You are correct to an extent, however, there is a problem when companies that have a hot idea and no sustainable business model have stock prices around $200/share. To make a generalization, it it generally not the pros who own these stocks. Part of it is because of the high degree of uncertainty involved, but more importantly, it's becuase those companies aren't making money. In my portfolio, I own only companies that have shown they can sustain earnings. This means that I own a lot of less glamourous stocks, but it also means that my portfolio is more likely to hold its value in rough waters. Believe me, if I thought Yahoo or Amazon could deliver earning to justify the stock price, I'd buy in. My dad is a Ph/D in business btw, and he caught the tech wave before it really started so don't try to tell me that Ph/Ds simply want the status quo. We've done very well with the markets and I've learned a ton about how this stuff works.
While the Ph/Ds may not be able to see the future, they do know how to plan for it and that's the big distinction. The traditional way to make money from the markets is long term investments. Contrary to popular belief, when people stoped doing it that way, the rules didn't change. We learned a lot from the great depression and you're not giving those who took the time to learn the whys and hows the credit they deserve.
Finally, regarding who can and can't trade, that's a tough question. On one hand, it's easy to say anyone should be able to trade. I would agree infact: anyone should be able to trade. They should also have some kind of knowledge of how the market works too becuase there is the very real possibility that they'll get burned. If they're not the type that watches CNBC all day, then maybe they should hire a money manager. It's not a great solution, granted, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people who got burned when something they thought was a sure thing, wasn't what they thought it was. The stock market will, generally speaking, follow certain rules and patterns. If you know and understand those rules and patterns, you have a much higher chance for long term success. That, unfortunately, is the honest truth.
OOG, is absolutely right. The NASDAQ is in correction mode right now. This is a good thing. Fortunately, from what I can tell, the tech market seems to be showing signs of realizing that it's way overpriced and is adjusting itself accordingly. For some, the effects of this will be brutal, but this is what happens when anyone with a computer can be a part of an IPO.
As for Microsoft stock, it hasn't been doing much because frankly, they don't have a whole lot going for them right now and the market is reacting accordingly. I personally dropped all my MS stock a couple of years ago and bought, wait for it, Apple Computer. In the meanwhile, the NASDAQ has been very volitle because this kind of insanity the markets were showing is unprecedented. There is this mass of traders who arm themselves w/ nothing more than an ameritrade account and call themselves investors. These people, quite frankly, are dangerous and now they're strarting to get burned as the people who do understand what diversification is, and who understand how the markets work, take control. The reason they're dangerous is that they are not investing for the long haul, they're looking for the quick buck. This is what makes some companies stock prices jump out of control. The people who know better can only invest around them, but there's nothing anyone can do to address the our market's shrinking credibility with the rest of the world.
As the Ebays and Amazons and insert_your_favorite.com companies collapse, (Barnes and Noble.com will win btw,) it will be those Ph/Ds in business who keep the markets afloat, and the end result will be that the rich control even more wealth at the expense of the middle class.
Who is the crackhead moderator that moderated this to +2? Don't bother moderating it down, I'm just curious. This is nothing against swordgeek, btw, but his comment really adds nothing to the conversation. Maybe that's the reason he got moderated up, he added nothing and lord knows that there aren't enough people on/. with absolutely nothing to say. Ah well, back to work.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. My problem with Microsoft products, aside from their poor quality control, is that they don't feel like they were designed. Stuff is added and removed at random. A perfect example is the win95 interface and it's dialog boxes within dialog boxes and its different kinds of open-save panels. A designer decides that he/she likes this look or behavior better and breaks all traces of consistency. It would be interesting to see what MS could produce if they defined a feature-set ahead of time and then wrote the code to implement it. I'd like to think (optimistically) that the quality would be significantly higher than it is now.
I disagree that Linux has to be dumbed down if it wants to become a desktop OS. It has to become much much easier to use, but that ease of use doesn't have to come at the expense of power.
As a mac user currently attempting to learn Linux, I find it dizzying how much more I need to know just to operate a Linux desktop. I don't mind reading all the documentation because I find this stuff interesting, but I'm the exception. While I don't think highly of the UI in either GNOME or KDE, I don't think that's the most pressing issue.
Last night, I finally grew sick of using un-excelerated X and decided I'd attempt to install an excelerated X server on my Yosemite G3. I downloaded the necessary file no problem and printed out the instructions for installation.
The first thing I had to do was download and run a specific version of Xconfigurator. Okay, no problem, I know how to do that.
rpm -hvi --force/exchange/.....
I then got an error about missing libraries with not so much as web site to look for more infomation or the names of the necessary files. I pressed on anyway and typed the cryptic commands as the insturctions told me to. Suppose there was a GUI tool that could auto-detect your hardware (if you wanted it to) and install the corresponding files and then restart X-Windows. These are the kinds of things that new users would like to see. It's not that we're lazy, at least, I'm not. But a GUI tool that could automate the whole process would save a lot of time, without dumbing down the system. There are countless other things that I'd change if I could code, but I'll save those for another post.
How did you do this? When I go to install 1999-Q3 w/o the RedHat folder, I end up missing a ton of stuff. Please email me deschust@syr.edu. Thanks in advance.
first, when will I be able to install it off the net? Also, will I have to download the entire RedHat folder? My setup is currently for YDL, since they had the first support for B&W G3s and they didn't make you dowload the entire RedHat folder, so I didn't allocate the HD space to make installing linuxppc 1999-q3 possible. I hope that all I will need to do is download a kernel file and a ramdisk file, just like old times. The install procedure for 1999-q3 was a step back from the older way, imho. Thanks for your time.
There seems to be this perception among people here that good UI design is about just adding more eye candy. The Gnome developer who suggested that he could easily add transparency to menus completely missed the point.
First of all, I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about UI design, but it's a field that interests me and I read about it on mailing lists and the like.
In theory, UI design is about making things simple, logical and asthetically pleasing. The reality is that since most people are used to Windows now, a good UI today will find a way to balance good design decisions with the way that Microsoft does everything.
Let's start with an experiment. Bring your mouse pointer into the center of your screen. Now, move the pointer into one corner of the screen. Notice how awkward the movement in your wrist is. Move the mouse back into the center and move it to another corner. Notice how awkward the movement is. Reapeat for the other two corners. Now list the corners from least awkward to most awkward. If you're right handed, your list should look mostly like this:
Bottom Right Top Left Top Right Bottom Left
Now, where is the start button located?
Acording to Tog, (yes, I'm a mac head, but I like all OSes) Default buttons in dialog boxes should be on the right side of the box. Where does windows put the default button? You guessed it, on the left. I think the reason the right is the correct side (for a righty anyway) is that the eye tends to focus on the right side of the screen. This is also probably the reason that the default positions for mac icons are on the right.
As for eye candy, it actually does improve the user experience. Think about it this way, who would you rather see naked, Natalie Portman (if she was 18) or Rosanne Barr? I rest my case. This is also the reason that wallpaper and custom mouse pointers and the like are so popular.
Another misconception here about UI design is that a savings of a 1/2 second is insignificant. Believe it or not, a 1/2 second is actually very significant savings and they do add up. I'm not going to take a side on the one vs. two button mouse (I happen to like a multibutton mouse myself, but advocate a one button mouse for newbies) but until users have enough experience with it, there is a measuarable delay as they try to click the right button. For popup windows, I prefer the timed mechanism that netscape on the mac uses.
As another example, consider the mac menu bar. It has its disadvantages, but for Fitts' Law compliance, it can't be beat. Pop quiz: name the 5 easiest pixels on the screen to hit with the mouse. Anyway, the mac menu bar is infinately high making it a very easy target to hit. Windows (and everthing else) has a menu bar that's a fixed height and width. When I move my mouse to the menu bar, I can over-shoot it as much as I want, and still be right on top of it. Contrast this with the other way where you have to be aware of your acceleration. The downside of the mac menu bar is that new users sometimes think that they're in a different program than the one they're actuall in. They also don't realize that there's a difference between closing all the windows and closing the application. This is the reason that mac os 8.x and up, can display the application name next to the icon in the menu bar, though I'm not sure it helped much.
It's important to keep in mind that there's no perfect interface for all users. I've taught a number of people to use computers and what I tell them is, I'm going to show you how I like to do things, but if you find a way that you like better, then use that instead. This could potentially be a great oppertunity for OSS on the GUI as every hacker has their own way of doing things. On the other hand, most users will just use what's given to them and make the best of it because they're too afriad to try something else because they think that they'll screw up the system or it will be too hard. You can thank Microsoft for that mentality too.
To the developers of Gnome and KDE and all the others, I wish you well, but if you want to get Linux on the desktop, (and maybe you don't, in which case, disregard this post) then it's important to understand what makes something powerfull, consistent and easy to use. There's no reason that software has to be powerfull or easy to use. They can and should be both.
okay, first of all, Objective C was never dropped. That's a rumor that's been going around, but there's nothing to support it. Most of the mac rumor sites (and a number of mac news sites) have reported on this and they say that Objective C is still the best way to write to cocoa. It is true that apple has made the entire cocoa API available to Java, but Objective C has not been dropped and is still considered the primary way to develop for cocoa.
Wow, another geek who doesn't like Star Trek. And all this time, I thought I was the only one. It's nice to know I'm not alone. Thank you for brightening my evening AC.
For the record, I've used KDE and it isn't bad, certainly far superior to gnome. But I think that a lot of people here under-estimate just how many people are absolutely terrified of computers. KDE by itself is fairly user-friendly, although somethings, such as multiple desktops can really confuse a beginner. One of the things about ease-of-use is that it can't be tacked on as an afterthought, a product has to be desigened from the ground-up with ease-of-use in mind. If Linux is serious about going head-to-head with microsoft for the desktop, it needs to learn this lesson. Again, think about the mom test. Ask yourself: Is it something that my mom could use?
Well, maybe I'm the exception, but I can't consider an os mainstream until my mom can use it. She has enough trouble w/ the mac os (but she's getting better, just needs more practice). I can't imagine putting her in front of a command line. commercial software is starting to appear for linux, but that's simply because the geek community is larger than previously thought. And just how long has RailRoad Tycoon II been available for the PC? This is an honest question, I'm not a gamer.
no, it shows how out of touch you are. while fringe may not be quite the right word, linux is certainly not a mainstream os at this point in time. Fact is, while it's a nice choice for a small server, it has a long, long, long, long, long way to go in usability. And frankly, if you put philosophical issues aside, bsd is generally the better choice anyway. Don't get me wrong, I like linux as much as the next slashdotter, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe some day, but not today.
Whevever I code, I usually prefer a good harmonica bluesman like Sonny Boy Williamson or anyone who blew the harp for Muddy Waters. When I can't think straight or have trouble figuring something out, pulling out my strat and ripping through The House is Rockin by Stevie Ray Vaughn or pulling out my yamaha and jamming to Kind Hearted Woman by Robert Johnson seems to do wonders for me.
I don't think so, haven't you hear that song "You Can't Splice Wooly Mamoth and Pot Belly Pig DNA"? If you want to try to get them in the mood, go ahead. I shudder to think of the amount of booze a wooly mamoth could hold though and I shudder even more when I think of what happens when it all comes back up.
Actually, I bet Mac OS X will run on the POP out of the box, it will just be "unsupported" just like pre-G3 machines running MOSX server. This would make sense. The people who will use these open power pc boxes are the kinds of people who read/. These same people would never buy a mac from apple, no matter how much they like the hardware. If they buy a POP box though, apple may as well sell them an OS to run on it- the work required is minimal and it's not officially supported so there's no risk to them anyway. Most importantly though, they get mac os x into more people's hands.
I think SOMObjects is needed for open transport, but don't hold me to it. Disable the extension and see what breaks. I think you do need it though, it's a library and part of the mac os 8.5 extension package.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Athlon too, in fact, I just bought one... But the thing's a friggen microwave! It draws 50W! Hotter than the PIII. So yes, it's a nice chip at a nice price, but to be honest, I'm a bit worried about the damn thing burning a hole through my motherboard. OTOH, it should keep my apartment nice and toasty up in the cold darkness of Syracuse. The PPC, however, is a truly elegant chip. Certainly on par w/ the Athlon (Altivec routines however will blow it out of the water) and it draws far less power, only 5W for the G3 which makes it quite good for both desktops and laptops, unlike the Athlon. The G4 (which btw, is probably coming at Seybold) only draws slightly more power and is also fine for laptops. Beyond that, there's a lot of Intel hardware in CHRP which not only drives the prices down a lot, but also makes it possable to walk into "mom and pop parts stores" and walk out with a "Bag o' parts". Finally, IBM's chip volume goes way up and the price of the chip not only comes down too, but the R&D goes up (and the PPC is a vastly untapped archecture.)
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct to an extent, however, there is a problem when companies that have a hot idea and no sustainable business model have stock prices around $200/share. To make a generalization, it it generally not the pros who own these stocks. Part of it is because of the high degree of uncertainty involved, but more importantly, it's becuase those companies aren't making money. In my portfolio, I own only companies that have shown they can sustain earnings. This means that I own a lot of less glamourous stocks, but it also means that my portfolio is more likely to hold its value in rough waters. Believe me, if I thought Yahoo or Amazon could deliver earning to justify the stock price, I'd buy in. My dad is a Ph/D in business btw, and he caught the tech wave before it really started so don't try to tell me that Ph/Ds simply want the status quo. We've done very well with the markets and I've learned a ton about how this stuff works.
While the Ph/Ds may not be able to see the future, they do know how to plan for it and that's the big distinction. The traditional way to make money from the markets is long term investments. Contrary to popular belief, when people stoped doing it that way, the rules didn't change. We learned a lot from the great depression and you're not giving those who took the time to learn the whys and hows the credit they deserve.
Finally, regarding who can and can't trade, that's a tough question. On one hand, it's easy to say anyone should be able to trade. I would agree infact: anyone should be able to trade. They should also have some kind of knowledge of how the market works too becuase there is the very real possibility that they'll get burned. If they're not the type that watches CNBC all day, then maybe they should hire a money manager. It's not a great solution, granted, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people who got burned when something they thought was a sure thing, wasn't what they thought it was. The stock market will, generally speaking, follow certain rules and patterns. If you know and understand those rules and patterns, you have a much higher chance for long term success. That, unfortunately, is the honest truth.
OOG, is absolutely right. The NASDAQ is in correction mode right now. This is a good thing. Fortunately, from what I can tell, the tech market seems to be showing signs of realizing that it's way overpriced and is adjusting itself accordingly. For some, the effects of this will be brutal, but this is what happens when anyone with a computer can be a part of an IPO.
As for Microsoft stock, it hasn't been doing much because frankly, they don't have a whole lot going for them right now and the market is reacting accordingly. I personally dropped all my MS stock a couple of years ago and bought, wait for it, Apple Computer. In the meanwhile, the NASDAQ has been very volitle because this kind of insanity the markets were showing is unprecedented. There is this mass of traders who arm themselves w/ nothing more than an ameritrade account and call themselves investors. These people, quite frankly, are dangerous and now they're strarting to get burned as the people who do understand what diversification is, and who understand how the markets work, take control. The reason they're dangerous is that they are not investing for the long haul, they're looking for the quick buck. This is what makes some companies stock prices jump out of control. The people who know better can only invest around them, but there's nothing anyone can do to address the our market's shrinking credibility with the rest of the world.
As the Ebays and Amazons and insert_your_favorite.com companies collapse, (Barnes and Noble.com will win btw,) it will be those Ph/Ds in business who keep the markets afloat, and the end result will be that the rich control even more wealth at the expense of the middle class.
Who is the crackhead moderator that moderated this to +2? Don't bother moderating it down, I'm just curious. This is nothing against swordgeek, btw, but his comment really adds nothing to the conversation. Maybe that's the reason he got moderated up, he added nothing and lord knows that there aren't enough people on /. with absolutely nothing to say. Ah well, back to work.
Pardon my confusion, but how is porting QT to X possibly going to either clean it up or make it easier to maintain?
Don't forget Dead Poet Society, one of the best movies ever, imho.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. My problem with Microsoft products, aside from their poor quality control, is that they don't feel like they were designed. Stuff is added and removed at random. A perfect example is the win95 interface and it's dialog boxes within dialog boxes and its different kinds of open-save panels. A designer decides that he/she likes this look or behavior better and breaks all traces of consistency. It would be interesting to see what MS could produce if they defined a feature-set ahead of time and then wrote the code to implement it. I'd like to think (optimistically) that the quality would be significantly higher than it is now.
-Dan
I disagree that Linux has to be dumbed down if it wants to become a desktop OS. It has to become much much easier to use, but that ease of use doesn't have to come at the expense of power.
/exchange/.....
As a mac user currently attempting to learn Linux, I find it dizzying how much more I need to know just to operate a Linux desktop. I don't mind reading all the documentation because I find this stuff interesting, but I'm the exception. While I don't think highly of the UI in either GNOME or KDE, I don't think that's the most pressing issue.
Last night, I finally grew sick of using un-excelerated X and decided I'd attempt to install an excelerated X server on my Yosemite G3. I downloaded the necessary file no problem and printed out the instructions for installation.
The first thing I had to do was download and run a specific version of Xconfigurator. Okay, no problem, I know how to do that.
rpm -hvi --force
I then got an error about missing libraries with not so much as web site to look for more infomation or the names of the necessary files. I pressed on anyway and typed the cryptic commands as the insturctions told me to. Suppose there was a GUI tool that could auto-detect your hardware (if you wanted it to) and install the corresponding files and then restart X-Windows. These are the kinds of things that new users would like to see. It's not that we're lazy, at least, I'm not. But a GUI tool that could automate the whole process would save a lot of time, without dumbing down the system. There are countless other things that I'd change if I could code, but I'll save those for another post.
-Dan
How did you do this? When I go to install 1999-Q3 w/o the RedHat folder, I end up missing a ton of stuff. Please email me deschust@syr.edu. Thanks in advance.
-Dan
A couple quick question for you Hazz.
first, when will I be able to install it off the net? Also, will I have to download the entire RedHat folder? My setup is currently for YDL, since they had the first support for B&W G3s and they didn't make you dowload the entire RedHat folder, so I didn't allocate the HD space to make installing linuxppc 1999-q3 possible. I hope that all I will need to do is download a kernel file and a ramdisk file, just like old times. The install procedure for 1999-q3 was a step back from the older way, imho. Thanks for your time.
-Dan
Wrong, Wrong Wrong
There seems to be this perception among people here that good UI design is about just adding more eye candy. The Gnome developer who suggested that he could easily add transparency to menus completely missed the point.
First of all, I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about UI design, but it's a field that interests me and I read about it on mailing lists and the like.
In theory, UI design is about making things simple, logical and asthetically pleasing. The reality is that since most people are used to Windows now, a good UI today will find a way to balance good design decisions with the way that Microsoft does everything.
Let's start with an experiment. Bring your mouse pointer into the center of your screen. Now, move the pointer into one corner of the screen. Notice how awkward the movement in your wrist is. Move the mouse back into the center and move it to another corner. Notice how awkward the movement is. Reapeat for the other two corners. Now list the corners from least awkward to most awkward. If you're right handed, your list should look mostly like this:
Bottom Right
Top Left
Top Right
Bottom Left
Now, where is the start button located?
Acording to Tog, (yes, I'm a mac head, but I like all OSes) Default buttons in dialog boxes should be on the right side of the box. Where does windows put the default button? You guessed it, on the left. I think the reason the right is the correct side (for a righty anyway) is that the eye tends to focus on the right side of the screen. This is also probably the reason that the default positions for mac icons are on the right.
As for eye candy, it actually does improve the user experience. Think about it this way, who would you rather see naked, Natalie Portman (if she was 18) or Rosanne Barr? I rest my case. This is also the reason that wallpaper and custom mouse pointers and the like are so popular.
Another misconception here about UI design is that a savings of a 1/2 second is insignificant. Believe it or not, a 1/2 second is actually very significant savings and they do add up. I'm not going to take a side on the one vs. two button mouse (I happen to like a multibutton mouse myself, but advocate a one button mouse for newbies) but until users have enough experience with it, there is a measuarable delay as they try to click the right button. For popup windows, I prefer the timed mechanism that netscape on the mac uses.
As another example, consider the mac menu bar. It has its disadvantages, but for Fitts' Law compliance, it can't be beat. Pop quiz: name the 5 easiest pixels on the screen to hit with the mouse. Anyway, the mac menu bar is infinately high making it a very easy target to hit. Windows (and everthing else) has a menu bar that's a fixed height and width. When I move my mouse to the menu bar, I can over-shoot it as much as I want, and still be right on top of it. Contrast this with the other way where you have to be aware of your acceleration. The downside of the mac menu bar is that new users sometimes think that they're in a different program than the one they're actuall in. They also don't realize that there's a difference between closing all the windows and closing the application. This is the reason that mac os 8.x and up, can display the application name next to the icon in the menu bar, though I'm not sure it helped much.
It's important to keep in mind that there's no perfect interface for all users. I've taught a number of people to use computers and what I tell them is, I'm going to show you how I like to do things, but if you find a way that you like better, then use that instead. This could potentially be a great oppertunity for OSS on the GUI as every hacker has their own way of doing things. On the other hand, most users will just use what's given to them and make the best of it because they're too afriad to try something else because they think that they'll screw up the system or it will be too hard. You can thank Microsoft for that mentality too.
To the developers of Gnome and KDE and all the others, I wish you well, but if you want to get Linux on the desktop, (and maybe you don't, in which case, disregard this post) then it's important to understand what makes something powerfull, consistent and easy to use. There's no reason that software has to be powerfull or easy to use. They can and should be both.
okay, first of all, Objective C was never dropped. That's a rumor that's been going around, but there's nothing to support it. Most of the mac rumor sites (and a number of mac news sites) have reported on this and they say that Objective C is still the best way to write to cocoa. It is true that apple has made the entire cocoa API available to Java, but Objective C has not been dropped and is still considered the primary way to develop for cocoa.
leadership@apple.com
Wow, another geek who doesn't like Star Trek. And all this time, I thought I was the only one. It's nice to know I'm not alone. Thank you for brightening my evening AC.
For the record, I've used KDE and it isn't bad, certainly far superior to gnome. But I think that a lot of people here under-estimate just how many people are absolutely terrified of computers. KDE by itself is fairly user-friendly, although somethings, such as multiple desktops can really confuse a beginner. One of the things about ease-of-use is that it can't be tacked on as an afterthought, a product has to be desigened from the ground-up with ease-of-use in mind. If Linux is serious about going head-to-head with microsoft for the desktop, it needs to learn this lesson. Again, think about the mom test. Ask yourself: Is it something that my mom could use?
Well, maybe I'm the exception, but I can't consider an os mainstream until my mom can use it. She has enough trouble w/ the mac os (but she's getting better, just needs more practice). I can't imagine putting her in front of a command line. commercial software is starting to appear for linux, but that's simply because the geek community is larger than previously thought. And just how long has RailRoad Tycoon II been available for the PC? This is an honest question, I'm not a gamer.
no, it shows how out of touch you are. while fringe may not be quite the right word, linux is certainly not a mainstream os at this point in time. Fact is, while it's a nice choice for a small server, it has a long, long, long, long, long way to go in usability. And frankly, if you put philosophical issues aside, bsd is generally the better choice anyway. Don't get me wrong, I like linux as much as the next slashdotter, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe some day, but not today.
Whevever I code, I usually prefer a good harmonica bluesman like Sonny Boy Williamson or anyone who blew the harp for Muddy Waters. When I can't think straight or have trouble figuring something out, pulling out my strat and ripping through The House is Rockin by Stevie Ray Vaughn or pulling out my yamaha and jamming to Kind Hearted Woman by Robert Johnson seems to do wonders for me.
I don't think so, haven't you hear that song "You Can't Splice Wooly Mamoth and Pot Belly Pig DNA"? If you want to try to get them in the mood, go ahead. I shudder to think of the amount of booze a wooly mamoth could hold though and I shudder even more when I think of what happens when it all comes back up.
Actually, I bet Mac OS X will run on the POP out of the box, it will just be "unsupported" just like pre-G3 machines running MOSX server. This would make sense. The people who will use these open power pc boxes are the kinds of people who read /. These same people would never buy a mac from apple, no matter how much they like the hardware. If they buy a POP box though, apple may as well sell them an OS to run on it- the work required is minimal and it's not officially supported so there's no risk to them anyway. Most importantly though, they get mac os x into more people's hands.
I think SOMObjects is needed for open transport, but don't hold me to it. Disable the extension and see what breaks. I think you do need it though, it's a library and part of the mac os 8.5 extension package.
From what I understand, you can modify OpenFirmware to bypass the Mac OS at bootup, but I have absolutely no idea on how to do this.
Don't get me wrong, I love the Athlon too, in fact, I just bought one... But the thing's a friggen microwave! It draws 50W! Hotter than the PIII. So yes, it's a nice chip at a nice price, but to be honest, I'm a bit worried about the damn thing burning a hole through my motherboard. OTOH, it should keep my apartment nice and toasty up in the cold darkness of Syracuse.
The PPC, however, is a truly elegant chip. Certainly on par w/ the Athlon (Altivec routines however will blow it out of the water) and it draws far less power, only 5W for the G3 which makes it quite good for both desktops and laptops, unlike the Athlon. The G4 (which btw, is probably coming at Seybold) only draws slightly more power and is also fine for laptops. Beyond that, there's a lot of Intel hardware in CHRP which not only drives the prices down a lot, but also makes it possable to walk into "mom and pop parts stores" and walk out with a "Bag o' parts". Finally, IBM's chip volume goes way up and the price of the chip not only comes down too, but the R&D goes up (and the PPC is a vastly untapped archecture.)
The G3 stuff is neat, but there is better happening all around them.
Such as? I can't think of a platform with more potential than CHRP.
Just what exactly is Apple going to sue them for? Frankly, I don't want them to sue and I'm a shareholder.
Damnit man, what's your problem? Why is Darwin bad simply because it comes from Apple? Would Darwin be good if it came from a different company?