that thing resembles nothing like the industrial design that Apple is still in the process of moving their products line to (the powerbook still isn't quite translucent yet).
I have no doubt that Apple has a new mouse in the works; it behooves them to do so. However, one of their biggest market is schools. Can you imagine a wireless mouse in a high school lab? I can't; they'd all go missing. I've worked for a school district.
Plus... If I know myself, a wireless mouse would be disatrous for me. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the remote control.
Re:Call me when they can fix the screen size too.
on
Power Up That iMac
·
· Score: 1
if it ran Linux I could justify if as having some sort of useful function, even just as a web client.
Silly rabbit, FUD is for kids! It does run LinuxPPC.
There was an old saying about Nolan Ryan, something to the effect that "fastballs are like ice cream cones, hitters love them... but hitting against Nolan Ryan is like having 5 gallons of Rocky Road shoved down your throat."
Lacking wit as I do, I'll leave the adaptation to Katz's writing style as an excercise for the reader.
"Quicktime for Linux, Quicktime for Linux... give us a free player!" The mantra is getting old.
The whole argument for Open Source is that "you can do it better, cheaper, and faster." Yet here you are, begging from scraps from the very company that so many of you have such scorn for. If Open Source is that much better at everything, why isn't there an Open Source video compression codec out there that's comparable with QuickTime or AVI?
I honestly think it's funny. Slashdot readers seem to be oh-so-ready to tear Apple to shreds regarding everything it does, then turn around and beg like cowering dogs at the dinner table for a free QuickTime player.
this page provides a link to a website where you can download the full installer. This is intended for people behind firewalls who have difficulty running the netinstaller, but will work great for your purpose.
So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.
For the record, RealPlayer ships on all Macs as well. Just thought I'd point that out.
Eh... what exactly is the "basic machine" you're talking about? Apple's been consistant in keeping price-points the same throughout product revisions and rollouts.
The iMac is $999 (base unit, without DVD or FireWire). That's $600 _cheaper_ than the old Beige G3's.
The G4 400 runs $1599. I paid $1599 for my Beige G3 266MHz machine when it was in the same spot (low end) as the current 400MHz machine.
There's nothing $400-600 more expensive about that.
This is even more irritating considering the small amount of hardware supported needed within the OS, and that most of the hardware comes out of Apple.
That's funny to hear, considering that Apple doesn't make anything other than computers these days. Check out apple.com some day and look for _any_ Apple branded periphreals. They don't exist.
On the other hand. . . if you can't find something to fulfills your need for the Mac, you're not looking hard. Apple even has a website devoted to finding products from other companies. Guide.apple.com
50, 60 years ago, people said that anything moving faster than the speed of sound would cause a sonic boom that would tear the world apart. And that was just the people who thought it was even possible.
I'll gladly state that my perception of relativity is flawed... but exactly how is the speed of light all that special? I mean, one moment you're going 'c'-0.000001 and all is peachy; the next moment, you're going 'c' and the very fundamentals of perception change?
But then, I tend to think in stellar distances when thinking about 'c'... when you're talking about a distance of 500 light years, even a technology like this doesn't change much. The transmission certainly wouldn't be instantaneous, much less "negative ping."
Again, I'll freely admit that I don't understand the first thing about relativity.:P
eh. USB works as early as Mac OS 8.1 with 3rd party PCI cards that date to 1997 or so. I'm fairly certain that I updated my PC at home to Win98 specifically because Win95 either didn't support USB or didn't support any devices that I could actually find.
lovely time for slash to start posting my stories in the text format actually stated... for the longest time, i've had to choose "plain text" to get extrans... oh well.
I also STRONGLY wish they would give in to those people who have to use OTHER OS systems, and mirror image those buttons... putting the close in the upper RIGHT where it is in most other windowing systems. Or at least give you an option of flipping the controls to the other side (it wouldn't be so hard to do, would it?? And the added customization could be sold as a benefit for left-handed v.s. right-handed people!)
There are several GUI enhancements that allow you to do this in OS 9 and earlier, the best of which is <a href="http://www.kaleidoscope.net">Kaleidoscope.</ a> As an aside, my G3 runs OS 9.0.4 (the latest) but anyone who walks by my desk sees what looks like System 6.0.3... Kaleidoscope allows you to completely change the GUI, and is popular enough that I would be <i>very</i> surprised if it's not ported to OS X.
What turned the alarm lights for me where the four colored buttons on each window. One red, one yellow, one green and one grey. My guess is that one opens the system menu, one minimizes, onr maximizes, and one closes the application.
and this is different from all current OS's in what manner? Currently, Mac OS has 3 buttons... one is a square, the next is a square with another square inside it, and the last is a square with 2 horizontal lines in it. But which is which? This has been the convention since System 1 (with the last, horizontal stripped button added in System 7.5). But how do I know which is which?
12 years ago, I experiemented, put the "knowledge in my head." Colored buttons? Buttons with crude markers in them? I see no difference. I'll learn that Red means "close" the same way I learned that the square with no markers means "close."
One thing is certain: introducing gun control in a country like the US that already has guns all over the place is very, very delicate.
Herein lies the problem. Guns are here. Period. Ideally, someone doesn't break into your house because they're not invited. Unfortunately, the real reason someone doesn't break into your house is because they don't know if you have a double buck sawed off shotgun inside.
I've lived in neighborhoods where either is true. One neighborhood, 3 of my neighbors were murdered in a 2 year span. My house was the only that was never vandelized or illegally entered. The difference? Everyone knew I had a Colt.45.
Criminals will have guns here, even if you make them illegal. All that will do is take protection out of the hands of those who wish to protect themselves, and the criminals that DO have guns will be that much more bold.
It is not only in defense of governmental threats that one requires arms to protect ones self. I don't know about assault rifles and all, but the kind of laws people are talking about have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Someone breaks into YOUR house with larcenous and perhaps murderous intent, you don't want a gun by your side? The Australians are learning right now what complete banning of guns brings about, though you won't hear it in the national media.
Guns WILL remain at large, legal or not. The only difference is that, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
They won't let anyone else build Mac-compatible machines anymore
did you ever _use_ a Mac clone? amalgamations of piles of commodity parts loosely patched together into something resembling something that looked like a functional computer. they _sucked_, badly, and because they were associated with Apple because of the OS, they contributed to much of Apple's bad press and consumer appeal of the mid-1990's.
They won't let anyone else sell Macs online unlessthe store arranges for customers who already own a Mac to setup a password/account/etc
Poorly reported, misread, misrepeated, misunderstood and complete _myth_. Well, either that, or no one's paying attention to the "rule" or whatever. Take a moment to look at a few Mac online stores.
If they had their way, nobody but Apple owners would have been able to use a graphical interface. (Bogus lawsuits, copyrights, patents on GUIs)
What lawsuits are still around? Apple hasn't pushed a lawsuit since they sued Microsoft, which Apple pursued only in the same vane that Sony persued Connectix and Bleem! for PSX emulators... not because they could win. They sued to keep anyone from getting any ideas about doing anything that would _seriously_ infringe on their turf.
Quicktime, all under Apple's control.
Someone else pointed out before me that QuickTime is a suite of codecs and bundling technologies that are largely open. Unfortunately, the Sorenson Codec is the one everyone is hot to trot for... and that one is not Apple's intellectual property.
FireWire® - registering a trademarked name for an IEEE standard. Only they can use the name if they so choose!
Well gee, they only _invented_ the damned thing. It was "FireWire" long before it was IEEE 1394, and the global Digital Multimedia saw what it was and what it could do, so Apple submitted it to the IEEE with Sony (who calls it "iLink"), and got it approved. Anyone can make an "IEEE 1394" card w/o paying royalties. If you want to call it "FireWire," you have to pay for the brand recognition.
Pray tell... you can download Red Hat Linux and modify it and sell it as your own distributions. It's Linux, jah, but can you market it as "Red Hat"?
Eh... The phone companies didn't have any competition even after they were broken up. The break up, then, was done regionally, and each Baby Bell p'rty much kept a stranglehold on it's region. They certainly didn't have to compete against eachother.
The premise of a breakup would be pointless if there were no conditions on how the sibling companies could interact. If this is indeed the final remedy, I would assume that the ruling would include language that precludes the Baby Bills from cooperating too heavily.
My experience is similar, and most of my experience is Mac OS-related as well.... however, I've still got a PC at home that serves me well. Even now, the only Microsoft product that I feel is worth anything is Outlook Express. It's a pretty bitchin' mailreader/LDAP client/Newsreader/Addressbook, IMHO.
Word Processing reached perfection in MS Word 5 and has been a downhill experience since then.
But... in terms of OS and (recent) Office offerings, Microsoft software Just Plain Sucks.
My local ABC Radio affiliate was running this in the National hourly news update. I had no doubt that the DoJ would seek this.... but can we really hope for this to come to fruition?
You have to remember that the iMac, while inexpensive and bearing FireWire ports, is NOT intended for professional video editing. Apple's own Final Cut Pro is not even certified to work on iMacs, although they're working on it.
Given the G4 and altivec, and the Mac platform's dominance in Hollywood for special effects (I'm not counting massive SGI machines that render entire Droid Battles that never happened), I would think the G4 a good choice.
one more thing, you have OSX on intel and a very good, reliable, fast win emulator will show up in a week. THEN you really start getting sales in by having the still missing critical mass of s/w apps for your OS.
Geez. Will this myth EVER die? What mission critical apps are missing for Mac OS? I've managed to find an Application for every task I've attempted on the Mac.
Office productivity: Microsoft Office 98 Mac Edition -- Believe it or not, this is actually a decent -- software title. ClarisWorks / AppleWorks -- Includes what is actually a pretty kick-ass -- terminal emulator
Cross Platform database solution: FileMaker Pro -- Available for Mac and Windows
Network Servers: AppleShare IP -- a networking suite with just about everything -- under the sun, including both AppleTalk and -- Windows Networking filesharing, FTP, Web -- server, and others. WebStar -- 3rd Party web hosting solution that supports -- plugins for both AppleScript and Perl CGIs.
Internet Tools: *** Web Netscape 4.7 IE 4.5 (5 due out next week) iCab lynx *** FTP Network Browser -- Built into OS, very basic FTP client Anarchie -- Kick ass shareware FTP client with built in -- ping, traceroute, etc Fetch
Slashdot Mirror
The buttons aren't indistinguishable at all. When the mouse is near the buttons, they have glyphs in them that tell their function.
given that small glyphs are the current method of discerning function, this is pretty much a null change.
The core of Mac OS X is Darwin, which Apple has released under the "Apple Public Source License."
You can check it out at http://publicsource.apple.com/
YES they are making cards that are Mac compatible. But NO, they are not selling them OEM to Apple.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
that thing resembles nothing like the industrial design that Apple is still in the process of moving their products line to (the powerbook still isn't quite translucent yet).
I have no doubt that Apple has a new mouse in the works; it behooves them to do so. However, one of their biggest market is schools. Can you imagine a wireless mouse in a high school lab? I can't; they'd all go missing. I've worked for a school district.
Plus... If I know myself, a wireless mouse would be disatrous for me. I have a hard enough time keeping up with the remote control.
if it ran Linux I could justify if as having some sort of useful function, even just as a web client.
Silly rabbit, FUD is for kids! It does run LinuxPPC.
I've got to agree with the anti-Katz troops here.
There was an old saying about Nolan Ryan, something to the effect that "fastballs are like ice cream cones, hitters love them... but hitting against Nolan Ryan is like having 5 gallons of Rocky Road shoved down your throat."
Lacking wit as I do, I'll leave the adaptation to Katz's writing style as an excercise for the reader.
"Quicktime for Linux, Quicktime for Linux... give us a free player!" The mantra is getting old.
The whole argument for Open Source is that "you can do it better, cheaper, and faster." Yet here you are, begging from scraps from the very company that so many of you have such scorn for. If Open Source is that much better at everything, why isn't there an Open Source video compression codec out there that's comparable with QuickTime or AVI?
I honestly think it's funny. Slashdot readers seem to be oh-so-ready to tear Apple to shreds regarding everything it does, then turn around and beg like cowering dogs at the dinner table for a free QuickTime player.
QuickTime 4 plays all of those media types except for Real. You could already be down to 2.
Um. Sure you can.
n 11474
http://asu.info.apple.com/swupdates.nsf/artnum/
this page provides a link to a website where you can download the full installer. This is intended for people behind firewalls who have difficulty running the netinstaller, but will work great for your purpose.
So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.
For the record, RealPlayer ships on all Macs as well. Just thought I'd point that out.
Eh... what exactly is the "basic machine" you're talking about? Apple's been consistant in keeping price-points the same throughout product revisions and rollouts.
The iMac is $999 (base unit, without DVD or FireWire). That's $600 _cheaper_ than the old Beige G3's.
The G4 400 runs $1599.
I paid $1599 for my Beige G3 266MHz machine when it was in the same spot (low end) as the current 400MHz machine.
There's nothing $400-600 more expensive about that.
This is even more irritating considering the small amount of hardware supported needed within the OS, and that most of the hardware comes out of Apple.
That's funny to hear, considering that Apple doesn't make anything other than computers these days. Check out apple.com some day and look for _any_ Apple branded periphreals. They don't exist.
On the other hand. . . if you can't find something to fulfills your need for the Mac, you're not looking hard. Apple even has a website devoted to finding products from other companies.
Guide.apple.com
Remember, C is "the speed of light in a vaccuum." They're apparently pushing this through a volume of Cesium gas... which is definitely not a vaccuum.
50, 60 years ago, people said that anything moving faster than the speed of sound would cause a sonic boom that would tear the world apart. And that was just the people who thought it was even possible.
... when you're talking about a distance of 500 light years, even a technology like this doesn't change much. The transmission certainly wouldn't be instantaneous, much less "negative ping."
:P
I'll gladly state that my perception of relativity is flawed... but exactly how is the speed of light all that special? I mean, one moment you're going 'c'-0.000001 and all is peachy; the next moment, you're going 'c' and the very fundamentals of perception change?
But then, I tend to think in stellar distances when thinking about 'c'
Again, I'll freely admit that I don't understand the first thing about relativity.
also, mac didn't have usb support before windows.
eh. USB works as early as Mac OS 8.1 with 3rd party PCI cards that date to 1997 or so. I'm fairly certain that I updated my PC at home to Win98 specifically because Win95 either didn't support USB or didn't support any devices that I could actually find.
lovely time for slash to start posting my stories in the text format actually stated... for the longest time, i've had to choose "plain text" to get extrans... oh well.
I also STRONGLY wish they would give in to those people who have to use OTHER OS systems, and mirror image those buttons... putting the close in the upper RIGHT where it is in most other windowing systems. Or at least give you an option of flipping the controls to the other side (it wouldn't be so hard to do, would it?? And the added customization could be sold as a benefit for left-handed v.s. right-handed people!)
/ a> As an aside, my G3 runs OS 9.0.4 (the latest) but anyone who walks by my desk sees what looks like System 6.0.3... Kaleidoscope allows you to completely change the GUI, and is popular enough that I would be <i>very</i> surprised if it's not ported to OS X.
There are several GUI enhancements that allow you to do this in OS 9 and earlier, the best of which is <a href="http://www.kaleidoscope.net">Kaleidoscope.<
What turned the alarm lights for me where the four colored buttons on each window. One red, one yellow, one green and one grey. My guess is that one opens the system menu, one minimizes, onr maximizes, and one closes the application.
and this is different from all current OS's in what manner? Currently, Mac OS has 3 buttons... one is a square, the next is a square with another square inside it, and the last is a square with 2 horizontal lines in it. But which is which? This has been the convention since System 1 (with the last, horizontal stripped button added in System 7.5). But how do I know which is which?
12 years ago, I experiemented, put the "knowledge in my head." Colored buttons? Buttons with crude markers in them? I see no difference. I'll learn that Red means "close" the same way I learned that the square with no markers means "close."
One thing is certain: introducing gun control in a country like the US that already has guns all over the place is very, very delicate.
.45.
Herein lies the problem. Guns are here. Period. Ideally, someone doesn't break into your house because they're not invited. Unfortunately, the real reason someone doesn't break into your house is because they don't know if you have a double buck sawed off shotgun inside.
I've lived in neighborhoods where either is true. One neighborhood, 3 of my neighbors were murdered in a 2 year span. My house was the only that was never vandelized or illegally entered. The difference? Everyone knew I had a Colt
Criminals will have guns here, even if you make them illegal. All that will do is take protection out of the hands of those who wish to protect themselves, and the criminals that DO have guns will be that much more bold.
It is not only in defense of governmental threats that one requires arms to protect ones self. I don't know about assault rifles and all, but the kind of laws people are talking about have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Someone breaks into YOUR house with larcenous and perhaps murderous intent, you don't want a gun by your side? The Australians are learning right now what complete banning of guns brings about, though you won't hear it in the national media.
Guns WILL remain at large, legal or not. The only difference is that, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
They won't let anyone else build Mac-compatible machines anymore
did you ever _use_ a Mac clone? amalgamations of piles of commodity parts loosely patched together into something resembling something that looked like a functional computer. they _sucked_, badly, and because they were associated with Apple because of the OS, they contributed to much of Apple's bad press and consumer appeal of the mid-1990's.
They won't let anyone else sell Macs online unlessthe store arranges for customers who already own a Mac to setup a password/account/etc
Poorly reported, misread, misrepeated, misunderstood and complete _myth_. Well, either that, or no one's paying attention to the "rule" or whatever. Take a moment to look at a few Mac online stores.
If they had their way, nobody but Apple owners would have been able to use a graphical interface. (Bogus lawsuits, copyrights, patents on GUIs)
What lawsuits are still around? Apple hasn't pushed a lawsuit since they sued Microsoft, which Apple pursued only in the same vane that Sony persued Connectix and Bleem! for PSX emulators... not because they could win. They sued to keep anyone from getting any ideas about doing anything that would _seriously_ infringe on their turf.
Quicktime, all under Apple's control.
Someone else pointed out before me that QuickTime is a suite of codecs and bundling technologies that are largely open. Unfortunately, the Sorenson Codec is the one everyone is hot to trot for... and that one is not Apple's intellectual property.
FireWire® - registering a trademarked name for an IEEE standard. Only they can use the name if they so choose!
Well gee, they only _invented_ the damned thing. It was "FireWire" long before it was IEEE 1394, and the global Digital Multimedia saw what it was and what it could do, so Apple submitted it to the IEEE with Sony (who calls it "iLink"), and got it approved. Anyone can make an "IEEE 1394" card w/o paying royalties. If you want to call it "FireWire," you have to pay for the brand recognition.
Pray tell... you can download Red Hat Linux and modify it and sell it as your own distributions. It's Linux, jah, but can you market it as "Red Hat"?
Eh... The phone companies didn't have any competition even after they were broken up. The break up, then, was done regionally, and each Baby Bell p'rty much kept a stranglehold on it's region. They certainly didn't have to compete against eachother.
The premise of a breakup would be pointless if there were no conditions on how the sibling companies could interact. If this is indeed the final remedy, I would assume that the ruling would include language that precludes the Baby Bills from cooperating too heavily.
My experience is similar, and most of my experience is Mac OS-related as well.... however, I've still got a PC at home that serves me well. Even now, the only Microsoft product that I feel is worth anything is Outlook Express. It's a pretty bitchin' mailreader/LDAP client/Newsreader/Addressbook, IMHO.
Word Processing reached perfection in MS Word 5 and has been a downhill experience since then.
But... in terms of OS and (recent) Office offerings, Microsoft software Just Plain Sucks.
My local ABC Radio affiliate was running this in the National hourly news update. I had no doubt that the DoJ would seek this.... but can we really hope for this to come to fruition?
You have to remember that the iMac, while inexpensive and bearing FireWire ports, is NOT intended for professional video editing. Apple's own Final Cut Pro is not even certified to work on iMacs, although they're working on it.
Here is a link from Apple's Technical Information Library on the subject.
Given the G4 and altivec, and the Mac platform's dominance in Hollywood for special effects (I'm not counting massive SGI machines that render entire Droid Battles that never happened), I would think the G4 a good choice.
one more thing, you have OSX on intel and a very good, reliable, fast win emulator will show up in a week. THEN you really start getting sales in by having the still missing critical mass of s/w apps for your OS.
Geez. Will this myth EVER die? What mission critical apps are missing for Mac OS? I've managed to find an Application for every task I've attempted on the Mac.
Office productivity:
Microsoft Office 98 Mac Edition
-- Believe it or not, this is actually a decent
-- software title.
ClarisWorks / AppleWorks
-- Includes what is actually a pretty kick-ass
-- terminal emulator
Cross Platform database solution:
FileMaker Pro
-- Available for Mac and Windows
Network Servers:
AppleShare IP
-- a networking suite with just about everything
-- under the sun, including both AppleTalk and
-- Windows Networking filesharing, FTP, Web
-- server, and others.
WebStar
-- 3rd Party web hosting solution that supports
-- plugins for both AppleScript and Perl CGIs.
Internet Tools:
*** Web
Netscape 4.7
IE 4.5 (5 due out next week)
iCab
lynx
*** FTP
Network Browser
-- Built into OS, very basic FTP client
Anarchie
-- Kick ass shareware FTP client with built in
-- ping, traceroute, etc
Fetch
The list goes on.