal preference and seeing as that I don't have much experience with their enterprise sweet of apps, I can't really say. You're more than entitled to your own opinion, though.
As an AC post, I should really not even bother responding, but for the benefit of the community, I will. I am far from an Apple sales rep, by any stretch of the imagination. Until about 2 yrs ago, when I started my own company, I pretty much dispised Macs. They had their place, sure, but give me my PC+Linux any day. It so happened that the company I co-founded was a design agency, so Macs soon became the norm and I accepted that. Then OS X came out and I began to love the Mac.
Now, to your points: (1) explorer; the OS X NeXTStep-style explorer is far more productive than Windows' explorer. You're just more used to one, that's all.
As for (2) mandatory use of the mouse - bullshit. The Mac has key combos for damn near everything, maybe you're talking a few years ago - I know I can switch between apps with command-tab, same as alt-tab on windows. I dare say the Mac probably even has MORE keyboard shortcuts by virtue of having three accelerator keys (ctrl/option/command), Windows only has two, to my knowledge (ctrl/alt).
(3) The 'other mouse button' has been supported for quite some time in MacOS - no support for the middle button, but Windows doesn't have that either - it seems to be a purely UNIX thing. In the Finder, right-click does the same as ctrl-left-click would do, pop up a context menu. OS X makes significant use of context menus so having a two button mouse (mine also scrolls) is very useful.
(4) Native scroll support - how 'bout, built-into carbon? OS 9 leaves much to be desired, depending primarily on custom drivers, but I can scroll just fine in almost all of my OS X carbonized apps, no problem.
And as for interface issues - I'll say this: Apple's interface designers are far and away better than Microsoft's *programmers*. Ever since its initial incarnation, Windows has smacked of no actual design talent being used in the interface and user experience design. Windows hasn't won users because its 'easy to use', 'intuitive to navigate' or anything of that nature. Why do you think companies are making millions selling 'video professor' courses on CD for how to use Windows 98, Microsoft Office, etc. - for the vast majority of people out there who don't find that Microsoft has succeeded in triumphing over 'interface issues'.
OS X beats any incarnation of Windows any day of the week and twice on Thursdays and as for Linux - not to start a flame war, but OS X's front-end is quite a bit more developed than KDE or GNOME is (yet). I'm not saying there isn't potential - I use both KDE AND GNOME on my Linux PCs, but OS X is certainly more refined and polished.
And what slow performance of applications under OS X might you be referring to? If you're talking about Classic - it runs with near native speeds, quite a feat, in my opinion. And Windows is anything but backwards compatible. Granted, some old PC apps still run in XP, but every upgrade of Windows breaks a ton of applications - ask any company that writes Windows applications. Hell, even many of Microsofts own applications don't run in more recent version of Windows!
I'll stop now, but its this kind of crap being toted around by morons thats just as bad as the FUD spread by Microsoft to its weenies.
I'm not discussing what would have been had different things happened in the '80s. I'm talking about now and how things maybe should happen from here on out. Most importantly, I'm not addressing hardware as much as I'm addressing software. What's in the past is finished, the future has yet to be written.
Absolutely true. Be extraordinarily careful. Its one thing to look at and share code from something similarly licensed to your project, but quite another to incorporate code from this into a GPL or BSD-licensed project. Recall from the end of the article:
When it's available, that 18MB tarball will be available to download, compile, test, and modify (for non-commercial use).
This is certainly not what could commonly be referred to as Open Source. I suppose its great for folks just wanting to work with.NET in an academic environment or to teach themselves (much like I am attempting to currently do), but that's as far as you can apparently go.
Not to mention that having the Mac become a dominant player in the market would not be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. OS X appears to be quite secure, it even has much of Free/NetBSDs firewalling code in it, though apparently a GUI to configure it isn't available yet (look for it shortly, I imagine). It has an OSS base, its not Linux, but that's OK, too. Unless you're a hard core kernel junky, there's really nothing all too different between the open source BSDs and Linux (ignoring the license differences which again should only affect kernel junkies).
OS X is an amazingly feature-rich system to use, Apple's push to make their desktop systems the center of 'your digital world' isn't JUST marketing hype - I've been using iTunes and iPhoto pretty extensively and I must say, neither app is lacking in anything that I've needed yet. My Rio500 hooks up perfectly with iTunes and my Olympus C-2100 UltraZoom hooks up perfectly with iPhoto. My efforts with Linux+gphoto were less than successful, I'm afraid, never mind the not-so-nice interfaces built for gphoto.
Now, don't go flaming me right away. I love Linux - I have 4 PCs running some variant of Linux including my laptop which has been running Linux + VMware for the past 3 years. I just think as a desktop OS, OS X is very, very nice. Its stable (I've experienced exactly one kernel panic which I haven't been able to reproduce) and it has some kick-ass apps written for it already with more on the way.
With Office v.X out for OS X, why couldn't the consumer live w/o Windows? I prefer quicktime to windows media player, OS X plays nicer on heterogeneous corporate networks than Windows does and not to put too fine a point on it, OS X is a whole lot easier to learn and a good bit more difficult to screw up than Windows has ever been. System files are protected so without consciously entering a system level authorization, you can't muck anything up too bad. For Windows gluttons who love all the shareware they can grab from C|Net, there's just as much written for OS 9/X that you can download from the 'Mac' category. The quality is just as dubious, so you should feel right at home:). For Linux zealots who can't or don't WANT to leave KDE/GNOME/Windowmaker/Enlightenment/etc. - don't fret. It runs fine in OS X. When I first installed it, I got the latest beta for E to run without any hitches, no sweat. There are even window managers that integrate your X apps seamlessly with OS X apps - sweet!
I would truly like to see more Open Source folks jump on the OS X bandwagon. This is a great OS - don't abandon Linux by any means, but don't diss OS X - support Apple as you would support RedHat. They've got a great thing going here, I really believe that.
Sun sells a good many enterprise infrastructure related applications and services that are centered around the Java technology. I can imagine that they will explain to the courts that MS used its monopoly status and anti-competitive behavior to marginalize the value of these Java based services, development tools and enterprise components. There are some pretty hefty enterprise systems out there based on Java that come with an equally hefty price tag. If MS used its monopoly status to get more corporations to use a purely MS based solution (ASP, IIS, MS SQL, etc.) then Sun could argue extensive damages from lost business. This could extend into a variety of arenas including hardware, since Sun's custom enterprise solutions would certainly include their servers running Solaris. Once you get into the enterprise arena, if Sun can show that because of MS, it lost significantly large contracts (millions of $$, easily) and extrapolate from there, they could be looking at significant damages, if the court decides to award them.
Never mind the various factors that would be affected by the J++ fiasco.
At the risk of revealing how poor my classical education was, could someone post what Give 'em the Hemlock is in reference to? I always hate it when I don't get a joke or a snide reference to something. But, I treat it as an opportunity to learn something new:)
For those not knowledgeable on what NARAS stands for, here you go: National Academy of the Recording Arts and Sciences. Not quite the same as the Recording Industry Association of America. The NARAS represents the people who MAKE music (singers, songwriters, musicians, sound engineers, etc.) and the RIAA represents the people with the money that hold the contracts that NARAS members are bound to. That's an oversimplification, but it should be close enough to convey the gist of each association.
Don't kid yourself, Apple makes a pretty profit off its machines... Apple's aren't resold everywhere for precisely that reason: Apple doesn't sign agreements with everyone. And even so, assume 20% goes to apple - pump the number up to 10,000 MP3 enthusiasts going out to purchase an iMac. Considering over 50 million users were trading MP3s on Napster in its hey-day and who knows how many are now on Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella and OpenNap - there ought to be enough MP3 enthusiasts that are *legal* (let's not support illegal sharing of music) to reach a critical mass. The point here is to stand behind someone who (a) can and (b) will fight. I say that Apple *can* fight - if they will remains to be seen.
As for my aside about legality - I don't want any readers to misunderstand me. I am all for ripping MP3s from my CDs or downloading MP3s online if you own the CD (via mp3.com beam-it technology or whatever else). I do not in any way support stealing music, even if it hurts the RIAA, because it hurts the artists more and from what I've learned and experienced, they're getting the shaft already - we don't need to add to that.
If we're going to win the battle, we need to do so by providing overwhelming evidence of the LEGAL use of our technologies. I think its high time someone right up a paper about a legitimate use of P2P file-sharing that isn't just a 'token gesture.'
In this particular context, it doesn't really matter if the RIAA gets a cut or not - they don't get a cut that's equivalent to the 'lost income' from illegal copies of songs. And even so, to my knowledge, that 'cut' doesn't get distributed to artists - only money that goes to ASCAP/BMI gets distributed.
I would love to see this, too... and Apple could do it and win... they have BILLIONS of dollars in CASH just sitting around, waiting to be put to good use. While the RIAA is mighty and powerful, a well thought out campaign could bring them all crashing down. Maybe all the Linux zealots out there and the Windows zealots who like having their music in MP3 format, walking around with their Rio or other player, should go out and buy an iMac as a move of solidarity to back Apple. You can still pick 'em up at your local CompUSA, Apple Store, or Apple Online... last I checked, the base model is $799 - pony up some cash, folks. If only a thousand MP3 zealots who don't already have Macs went out to buy new iMacs... that would be almost a million dollars straight into Apple's coffers... fuel the fight, folks. Lets make this happen.
Precisely. If Apple is 'guilty' then so are Philips and Aiwa (?) which I believe both ran ads centered around making your own mix CDs. Once again, the RIAA's strategy appears to be to go after an enabler rather than the culprits. Its an old argument, but for Christ's sake, blame the individual who illegally shares the content, not the companies that enable content to be shared.
While they're bashing Apple, they might as well pull in Sony as well... oops, Sony's a member of the RIAA, too, right? How do you get music to your mini-discs? Or is every album that's available on CD available on mini-disc? Not at my BestBuy! This is the digital age, trying to put the genie back in the bottle is a waste of the artist's money! Come up with something else... figure out WHY people aren't paying money for CDs and then see what you can do.
Things have to change. If the money that's been spent bribing Congress and paying lawyers had been spent in a thinktank-like endeavor to come up with a new way of doing business and representing the artists, MAYBE everyone would be happier now.
what boggles my mind is how complete and utter morons with business degrees end up in cush houses while my hard working self, with above-average intelligence can barely scrape by. Maybe I should check my morals and feelings at the door and become cold-hearted like the rest of 'em.
Any estimation of 'double the MHz' is just that, an estimation. However, I was pulling some of my information from arstechnica (or Tom's Hardware, don't remember) which indicated that at a purely architectural level, since the x86 core's pipeline on the P4 was so incredibly deep, the penalty from branch mispredicts and the comparable number of fp units and the like would indicate that it needed to run at twice the MHz as a G4 architecture chip, just to achieve comparable performance.
Now, most comparisons between G3/G4s and PIII/P4s compare apples to oranges, e.g. Photoshop tests and such. Photoshop does not share much of a codebase between the two products, Mac and PC. Also, the compilers for each of the platforms optimize code very differently (sometimes better, sometimes worse, depends on how evolved the compilers are for their particular architecture). Not to be ignored is the fact that many of the functions of each of the products is implemented using system calls of one sort or another. Even if this is just semaphore locking or similar, the difference between the MacOS codebase and Win9x/NT/2K/XP can have a significant impact on what's going on.
A more comparable comparison may be installing Linux on two machines and running a few benchmarks with that. Since much of the Linux codebase *is* shared between architectures, you might see a more pure comparison of performance in this way.
My main point is simply that my G3 400 can cope just fine with anything I throw at it, be it Photoshop or just interacting with the OS (OS X v10.1.3). However, my dual 450 PIII pulls a bit with Win2K even for simple things. With Linux, both of them are quite comparable, especially when the PC is handling multi-threaded code which can take advantage of the SMP system. Then I see a comparable performance. What people should realize is that buying a 867MHz G4 system could provide them with a more favorable end-user experience than purchasing a 1.6 GHz system from Gateway or Dell. Live a little, buy a Mac:)
This coming from a guy who used to hate Macs, only a few years back:)
You could do some fancy things on the Win98 box to use ghostscript to accept PS input and output to the native printer driver, then access the PS printer via lpr. I had to do that do use a Xerox inkjet that didn't have any MacOS drivers, from my primarily Mac network (why did I buy the Xerox? It *said* it had Mac drivers... it didn't).
OK, I have read and reread the original post a few times now and have read most of the highest moderated comments and I still have a question: why? Why are you trying to determine this? Are you designing a website? If so, why do you need a mathematical model? I work closely with a designer with many interactive (read: web) site designs under her belt and I can assure you, she uses no mathematics in making very amazing designs.
So, pray tell - what do you need this for? Especially considering that if you are working on a website, you should really consider limiting your colorspace to the 216 (or so) web-safe colors. It's not so much to support people with 8-bit color (though many such machines still exist) but more to provide a more uniform experience across multiple platforms (read: video cards, monitors, gamma corrections, etc.)
Also, don't forget that a not-for-profit must conform to S.508 accessibility guidelines (you're familiar with that as a not-for-profit web developer, right?).
FUD is right! The G3 iMac (comparable to most Intel Pentium IIIs) is only $799! That's how much the base Dell, Gateway and IBM models cost. Depending on when you buy, you might get a CD-RW thrown in, double memory, etc. - just like the Intel PC sellers do. If you need a laptop, look no further than the iBook - its got everything you need for merely $1199, if I recall correctly. Those two prices are not bad starting points - from there, things go up, but relatively slowly, all things considered. I believe the new G4 iMac starts at $1299 - you get G4 power, a sweet Apple flat screen and a slew of great trimmings like gigabit ethernet, I believe.
If you're still thinking that a 600MHz G3 is like a 600MHz PIII, think again. Look in slashdot's history to see articles addressing the architecture and speed differences between ia32 and PowerPC. Basic gist: the PIII and P4 have to have at least twice the megahertz rating of the PowerPC chips just to pull equal in computing power. And with OS X's Aqua interface, what's not to like about Apple?
If its expandability you're after, go for the G4 towers. But don't anty up more $$ just because you think you'll need expandability. The only true reasons, in my book, to go for the towers are (a) you need SCSI/RAID access and Firewire converters aren't good enough, (b) you need multiple monitors or using the iMac's mirroring output isn't good enough, (c) you need the raw horsepower of a dual processor machine, or (d) you have a PCI peripheral that doesn't have a firewire/usb alternative that's as good. The point of the list isn't necessarily to be exhaustive but rather to start you looking towards what you can do with external peripherals. Especially firewire. Need video capture/output - yep, that's there, in spades. More storage that's fast? Yep - no problem. Better/different media storage (burners/tape drives/etc.) than what Apple puts in the iMac's? Yep - got that, too. The number of excellent firewire/usb peripherals available is simply mind boggling. Take a look next time, before expounding on how 'unexpandable' Apple computers are.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's a bit harsh, eh? If anything, Apple has stricter standards to some of their products, compared to GNU, simply because the products are meant for the consumer rather than the programmer who can stand to piddle around with something until it works. The deviations around GCC recently (2.95/96->3.0) are a prime example of that. I'm still downloading projects that require a particular version of GCC because the earlier version doesn't support something correctly (often templates) or the later version breaks something that was supported earlier. Needless to say, that is a royal pain in the neck. Also, considering OS X contains a few GNU products, you can say that for this product at least, they've inherited whichever standards GNU has :)
Much of this is common to the general architecture of Mach microkernels, of which there are at least a few. What makes Hurd different from all the other Mach microkernels? Is it only the OO based design and implementation of it? I'm not flaming or trolling, I'm just really interested in if Hurd should be considered an academic thing or if it actually brings something revolutionary/evolutionary to the kernel playing field.
The Darwin kernel is the Mach microkernel from NeXT plus I/O, FS and such specific to Darwin and then a BSD module for that side of things. So it isn't really a port of the FreeBSD kernel to Mach, the BSD compatibility is only a portion of the Darwin system. The reason I asked, though, is because Hurd talks about being a Mach kernel as well - it would seem that there wouldn't be that much of an advantage to reinventing the wheel over and over again. I'm not knocking Hurd by any means - I really don't have any decent knowledge of it, just from reading the Hurd main page, I don't get a sense of what makes it special/interesting/beneficial. In effect, what's all the big fuss about? Having an OO based design and kernel implementation is laudable, but besides making maintenance easier, what other benefits are the Hurd folks hoping to realize? Are they looking to put this in embedded devices? General application? I'm trying to get to the core of why Hurd should be regarded as more than an academic endeavor. Enlighten me, don't flame me, please! :)
I think its pretty common for retailers in the US to ship to Canada, so won't a tariff like this simply hurt the Canadian retailers that will need to mark-up their prices compared to American retailers? I can't imagine that Apple will change the price on the iPod simply because its being shipped to Canada - usually only the taxes of the country your business is in are applied, or am I totally off base?
If this does in fact only hurt Canada's retailers, I imagine there will be significant commercial opposition to this new tax.
As we all know, by now, Apple's OS X is also based on the Mach microkernel. The foundation of OS X is Darwin. Darwin is Open Source and it runs under x86 PCs and of course Apple hardware. So my question is quite simply, how is Hurd different? Is the Darwin kernel architecture not OO-based? Does Hurd bring other advantages to it that Darwin doesn't already have?
Let's see ... um, brainwashed? How 'bout picking a platform for what it can do and what you can do with it instead of just locking yourself into one option? How 'bout supporting a company that's doing Cool Shit(tm) instead of just the same 'ol thing? With an attitude like yours, how can Transmeta hope to ever succeed? And RedHat, TurboLinux, Mandrake, and SuSE? Linux isn't Intel only, Linux is definitely not 'Wintel' and neither is Apple's OS X. And what about design? Pixar made animated shorts for this little beaut - isn't that enough of a geek factor? C'mon, quit toutin' the company line and do something different for a change. If you can't get Apple's new iMac + OS X to do what you need to do, you aren't the geek you pretend to be, that's for sure.
/.'s geeks.
Let that be a challenge to all of
You're talking about being able to 'Alt' and then using the arrow keys to navigate around the menus, right? If that's it, I don't believe that that type of functionality is available. At least, not to my knowledge. That, however, is an interface design decision, and to my knowledge, only KDE supports that in Linux, next to Windows (probably because KDE likes to mimic the Windows UI whenever possible). My Ximian GNOME installation does not appear to have that functionality.
Maybe. I think many of the consumers of the new iMac will be ones that not only want a machine that is capable of getting work done on, but also one that looks good, so aesthetic design will play a large role for consumers of the new iMac.
From what I can tell of the picture, the Gateway model is essentially a stationary LCD screen with a motherboard tacked on back. If you check out the various videos on Apple's site, you'll hear the designer of the new iMac talk about a design just like that being tossed out the window by Jobs. To me, that's an obvious sign that aesthetics will play a large part in the market targeted by the new iMac.
Personally, having a screen that is adjustable in height, horizontal and vertical angle is actually quite useful (you can't change the landscape/portrait orientation, though). Depending on how I'm sitting at my desk any particular day (probably depending on how I slept the night before) I might want to adjust the angle of my screen. I find myself adjusting my Dell laptop's screen often, depending on how I'm sitting.
Don't forget that this new iMac is more than just aesthetics, too. Because of all its connectivity (external video, firewire, usb, gigabit ethernet, 56k modem, etc.) its also meant to coexist peacefully and productively with all your external devices. Same goes for the software installed: iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, and iTools (online). Gateway can't counter that and I think that's a very important distinguishing characteristic.
My point was simply that much of Sun's business model depends on Java. Be it via licensing, services, applications - whatever. The point was not if the quality of their applications was good. That's a personal preference and seeing as that I don't have much experience with their enterprise sweet of apps, I can't really say. You're more than entitled to your own opinion, though.
As an AC post, I should really not even bother responding, but for the benefit of the community, I will. I am far from an Apple sales rep, by any stretch of the imagination. Until about 2 yrs ago, when I started my own company, I pretty much dispised Macs. They had their place, sure, but give me my PC+Linux any day. It so happened that the company I co-founded was a design agency, so Macs soon became the norm and I accepted that. Then OS X came out and I began to love the Mac.
Now, to your points: (1) explorer; the OS X NeXTStep-style explorer is far more productive than Windows' explorer. You're just more used to one, that's all.
As for (2) mandatory use of the mouse - bullshit. The Mac has key combos for damn near everything, maybe you're talking a few years ago - I know I can switch between apps with command-tab, same as alt-tab on windows. I dare say the Mac probably even has MORE keyboard shortcuts by virtue of having three accelerator keys (ctrl/option/command), Windows only has two, to my knowledge (ctrl/alt).
(3) The 'other mouse button' has been supported for quite some time in MacOS - no support for the middle button, but Windows doesn't have that either - it seems to be a purely UNIX thing. In the Finder, right-click does the same as ctrl-left-click would do, pop up a context menu. OS X makes significant use of context menus so having a two button mouse (mine also scrolls) is very useful.
(4) Native scroll support - how 'bout, built-into carbon? OS 9 leaves much to be desired, depending primarily on custom drivers, but I can scroll just fine in almost all of my OS X carbonized apps, no problem.
And as for interface issues - I'll say this: Apple's interface designers are far and away better than Microsoft's *programmers*. Ever since its initial incarnation, Windows has smacked of no actual design talent being used in the interface and user experience design. Windows hasn't won users because its 'easy to use', 'intuitive to navigate' or anything of that nature. Why do you think companies are making millions selling 'video professor' courses on CD for how to use Windows 98, Microsoft Office, etc. - for the vast majority of people out there who don't find that Microsoft has succeeded in triumphing over 'interface issues'.
OS X beats any incarnation of Windows any day of the week and twice on Thursdays and as for Linux - not to start a flame war, but OS X's front-end is quite a bit more developed than KDE or GNOME is (yet). I'm not saying there isn't potential - I use both KDE AND GNOME on my Linux PCs, but OS X is certainly more refined and polished.
And what slow performance of applications under OS X might you be referring to? If you're talking about Classic - it runs with near native speeds, quite a feat, in my opinion. And Windows is anything but backwards compatible. Granted, some old PC apps still run in XP, but every upgrade of Windows breaks a ton of applications - ask any company that writes Windows applications. Hell, even many of Microsofts own applications don't run in more recent version of Windows!
I'll stop now, but its this kind of crap being toted around by morons thats just as bad as the FUD spread by Microsoft to its weenies.
I'm not discussing what would have been had different things happened in the '80s. I'm talking about now and how things maybe should happen from here on out. Most importantly, I'm not addressing hardware as much as I'm addressing software. What's in the past is finished, the future has yet to be written.
Absolutely true. Be extraordinarily careful. Its one thing to look at and share code from something similarly licensed to your project, but quite another to incorporate code from this into a GPL or BSD-licensed project. Recall from the end of the article:
This is certainly not what could commonly be referred to as Open Source. I suppose its great for folks just wanting to work with .NET in an academic environment or to teach themselves (much like I am attempting to currently do), but that's as far as you can apparently go.
Not to mention that having the Mac become a dominant player in the market would not be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. OS X appears to be quite secure, it even has much of Free/NetBSDs firewalling code in it, though apparently a GUI to configure it isn't available yet (look for it shortly, I imagine). It has an OSS base, its not Linux, but that's OK, too. Unless you're a hard core kernel junky, there's really nothing all too different between the open source BSDs and Linux (ignoring the license differences which again should only affect kernel junkies).
:). For Linux zealots who can't or don't WANT to leave KDE/GNOME/Windowmaker/Enlightenment/etc. - don't fret. It runs fine in OS X. When I first installed it, I got the latest beta for E to run without any hitches, no sweat. There are even window managers that integrate your X apps seamlessly with OS X apps - sweet!
OS X is an amazingly feature-rich system to use, Apple's push to make their desktop systems the center of 'your digital world' isn't JUST marketing hype - I've been using iTunes and iPhoto pretty extensively and I must say, neither app is lacking in anything that I've needed yet. My Rio500 hooks up perfectly with iTunes and my Olympus C-2100 UltraZoom hooks up perfectly with iPhoto. My efforts with Linux+gphoto were less than successful, I'm afraid, never mind the not-so-nice interfaces built for gphoto.
Now, don't go flaming me right away. I love Linux - I have 4 PCs running some variant of Linux including my laptop which has been running Linux + VMware for the past 3 years. I just think as a desktop OS, OS X is very, very nice. Its stable (I've experienced exactly one kernel panic which I haven't been able to reproduce) and it has some kick-ass apps written for it already with more on the way.
With Office v.X out for OS X, why couldn't the consumer live w/o Windows? I prefer quicktime to windows media player, OS X plays nicer on heterogeneous corporate networks than Windows does and not to put too fine a point on it, OS X is a whole lot easier to learn and a good bit more difficult to screw up than Windows has ever been. System files are protected so without consciously entering a system level authorization, you can't muck anything up too bad. For Windows gluttons who love all the shareware they can grab from C|Net, there's just as much written for OS 9/X that you can download from the 'Mac' category. The quality is just as dubious, so you should feel right at home
I would truly like to see more Open Source folks jump on the OS X bandwagon. This is a great OS - don't abandon Linux by any means, but don't diss OS X - support Apple as you would support RedHat. They've got a great thing going here, I really believe that.
Sun sells a good many enterprise infrastructure related applications and services that are centered around the Java technology. I can imagine that they will explain to the courts that MS used its monopoly status and anti-competitive behavior to marginalize the value of these Java based services, development tools and enterprise components. There are some pretty hefty enterprise systems out there based on Java that come with an equally hefty price tag. If MS used its monopoly status to get more corporations to use a purely MS based solution (ASP, IIS, MS SQL, etc.) then Sun could argue extensive damages from lost business. This could extend into a variety of arenas including hardware, since Sun's custom enterprise solutions would certainly include their servers running Solaris. Once you get into the enterprise arena, if Sun can show that because of MS, it lost significantly large contracts (millions of $$, easily) and extrapolate from there, they could be looking at significant damages, if the court decides to award them.
Never mind the various factors that would be affected by the J++ fiasco.
At the risk of revealing how poor my classical education was, could someone post what Give 'em the Hemlock is in reference to? I always hate it when I don't get a joke or a snide reference to something. But, I treat it as an opportunity to learn something new :)
For those not knowledgeable on what NARAS stands for, here you go: National Academy of the Recording Arts and Sciences. Not quite the same as the Recording Industry Association of America. The NARAS represents the people who MAKE music (singers, songwriters, musicians, sound engineers, etc.) and the RIAA represents the people with the money that hold the contracts that NARAS members are bound to. That's an oversimplification, but it should be close enough to convey the gist of each association.
Don't kid yourself, Apple makes a pretty profit off its machines ... Apple's aren't resold everywhere for precisely that reason: Apple doesn't sign agreements with everyone. And even so, assume 20% goes to apple - pump the number up to 10,000 MP3 enthusiasts going out to purchase an iMac. Considering over 50 million users were trading MP3s on Napster in its hey-day and who knows how many are now on Kazaa, Morpheus, Gnutella and OpenNap - there ought to be enough MP3 enthusiasts that are *legal* (let's not support illegal sharing of music) to reach a critical mass. The point here is to stand behind someone who (a) can and (b) will fight. I say that Apple *can* fight - if they will remains to be seen.
As for my aside about legality - I don't want any readers to misunderstand me. I am all for ripping MP3s from my CDs or downloading MP3s online if you own the CD (via mp3.com beam-it technology or whatever else). I do not in any way support stealing music, even if it hurts the RIAA, because it hurts the artists more and from what I've learned and experienced, they're getting the shaft already - we don't need to add to that.
If we're going to win the battle, we need to do so by providing overwhelming evidence of the LEGAL use of our technologies. I think its high time someone right up a paper about a legitimate use of P2P file-sharing that isn't just a 'token gesture.'
Yep, exactly. How 'bout stopping all imports from Taiwan and other nations that create all the blank CDs for us?
In this particular context, it doesn't really matter if the RIAA gets a cut or not - they don't get a cut that's equivalent to the 'lost income' from illegal copies of songs. And even so, to my knowledge, that 'cut' doesn't get distributed to artists - only money that goes to ASCAP/BMI gets distributed.
I would love to see this, too ... and Apple could do it and win ... they have BILLIONS of dollars in CASH just sitting around, waiting to be put to good use. While the RIAA is mighty and powerful, a well thought out campaign could bring them all crashing down. Maybe all the Linux zealots out there and the Windows zealots who like having their music in MP3 format, walking around with their Rio or other player, should go out and buy an iMac as a move of solidarity to back Apple. You can still pick 'em up at your local CompUSA, Apple Store, or Apple Online ... last I checked, the base model is $799 - pony up some cash, folks. If only a thousand MP3 zealots who don't already have Macs went out to buy new iMacs ... that would be almost a million dollars straight into Apple's coffers ... fuel the fight, folks. Lets make this happen.
Precisely. If Apple is 'guilty' then so are Philips and Aiwa (?) which I believe both ran ads centered around making your own mix CDs. Once again, the RIAA's strategy appears to be to go after an enabler rather than the culprits. Its an old argument, but for Christ's sake, blame the individual who illegally shares the content, not the companies that enable content to be shared.
... oops, Sony's a member of the RIAA, too, right? How do you get music to your mini-discs? Or is every album that's available on CD available on mini-disc? Not at my BestBuy! This is the digital age, trying to put the genie back in the bottle is a waste of the artist's money! Come up with something else ... figure out WHY people aren't paying money for CDs and then see what you can do.
While they're bashing Apple, they might as well pull in Sony as well
Things have to change. If the money that's been spent bribing Congress and paying lawyers had been spent in a thinktank-like endeavor to come up with a new way of doing business and representing the artists, MAYBE everyone would be happier now.
what boggles my mind is how complete and utter morons with business degrees end up in cush houses while my hard working self, with above-average intelligence can barely scrape by. Maybe I should check my morals and feelings at the door and become cold-hearted like the rest of 'em.
Any estimation of 'double the MHz' is just that, an estimation. However, I was pulling some of my information from arstechnica (or Tom's Hardware, don't remember) which indicated that at a purely architectural level, since the x86 core's pipeline on the P4 was so incredibly deep, the penalty from branch mispredicts and the comparable number of fp units and the like would indicate that it needed to run at twice the MHz as a G4 architecture chip, just to achieve comparable performance.
:)
:)
Now, most comparisons between G3/G4s and PIII/P4s compare apples to oranges, e.g. Photoshop tests and such. Photoshop does not share much of a codebase between the two products, Mac and PC. Also, the compilers for each of the platforms optimize code very differently (sometimes better, sometimes worse, depends on how evolved the compilers are for their particular architecture). Not to be ignored is the fact that many of the functions of each of the products is implemented using system calls of one sort or another. Even if this is just semaphore locking or similar, the difference between the MacOS codebase and Win9x/NT/2K/XP can have a significant impact on what's going on.
A more comparable comparison may be installing Linux on two machines and running a few benchmarks with that. Since much of the Linux codebase *is* shared between architectures, you might see a more pure comparison of performance in this way.
My main point is simply that my G3 400 can cope just fine with anything I throw at it, be it Photoshop or just interacting with the OS (OS X v10.1.3). However, my dual 450 PIII pulls a bit with Win2K even for simple things. With Linux, both of them are quite comparable, especially when the PC is handling multi-threaded code which can take advantage of the SMP system. Then I see a comparable performance. What people should realize is that buying a 867MHz G4 system could provide them with a more favorable end-user experience than purchasing a 1.6 GHz system from Gateway or Dell. Live a little, buy a Mac
This coming from a guy who used to hate Macs, only a few years back
You could do some fancy things on the Win98 box to use ghostscript to accept PS input and output to the native printer driver, then access the PS printer via lpr. I had to do that do use a Xerox inkjet that didn't have any MacOS drivers, from my primarily Mac network (why did I buy the Xerox? It *said* it had Mac drivers ... it didn't).
Good luck!
OK, I have read and reread the original post a few times now and have read most of the highest moderated comments and I still have a question: why? Why are you trying to determine this? Are you designing a website? If so, why do you need a mathematical model? I work closely with a designer with many interactive (read: web) site designs under her belt and I can assure you, she uses no mathematics in making very amazing designs.
So, pray tell - what do you need this for? Especially considering that if you are working on a website, you should really consider limiting your colorspace to the 216 (or so) web-safe colors. It's not so much to support people with 8-bit color (though many such machines still exist) but more to provide a more uniform experience across multiple platforms (read: video cards, monitors, gamma corrections, etc.)
Also, don't forget that a not-for-profit must conform to S.508 accessibility guidelines (you're familiar with that as a not-for-profit web developer, right?).
FUD is right! The G3 iMac (comparable to most Intel Pentium IIIs) is only $799! That's how much the base Dell, Gateway and IBM models cost. Depending on when you buy, you might get a CD-RW thrown in, double memory, etc. - just like the Intel PC sellers do. If you need a laptop, look no further than the iBook - its got everything you need for merely $1199, if I recall correctly. Those two prices are not bad starting points - from there, things go up, but relatively slowly, all things considered. I believe the new G4 iMac starts at $1299 - you get G4 power, a sweet Apple flat screen and a slew of great trimmings like gigabit ethernet, I believe.
If you're still thinking that a 600MHz G3 is like a 600MHz PIII, think again. Look in slashdot's history to see articles addressing the architecture and speed differences between ia32 and PowerPC. Basic gist: the PIII and P4 have to have at least twice the megahertz rating of the PowerPC chips just to pull equal in computing power. And with OS X's Aqua interface, what's not to like about Apple?
If its expandability you're after, go for the G4 towers. But don't anty up more $$ just because you think you'll need expandability. The only true reasons, in my book, to go for the towers are (a) you need SCSI/RAID access and Firewire converters aren't good enough, (b) you need multiple monitors or using the iMac's mirroring output isn't good enough, (c) you need the raw horsepower of a dual processor machine, or (d) you have a PCI peripheral that doesn't have a firewire/usb alternative that's as good. The point of the list isn't necessarily to be exhaustive but rather to start you looking towards what you can do with external peripherals. Especially firewire. Need video capture/output - yep, that's there, in spades. More storage that's fast? Yep - no problem. Better/different media storage (burners/tape drives/etc.) than what Apple puts in the iMac's? Yep - got that, too. The number of excellent firewire/usb peripherals available is simply mind boggling. Take a look next time, before expounding on how 'unexpandable' Apple computers are.
Peace.