Apple actually participates very heavily in the development of the ICs that go into their hardware. PowerPC was, after all, originally developed by Apple, IBM and Motorola working together.
http://www.apple.com/g5processor/
Note the text: "Apple and IBM teamed up to produce the world's most advanced processor."
Apple also worked directly with IBM on the new system controller ASIC as well.
Where I work, we are beginning a feasibility test where we are replacing our usual two monitor arrangement (one 21" CRT and one 17" CRT) with a single Apple 23" Cinema HD display.
Our users are creative folk, working on G4s with Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc. Historically, the mindset has been to keep application palettes on the smaller display while the current document is open full-screen on the larger display. Usual resolutions are 1600x1200 on the 21" monitor and 1280x1024 on the 17" display.
Our test hopes to show that users not only work faster with a single 23" 1920x1200 display, but also that the single display will save money in the long run, and make associate moves easier. It should also improve ergonomics in our smaller cube workspaces, because the thinner display can be pushed back closer to the cube wall. I do think, however, that 1920x1200 might just be too low a resolution for a 23" display.
We are also beginning a migration to Panther, and we are hoping to show that Expose makes the navigation of multiple open applications more intuitive and efficient.
As resolutions increase and flat panels become larger and less expensive, I think this trend may increase. Instead of using two large, bulky CRTs, it might be easier, cheaper, and faster to work with one large high-resolution LCD.
"I'm not interested in investing lots of money in applications for yet another properietary OS."
Hmm... Open-source Darwin core... X11... More "open" technologies than you could shake a stick at... Loads of great built-in languages... Freely available ports of tons of great Unix apps... Exactly what is so "proprietary" about Mac OS X that is scaring you away?
Could you prove to me that the Macintosh platform is more expensive? Because from what I've seen, it certainly seems like quite the opposite. During the WWDC Keynote, Jobs presented a head-to-head between the new G5 and a top-of-the-line Dell. The Mac was $1000 less!
The IBM 970 runs 32-bit code just fine. Application developers will have the flexibility to update their code when they want, and only if there is a clear benefit.
Actually, the Quark 6 AppleScript dictionary is pretty extensive. No gaps here. Quark has always had great AppleScript support... it just hasn't been very well documented.
Uhm... InDesign has been available for quite some time now. InDesign 2 is a great product, and offers several features that Quark does not, particularly centering around integration with other Adobe apps, such as Photoshop and Illustrator.
As far as a time lag between Mac OS X release and Quark 6 release, I think that has more to do with the fact that 6 appears to be a complete re-write, and not just a carbonized version of Quark 5. Quark 6 will not run on any Mac OS prior to Jaguar.
How will Apple's move to LCD technology affect the cost of the computer? I'm afraid I don't see the connection. Isn't that a bit like saying, e.g. if Sony were to move all of their televisions to LCD, their DVD players would be more expensive?
Slashdot Mirror
They missed quite a few accents.
Bill Shatner
Christopher Walken
Dana Carvey's Ross Perot
James Stewart
A Mac and a PlayStation 2.
See this PDF at the Virginia Tech site.
Note the text: "Switched Network. Each node connects into the network at 20 Gbps full duplex bandwidth."
http://don.cc.vt.edu/tcfslides.pdf
Apple actually participates very heavily in the development of the ICs that go into their hardware. PowerPC was, after all, originally developed by Apple, IBM and Motorola working together.
http://www.apple.com/g5processor/
Note the text: "Apple and IBM teamed up to produce the world's most advanced processor."
Apple also worked directly with IBM on the new system controller ASIC as well.
Where I work, we are beginning a feasibility test where we are replacing our usual two monitor arrangement (one 21" CRT and one 17" CRT) with a single Apple 23" Cinema HD display.
Our users are creative folk, working on G4s with Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc. Historically, the mindset has been to keep application palettes on the smaller display while the current document is open full-screen on the larger display. Usual resolutions are 1600x1200 on the 21" monitor and 1280x1024 on the 17" display.
Our test hopes to show that users not only work faster with a single 23" 1920x1200 display, but also that the single display will save money in the long run, and make associate moves easier. It should also improve ergonomics in our smaller cube workspaces, because the thinner display can be pushed back closer to the cube wall. I do think, however, that 1920x1200 might just be too low a resolution for a 23" display.
We are also beginning a migration to Panther, and we are hoping to show that Expose makes the navigation of multiple open applications more intuitive and efficient.
As resolutions increase and flat panels become larger and less expensive, I think this trend may increase. Instead of using two large, bulky CRTs, it might be easier, cheaper, and faster to work with one large high-resolution LCD.
"I'm not interested in investing lots of money in applications for yet another properietary OS."
Hmm... Open-source Darwin core... X11... More "open" technologies than you could shake a stick at... Loads of great built-in languages... Freely available ports of tons of great Unix apps... Exactly what is so "proprietary" about Mac OS X that is scaring you away?
"One must consider their audience when speaking."
One must remember to match one's pronouns, as well.
Could you prove to me that the Macintosh platform is more expensive? Because from what I've seen, it certainly seems like quite the opposite. During the WWDC Keynote, Jobs presented a head-to-head between the new G5 and a top-of-the-line Dell. The Mac was $1000 less!
The Prosoft client (NetWare 5.13) uses IPX. I use it every day at the office.
The IBM 970 runs 32-bit code just fine. Application developers will have the flexibility to update their code when they want, and only if there is a clear benefit.
Actually, the Quark 6 AppleScript dictionary is pretty extensive. No gaps here. Quark has always had great AppleScript support... it just hasn't been very well documented.
Hmmm... Considering that the two applications are designed for radically different purposes, you won't get much page layout work done in Photoshop.
Uhm... InDesign has been available for quite some time now. InDesign 2 is a great product, and offers several features that Quark does not, particularly centering around integration with other Adobe apps, such as Photoshop and Illustrator.
As far as a time lag between Mac OS X release and Quark 6 release, I think that has more to do with the fact that 6 appears to be a complete re-write, and not just a carbonized version of Quark 5. Quark 6 will not run on any Mac OS prior to Jaguar.
Prosoft Engineering makes an IPX Novell client for both classic Mac OS and Mac OS X.
Works great.
Hmmm.... Have we been watching Law & Order?
Seriously, though. I live not too far south of DC, and the situation is a little disturbing. I'd be a liar if I said I weren't being more cautious.
Also, if I recall, only one of these incidents has been in DC proper. Most of them have been in relatively quiet subdivisions surrounding DC.
I would think that, at the very least, low cost/high performance Macintosh clustering would interest Slashdotters. Now that is bang for your buck.
How will Apple's move to LCD technology affect the cost of the computer? I'm afraid I don't see the connection. Isn't that a bit like saying, e.g. if Sony were to move all of their televisions to LCD, their DVD players would be more expensive?
A $200 19" monitor?! I get a headache behind my eyes just thinking about how bad the color fidelity and refresh rate must be on that display.
Don't tell that to all of those musicians out there using Macs in their studios!