this is the funniest claim i've seen in a while. not only does apple do this, so does dell, and so does virtually every consumer-oriented company on the planet. gas companies shave a TENTH of a PENNY off gas prices to make them seem cheaper.
a department store (was it macy's?) started this practice. the funny part is that the aim wasn't really to fool consumers into thinking it was less expensive. alas, the real purpose was to force cashiers to open the register, since the customer was almost always going to be due some change.
these products got their starts back in the System 6 days simply because Font DA Mover was woefully inadaquate for serious font management.
If you have a few dozen fonts, no big deal... Font DA Mover was probably well suited. Large ad agencies with dozens upon dozens of clients may have hundreds or thousands of fonts. Font DA Mover was never sufficient for this. We have situations where various clients all have their own versions of Helvetica, for instance. One client likes the way the fi ligature looks in Adobe's Helvetica, another prefers how Bitstream's Helvetica works better with their logo.. etc. Suitcases handles situations like these well - Font DA Mover never had a prayer.
And look at the 68K tricks Apple did when they introduced PPC, too.
well... the way the 68K->PPC transition worked will be different from the PPC32->PPC64 transition. Keep in mind that the transition to the transition from 32bit to 64bit was incorporated in the PPC architecture from Day 1. They've had a decade to bring this to fruition properly.
PPC processors have a 68K compatibility mode. Basically, the instructions can have a 68K flag that tells the processor to execute as such. The problem is that 68K code and PPC code aren't even remotely related to one another, and the processor executes 68K code much more slowly. The processor incurs a performance hit every time it switches mode in either direction, and if you are multitasking between a PPC and a 68K app, you can incur that penalty several every single instruction if you're unlucky.
With PPC64 processors, there's a similar 32bit flag an instruction can have to get the processor to execute properly. The difference here is that the processor doesn't actually have to change modes or slow down. The 32bit instructions are included in the 64bit instruction set.
I've probably greatly understated or misrepresented the way 32->64 works, because it's newer and i'm not quite as familiar with it. ArsTechnica did a couple of great pieces on this... one of which was highly technical.
As far as I know, the technology is licensed to Motorola which is actually manufacturing the chip and reselling it to Apple.
alas, no. IBM and Moto both manufacture PPC processors. Most G3's, for instance, were manufactured by IBM (IIRC, even the current iBooks sport IBM procs), but G4's are all from Motorola* because IBM refuses** to use the Altivec unit.
Anybody knows if Apple has been able to gain any market share in the rackmounted server market with its 1U servers? A 1U server build around the PPC970 may be a killer server.
well... before the XServe, Apple had 0% of this market. Selling just one would increase their market share. A friend of mine went to a Minnesota Wild hockey game and was telling me that the stadium luxury boxes are decked out with Apple hardware which you could use to watch instant replays and call up historical video of the various players. Supposedly the stadium has an XServe data center to host it all.
Apple has been a member of the HyperTransport group since day one. Since they were in on the development of HyperTransport to begin with, I doubt it would require any extra development to work on a Mac.
comparing Soyuz to the Orbiter? i mean sure... Soyuz is reusable right? and it carries the same payload? and it carries up to 7 humans or so? right? right?
as long as we're on the same page here...
Re:1 in 65 or 2 in 65 ??
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 2, Informative
you aren't familiar with a math principle called reduction? 1-in-62.5 is equal to 2-in-125
The shuttle has flown closer to 125 times than it has to 62.5. I think that the Columbia disaster occurred on missios STS-107, which according to NASA, was the 113th mission of the shuttle.
FWIW, the STS-# designation of the mission is it's originally scheduled launch sequence - that is, STS-107 was slated originally to be the 107th launch. In the end, though, the launch order changes for a variety of reasons. The various recent problems with cracks, crewing issues, shuttle readiness, payload readiness, etc, cause NASA to shift the actual launch order around quite a bit.
well... even without the Apple Records issue coming into play, the licensing on Beatles music is downright draconic. Very few radio stations (in the US, at least) play much Beatles because they have to pay-per-play, whereas the industry standard for licensing is fairly flat-rate.
For the longest time here in Houston, you only got to hear the beatles during a syndicated Beatles-only show on Sunday morning. I haven't tuned a radio in ages, though... so I'm not sure if that's still the case.
We'll do it first in US dollars, because the number is one that has been quoted (I'm an Aussie):
A song costs $US 0.99 A CD contains ~ 17 tracks, or $US 16.83
without delving any further into your post, there are already two flaws. first, most CDs don't go 17 tracks, so I'm no sure where this number comes from other than an attempt to inflate the cost?
second, most CDs on iTunes cost US$9.99 regardless of track count.... if you buy the whole CD. Some are more, some are less... but the vast majority seem to be US$9.99.
To top it off, if you haven't burned a CD of your tracks, if your hard disk crashes, or your files get accidentally deleted, you have nothing and you can pay for your music again.
the store seems to keep track of what you've bought... I've already tested this by downloading a song a second time - i was not charged for it again.
QuickTime is a container technology, actually. The codecs QuickTime is capable of using are another matter. Many come free with QuickTime Player for Mac & Windows. Many have licensing issues and require you to buy QuickTime Pro. Others aren't available from Apple at all - MSMPEG4, for instance, is a free download from Microsoft. DiVX codecs can be had for free from a variety of sources.
a T1 is not, necessarily a direct connection to a backbone. in fact, in most cases it's probably not. hell, T1's don't even have to go into the Internet. put very, very simplistically, a T1 is just a big ass phone line. where it goes really depends on whom you buy it from.
The problem was that it worked out a little too well for the consumers.
this may be... but if it didn't work out well for any of the companies involved, then cancelling the program was quite the no-brainer. i owned a UMAX clone that I was moderately happy with; cheap macs can't be a bad thing for me... but i'd rather have expensive macs than no Apple.
people forget that Apple was footing almost the entire cost of the license, and leaving the cloners to collect all the profits. this situation was one of the leading factors in Apple nearly disappearing in the mid-90's. Apple was paying the R&D on the boards, then just handing the things to Motorola, UMAX, and PowerComputing. Every clone was, essentially, just a cheaper version of what Apple was already offering.
So, in the end, Apple was paying all the R&D cost to set up another company to make all the profits selling almost the exact same box.
And people doubt the decision Apple made in the long run? If that sounds like a good deal to you, I have a business proposition for you.
Slashdot Mirror
it was to prevent cashiers from pocketing money.
this is the funniest claim i've seen in a while. not only does apple do this, so does dell, and so does virtually every consumer-oriented company on the planet. gas companies shave a TENTH of a PENNY off gas prices to make them seem cheaper.
a department store (was it macy's?) started this practice. the funny part is that the aim wasn't really to fool consumers into thinking it was less expensive. alas, the real purpose was to force cashiers to open the register, since the customer was almost always going to be due some change.
i got the humor. any idiot knows that SCSI isn't named after either Santa Clara or Santa Cruz.
my point is that one must get the right fucking town if one is going to try humor such as this.
RTFA. the SPEC scores listed are for a dual 3.0GHz Zeon system.
these products got their starts back in the System 6 days simply because Font DA Mover was woefully inadaquate for serious font management.
If you have a few dozen fonts, no big deal... Font DA Mover was probably well suited. Large ad agencies with dozens upon dozens of clients may have hundreds or thousands of fonts. Font DA Mover was never sufficient for this. We have situations where various clients all have their own versions of Helvetica, for instance. One client likes the way the fi ligature looks in Adobe's Helvetica, another prefers how Bitstream's Helvetica works better with their logo.. etc. Suitcases handles situations like these well - Font DA Mover never had a prayer.
SCSI stands for "Santa Clara System Interface" so everyone pay up
It's dubious that the Santa Cruz Operation could sue for something named for the nearby town of Santa Clara.
you have your 'code names' mixed up.
10.0 -> Cheetah
10.1 -> Puma
10.2 -> Jaguar
Panther is the next release, being demo'd this week at WWDC. Presumably this will be 10.3.
i replied to my original post with the text that was supposed to be attached to the *'s in my text, and explained exactly this.
And look at the 68K tricks Apple did when they introduced PPC, too.
well... the way the 68K->PPC transition worked will be different from the PPC32->PPC64 transition. Keep in mind that the transition to the transition from 32bit to 64bit was incorporated in the PPC architecture from Day 1. They've had a decade to bring this to fruition properly.
PPC processors have a 68K compatibility mode. Basically, the instructions can have a 68K flag that tells the processor to execute as such. The problem is that 68K code and PPC code aren't even remotely related to one another, and the processor executes 68K code much more slowly. The processor incurs a performance hit every time it switches mode in either direction, and if you are multitasking between a PPC and a 68K app, you can incur that penalty several every single instruction if you're unlucky.
With PPC64 processors, there's a similar 32bit flag an instruction can have to get the processor to execute properly. The difference here is that the processor doesn't actually have to change modes or slow down. The 32bit instructions are included in the 64bit instruction set.
I've probably greatly understated or misrepresented the way 32->64 works, because it's newer and i'm not quite as familiar with it. ArsTechnica did a couple of great pieces on this... one of which was highly technical.
the 'G' names are actually Apple's names for chips. Moto and IBM use names like PPC750 and PPC970 for their processor names.
Most of Apple's G3 based machines have sported chips from IBM. Almost exclusively, all G4's have been from Moto.
woops.. forgot my *'s
* - early in G4 history, IBM supplied Apple with a limited supply of G4's to shore up supplies
** - well, refused up until the 970. IBM's inclusion of Altivec in the 970 is what touched off all the current 970 rumors.
As far as I know, the technology is licensed to Motorola which is actually manufacturing the chip and reselling it to Apple.
alas, no. IBM and Moto both manufacture PPC processors. Most G3's, for instance, were manufactured by IBM (IIRC, even the current iBooks sport IBM procs), but G4's are all from Motorola* because IBM refuses** to use the Altivec unit.
Anybody knows if Apple has been able to gain any market share in the rackmounted server market with its 1U servers? A 1U server build around the PPC970 may be a killer server.
well... before the XServe, Apple had 0% of this market. Selling just one would increase their market share. A friend of mine went to a Minnesota Wild hockey game and was telling me that the stadium luxury boxes are decked out with Apple hardware which you could use to watch instant replays and call up historical video of the various players. Supposedly the stadium has an XServe data center to host it all.
so you're ticked off that an iBook with a chip that's soon to be two generations old doesn't stack up to your probably latest-and-greatest PC?
Apple has been a member of the HyperTransport group since day one. Since they were in on the development of HyperTransport to begin with, I doubt it would require any extra development to work on a Mac.
the $600 difference between the two 15" powerbooks is not just the drive.
for $1999, you get
867MHz, 256MB RAM, 40GB hard drive, no airport, combo drive
for $2599, you get
1GHz, 512MB RAM, 60GB hard drive, airport, superdrive
so.. faster processor, more ram, bigger drive, wifi, and better optical drive.
comparing Soyuz to the Orbiter? i mean sure... Soyuz is reusable right? and it carries the same payload? and it carries up to 7 humans or so? right? right?
as long as we're on the same page here...
you aren't familiar with a math principle called reduction? 1-in-62.5 is equal to 2-in-125
The shuttle has flown closer to 125 times than it has to 62.5. I think that the Columbia disaster occurred on missios STS-107, which according to NASA, was the 113th mission of the shuttle.
FWIW, the STS-# designation of the mission is it's originally scheduled launch sequence - that is, STS-107 was slated originally to be the 107th launch. In the end, though, the launch order changes for a variety of reasons. The various recent problems with cracks, crewing issues, shuttle readiness, payload readiness, etc, cause NASA to shift the actual launch order around quite a bit.
funny guy...
actually, i thought of this earlier, so I IM'd a song I bought through iTunes to a friend, using iChat.
When he got it and tried to play it, it wouldn't play unless I gave him my AppleID password.
you don't read well, do you? the new ipods will support both Firewire and USB 2.
am surprised Apple has not tried to integrate WirelessG, WiFi or Bluetooth in the iPod yet. WiFi or Bluetooth would be great and worth the extra cost.
so, you're admitting that your message is "the iPod is too expensive. Apple should make it more expensive?"
step away from the crack pipe, man.
well... even without the Apple Records issue coming into play, the licensing on Beatles music is downright draconic. Very few radio stations (in the US, at least) play much Beatles because they have to pay-per-play, whereas the industry standard for licensing is fairly flat-rate.
For the longest time here in Houston, you only got to hear the beatles during a syndicated Beatles-only show on Sunday morning. I haven't tuned a radio in ages, though... so I'm not sure if that's still the case.
We'll do it first in US dollars, because the number is one that has been quoted (I'm an Aussie):
A song costs $US 0.99 A CD contains ~ 17 tracks, or $US 16.83
without delving any further into your post, there are already two flaws. first, most CDs don't go 17 tracks, so I'm no sure where this number comes from other than an attempt to inflate the cost?
second, most CDs on iTunes cost US$9.99 regardless of track count.... if you buy the whole CD. Some are more, some are less... but the vast majority seem to be US$9.99.
To top it off, if you haven't burned a CD of your tracks, if your hard disk crashes, or your files get accidentally deleted, you have nothing and you can pay for your music again.
the store seems to keep track of what you've bought... I've already tested this by downloading a song a second time - i was not charged for it again.
QuickTime is a container technology, actually. The codecs QuickTime is capable of using are another matter. Many come free with QuickTime Player for Mac & Windows. Many have licensing issues and require you to buy QuickTime Pro. Others aren't available from Apple at all - MSMPEG4, for instance, is a free download from Microsoft. DiVX codecs can be had for free from a variety of sources.
no more difficult than any other act...
a T1 is not, necessarily a direct connection to a backbone. in fact, in most cases it's probably not. hell, T1's don't even have to go into the Internet. put very, very simplistically, a T1 is just a big ass phone line. where it goes really depends on whom you buy it from.
The problem was that it worked out a little too well for the consumers.
this may be... but if it didn't work out well for any of the companies involved, then cancelling the program was quite the no-brainer. i owned a UMAX clone that I was moderately happy with; cheap macs can't be a bad thing for me... but i'd rather have expensive macs than no Apple.
people forget that Apple was footing almost the entire cost of the license, and leaving the cloners to collect all the profits. this situation was one of the leading factors in Apple nearly disappearing in the mid-90's. Apple was paying the R&D on the boards, then just handing the things to Motorola, UMAX, and PowerComputing. Every clone was, essentially, just a cheaper version of what Apple was already offering.
So, in the end, Apple was paying all the R&D cost to set up another company to make all the profits selling almost the exact same box.
And people doubt the decision Apple made in the long run? If that sounds like a good deal to you, I have a business proposition for you.