Yes, of course, you cannot remove the compiler variable entirely, but it is the best you can do, and if you had to pick one platform it was best optimized for, it would be Intel.
Also, if Apple is claiming to have configured systems as they ship, they should have to COMMIT to their use of fast malloc()
You mean to use it for everything? No, that's not the point. You use the malloc that is right for your application. In this case, it is fast FPU or whatever, so they use that one, which is what you would use for Mathematica or a similar application.
Eh, we do this sometimes, when it is appropriate. In this case, I have a PR contact at Apple who asked me last week if I wanted to talk to someone about WWDC, and we set up a call last weekend, for this afternoon. It just happened to coincide with the benchmark discussion, which Greg was eager to set straight (he had read the arguments and already compiled his responses:-). We also talked a bit about some other topics, but nothing of interest that you haven't read elsewhere.
Heh... well, as to FP, I 0wnZ. As to three stories, one was giving some pre-keynote info, one was giving Panther info while the hardware was still being described, and the last one was hardware. I wish it could've been one story, but many of the readers are chomping at the bit to get the latest info, and, well, most sites were down because of heavy traffic.:-)
But on the other hand - an antipersonnel land mine hardly has any legitimate use. It is the sort of weapon that kills and wounds innocent civilians, not soldiers. So there are SOME tools and SOME devices that has no legitimate use whatsoever.
Tell that to the South Koreans, who owe their existence as a nation to a hell of a lot of land mines in the DMZ.
At least it would seem so from a few perspectives. Why the hell do you need to pump your music selection out to the masses? Do you really think I want to hear you favorite crap indie garage band mp3's? I mean really, people. Get over yourselves.
Yeah, you care about listening to their music as much as I... well, care about what you have to say. I mean really. Get over yourself.
Exactly. This is the Raelians all over again, right down to the "we will allow experts under NDA to verify our claims." The media eventualyl stopped paying attention to them, and they should learn from their mistakes -- giving them as much attention as they did -- by telling SCO they can put up or shut up.
having to identify your computer as something like "PowerBook G3 Series (Bronze Keyboard)" or "PowerMac G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors)" is just confusing as hell for most users.
Sure, all of what I asked to know would be confusing for most users; I suggest a link to a separate document with more detailed information.
"If your system does not require this update or if the update is unsuccessful, the update application displays one of the following alert messages"
Right. Why is it so hard to tell us which systems it applies to before downloading it? Maybe a link to an "advanced" document if they don't want to confuse people who wouldn't understand it.
As for specifics, how long have you been using Macs?
I dunno, over 15 years.
I'm having a hard time remember any time Apple gave a detailed answer to a hardware problem.
What good would it do you to have those specifics?
First, in this case, the answer may very well be instructive as to why it does not run on my computer, despite Apple saying it is for my computer.
Second, if I know more of the symptoms, I can diagnose problems better. If someone comes up to me and says their CD won't eject, and gives me several symptoms, I cannot say if this would fix it, or if it should have fixed it, since the symptoms beyond "won't eject" are a mystery.
Third, I want to be able to better evaluate how well Apple has a hold on this situation, for my own personal buying choices.
"This update is for Xserve servers and PowerBook computers with an internal slot-loading Combo drive."
I have a PowerBook with an internal slot-loading Combo drive. Therefore, it should be for my computer. It is, apparently, not. How are you confused as to why I am confused?
As to what the problem is, I mean specifically, what the problem is, and what they did to address it. "A firmware issue" is not very specific. Is it because the latch won't open, a problem I had? Or is it because of a communications problem with the PowerBook? I want specifics. Apple rarely provides them.
No, you started your post as though someone who uses BBEdit is an ignorant dupe. Excuse me for not caring to engage in a conversation such as that. Or don't.
When you accept DRM, you accept giving up control over your own computer, and ALL power to use the data in the manner that you see fit.
I think many people are "accepting" of it because they don't have to deal with it. I don't want DRM on my music, so I will not buy much from iTMS (also, I want higher quality music, and MP3s). And if I don't want the playlist sharing, I can use one of the many alternatives (including the daap client/server clones that are being worked on).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course, you cannot remove the compiler variable entirely, but it is the best you can do, and if you had to pick one platform it was best optimized for, it would be Intel.
Also, if Apple is claiming to have configured systems as they ship, they should have to COMMIT to their use of fast malloc()
You mean to use it for everything? No, that's not the point. You use the malloc that is right for your application. In this case, it is fast FPU or whatever, so they use that one, which is what you would use for Mathematica or a similar application.
The comparisons should be done on the fastest results available, and not be based on some arbitrary factoring out of the compiler capability.
It isn't arbitrary.
In the end, SPEC is about measuring how fast something can be done in the real world
No, it really isn't. It is about raw performance, not real-world use.
Eh, we do this sometimes, when it is appropriate. In this case, I have a PR contact at Apple who asked me last week if I wanted to talk to someone about WWDC, and we set up a call last weekend, for this afternoon. It just happened to coincide with the benchmark discussion, which Greg was eager to set straight (he had read the arguments and already compiled his responses :-). We also talked a bit about some other topics, but nothing of interest that you haven't read elsewhere.
No, because they likely could get better performance on the PPC with a different compiler, too. Think on.
Yeah, I was thinking, get that man an EXTENSION CORD!
Heh ... well, as to FP, I 0wnZ. As to three stories, one was giving some pre-keynote info, one was giving Panther info while the hardware was still being described, and the last one was hardware. I wish it could've been one story, but many of the readers are chomping at the bit to get the latest info, and, well, most sites were down because of heavy traffic. :-)
Thanks to iPalindrome on irc.arstechnica.com for his running transcript of the keynote address.
Some court might think so, but since the program doesn't change anything about iTunes itself, I wouldn't.
But on the other hand - an antipersonnel land mine hardly has any legitimate use. It is the sort of weapon that kills and wounds innocent civilians, not soldiers. So there are SOME tools and SOME devices that has no legitimate use whatsoever.
Tell that to the South Koreans, who owe their existence as a nation to a hell of a lot of land mines in the DMZ.
At least it would seem so from a few perspectives. Why the hell do you need to pump your music selection out to the masses? Do you really think I want to hear you favorite crap indie garage band mp3's? I mean really, people. Get over yourselves.
... well, care about what you have to say. I mean really. Get over yourself.
Yeah, you care about listening to their music as much as I
There was absolutely no consumer-based reason t upgrade to 4.0.1, other than to appease the record labels.
Apart from the many bugfixes, you mean? Oops on you!
QuickTime was for me. That's how I got it. Running it now. Awww yeah.
Exactly. This is the Raelians all over again, right down to the "we will allow experts under NDA to verify our claims." The media eventualyl stopped paying attention to them, and they should learn from their mistakes -- giving them as much attention as they did -- by telling SCO they can put up or shut up.
If you want access to this kind of information
I fail to see how this is in any way related to my saying that Apple should provide that information to the public, but thanks anyway.
having to identify your computer as something like "PowerBook G3 Series (Bronze Keyboard)" or "PowerMac G4 (Mirrored Drive Doors)" is just confusing as hell for most users.
Sure, all of what I asked to know would be confusing for most users; I suggest a link to a separate document with more detailed information.
"If your system does not require this update or if the update is unsuccessful, the update application displays one of the following alert messages"
Right. Why is it so hard to tell us which systems it applies to before downloading it? Maybe a link to an "advanced" document if they don't want to confuse people who wouldn't understand it.
As for specifics, how long have you been using Macs?
I dunno, over 15 years.
I'm having a hard time remember any time Apple gave a detailed answer to a hardware problem.
Yes, exactly. And it is annoying.
What good would it do you to have those specifics?
First, in this case, the answer may very well be instructive as to why it does not run on my computer, despite Apple saying it is for my computer.
Second, if I know more of the symptoms, I can diagnose problems better. If someone comes up to me and says their CD won't eject, and gives me several symptoms, I cannot say if this would fix it, or if it should have fixed it, since the symptoms beyond "won't eject" are a mystery.
Third, I want to be able to better evaluate how well Apple has a hold on this situation, for my own personal buying choices.
There are plenty of good reasons.
They're really only of use to Apple HW engineers
That is false.
"This update is for Xserve servers and PowerBook computers with an internal slot-loading Combo drive."
I have a PowerBook with an internal slot-loading Combo drive. Therefore, it should be for my computer. It is, apparently, not. How are you confused as to why I am confused?
As to what the problem is, I mean specifically, what the problem is, and what they did to address it. "A firmware issue" is not very specific. Is it because the latch won't open, a problem I had? Or is it because of a communications problem with the PowerBook? I want specifics. Apple rarely provides them.
I list the reasons I dislike BBEdit
No, you started your post as though someone who uses BBEdit is an ignorant dupe. Excuse me for not caring to engage in a conversation such as that. Or don't.
My question was actually sincere
Well, then perhaps next time you should be more respectful when you ask it.
Seriously, did you try a decent editor?
Gawrsh, no, I just use whatever happens to be in front of me! Please don't be an ass.
I had an interesting reply to give to the accusation, but I don't give interesting replies to ACs, so never mind.
When you accept DRM, you accept giving up control over your own computer, and ALL power to use the data in the manner that you see fit.
I think many people are "accepting" of it because they don't have to deal with it. I don't want DRM on my music, so I will not buy much from iTMS (also, I want higher quality music, and MP3s). And if I don't want the playlist sharing, I can use one of the many alternatives (including the daap client/server clones that are being worked on).
It is OK because we are not forced into it.
If that is what happened, then Apple is extraordinarily naive. It was obvious that people were going to abuse this.