Gruber didn't say that it was equal.
It began as 'found', and became 'theft' when the jackass left with it, and then sold it.
Seriously, would you leave a bar with an iphone you found there? If so, then you suck as much as that guy.
If the article is correct, then Apple hired a group of people, and now they don't need them any more, so they're sending everyone home. What's wrong with that?
Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to keep these people on when their positions are no longer needed?
Personally I think that it's probably just a reorg, and that most of the programmers will find other work within Apple, but to suggest that Apple or any company shouldn't get rid of workers when they don't need them is just silly. Are you French?
What is stopping Apple or another software company from offering the best darn interface for programmers and users to work with, and then find the processor to wrap the interface around?
I think the word you're looking for here is Cocoa.
1) Yes, it's possible they'd go back to PPC. I really really wouldn't count on that, especially on any large scale.
2) If they use Cocoa, it's supposed to be a relatively seamless transition. At most, a recompile should be all that is necessary.
Realistically though, there's no practical reason that all new Cocoa apps shouldn't have a Universal Binary (Universal here means PPC and X86). Apple released XCode with Universal Binary capability in June of this year.
The key for all this is Cocoa. Carbon is of course workable, but apps written with Cocoa will 'just work' with OS X (whatever version/architecture).
Yes, it wouldn't be too hard for Intel to make the compiler optimizations work with AMD processors, and yes, it was probably a management decision to do it this way, but so what if the Intel compiler doesn't do any favors for AMD processors? It's Intel's compiler. If you don't like the code generated, it's not like Intel has a monopoly on compilers. Intel made a business decision to make a compiler that complements their processor line.
It's not as if Intel is in the compiler business, and there's nothing stopping AMD from creating their own compiler (or just helping out the good folks on the gcc project).
The arguments in this thread against Intel would have Intel engineers working to make AMD's product work better. *That* is anticompetitive. Intel's engineers are working to make Intel's processors perform as well as they can and they're not doing anything to help out AMD...that is the very definition of competition.
So your gripe is that Intel doesn't go out of their way to make sure that AMD's processors do what you want them to do?
Basically Intel-generated code checks to see if the processor performs certain optimizations by asking the processor what kind it is. Once the feature set of the processor is verified by that simple processor identification test, then the optimized code is run. If it can't be known for sure what a processor will do, wouldn't you *want* them to fall back to more compatible (albeit slower) code?
It seems to me that Intel's answer is perfectly reasonable. They optimize for their processor, and they produce *functioning* code for all other similar processors. If you want the latest optimizations, they want you to buy the latest processors. Are you surprised that *Intel* assumes that you'll buy Intel processors?
I mean, they're just making sure that the compiled code will actually work for the widest possible set of target platforms. Surely you don't expect Intel to validate its optimizations against AMD processors. Oh wait, this is/. Everyone expects something for nothing.
Tell AMD to enable a flag that causes the processor to identify as an Intel processor, then let AMD carry the burden if the optimizations don't work. I mean, they are Intel-compatible, aren't they?
I have a bondi blue iMac from 1996, a lime iMac from 1999 or so, a PowerMac G4 from 2000, Xserve G4 version1 (with tray loading CD), and Xserve G4 version 2. Hell, I have a NeXTStation Turbo Color from 1991.
My friends and relatives have iMacs from 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005 iBooks from 2001, 2004, 2005, and powerbooks from 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
My current computer is a Powermac G5 purchased in 2003, among the first batch shipped. The internal DVD drive has started being a little flaky, but I think it just needs to be cleaned with compressed air.
The point is, they all work fine. My experience with all apple hardware has been exactly the opposite of what you describe.
And how much will Adobe CS add to the cost of the PC?
I would submit that the average computer user can get more done with iLife than they can with Adobe CS, but I've not used Adobe CS, so I won't try to defend that position. I do know that there are lots of non-tech-savvy people using iLife to do some very groovy things.
Capabilities and ease-of-use issues aside, iLife is included with a new mac, Adobe CS is not bundled with anything in the iMac's price range. And as you so astutely pointed out, if a mac user wants CS, they can go get it, just like a PC user. Advantage mac.
I don't yet have the Adobe CS tools, because iLife gets the job done, right out of the box. Now *that* is why people buy computers-to get things done. Apple has realized this and has made a good user experience across their product line. Good for them.
You make a good point here. I guess the installer for Windows has to be user-friendly because the user spends so much time running it...over and over again.
I think that the author of the article is so used to having to reinstall windows that he forgets that OS X users typically only install their OS once per machine.
I have to admit that the install process is something I never would have even considered including in a review of OS X, *especially* since he didn't even mention CoreData/CoreAudio/CoreVideo or a host of other new features.
I understand he has to keep the article short to keep the attention of the Dell-buying, XP-running PHBs of the world, but come on...comparing Tiger it to a service pack release from MS? What an Asshat.
If you really want them buy a 64-bit system *and* you want them to leave you alone, then tell your family member to buy an iMac. Advise them that it's different from what you use, but that you've heard that it's easy and powerful (which is true). Since you're telling them that it's not what you use, they know not to bother you with their computer problems.
I would like to record the presidential debates with my TiVo. Current technology allows me to encode recorded TV programs onto a DVD that I can show to my friends for less than $1 per DVD.
Does it bother you that I have to worry whether it is legal for me to do this?
Simple, because an Arab holding a $20 russian surplus rifle, could be brainwashed by a radical islamist to take a $200 plane ticket and a $20,000 flight course to fly a $20 million plane into a building, terrorizing 200 million people and causing $200 billion damage to the international economy. That's why.
Dick Cheney said no such thing. Go read the transcript, and not the report from the Associated Press. Yes this Associated Press.
AP Version: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
Actual not-edited-for-political-purposes quote: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war."
So reading the Vice President's words, in context, one can easily see that Cheney was not saying "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda", but he was stating that Kerry would not respond as Bush has. One can argue whether or not that's a good thing, but it is *not* what you (and the mainstream media, including FoxNews) are accusing.
Given that John Edwards was first to jump on this comment, taken out of context, I now know everything I need to know about John Edwards.
As to your other complaints, if 200+ vets come together to voice their opinion about a candidate, who are you to say they're wrong?
The RNC wants people to know that Kerry is the wrong choice. You expected them to go easy on him? You must be new here.
As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on Bush's behalf at the RNC. In fact, he spoke quite well. Go to the iTMS and download the speech.
Apple is now almost exactly what NeXT wanted to be.
Back in the early 1990's NeXT was an archenemy of Sun. Sun did pretty well back in the day, but it appears that NeXT/Apple may finally win in the end. Fine by me.:)
Making an "exclusive sale" deal isn't anticompetitive, if the deal is reached as a mutually beneficial arrangement.
However, the tactics MSFT (allegedly) used to force such deals are highly suspect. Allegedly, MSFT would tell OEMs that they could ONLY install Windows, and if an OEM didn't agree to such a "deal", MSFT would stop letting them sell Windows *at all*.
Those sorts of strongarm tactics are definitely anticompetitive, and should be investigated. Basically, for $22m, MSFT has paid off Be's shareholders to drop the lawsuit and prevent such an investigation. While I don't fault Be for taking the deal, it would sure be nice to find someone MSFT couldn't buy off.
To put this in perspective, consider the following math:
$8,072,000,000 net income for MSFT during the 9 months ended 3/31/03 divided by the (roughly) 270 days during the 9 months ended 3/31/03 ...yields $29,000,000 net income per day for MSFT
so basically they destroyed Be, Inc., and it cost them roughly 18 *hours* of income.
Perhaps they have entered the Reality Distortion Field (TM).
Apple's platform will probably work here, and once they prove it does, they will open a new segment of buyers, and gain plenty of positive attention. Apple's (recent) record suggests they will exceed expectations.
As to the cost...the good PR that they can derive from a working G5 supercomputer is easily worth $10m on hardware. At the end of the quarter it's hardly noticable to a company sitting on $3,500,000,000.00 in cash.
Apple gets to show MSFT they can scale OS X way past Windows. IBM gets to show Intel what it thinks of the Blue Lightning License arrangement, and Apple and IBM, by virtue of being together, get so give MSFT the finger...from way up the (top500.org) list. Not bad for their first try at this.
...and think about it from Jobs' perspective: This will be the biggest "Apple Computer" ever made. His ego can't handle this thing not kicking ass.
-- Don't forget that Pixar's always looking for high power hardware and they've got lots of new money.
Slashdot Mirror
Gruber didn't say that it was equal. It began as 'found', and became 'theft' when the jackass left with it, and then sold it. Seriously, would you leave a bar with an iphone you found there? If so, then you suck as much as that guy.
Um, it's great for iPhone users because without a viable business behind it there'd be no iPhone?
Just my guess.
If the article is correct, then Apple hired a group of people, and now they don't need them any more, so they're sending everyone home. What's wrong with that?
Are you really suggesting that Apple be forced to keep these people on when their positions are no longer needed?
Personally I think that it's probably just a reorg, and that most of the programmers will find other work within Apple, but to suggest that Apple or any company shouldn't get rid of workers when they don't need them is just silly. Are you French?
I think the word you're looking for here is Cocoa.
1) Yes, it's possible they'd go back to PPC. I really really wouldn't count on that, especially on any large scale.
2) If they use Cocoa, it's supposed to be a relatively seamless transition. At most, a recompile should be all that is necessary.
Realistically though, there's no practical reason that all new Cocoa apps shouldn't have a Universal Binary (Universal here means PPC and X86). Apple released XCode with Universal Binary capability in June of this year.
The key for all this is Cocoa. Carbon is of course workable, but apps written with Cocoa will 'just work' with OS X (whatever version/architecture).
I came to the same point a few years ago, then I bought a Mac. Fortunately for you, this was just announced today. They'll even assemble it for you.
Yes, it wouldn't be too hard for Intel to make the compiler optimizations work with AMD processors, and yes, it was probably a management decision to do it this way, but so what if the Intel compiler doesn't do any favors for AMD processors? It's Intel's compiler. If you don't like the code generated, it's not like Intel has a monopoly on compilers. Intel made a business decision to make a compiler that complements their processor line.
It's not as if Intel is in the compiler business, and there's nothing stopping AMD from creating their own compiler (or just helping out the good folks on the gcc project).
The arguments in this thread against Intel would have Intel engineers working to make AMD's product work better. *That* is anticompetitive. Intel's engineers are working to make Intel's processors perform as well as they can and they're not doing anything to help out AMD...that is the very definition of competition.
So your gripe is that Intel doesn't go out of their way to make sure that AMD's processors do what you want them to do?
/. Everyone expects something for nothing.
Basically Intel-generated code checks to see if the processor performs certain optimizations by asking the processor what kind it is. Once the feature set of the processor is verified by that simple processor identification test, then the optimized code is run. If it can't be known for sure what a processor will do, wouldn't you *want* them to fall back to more compatible (albeit slower) code?
It seems to me that Intel's answer is perfectly reasonable. They optimize for their processor, and they produce *functioning* code for all other similar processors. If you want the latest optimizations, they want you to buy the latest processors. Are you surprised that *Intel* assumes that you'll buy Intel processors?
I mean, they're just making sure that the compiled code will actually work for the widest possible set of target platforms. Surely you don't expect Intel to validate its optimizations against AMD processors. Oh wait, this is
Tell AMD to enable a flag that causes the processor to identify as an Intel processor, then let AMD carry the burden if the optimizations don't work. I mean, they are Intel-compatible, aren't they?
On the off chance that you weren't trolling.....
I have a bondi blue iMac from 1996, a lime iMac from 1999 or so, a PowerMac G4 from 2000, Xserve G4 version1 (with tray loading CD), and Xserve G4 version 2. Hell, I have a NeXTStation Turbo Color from 1991.
My friends and relatives have iMacs from 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005 iBooks from 2001, 2004, 2005, and powerbooks from 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
My current computer is a Powermac G5 purchased in 2003, among the first batch shipped. The internal DVD drive has started being a little flaky, but I think it just needs to be cleaned with compressed air.
The point is, they all work fine. My experience with all apple hardware has been exactly the opposite of what you describe.
<sarcasm>
Maybe I'm just lucky.
</sarcasm>
And how much will Adobe CS add to the cost of the PC?
I would submit that the average computer user can get more done with iLife than they can with Adobe CS, but I've not used Adobe CS, so I won't try to defend that position. I do know that there are lots of non-tech-savvy people using iLife to do some very groovy things.
Capabilities and ease-of-use issues aside, iLife is included with a new mac, Adobe CS is not bundled with anything in the iMac's price range. And as you so astutely pointed out, if a mac user wants CS, they can go get it, just like a PC user. Advantage mac.
I don't yet have the Adobe CS tools, because iLife gets the job done, right out of the box. Now *that* is why people buy computers-to get things done. Apple has realized this and has made a good user experience across their product line. Good for them.
You make a good point here. I guess the installer for Windows has to be user-friendly because the user spends so much time running it...over and over again.
I think that the author of the article is so used to having to reinstall windows that he forgets that OS X users typically only install their OS once per machine.
I have to admit that the install process is something I never would have even considered including in a review of OS X, *especially* since he didn't even mention CoreData/CoreAudio/CoreVideo or a host of other new features.
I understand he has to keep the article short to keep the attention of the Dell-buying, XP-running PHBs of the world, but come on...comparing Tiger it to a service pack release from MS? What an Asshat.
If you really want them buy a 64-bit system *and* you want them to leave you alone, then tell your family member to buy an iMac. Advise them that it's different from what you use, but that you've heard that it's easy and powerful (which is true). Since you're telling them that it's not what you use, they know not to bother you with their computer problems.
Just a suggestion from another crazy mac user.
So CompUSA is the gatekeeper of OSS project compliance? Wow, I hope we get one in my hometown soon.
Meanwhile, I'll have to visit Apple's Darwin Page for more information.
Or I can skip the education and go right to the download page at The Open Darwin Page
it's available for PPC and x86 (on the same ISO, presumably to facilitate packaging at CompUSA)
I would like to record the presidential debates with my TiVo.
Current technology allows me to encode recorded TV programs onto a DVD that I can show to my friends for less than $1 per DVD.
Does it bother you that I have to worry whether it is legal for me to do this?
Simple, because an Arab holding a $20 russian surplus rifle, could be brainwashed by a radical islamist to take a $200 plane ticket and a $20,000 flight course to fly a $20 million plane into a building, terrorizing 200 million people and causing $200 billion damage to the international economy. That's why.
Dick Cheney said no such thing. Go read the transcript, and not the report from the Associated Press. Yes this Associated Press.
AP Version:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
Actual not-edited-for-political-purposes quote:
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war."
So reading the Vice President's words, in context, one can easily see that Cheney was not saying "a vote for Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda", but he was stating that Kerry would not respond as Bush has. One can argue whether or not that's a good thing, but it is *not* what you (and the mainstream media, including FoxNews) are accusing.
Given that John Edwards was first to jump on this comment, taken out of context, I now know everything I need to know about John Edwards.
As to your other complaints, if 200+ vets come together to voice their opinion about a candidate, who are you to say they're wrong?
The RNC wants people to know that Kerry is the wrong choice. You expected them to go easy on him? You must be new here.
As to the alleged smear on McCain, obviously it's not that big of a deal, since McCain spoke on Bush's behalf at the RNC. In fact, he spoke quite well. Go to the iTMS and download the speech.
Apple is now almost exactly what NeXT wanted to be.
:)
Back in the early 1990's NeXT was an archenemy of Sun. Sun did pretty well back in the day, but it appears that NeXT/Apple may finally win in the end. Fine by me.
Well, I am a capitalist and I suppose the obvious reply is "Where exactly has capitalism really been tried?"
Except, of course, Galt's Gulch.
Fair enough, Be had its own troubles, but (especially on /.) you have to admit, MSFT got its money's worth on this deal.
Making an "exclusive sale" deal isn't anticompetitive, if the deal is reached as a mutually beneficial arrangement.
However, the tactics MSFT (allegedly) used to force such deals are highly suspect. Allegedly, MSFT would tell OEMs that they could ONLY install Windows, and if an OEM didn't agree to such a "deal", MSFT would stop letting them sell Windows *at all*.
Those sorts of strongarm tactics are definitely anticompetitive, and should be investigated. Basically, for $22m, MSFT has paid off Be's shareholders to drop the lawsuit and prevent such an investigation. While I don't fault Be for taking the deal, it would sure be nice to find someone MSFT couldn't buy off.
To put this in perspective, consider the following math:
:-/
$8,072,000,000 net income for MSFT during the 9 months ended 3/31/03
divided by the (roughly) 270 days during the 9 months ended 3/31/03
...yields $29,000,000 net income per day for MSFT
so basically they destroyed Be, Inc., and it cost them roughly 18 *hours* of income.
just lovely
Perhaps they have entered the Reality Distortion Field (TM).
...and think about it from Jobs' perspective: This will be the biggest "Apple Computer" ever made. His ego can't handle this thing not kicking ass.
Apple's platform will probably work here, and once they prove it does, they will open a new segment of buyers, and gain plenty of positive attention. Apple's (recent) record suggests they will exceed expectations.
As to the cost...the good PR that they can derive from a working G5 supercomputer is easily worth $10m on hardware. At the end of the quarter it's hardly noticable to a company sitting on $3,500,000,000.00 in cash.
Apple gets to show MSFT they can scale OS X way past Windows. IBM gets to show Intel what it thinks of the Blue Lightning License arrangement, and Apple and IBM, by virtue of being together, get so give MSFT the finger...from way up the (top500.org) list. Not bad for their first try at this.
--
Don't forget that Pixar's always looking for high power hardware and they've got lots of new money.
Go see the radio telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
Go see Frank Lloyd Wright's Kaufmann House, also called Fallingwater. (Pennsylvania, US)
...or did i dream that?