1) Prevents Microsoft from embracing (in the traditional sense, not in how we usually think of MS doing with this concept) the point that UNIX operating systems are tried and true technology, given that they HAVE been around for a very long time in computer years.
2) Prevents Microsoft from generating products that sell to users of UNIX families (Microsoft Office X for Mac OS X is the only UNIX family product I am aware of), and, as a result, generating additional revenues.
3) Leaves Microsoft in a sacrificial lamb situation when businesses have to look at the bottom line in a tech solution where a competing *NIX product simply does the same task for less money or less complex or proprietary technologies and with less licensing hassles.
Microsoft has beaten the dead horse of The Operating System as the Hub of All You Do paradigm for too long now. Operating systems are still important but now revolve around two camps: Microsoft Windows technology, and *NIX technologies (BSD, Sun, Mac OS X, Linux and its many distros, et al.). What many businesses now need revolves less on what you run your apps on, but the apps themselves.
I see Microsoft losing more revenue due to their licensing model, which still presumes that it's the 1990's and money is everyone. Businesses are finding it hard to justify yearly OS or application suite upgrades. IT managers are just moving to Windows 2000 Server right now, and aren't going to figure in Windows 2003 Server anytime soon.
Meanwhile, many *NIX operating systems are free or lower cost than a Microsoft solution, and does much of the same, if not more. Further, Microsoft tends to develop their software proprietarily, so that third-parties can rarely adapt an MS product to their own product.
Such attitudes killed many a computer company. Usually people think of Apple when pondering NIH, but even Apple is far from those days, with their BSD hybrid OS, stock industry standard ports and protocols, yadda, yadda, yadda.
To use an overused/. joke, Microsoft is dying, being swallowed by their own need to swallow everything.
Mac OS upgrades are typically more interesting than Linux or even Windows upgrades as Apple tends to make it a point to add a significant change in performance and luxury to the operating system. Since Mac OS X is still relatively young, the changes you may see in 10.3 will be striking--or, to some people, a "Duh!" move.
For one, the Finder is the butt of jokes, and needs multithreading and greater power.
Second, I think Samba needs more work.
This summer, Apple fans should expect to see some serious shit. Strong rumors of the PowerPC 970 chip will probably come true (amidst NDAs) from WWDC as super-Mac hardware may finally arrive with all the system bus, cache, and 64-bit power that's needed to return Macs to compare reasonably to Pentium systems. Next, Mac OS X matures, and goes 64-bit compatible (if it's not already there).
Any joke is funny because it has a basis in fact, however tenuous.
I'm a Republican as a whole and a conservative all the time, black, and a Macintosh user. I find the link and the article very funny, just as many of us would giggle when we hear the word "chad" nowandays.
And, folks, given the events going on in the world, can't we all use a laugh about a nonsense item like this? Apple isn't in the business of making us laugh or giving commentary about world events, so this small nod to humor is a way to make us smile a bit and remember when life was a little simpler.
The only thing that would be funnier is getting Al Gore's tongue-in-cheek response back in turn: "Dibs, George. And, by the way, your AppleCare warranties appear to have expired..."
My opinion is that the Mac OS technology was by and far the superior compared to DOS and early Windows. Apple's licensing may have killed the company if they would not get every penny of credit for every Mac OS computer sold. Also, since Apple is a hardware company, they would be hard pressed as would other Apple-licensees from standing out in the crowd.
Two good examples: Today's PC companies struggle to make stand out almost identical systems. Also, when Apple finally licensed the Mac OS and their computer formats, Power Computing, the leading clone maker, started to sell more Macs than Apple because they were out-Appleing Apple.
Yes, licensing would've been best for the consumers. I don't see Apple as a life form. It can die tomorrow and I would not mourn. It's a godless, soulless entity as are all businesses. I just like the tech involved.
Apple is still a computer company to watch, although it may be of lesser interest to stockholders today. Still, if you were to bet on any one personal computer company to make something that would transform a process, Apple is a safe bet.
Apple is where it is now for several great ideas and collossal screw-ups, many of which determined the company's present destiny.
(My history highlights come from Apple History to make my point easier, and for your reference.)
1977: The Apple II is born, beginning the personal computer boom in earnest. Apple develops, by some estimates, a 75% market share.
1984: Apple develops a successor to the Apple II line, the Macintosh. It used a graphical interface and mouse and was the first computer with a GUI to become commercially successful. Apple boneheads the initial fate of the Mac's success by: (1) failing to make Apple II apps work with the computer, (2) making the system underpowered until 1986, (3) making the computer with a 9-inch screen that was hard on the eyes, and (4) making the Mac very expensive ($2495).
1986: Apple updates the Macintosh with the Mac Plus, with more RAM, external SCSI support, and a true hierarchial file system update for the OS. A software company, Aldus, creates PageMaker, which takes steam as the first desktop publishing program. Apple soon offers the LaserWriter, one of the first laser printers. A good move by Apple that still gives them the lead in DTP and prepress work today.
1985: Bill Gates sends a memo to then-Apple CEO John Sculley (having been hired by Steve Jobs and then, shortly, has Jobs ousted from Apple). Gates recommends that Apple license the Macintosh(warning: PDF) to make it a standard computer operating system. Gates recognized that Macs were great but weren't reaching critical mass. When Apple refused, Gates requested a license to duplicate the look and feel of some of the Mac OS in a product he was considering with IBM. Biggest bonehead move of all for Apple as this would've made the landscape completely different from the OS world we know today.
1988: Apple finally offers a Mac with internal hardware expandability, including a larger screen: the Macintosh II. It was too late for those who chose a more expandable IBM PC. This moves breathes life into its products, and vendor support improves.
1990-1998: Apple creates more good, innovative ideas, such as the PowerBook laptop (whose design elements are commonplace on PC laptops today) and the Newton (the first PDA), but never capitalizes on them as they want to hold on to all rights. This"not-invented-here" policy nearly kills the company as expensive, confusing models aren't clear, and developers find Windows apps more lucrative. Apple's overall market share plummets. Windows 95's debut makes this worse. Apple considers and offers Mac OS licensing, but this only makes Apple's problems worse as 3rd party clones are better products than Apple's.
Apple completely loses its marketing model. Steve Jobs ousts CEO Gil Amelio to return to as company CEO and begins to repair Apple's products and credibility.
In my opinion, Apple's best move would've been in licensing themselves. It may have killed Apple ultimately, but the Macintosh technologies would have survived and improved dramatically as the PC clones have proved out over time.
Is Apple still a force to be reckoned with? Even if you don't know an Apple from a PC, the company history suggests that, if there is a new spin on a computer program or hardware product, Apple usually thinks of it first. Unlike the Apple of the past, however, don't expect Apple to abandon its creations at the first sign of trouble.
WINE isn't available for the Macintosh, and I'm not a programmer and have "gobs" of time to play with anything. I'm at a job in a Windows environment, and I must play with the rest of the kids. And the rest of the kids use Windows and will never change for now. MS zealotry will not fulfill the needs of my job.
I use SMB support, but there is a difference between SAMBA (generic SMB) and genuine Windows support. Don't kid me on this, as I use Windows regularly as much as I do Mac OS, old and new. File corruption occasionally ruins a Mac user's day with SMB.
I own my copies of VPC.
I'm a minimalist when it comes to cables, which suck. KVMs just add cables. I have a digital KVM at my disposal, and I know that Apple's USB keyboards work fine with a Windows box. It's just extra crap.
I don't need speed or routine use. I need occasional access. VPC is NyQuil, not air. I don't want to or need to expose myself to extra PC hardware or software, except perhaps, to build a box for some gaming. Mac OS X does 95% of what is needed--the rest comes from VPC.
It doesn't sound as if you work in a pure Windows environment, and that's a good thing for you. But most businesses don't provide that luxury.
With VPC, I can also test many OSes on my computer without having to format things to kingdom come. I have Red Hat 8 and XP and plan on trying out other Linux distros to further my knowledge. You can do that on a PC, too, but for the time it takes me to make all the CDs from ISOs...please. I can mount ISO images as virtual CDs and load things fine.
You do know that VPC is available for Windows. There's a reason why.
1) Because carrying two computers is impractical if you have a laptop, and PC work is impossible without VPC if you are a mobile Mac.
2) Because transferring data between Macs and PCs, despite Mac OS X, can still be a pain. VPC makes it easy to read files without great pains if you have the software.
3) Because some people need an environment where they can test matters without forking over additional cash.
4) Cables suck. KVMs work, but suck. Multiple keyboards suck. Multiple anything with computers generally suck.
5) VPC is a true clone. Every single copy is identical. It's a perfect environment for general testing. You can't get that from any store-bought or homebrew PC. Each will have slightly different parts.
6) VPC is the best way to connect to Windows resources and applications that are steadfastly Windows-only.
7) Respectfully speaking, most people that use VPC don't do the same things you do.
I use VPC to connect to my company's VPN. Quick, I don't have to expend extra effort or make more room on my desk, and can move documents back and forth as I need to.
Better--I can copy my HD with XP as a disk image and move it around, changing it for use with my home and with a company net; in effect, two instances of XP from a single registration. Try THAT with your single-user copy of XP on a real PC.
Microsoft bought VPC and the other VM technologies because they work. Microsoft is many things, but business-wise they are far from stupid or they wouldn't be a rich company. As for ethics, well...
Thanks for the clarification. A better way to say this is that DVD reading is available as standard equipment on most Macs, and available by option on the lowest-end iBook and iMac that you describe.
If I could moderate in this discussion, you'd get a point for that insight.
Funny...I would think that the game industry would be bleeding edge in processor stuff because their work is not particularly dependent on what the PC industry does from a raw hardware standpoint--until they have to port their work. But then, consoles and PCs are losing their distinctions hardware-wise. Thanks for the clarification.
The Macintosh has thousands of titles, but you'd be hard-pressed to know this by walking into any computer store--even Apple Stores.
Part of this is how the Mac market works. There are proportionally fewer titles to PCs, but then, only a handful of titles are required for general applications, and the quality of Macintosh titles are stronger, in my opinion, because that smaller market is agressively competitive. Mac users can't tolerate crappy apps. And, frankly, how many word processors, screensavers, photo galleries, and diagnostic tools does one really need?
The other problem is mindshare on the part of a retailer. Space is precious, and you don't want to use lots of space on titles that move slowly. In an Apple Store, the most common and popular apps are displayed. Need a copy of CADMover? You'll need to go to mail-order or call the vendor. Photoshop plug-ins? Pre-flight software? SOL if go to the store.
On-demand CDs is an excellent idea for these situations. In fact, since all Macs sold today come with DVD-ROM ability, you can pack many apps on a single disk. The idea helps the sales and throughput of the scrappy but innovative businesses with fine products, and eases the retailer's space burden while still selling product. More importantly, you, the consumer, get what you need. Wins all around.
Possible problems? Bad media, as you could have with any software purchase. This idea also doesn't help products with a hardware element, such as the EyeTV PVR.
What I got from this article (well written, BTW) is that 64-bit processors provide more processing power--a concept different from speed. For instance, a Porsche can fly down the highway, but its engine has insufficent power to tow a 5th wheel RV. A Mack truck isn't speedy, but has a strong engine that can tow the heaviest loads up the same speed--more work is performed.
That would be why Apple's PowerPCs are still in the running, despite their clock slowness. They are falling behind fast as, after a point, speed does matter, in combination with improved processor power in the latest 32-bit Pentiums, and certainly the Xeon. Vector processing, such as Altivec, helps keep Apple competitive with their current chips--just barely. Many in the PC community await AMD's offering while IBM works on blending its POWER chip technology into a 64-bit PowerPC, with Altivec.
Imagine making the Porsche's engine more powerful but maintaining its speed advantage so it can haul ass as well as tow. Add nitro for extra ooompf (vector processing) and you have a dream machine. That's why it seems that 64-bit apps and processors seem to be such a holy grail.
That's my take on it. Clarification is always appreciated.
Consider precession, where the Earth's north axis slowly moves along the celestral plane like a slowing top, which changes what star we consider to be our "North Star." I believe Vega was closer to being the North Star some 15,000 years ago.
A more dire event: When the magnetic poles shift or trade places. That probably wasn't an event way back when except for migratory animals, but today with all of our electronics, it could be interesting to see what effect a shift would do to a computer or compass.
Or, maybe we should worry more about the Mets or the Cubs. Or if our martinis were shaken and not stirred...
Sony was the first major game console maker I can think of that allowed reverse compatibility with its previous products. You couldn't use NES carts in Super NES, nor SNES in N64, etc. The XBox should allow reverse compatibility and, to some, is a superior platform to PS2. However, Sony has the stronger mindshare.
But things change. The PS needs to stay competitive, and I was very concerned in news that PS3 wouldn't show as fast as Microsoft could update its XBox.
I know we'll have a few people who'll still grouse about the Ken Burns Effect of panning and zooming stills.
Mac OS X Hints has this well documented. You can change two settings in the KBE settings, or you can disable auto-application of KBE to stills with a plist change.
Almost all non-Windows operating systems avoid this DLL problem.
For one, Mac OS X uses bundles. Each application has its code as well as libraries all wrapped up in a single package. Only that app uses the libraries there. Clean, simple.
I doubt Microsoft's solution will solve the problem because their operating systems rarely show the cojones to stop an errant application from taking advantage of "features" placed within Windows that are self-compromising (e.g., Visual Basic Scripts, ActiveX). Some programming yahoo would just write something to override Microsoft's effort.
Windows could use a DLL manager similar to the old Mac OS Extensions Manager. Actually giving the DLLs easily recognizable names and clear version numbers wouldn't hurt either.
Aw, fuck--just chuck the damned thing and run a *nix, for cryin' out loud.
Virtual PC is the #1 emulation software for a reason. In 6 years it practically destroyed its competition because its code was so elegant and more versatile. Switching to anything else Just Because Microsoft owns it now is folly. You can stick to your politics, but you won't get your work done unless you use Windows somewhere else, somehow. On a Mac, your options are, in comparison to VPC, a joke at best.
Microsoft is many things, but it's Mac Business Unit has shown that it is not stupid. I expect good things from this buyout, in retrospect. I also expect the OSS world to kick it up a notch and improve their offerings if VPC loses its luster.
The only worry from Microsoft VPC is (1) feature glutting as all MS programs tend to do (2) Microsoft's very slow reaction to release bug fixes. They need to take a lesson from Connectix on keeping the customer happy, or someone may appear with a new product that makes VPC a has-been, and leave MS with an expensive, malfunctioning dud.
What Does Larry Like?
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Larry,
What 3 or 4 TV SF programs have you found most to your liking over the years (if any), and what significance do you think those shows brought to the overall quality of TV SF?
For instance, if I were to ask myself this question, "Star Trek", the original show, remains a classic, but all the sequelized spinoffs (except portions of TNG, and almost all of "Enterprise", which seems to "get it" again) have driven this show into the state of a repeatedly bludgened, very deceased equine.
I've been launching rockets since I was six. I taught rocketry at a summer camp. Had to explain the facts of the Challenger incident to kids. Launching rockets perked them up and showed that, at least for them, life can go on.
Basic model rockets (not including the larger amateur rockets) can move fast, but I can't see their immediate danger to the public, as the Estes-type rockets stick to the =1 lb. rule, with very little medal, a plastic or balsa wood nose cone, and limited motor impulse, meaning that it can't lift anything huge. Any kid can tell you that a model rocket self-destructs easily when it strikes anything but air.
Now, I can see some yahoo loading up a Big Bertha payload rocket with a few grams of anthrax and trying to spread it over a neighborhood--that's a sad possibility. Much less likely to use these things as missiles as they just can't hold a lot of explosive charge and would only be dangerous enough in a salvo.
Also, model rockets of the store-bought type have basic aerodynamic stability with fins--no electronic guidance. So, even if the motor could burn long enough (which they can't--about 2-10 sec max), you couldn't guide the thing anywhere. The motors are solid, so there's no way to rig the basic rocket as a liquid-fuel missile, either.
I'd be more worried about R/C planes, which can carry more because they generate lift and can be guided over long distances.
This is common troll banter. Apple compelled Microsoft to buy stock as part of its settlement over various patent and IP suits. In return, Microsoft made Office 98 and later Office products for Mac, including IE, and got to cash in their stock after three years, which has already happened.
Microsoft's stock was non-voting, meaning they couldn't affect the course of Apple beyond ignoring their agreement with Apple.
It's the Sound Card Support I'm Interested In
on
Mac OS X 10.2.4 Is Out
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I haven't been able to confirm this beyond announcements and bits of scanning, but Mac OS X 10.2.3, and likely 10.2.4, adds basic driver support for the SoundBlaster Audigy and Extigy PCI sound cards.
Some of you may remember that support for the Mac SoundBlaster Live card for OS X has been long in coming. But, perhaps, I'll be able to go home and toss in my SoundBlaster card and get 4.1 surround sound back.
Or, if I had money, I'd just pick up an Audigy card normally branded for PCs, toss it in my Mac, and live the dream, baby. We'll see. Has anyone tried SoundBlaster cards with 10.2.3 or later?
Enough has been spoken about the guidance computers aboard Shuttles and their special differences and requirements.
This article talks about the necessary preparations to take laptops to space. You can't just use one from the box--our PCs need gravity or convection to continue working.
This is just a small example of why things must be complex when going to space.
My $0.02, especially with the USAF's new pictures: Columbia collided with that foam much harder and in a more sensitive spot than engineers could determine. Or, something smacked the ship in-orbit (unlikely since the astronauts, MSCS, Miss Cleo, the bunions on your dad's feet, and your sleeping cat would've noticed and recorded the event).
Another possibility is structural failure on liftoff--after the foam hit, the slipstream weakened the affected part, but the part stayed in place since the Shuttle was moving upward and out of atmospheric drag. Reentry tore it off altogether.
Blind loyalty rarely works, even if you're paid for it. I'm not. I service other computers, too.
Source one: Just because Apple uses the DCMA doesn't make their action wrong. They simply don't want their products latched onto by a third-party in such a way that diminishes sales for the base product. In other words, Apple made iDVD for its hardware, not for some third-party. Their toys, their rules. Deal with it.
Source two: To clarify, Apple isn't stopping people from burning DVDs with their Macs. They are trying to stop the vendors who make external DVD burners from using APPLE'S software to burn. Else, Apple loses its marketing punch to try to get you to buy a DVD-burner equipped Mac. Also, this is Apple's burning software. Their EULA alone (never mind the ratty DCMA) likely says that "you can't change our software, especially to sell another product." This is just a repeat of 'source one.'
Source three: Again, Apple doesn't want to get itself in trouble with the DCMA (which can easily be used by other group against Apple). Apple's developer agreement is also clear on what this guy can and can't do with the iTunes SDK. Since then, he made the app a standalone, and Apple can't do a thing. Next.
Source four: Apple owns the look and feel it calls Aqua. Copy it, and get their lawyers' wrath. What does this have to do with anything, unless you're implying that protecting what you own is somehow against the law or unethical. In that case, I'll just help myself to your computer and any software you made just for yourself and take it home...
Source five: Again, you're just showing that Apple's lawyers are a bunch of anally attentive bastards. It doesn't disprove anything, or show that Apple is out of bounds for protecting their logo, the name "Mac," or anything that may mistakening endorse a third-party product as that from Apple.
If you don't believe personal experience means anything, try skydiving. Right now. Or maybe even spaceflight.
We do agree on the quality of Apple's products, yes. I don't see Apple as perfect by any means, but it has a right to defend what it owns or it won't make cash. To see Apple go completely OSS is the death of Apple. They aren't angels, no, but in a lot of devils, they're my choice for a devil.
It's nice to have choices in entertainment, and a market that drives the creation of stuff like this.
While I like the "Star Wars" universe and even enjoy a few meager facets of the worn-out "Star Trek" universe, it's great to find anime used to generate realism and convincing stories within a very intriguing framework like the "Matrix" movies.
It's not extremely original, the story. We've got a basic Arthurian legend story going in the same way in the latter "Star Wars" movies. But, as any writer would tell you, it's all in the presentation. And present this offering does. Very fun to watch, and illuminating.
OF COURSE Apple wants people to use only their stuff with their software. They lose their competitive edge if they didn't. That includes the Aqua appearance. It belongs to Apple. If they don't want to share, I'm sure you and other OSS people can make your own.
Why doesn't Apple release their source?
Ask Coca-Cola why they don't release their beverage formula "for the good of the world" and you have your answer. Without trying to insult you, it's a stupid question. Apple is a business. Businesses exist to make a profit. They will do anything to achieve this to the extent of ethics and law. And, they aren't necessarily trying to impress people with views such as yours.
With the exception of the core components of their OS (the rest is available in a form of open source), Apple uses no more unique components than, say, Compaq, or Dell. Apple is as committed to OSS as their business model. You can look at that as half-empty, or half-full. The number of UNIX users switching or adding OS X to their assortment of computers tends to lend to half-full.
Apple has not always played well with others. That logic nearly killed them. Today, they use the same standards as everyone else except where they can show a competitive advantage (such as the DVI-inspired display connectors on their flat screens).
Apple gives excellent support to third party hardware and the proof. Note that this support is typically the responsibity of the company that makes the product, not Apple, whose responsibilty is to ensure that the necessary hooks to use the product work.
I'm not sure where you have your sources, but I'm betting my personal use as well as 17+ years of supporting Macs in businesses trump your source.
Don't confuse OSS with socialism. It ain't the same. Businesses shouldn't share everything or they wouldn't be a business.
You're going to need an Alka-Seltzer for all that stuff I fed you.
Slashdot Mirror
NIH = Not Invented Here.
/. joke, Microsoft is dying, being swallowed by their own need to swallow everything.
This myopic view of their business model:
1) Prevents Microsoft from embracing (in the traditional sense, not in how we usually think of MS doing with this concept) the point that UNIX operating systems are tried and true technology, given that they HAVE been around for a very long time in computer years.
2) Prevents Microsoft from generating products that sell to users of UNIX families (Microsoft Office X for Mac OS X is the only UNIX family product I am aware of), and, as a result, generating additional revenues.
3) Leaves Microsoft in a sacrificial lamb situation when businesses have to look at the bottom line in a tech solution where a competing *NIX product simply does the same task for less money or less complex or proprietary technologies and with less licensing hassles.
Microsoft has beaten the dead horse of The Operating System as the Hub of All You Do paradigm for too long now. Operating systems are still important but now revolve around two camps: Microsoft Windows technology, and *NIX technologies (BSD, Sun, Mac OS X, Linux and its many distros, et al.). What many businesses now need revolves less on what you run your apps on, but the apps themselves.
I see Microsoft losing more revenue due to their licensing model, which still presumes that it's the 1990's and money is everyone. Businesses are finding it hard to justify yearly OS or application suite upgrades. IT managers are just moving to Windows 2000 Server right now, and aren't going to figure in Windows 2003 Server anytime soon.
Meanwhile, many *NIX operating systems are free or lower cost than a Microsoft solution, and does much of the same, if not more. Further, Microsoft tends to develop their software proprietarily, so that third-parties can rarely adapt an MS product to their own product.
Such attitudes killed many a computer company. Usually people think of Apple when pondering NIH, but even Apple is far from those days, with their BSD hybrid OS, stock industry standard ports and protocols, yadda, yadda, yadda.
To use an overused
What siskbc said.
Mac OS upgrades are typically more interesting than Linux or even Windows upgrades as Apple tends to make it a point to add a significant change in performance and luxury to the operating system. Since Mac OS X is still relatively young, the changes you may see in 10.3 will be striking--or, to some people, a "Duh!" move.
For one, the Finder is the butt of jokes, and needs multithreading and greater power.
Second, I think Samba needs more work.
This summer, Apple fans should expect to see some serious shit. Strong rumors of the PowerPC 970 chip will probably come true (amidst NDAs) from WWDC as super-Mac hardware may finally arrive with all the system bus, cache, and 64-bit power that's needed to return Macs to compare reasonably to Pentium systems. Next, Mac OS X matures, and goes 64-bit compatible (if it's not already there).
It's only a matter of time until some wacko Mac OS X users asks "when will this latest BSD update become part of the BSD subsystem of Mac OS X?"
I'm not one of those people.
Nope. No way. Uh-uh. No sirree.
Any joke is funny because it has a basis in fact, however tenuous.
I'm a Republican as a whole and a conservative all the time, black, and a Macintosh user. I find the link and the article very funny, just as many of us would giggle when we hear the word "chad" nowandays.
And, folks, given the events going on in the world, can't we all use a laugh about a nonsense item like this? Apple isn't in the business of making us laugh or giving commentary about world events, so this small nod to humor is a way to make us smile a bit and remember when life was a little simpler.
The only thing that would be funnier is getting Al Gore's tongue-in-cheek response back in turn: "Dibs, George. And, by the way, your AppleCare warranties appear to have expired..."
Must be the chads.
My opinion is that the Mac OS technology was by and far the superior compared to DOS and early Windows. Apple's licensing may have killed the company if they would not get every penny of credit for every Mac OS computer sold. Also, since Apple is a hardware company, they would be hard pressed as would other Apple-licensees from standing out in the crowd.
Two good examples: Today's PC companies struggle to make stand out almost identical systems. Also, when Apple finally licensed the Mac OS and their computer formats, Power Computing, the leading clone maker, started to sell more Macs than Apple because they were out-Appleing Apple.
Yes, licensing would've been best for the consumers. I don't see Apple as a life form. It can die tomorrow and I would not mourn. It's a godless, soulless entity as are all businesses. I just like the tech involved.
Apple is still a computer company to watch, although it may be of lesser interest to stockholders today. Still, if you were to bet on any one personal computer company to make something that would transform a process, Apple is a safe bet.
Apple is where it is now for several great ideas and collossal screw-ups, many of which determined the company's present destiny.
(My history highlights come from Apple History to make my point easier, and for your reference.)
1977: The Apple II is born, beginning the personal computer boom in earnest. Apple develops, by some estimates, a 75% market share.
1984: Apple develops a successor to the Apple II line, the Macintosh. It used a graphical interface and mouse and was the first computer with a GUI to become commercially successful. Apple boneheads the initial fate of the Mac's success by: (1) failing to make Apple II apps work with the computer, (2) making the system underpowered until 1986, (3) making the computer with a 9-inch screen that was hard on the eyes, and (4) making the Mac very expensive ($2495).
1986: Apple updates the Macintosh with the Mac Plus, with more RAM, external SCSI support, and a true hierarchial file system update for the OS. A software company, Aldus, creates PageMaker, which takes steam as the first desktop publishing program. Apple soon offers the LaserWriter, one of the first laser printers. A good move by Apple that still gives them the lead in DTP and prepress work today.
1985: Bill Gates sends a memo to then-Apple CEO John Sculley (having been hired by Steve Jobs and then, shortly, has Jobs ousted from Apple). Gates recommends that Apple license the Macintosh (warning: PDF) to make it a standard computer operating system. Gates recognized that Macs were great but weren't reaching critical mass. When Apple refused, Gates requested a license to duplicate the look and feel of some of the Mac OS in a product he was considering with IBM. Biggest bonehead move of all for Apple as this would've made the landscape completely different from the OS world we know today.
1988: Apple finally offers a Mac with internal hardware expandability, including a larger screen: the Macintosh II. It was too late for those who chose a more expandable IBM PC. This moves breathes life into its products, and vendor support improves.
1990-1998: Apple creates more good, innovative ideas, such as the PowerBook laptop (whose design elements are commonplace on PC laptops today) and the Newton (the first PDA), but never capitalizes on them as they want to hold on to all rights. This"not-invented-here" policy nearly kills the company as expensive, confusing models aren't clear, and developers find Windows apps more lucrative. Apple's overall market share plummets. Windows 95's debut makes this worse. Apple considers and offers Mac OS licensing, but this only makes Apple's problems worse as 3rd party clones are better products than Apple's.
Apple completely loses its marketing model. Steve Jobs ousts CEO Gil Amelio to return to as company CEO and begins to repair Apple's products and credibility.
In my opinion, Apple's best move would've been in licensing themselves. It may have killed Apple ultimately, but the Macintosh technologies would have survived and improved dramatically as the PC clones have proved out over time.
Is Apple still a force to be reckoned with? Even if you don't know an Apple from a PC, the company history suggests that, if there is a new spin on a computer program or hardware product, Apple usually thinks of it first. Unlike the Apple of the past, however, don't expect Apple to abandon its creations at the first sign of trouble.
WINE isn't available for the Macintosh, and I'm not a programmer and have "gobs" of time to play with anything. I'm at a job in a Windows environment, and I must play with the rest of the kids. And the rest of the kids use Windows and will never change for now. MS zealotry will not fulfill the needs of my job.
I use SMB support, but there is a difference between SAMBA (generic SMB) and genuine Windows support. Don't kid me on this, as I use Windows regularly as much as I do Mac OS, old and new. File corruption occasionally ruins a Mac user's day with SMB.
I own my copies of VPC.
I'm a minimalist when it comes to cables, which suck. KVMs just add cables. I have a digital KVM at my disposal, and I know that Apple's USB keyboards work fine with a Windows box. It's just extra crap.
I don't need speed or routine use. I need occasional access. VPC is NyQuil, not air. I don't want to or need to expose myself to extra PC hardware or software, except perhaps, to build a box for some gaming. Mac OS X does 95% of what is needed--the rest comes from VPC.
It doesn't sound as if you work in a pure Windows environment, and that's a good thing for you. But most businesses don't provide that luxury.
With VPC, I can also test many OSes on my computer without having to format things to kingdom come. I have Red Hat 8 and XP and plan on trying out other Linux distros to further my knowledge. You can do that on a PC, too, but for the time it takes me to make all the CDs from ISOs...please. I can mount ISO images as virtual CDs and load things fine.
You do know that VPC is available for Windows. There's a reason why.
1) Because carrying two computers is impractical if you have a laptop, and PC work is impossible without VPC if you are a mobile Mac.
2) Because transferring data between Macs and PCs, despite Mac OS X, can still be a pain. VPC makes it easy to read files without great pains if you have the software.
3) Because some people need an environment where they can test matters without forking over additional cash.
4) Cables suck. KVMs work, but suck. Multiple keyboards suck. Multiple anything with computers generally suck.
5) VPC is a true clone. Every single copy is identical. It's a perfect environment for general testing. You can't get that from any store-bought or homebrew PC. Each will have slightly different parts.
6) VPC is the best way to connect to Windows resources and applications that are steadfastly Windows-only.
7) Respectfully speaking, most people that use VPC don't do the same things you do.
I use VPC to connect to my company's VPN. Quick, I don't have to expend extra effort or make more room on my desk, and can move documents back and forth as I need to.
Better--I can copy my HD with XP as a disk image and move it around, changing it for use with my home and with a company net; in effect, two instances of XP from a single registration. Try THAT with your single-user copy of XP on a real PC.
Microsoft bought VPC and the other VM technologies because they work. Microsoft is many things, but business-wise they are far from stupid or they wouldn't be a rich company. As for ethics, well...
Thanks for the clarification. A better way to say this is that DVD reading is available as standard equipment on most Macs, and available by option on the lowest-end iBook and iMac that you describe.
If I could moderate in this discussion, you'd get a point for that insight.
Funny...I would think that the game industry would be bleeding edge in processor stuff because their work is not particularly dependent on what the PC industry does from a raw hardware standpoint--until they have to port their work. But then, consoles and PCs are losing their distinctions hardware-wise. Thanks for the clarification.
The Macintosh has thousands of titles, but you'd be hard-pressed to know this by walking into any computer store--even Apple Stores.
Part of this is how the Mac market works. There are proportionally fewer titles to PCs, but then, only a handful of titles are required for general applications, and the quality of Macintosh titles are stronger, in my opinion, because that smaller market is agressively competitive. Mac users can't tolerate crappy apps. And, frankly, how many word processors, screensavers, photo galleries, and diagnostic tools does one really need?
The other problem is mindshare on the part of a retailer. Space is precious, and you don't want to use lots of space on titles that move slowly. In an Apple Store, the most common and popular apps are displayed. Need a copy of CADMover? You'll need to go to mail-order or call the vendor. Photoshop plug-ins? Pre-flight software? SOL if go to the store.
On-demand CDs is an excellent idea for these situations. In fact, since all Macs sold today come with DVD-ROM ability, you can pack many apps on a single disk. The idea helps the sales and throughput of the scrappy but innovative businesses with fine products, and eases the retailer's space burden while still selling product. More importantly, you, the consumer, get what you need. Wins all around.
Possible problems? Bad media, as you could have with any software purchase. This idea also doesn't help products with a hardware element, such as the EyeTV PVR.
I'm not an engineer.
What I got from this article (well written, BTW) is that 64-bit processors provide more processing power--a concept different from speed. For instance, a Porsche can fly down the highway, but its engine has insufficent power to tow a 5th wheel RV. A Mack truck isn't speedy, but has a strong engine that can tow the heaviest loads up the same speed--more work is performed.
That would be why Apple's PowerPCs are still in the running, despite their clock slowness. They are falling behind fast as, after a point, speed does matter, in combination with improved processor power in the latest 32-bit Pentiums, and certainly the Xeon. Vector processing, such as Altivec, helps keep Apple competitive with their current chips--just barely. Many in the PC community await AMD's offering while IBM works on blending its POWER chip technology into a 64-bit PowerPC, with Altivec.
Imagine making the Porsche's engine more powerful but maintaining its speed advantage so it can haul ass as well as tow. Add nitro for extra ooompf (vector processing) and you have a dream machine. That's why it seems that 64-bit apps and processors seem to be such a holy grail.
That's my take on it. Clarification is always appreciated.
Rotational speed matters not.
Consider precession , where the Earth's north axis slowly moves along the celestral plane like a slowing top, which changes what star we consider to be our "North Star." I believe Vega was closer to being the North Star some 15,000 years ago.
A more dire event: When the magnetic poles shift or trade places. That probably wasn't an event way back when except for migratory animals, but today with all of our electronics, it could be interesting to see what effect a shift would do to a computer or compass.
Or, maybe we should worry more about the Mets or the Cubs. Or if our martinis were shaken and not stirred...
Sony was the first major game console maker I can think of that allowed reverse compatibility with its previous products. You couldn't use NES carts in Super NES, nor SNES in N64, etc. The XBox should allow reverse compatibility and, to some, is a superior platform to PS2. However, Sony has the stronger mindshare.
But things change. The PS needs to stay competitive, and I was very concerned in news that PS3 wouldn't show as fast as Microsoft could update its XBox.
I know we'll have a few people who'll still grouse about the Ken Burns Effect of panning and zooming stills.
0 30 207070603841
0 30 204065235938&query=ken+burns+effect
Mac OS X Hints has this well documented. You can change two settings in the KBE settings, or you can disable auto-application of KBE to stills with a plist change.
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20
or
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20
Almost all non-Windows operating systems avoid this DLL problem.
For one, Mac OS X uses bundles. Each application has its code as well as libraries all wrapped up in a single package. Only that app uses the libraries there. Clean, simple.
I doubt Microsoft's solution will solve the problem because their operating systems rarely show the cojones to stop an errant application from taking advantage of "features" placed within Windows that are self-compromising (e.g., Visual Basic Scripts, ActiveX). Some programming yahoo would just write something to override Microsoft's effort.
Windows could use a DLL manager similar to the old Mac OS Extensions Manager. Actually giving the DLLs easily recognizable names and clear version numbers wouldn't hurt either.
Aw, fuck--just chuck the damned thing and run a *nix, for cryin' out loud.
Virtual PC is the #1 emulation software for a reason. In 6 years it practically destroyed its competition because its code was so elegant and more versatile. Switching to anything else Just Because Microsoft owns it now is folly. You can stick to your politics, but you won't get your work done unless you use Windows somewhere else, somehow. On a Mac, your options are, in comparison to VPC, a joke at best.
Microsoft is many things, but it's Mac Business Unit has shown that it is not stupid. I expect good things from this buyout, in retrospect. I also expect the OSS world to kick it up a notch and improve their offerings if VPC loses its luster.
The only worry from Microsoft VPC is (1) feature glutting as all MS programs tend to do (2) Microsoft's very slow reaction to release bug fixes. They need to take a lesson from Connectix on keeping the customer happy, or someone may appear with a new product that makes VPC a has-been, and leave MS with an expensive, malfunctioning dud.
Larry,
What 3 or 4 TV SF programs have you found most to your liking over the years (if any), and what significance do you think those shows brought to the overall quality of TV SF?
For instance, if I were to ask myself this question, "Star Trek", the original show, remains a classic, but all the sequelized spinoffs (except portions of TNG, and almost all of "Enterprise", which seems to "get it" again) have driven this show into the state of a repeatedly bludgened, very deceased equine.
I've been launching rockets since I was six. I taught rocketry at a summer camp. Had to explain the facts of the Challenger incident to kids. Launching rockets perked them up and showed that, at least for them, life can go on.
Basic model rockets (not including the larger amateur rockets) can move fast, but I can't see their immediate danger to the public, as the Estes-type rockets stick to the =1 lb. rule, with very little medal, a plastic or balsa wood nose cone, and limited motor impulse, meaning that it can't lift anything huge. Any kid can tell you that a model rocket self-destructs easily when it strikes anything but air.
Now, I can see some yahoo loading up a Big Bertha payload rocket with a few grams of anthrax and trying to spread it over a neighborhood--that's a sad possibility. Much less likely to use these things as missiles as they just can't hold a lot of explosive charge and would only be dangerous enough in a salvo.
Also, model rockets of the store-bought type have basic aerodynamic stability with fins--no electronic guidance. So, even if the motor could burn long enough (which they can't--about 2-10 sec max), you couldn't guide the thing anywhere. The motors are solid, so there's no way to rig the basic rocket as a liquid-fuel missile, either.
I'd be more worried about R/C planes, which can carry more because they generate lift and can be guided over long distances.
No, it's not.
This is common troll banter. Apple compelled Microsoft to buy stock as part of its settlement over various patent and IP suits. In return, Microsoft made Office 98 and later Office products for Mac, including IE, and got to cash in their stock after three years, which has already happened.
Microsoft's stock was non-voting, meaning they couldn't affect the course of Apple beyond ignoring their agreement with Apple.
I haven't been able to confirm this beyond announcements and bits of scanning, but Mac OS X 10.2.3, and likely 10.2.4, adds basic driver support for the SoundBlaster Audigy and Extigy PCI sound cards.
Some of you may remember that support for the Mac SoundBlaster Live card for OS X has been long in coming. But, perhaps, I'll be able to go home and toss in my SoundBlaster card and get 4.1 surround sound back.
Or, if I had money, I'd just pick up an Audigy card normally branded for PCs, toss it in my Mac, and live the dream, baby. We'll see. Has anyone tried SoundBlaster cards with 10.2.3 or later?
Enough has been spoken about the guidance computers aboard Shuttles and their special differences and requirements.
This article talks about the necessary preparations to take laptops to space. You can't just use one from the box--our PCs need gravity or convection to continue working.
This is just a small example of why things must be complex when going to space.
My $0.02, especially with the USAF's new pictures: Columbia collided with that foam much harder and in a more sensitive spot than engineers could determine. Or, something smacked the ship in-orbit (unlikely since the astronauts, MSCS, Miss Cleo, the bunions on your dad's feet, and your sleeping cat would've noticed and recorded the event).
Another possibility is structural failure on liftoff--after the foam hit, the slipstream weakened the affected part, but the part stayed in place since the Shuttle was moving upward and out of atmospheric drag. Reentry tore it off altogether.
Blind loyalty rarely works, even if you're paid for it. I'm not. I service other computers, too.
Source one: Just because Apple uses the DCMA doesn't make their action wrong. They simply don't want their products latched onto by a third-party in such a way that diminishes sales for the base product. In other words, Apple made iDVD for its hardware, not for some third-party. Their toys, their rules. Deal with it.
Source two: To clarify, Apple isn't stopping people from burning DVDs with their Macs. They are trying to stop the vendors who make external DVD burners from using APPLE'S software to burn. Else, Apple loses its marketing punch to try to get you to buy a DVD-burner equipped Mac. Also, this is Apple's burning software. Their EULA alone (never mind the ratty DCMA) likely says that "you can't change our software, especially to sell another product." This is just a repeat of 'source one.'
Source three: Again, Apple doesn't want to get itself in trouble with the DCMA (which can easily be used by other group against Apple). Apple's developer agreement is also clear on what this guy can and can't do with the iTunes SDK. Since then, he made the app a standalone, and Apple can't do a thing. Next.
Source four: Apple owns the look and feel it calls Aqua. Copy it, and get their lawyers' wrath. What does this have to do with anything, unless you're implying that protecting what you own is somehow against the law or unethical. In that case, I'll just help myself to your computer and any software you made just for yourself and take it home...
Source five: Again, you're just showing that Apple's lawyers are a bunch of anally attentive bastards. It doesn't disprove anything, or show that Apple is out of bounds for protecting their logo, the name "Mac," or anything that may mistakening endorse a third-party product as that from Apple.
If you don't believe personal experience means anything, try skydiving. Right now. Or maybe even spaceflight.
We do agree on the quality of Apple's products, yes. I don't see Apple as perfect by any means, but it has a right to defend what it owns or it won't make cash. To see Apple go completely OSS is the death of Apple. They aren't angels, no, but in a lot of devils, they're my choice for a devil.
It's nice to have choices in entertainment, and a market that drives the creation of stuff like this.
While I like the "Star Wars" universe and even enjoy a few meager facets of the worn-out "Star Trek" universe, it's great to find anime used to generate realism and convincing stories within a very intriguing framework like the "Matrix" movies.
It's not extremely original, the story. We've got a basic Arthurian legend story going in the same way in the latter "Star Wars" movies. But, as any writer would tell you, it's all in the presentation. And present this offering does. Very fun to watch, and illuminating.
OK. I'll feed the troll.
OF COURSE Apple wants people to use only their stuff with their software. They lose their competitive edge if they didn't. That includes the Aqua appearance. It belongs to Apple. If they don't want to share, I'm sure you and other OSS people can make your own.
Why doesn't Apple release their source?
Ask Coca-Cola why they don't release their beverage formula "for the good of the world" and you have your answer. Without trying to insult you, it's a stupid question. Apple is a business. Businesses exist to make a profit. They will do anything to achieve this to the extent of ethics and law. And, they aren't necessarily trying to impress people with views such as yours.
With the exception of the core components of their OS (the rest is available in a form of open source), Apple uses no more unique components than, say, Compaq, or Dell. Apple is as committed to OSS as their business model. You can look at that as half-empty, or half-full. The number of UNIX users switching or adding OS X to their assortment of computers tends to lend to half-full.
Apple has not always played well with others. That logic nearly killed them. Today, they use the same standards as everyone else except where they can show a competitive advantage (such as the DVI-inspired display connectors on their flat screens).
Apple gives excellent support to third party hardware and the proof. Note that this support is typically the responsibity of the company that makes the product, not Apple, whose responsibilty is to ensure that the necessary hooks to use the product work.
I'm not sure where you have your sources, but I'm betting my personal use as well as 17+ years of supporting Macs in businesses trump your source.
Don't confuse OSS with socialism. It ain't the same. Businesses shouldn't share everything or they wouldn't be a business.
You're going to need an Alka-Seltzer for all that stuff I fed you.