Most of the crazy stuff the OS X interface does (the on-the-fly icon resizing, the transparency, the real time distortion of windows as they zoom to the dock while their contets continue to update) is trivial with OS X's graphics engine. There's just no good reason not to do it.
It is. That's just why that naming choice is even more idiotic. Mac OS X, or Mac OS 10 as Apple should have decided to write it, has nothing to do with X11 at all; it doesn't even have an X11 implementation. They just switched to the "X" because they wanted a way to show that it wasn't just another Mac OS release.
Clinton is a moderate Republican, or would have been 20 years ago. This entire country is becoming more and more conservative, and there's no end in sight. If the Republicans get both the executive and legislative branches, prepare for prayer in public schools, bans on certain methods of freedom of expression (e.g. flag burning), paranoid defense spending on projects that will never get anywhere, a weakened DoJ, etc. Maybe if we're really lucky they'll even start a cold war with China. The entire political system has been corrupted by money, and although everyone claims they want something done about this, it'll probably end up like the Clinton heath care plan that the insurance companies killed off with millions of dollars worth of advertising. I can see the ads now: "Do you want your freedom to express your political opinion limited? [Blah, blah, no mention of who really benefits from soft money] Paid for by Americans for Free Expression [read: some group set up by the major corporate interests]".
I find Libertarians just as scary, however. The best guy who actually has a shot now is Bradley, IMO.
This is a trustable patch. First off, I've rarely if ever had a problem with an Apple update. Second, this doesn't even patch any executable code, it just changes a default setting in Open Transport.
I installed it last night (on a G3/400 on a LAN with DSL access via a gateway), and everything is, as expected, working smoothly.
Why would they want to buy either when they could get the open source QuickTime Streaming Server for $0, and serve from Linux, *BSD, Mac OS X Server, or NT?
--
Re:Since source is closed, we must wait for Apple.
on
Mac OS9 Flood Attack
·
· Score: 1
What the summary doesn't mention is that Apple has already whipped up a patch (took them two days) and it should be available to the public soon.
BSD license? The APSL is much more like GPL than BSD, and that's very understandable. I can't see that Apple would like, say, MS having rights to use Apple code in closed source products.
Mac OS 9 has limited support for multiple processors, but not SMP. Apps need to be specifically coded for MP configurations. Fortunately, most of the apps that actually need MP (stuff like Photoshop) are already MP-enabled, because Apple has made a couple MP machines in the past.
Mac OS X Server does not currently have any kind of MP support at all, but the Server 1.2 update (which was originally just intended to add G4 support) has been taking longer than expected, and it's rumored that this is because it's going to be a rather major upgrade. If Apple really does introduce MP machines at Macworld, it doesn't seem so far fetched that a version of Server that supports SMP will be introduced as well.
SMP is an announced feature for the client version of Mac OS X as well (and all future versions of Server will be based on this client version), whenever that actually ships.
Windows Media Player is, IMO, the best media player available for Windows. Real Player is encrusted in a ton of corporate chrome which constantly flings ads and GUI spam at me.
You can get around this. Set your system clock a few years in the future, open up the player, hit "later", and set your clock back. I know, you shouldn't have to do this, but it works.
Quicktime, quite frankly blowz head. It doesn't even use the video features of today's advanced video cards, like hardware colorspace conversion, secondary surface rendering with overlay and backend hardware scaling. Drag the Quicktime window out to three times its original postage stamp size and it slows to a crawl.
You might want to try a video card that actually has drivers that have some clue how to accelerate QuickTime. Most Mac video cards do this, and it scales up very nicely. I'm sure QuickTime acceleration must exist on the PC.
Until recently Real Player was the same, badly lagging in support of advanced features. It also sometimes inexplicably falls back to non-filtered, non-acceleration video when windows overlay it. It's clunky, and I don't have confidence in it.
The Mac version is even worse. Before it's even done installing it's already broken about 15 Mac standard Mac conventions.
I hate to admit it, but M$ has done good with their media player and they deserve to win. Quicktime would be my first choice if they supported the advanced multimedia features of modern video cards.
I must admit I don't use Windows much, and I never really thought of this issue. Hardware support for QuickTime on the Mac is very good, and I almost always play whatever I happen to be watching at full screen with no problems.
Quicktime looks pretty good (when played at its original size and there's not much motion [wtf is upwith those interlace artifacts in progressive video on QT4??]),
RealPlayer seems to get the same kinds of artifacts. They don't show up when the network is working well, it seems.
but I've not been able to compare it to one of the Windows Media codecs at high bitrates.
QuickTime is really still king of quality. It scales right on up from modem streams to anything you could possably want. You could stream something at HDTV quality over QuickTime if you had the bandwidth.
QuickTime? Not unless Apple does a port. Be asked Apple about a QuickTime port a few years back, but Apple wanted some large amount of cash that Be didn't have (QuickTime isn't a media player, it's actually a more complex product that many OSes, that adds an entire "media layer" to the OS it's running on, and provides many APIs for apps to use; this makes it rather expensive to port).
Apple is interested in QuickTime as a successful media platform and obviously didn't think porting to BeOS would get them much, given Be's small market share.
If BeOS starts to become popular as an Internet client OS though, I suspect Apple will be happy to do a port.
You're forgetting QuickTime. It has better quality than RealPlayer or MediaPlayer can provide, it's more cross platform than MediaPlayer (the Mac version of MediaPlayer is a joke), and the server software is free, open source, and has already been ported to Linux, FreeBSD, NT, and others (of course it was written on Mac OS X Server).
Even more surprisingly, while Media Player has a larger installed base (mostly because Windows Update tries to talk people into downloading it), people actually use QuickTime more than anything other than RealPlayer. It has a rather large lead over Media Player for actual use.
Please, no "Apple sux!" responses. QuickTime is more open than either MediaPlayer or RealPlayer, and Apple has shown much more commitment to open source software than MS or Real.
I'm sorry, I realize none of you want to hear again the whole "playing god" thing, but I really think this has gone too far. Who does man think he is, to assume the role of god and create life? Are we really that conceited that we feel we are ALLOWED to create other organisms? I wasn't even thrilled when we began cloning other species, though at least we weren't starting with a lab table and ending up with a brand new organism.
God? If there's a god, and he/she/it didn't want us creating life, what's with giving us all this unnecessary (for survival) brain power?
I don't want to get off topic, but...man continues to disgust me. Too often we think that WE are the dominant species, the ones meant to survive.
Of course we think we're the ones meant to survive at any cost. Any spicies thinks like this. It's instinctive. A spicies without this drive wouldn't last very long.
We are arrogant, and we are ignorant. Every day we cut down tons of trees for wood in order to keep industry alive. When will we realize that these very trees are what supply us with oxygen? And who gave us the job of ruining the habitats and lives of other organisms...why, just because we have more brainpower than them? People often say we're the smartest of species, but I disagree. For, if we truly were, we wouldn't be the only species on earth who kills its own for pleasure.
We're not. Most species don't kill for pleasure because they're too busy struggling to survive. Those that don't have that problem will often kill for no reason. Ever seen an over-fed house cat go after a mouse?
And now this. And now, we synthesize life, just another step in man's arrogant trip to the top.
I don't understand how this is any more arrogant than use of fire.
This comes at a time when we are trying to learn more about other plants, of which Mars comes to mind at the moment. The first thing we did when we found out we could get to Mars was send out probes to check if there was water there, and analyze the atmosphere -- why? Sure there were some minor scientific reasons: life on mars? history of mars? But the real reason - can it support human life? Once again, we are putting ourselves first, not worrying about how we will ruin Mars as we did Earth,
The drive to expand territory is a human survival instinct that we share with many other species. It isn't arrogant at all. It's perfectly logical and natural.
and trying to extend our boundaries and God-given limitations.
They aren't limitations if we can get around them.
Microsoft owns 4% of Apple stock, and it's non-voting. The investment was done largely as a favor to Apple by MS, as part of a deal in which Apple agreed not to sue MS for patent infringement, and to bundle IE and OE as the default web and mail/news clients. MS made the investment, paid Apple an additional undisclosed sum (rumored to be $400M), and agreed to maintain MS Office on the Macintosh for a minimum of 5 years.
Though the investment paid off well enough for MS. They bought $150M worth of stock at something like $20 a share. Apple stock closed at $103.062/share today.
The article says that this is probably being done to prevent headhunters from tracking down Apple engineers. If this is true, this seems to be a perfectly legitimate example of a company protecting its interests.
Holding down option changes "About this Computer" to "About the Finder". Until quite recently that got you the original black and white about box from Mac OS 1.0. In Mac OS 8 it got colorized. In Mac OS 9 you get a picture of the Apple campus.
Here's one of the best: in Mac OS 7.5.x, drag the text "secret about box" from any app that supports drag-and-drop to the desktop. The secret about box that pops up is a playable pong game, with the name of each programmer written on a brick.
The judge defined the market in which MS has a monopoly as the "market for intel-compatable computers". I don't think the aliens have any "intel-compatable computers".;-)
I'm curious to see how Sun handles the interface issue on the Mac. They can't use MDI. The Mac's windowing system doesn't even support it. They'd have to hack something together themselves. If they do a direct port keeping the Linux interface in tact, no Mac users will go near it, especially since, unlike Linux, Mac OS has MS Office.
Oh, come on. Our defense spending is out of hand considering the fraction of the population that doesn't have health care or even sufficient food. The development of this possible stealth detection technology as bad; it means now we're going to spend gobs more money figuring out how to hide from it.
And anyway, China isn't the real threat at all. A large military does nothing against the only real threat to the US these days, terrorism. One of the reasons we're a terrorist target is because of our powerful military, and the way we use it to enforce out interests.
Several groups of two words: spy satellites, cruise missiles, B-2 Bombers, and Sekrit Stuff(TM) we've never ever heard of. Now add in several thousand ICBMs aimed at Chinese cities. Given all this, do you really think China would try to invade the US?
Why would China invade the US anyway? China has the power to invade most countries in the world right now, but you don't see it happening. People who think like this are paranoid. The whole "Us" and "Them" thing is way out of hand. I'm sure the Chinese have no more desire to be involved in a huge, bloody, devastating war than the US does.
It can be safely assumed that all rendering was done with RenderMan, the compact-car-priced, Pixar-developed, amazingly nifty rendering package. Last I heard Pixar's was using a few dozen Sun Enterprise (forget which model) machines for rendering. I can't image they'd replace all that hardware so soon (it was used for A Bug's Life). Modeling, I have no clue, but if I had to guess, I'd guess Maya on IRIX.
Of course Jobs knows what Linux is. He's mentioned it a few times. Hell, Apple's QuickTime Streaming Server software even runs on Linux.
I don't think that penguin has anything do do with Linux though. I can't see why it would. Word is Pixar's Unix of choice is Solaris (on rendering farm machines anyway), and Apple is mostly involved with the BSD community, so if that had anything to do with it, it would be a demon;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the crazy stuff the OS X interface does (the on-the-fly icon resizing, the transparency, the real time distortion of windows as they zoom to the dock while their contets continue to update) is trivial with OS X's graphics engine. There's just no good reason not to do it.
--
It is. That's just why that naming choice is even more idiotic. Mac OS X, or Mac OS 10 as Apple should have decided to write it, has nothing to do with X11 at all; it doesn't even have an X11 implementation. They just switched to the "X" because they wanted a way to show that it wasn't just another Mac OS release.
--
Too late. Mac OS X anyone?
--
The other problem is if there are two candidates on the left and only one on the right, guess which gets elected?
--
Clinton is a moderate Republican, or would have been 20 years ago. This entire country is becoming more and more conservative, and there's no end in sight. If the Republicans get both the executive and legislative branches, prepare for prayer in public schools, bans on certain methods of freedom of expression (e.g. flag burning), paranoid defense spending on projects that will never get anywhere, a weakened DoJ, etc. Maybe if we're really lucky they'll even start a cold war with China. The entire political system has been corrupted by money, and although everyone claims they want something done about this, it'll probably end up like the Clinton heath care plan that the insurance companies killed off with millions of dollars worth of advertising. I can see the ads now: "Do you want your freedom to express your political opinion limited? [Blah, blah, no mention of who really benefits from soft money] Paid for by Americans for Free Expression [read: some group set up by the major corporate interests]".
I find Libertarians just as scary, however. The best guy who actually has a shot now is Bradley, IMO.
--
This is a trustable patch. First off, I've rarely if ever had a problem with an Apple update. Second, this doesn't even patch any executable code, it just changes a default setting in Open Transport.
I installed it last night (on a G3/400 on a LAN with DSL access via a gateway), and everything is, as expected, working smoothly.
--
Why would they want to buy either when they could get the open source QuickTime Streaming Server for $0, and serve from Linux, *BSD, Mac OS X Server, or NT?
--
What the summary doesn't mention is that Apple has already whipped up a patch (took them two days) and it should be available to the public soon.
--
BSD license? The APSL is much more like GPL than BSD, and that's very understandable. I can't see that Apple would like, say, MS having rights to use Apple code in closed source products.
--
Mac OS 9 has limited support for multiple processors, but not SMP. Apps need to be specifically coded for MP configurations. Fortunately, most of the apps that actually need MP (stuff like Photoshop) are already MP-enabled, because Apple has made a couple MP machines in the past.
Mac OS X Server does not currently have any kind of MP support at all, but the Server 1.2 update (which was originally just intended to add G4 support) has been taking longer than expected, and it's rumored that this is because it's going to be a rather major upgrade. If Apple really does introduce MP machines at Macworld, it doesn't seem so far fetched that a version of Server that supports SMP will be introduced as well.
SMP is an announced feature for the client version of Mac OS X as well (and all future versions of Server will be based on this client version), whenever that actually ships.
--
Windows Media Player is, IMO, the best media player available for Windows. Real Player is encrusted in a ton of corporate chrome which constantly flings ads and GUI spam at me.
You can get around this. Set your system clock a few years in the future, open up the player, hit "later", and set your clock back. I know, you shouldn't have to do this, but it works.
Quicktime, quite frankly blowz head. It doesn't even use the video features of today's advanced video cards, like hardware colorspace conversion, secondary surface rendering with overlay and backend hardware scaling. Drag the Quicktime window out to three times its original postage stamp size and it slows to a crawl.
You might want to try a video card that actually has drivers that have some clue how to accelerate QuickTime. Most Mac video cards do this, and it scales up very nicely. I'm sure QuickTime acceleration must exist on the PC.
Until recently Real Player was the same, badly lagging in support of advanced features. It also sometimes inexplicably falls back to non-filtered, non-acceleration video when windows overlay it. It's clunky, and I don't have confidence in it.
The Mac version is even worse. Before it's even done installing it's already broken about 15 Mac standard Mac conventions.
I hate to admit it, but M$ has done good with their media player and they deserve to win. Quicktime would be my first choice if they supported the advanced multimedia features of modern video cards.
I must admit I don't use Windows much, and I never really thought of this issue. Hardware support for QuickTime on the Mac is very good, and I almost always play whatever I happen to be watching at full screen with no problems.
Quicktime looks pretty good (when played at its original size and there's not much motion [wtf is upwith those interlace artifacts in progressive video on QT4??]),
RealPlayer seems to get the same kinds of artifacts. They don't show up when the network is working well, it seems.
but I've not been able to compare it to one of the Windows Media codecs at high bitrates.
QuickTime is really still king of quality. It scales right on up from modem streams to anything you could possably want. You could stream something at HDTV quality over QuickTime if you had the bandwidth.
--
QuickTime? Not unless Apple does a port. Be asked Apple about a QuickTime port a few years back, but Apple wanted some large amount of cash that Be didn't have (QuickTime isn't a media player, it's actually a more complex product that many OSes, that adds an entire "media layer" to the OS it's running on, and provides many APIs for apps to use; this makes it rather expensive to port).
Apple is interested in QuickTime as a successful media platform and obviously didn't think porting to BeOS would get them much, given Be's small market share.
If BeOS starts to become popular as an Internet client OS though, I suspect Apple will be happy to do a port.
--
You're forgetting QuickTime. It has better quality than RealPlayer or MediaPlayer can provide, it's more cross platform than MediaPlayer (the Mac version of MediaPlayer is a joke), and the server software is free, open source, and has already been ported to Linux, FreeBSD, NT, and others (of course it was written on Mac OS X Server).
Even more surprisingly, while Media Player has a larger installed base (mostly because Windows Update tries to talk people into downloading it), people actually use QuickTime more than anything other than RealPlayer. It has a rather large lead over Media Player for actual use.
Please, no "Apple sux!" responses. QuickTime is more open than either MediaPlayer or RealPlayer, and Apple has shown much more commitment to open source software than MS or Real.
--
I'm sorry, I realize none of you want to hear again the whole "playing god" thing, but I really think this has gone too far. Who does man think he is, to assume the role of god and create life? Are we really that conceited that we feel we are ALLOWED to create other organisms? I wasn't even thrilled when we began cloning other species, though at least we weren't starting with a lab table and ending up with a brand new organism.
God? If there's a god, and he/she/it didn't want us creating life, what's with giving us all this unnecessary (for survival) brain power?
I don't want to get off topic, but...man continues to disgust me. Too often we think that WE are the dominant species, the ones meant to survive.
Of course we think we're the ones meant to survive at any cost. Any spicies thinks like this. It's instinctive. A spicies without this drive wouldn't last very long.
We are arrogant, and we are ignorant. Every day we cut down tons of trees for wood in order to keep industry alive. When will we realize that these very trees are what supply us with oxygen? And who gave us the job of ruining the habitats and lives of other organisms...why, just because we have more brainpower than them? People often say we're the smartest of species, but I disagree. For, if we truly were, we wouldn't be the only species on earth who kills its own for pleasure.
We're not. Most species don't kill for pleasure because they're too busy struggling to survive. Those that don't have that problem will often kill for no reason. Ever seen an over-fed house cat go after a mouse?
And now this. And now, we synthesize life, just another step in man's arrogant trip to the top.
I don't understand how this is any more arrogant than use of fire.
This comes at a time when we are trying to learn more about other plants, of which Mars comes to mind at the moment. The first thing we did when we found out we could get to Mars was send out probes to check if there was water there, and analyze the atmosphere -- why? Sure there were some minor scientific reasons: life on mars? history of mars? But the real reason - can it support human life? Once again, we are putting ourselves first, not worrying about how we will ruin Mars as we did Earth,
The drive to expand territory is a human survival instinct that we share with many other species. It isn't arrogant at all. It's perfectly logical and natural.
and trying to extend our boundaries and God-given limitations.
They aren't limitations if we can get around them.
--
Microsoft owns 4% of Apple stock, and it's non-voting. The investment was done largely as a favor to Apple by MS, as part of a deal in which Apple agreed not to sue MS for patent infringement, and to bundle IE and OE as the default web and mail/news clients. MS made the investment, paid Apple an additional undisclosed sum (rumored to be $400M), and agreed to maintain MS Office on the Macintosh for a minimum of 5 years.
Though the investment paid off well enough for MS. They bought $150M worth of stock at something like $20 a share. Apple stock closed at $103.062/share today.
--
The article says that this is probably being done to prevent headhunters from tracking down Apple engineers. If this is true, this seems to be a perfectly legitimate example of a company protecting its interests.
--
Holding down option changes "About this Computer" to "About the Finder". Until quite recently that got you the original black and white about box from Mac OS 1.0. In Mac OS 8 it got colorized. In Mac OS 9 you get a picture of the Apple campus.
Here's one of the best: in Mac OS 7.5.x, drag the text "secret about box" from any app that supports drag-and-drop to the desktop. The secret about box that pops up is a playable pong game, with the name of each programmer written on a brick.
--
Water isn't irreducible.
--
The judge defined the market in which MS has a monopoly as the "market for intel-compatable computers". I don't think the aliens have any "intel-compatable computers". ;-)
--
I'm curious to see how Sun handles the interface issue on the Mac. They can't use MDI. The Mac's windowing system doesn't even support it. They'd have to hack something together themselves. If they do a direct port keeping the Linux interface in tact, no Mac users will go near it, especially since, unlike Linux, Mac OS has MS Office.
--
Oh, come on. Our defense spending is out of hand considering the fraction of the population that doesn't have health care or even sufficient food. The development of this possible stealth detection technology as bad; it means now we're going to spend gobs more money figuring out how to hide from it.
And anyway, China isn't the real threat at all. A large military does nothing against the only real threat to the US these days, terrorism. One of the reasons we're a terrorist target is because of our powerful military, and the way we use it to enforce out interests.
--
Several groups of two words: spy satellites, cruise missiles, B-2 Bombers, and Sekrit Stuff(TM) we've never ever heard of. Now add in several thousand ICBMs aimed at Chinese cities. Given all this, do you really think China would try to invade the US?
Why would China invade the US anyway? China has the power to invade most countries in the world right now, but you don't see it happening. People who think like this are paranoid. The whole "Us" and "Them" thing is way out of hand. I'm sure the Chinese have no more desire to be involved in a huge, bloody, devastating war than the US does.
--
Has Pixar's renderfarm made the top 500 supercomputers list yet?
--
It can be safely assumed that all rendering was done with RenderMan, the compact-car-priced, Pixar-developed, amazingly nifty rendering package. Last I heard Pixar's was using a few dozen Sun Enterprise (forget which model) machines for rendering. I can't image they'd replace all that hardware so soon (it was used for A Bug's Life). Modeling, I have no clue, but if I had to guess, I'd guess Maya on IRIX.
--
Of course Jobs knows what Linux is. He's mentioned it a few times. Hell, Apple's QuickTime Streaming Server software even runs on Linux.
;-)
I don't think that penguin has anything do do with Linux though. I can't see why it would. Word is Pixar's Unix of choice is Solaris (on rendering farm machines anyway), and Apple is mostly involved with the BSD community, so if that had anything to do with it, it would be a demon
--