One: Mac OS X is the only UNIX that has Microsoft Office available to it, period. If you want to be a hermit and be unable to send your scientific reports to PC users since you have inappropriate software, then Linux is for you.
Two: Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.
Nothing is useless in OS X. These scientists just believe that using your OS is more productive than having to play with the damn thing each time someone in the Linux dev group sneezes and makes Yet Another Attempt At a Stable Kernel.
The key to open hardware, in my opinion, is paradoxical. To have open hardware, your design must be closed, immutable.
That's the only reason why Apple survives, even thrives today, because they control the OS as well as the hardware.
Just because the design is closed doesn't mean, however, that the use and functionality of the system cannot be adjusted. You can slam as many drives, RAM, processor upgrades, and PCI cards in a desktop Mac as you would any other PC. Only the circuit designs remain under the control of one company.
In the case of Apple, it's a benevolent dictatorship at the moment, with a CEO who is outspoken on DRM issues.
The Intel world is problematic because Intel calls the shots. This is good because all companies must follow the designs that fit their processor. But it leaves us in that benevolent dictatorship again. Add the Microsoft layers and things are pro-DRM again.
Yet, take out the MS layers and Intel loses the need for most of its processors and cannot afford to make them.
So, it does seem that the only way to break into a true open hardware design is to break out of the traditional processor model. The PowerPC chip specs are openly available, but I don't see processor manufacturing becoming a home or OSS project. Too much capital and hardware.
Was it the Crusoe project that was trying to make a processor that ran any OS? Could that be the key? Was it cheaper?
Somehow, there's gotta be a way to make a cheaper processor.
Likewise, any other base station should be able to take some camouflage. The info didn't say if the computers themselves had to have their lines hidden.
The human brain burns, by calculation, about 20 watts of power.
The Pentium 4 does 75 watts.W.T.F.
For cryin' out loud--instead of some water cooling, why don't take advantage of the inferno and add a damn Easy-Bake Oven as an upgrade? I can make some brownies while I'm blowing the brownies out of some fragbait in Unreal Tournament.
Apple announces their entrance into the bionics market with a new prosthetic for the rest of us: the iEye.
"We feel that a clear vision is needed in the synthetic vision market, and Apple is excited to bring a new light to users with vision problems." said CEO Steve Jobs at a recent press conference.
The iEye uses Bluetooth technology to mesh the camera of the iEye to a user's Macintosh product. From there, a second Bluetooth receptor disguised as a user's 2nd molar sends basic visual stimuli to the user's brain.
"We know that our vision-impaired users will give their eyeteeth for our new product." Jobs said.
International versions of the iEye include the PopEye (for maritime users with stronger water resistant features), and the EyeYiEye (for members of the Hispanic community).
When asked why the iEye uses a Mac as a "middleman" device rather than transmitting the signal directly to the molar-shaped receptor, Apple responded, "Uh...it's..um...a part of the digital hub...and...er...well, it goes well with...um...can we call you back on this?"
Steve Austin-style "boop-boop-boop-boop" sound effects for magnification will be available in a later package.
Great point, especially about WebStar. In its Mac OS 9 incarnation, that thing was practically uncrackable. You're right...old Mac OS had few methods to jump into it. Apple seems to understand that in OS X, since most of the ways in are disabled by default. Good for them, and us.
Yep, I remember the AutoStart joys. That QT "feature" was not amusing. Most viruses today do rely a lot of scripts and other niceties that MS throws in, don't they?
If Pd is wired up as everything else in Windows has been, you're right...they'll find a bum to bugger.
Apple's pro iron today is quite expandable. If a new IBM chip arrives that can handle DDR memory as it should, your investment in a new Power Mac will pay off in spades with an upgrade from places like PowerLogix and Sonnet. I just upgraded a now-3-year old Power Mac G3 Blue and White (the first Macs with the current pro chassis) from a 350MHz G3 to a 550MHz G4. With OS X on it, this system rocks...and now I'm reticent to sell it as planned.
In any case, the new systems are still a great buy. It's a UNIX box, folks. More processors mean more processes. At least the systems aren't SLOWER. I take the benchmarks from Bare Feats with a grain of salts. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary. I'm betting these systems will rock when the Mac version of Jedi Knight II shows up.
The mere need for Pd wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that Windows is a single-user operating system hastily and badly written as a pseudo-multiuser OS with inherently poor and hackable security. Microsoft Windows is what would've happened to the original Mac OS if Apple was successful in hacking their old Mac OS (pre-Mac OS X) to work as a multiuser, multithreaded OS, IMHO.
The only thing that made Windows different from the old Mac OS in terms of security is that the Mac OS never reached a critical mass of users. So, as a result, virus makers never bothered to make the volume of viruses or hacks to penetrate the old Mac OS.
Microsoft, IMHO, is trying to simply wrap up their inherent inability to write anything with sufficient security by making a product, and charging users for something they should expect as part of any trustworthy operating system's initial cost of purchase.
Of course, there's no guarantee it will work as advertised--another Microsoft trait.
But what about my lunch tab?
on
LWCE Wrapup
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Since Mac OS X does not exist per se for PCs, Dell would have to go to the next best thing: Darwin, the open source core OS from Mac OS X, which does run on x86 and is free.
Why would you NEED a Zip drive as a built-in option when you can burn a CD that holds over 6 times as much?
You can still buy a USB or FireWire Zip drive and connect it externally, but now Apple doesn't dedicate a place in the case that is a waste of space for anything other than a Zip drive.
ANYTHING to keep from scraping my damn knuckles or cracking fingernails when removing a drive is fine with me.
I would've been happy with a connector technology based on FireWire, but if this is cheaper, as easy to connect as FireWire, and no slower than current ATA, then break out the pinatas filled with old hard drives and the Louisville Sluggers.
This was going to happen since nothing can stay badly broken forever, not even Microsoft Windows.
The success of IT rested on three assumptions:
1) The Internet was a cash cow that needed only to be milked. 2) Microsoft Windows was the key to all things in the computer world. 3) IT staffing is always needed to service the legions of PCs in business.
But each of these failed to pan out for logical reasons. The Internet was a cash strategy, but was abused by stupid people placing money into businesses without a business plan and no real product--dot-coms. Bye-bye, they said to their money. Screwed up the stock market, that.
Microsoft Windows was indeed the way to all things computer-related, from apps to training. And quite a few businesses contracted with "kitchen-sink" computer service companies who could buy, service, or administrate all kinds of PCs (unless you're Mac OS or Linux--that's another sad story in most locations). And training would guarantee most everyone with certification the chance to submit their resumes.
But this business was based on the fact that Microsoft Windows was ALWAYS in need of maintenance and companies would ALWAYS upgrade their systems for the "latest and greatest."
Enter Windows 2000--the first Windows OS whose stability and performance claims were justified. Microsoft built this OS with greater strengths as word spread of a newcomer that was free and just as stable: Linux.
As budgets tightened, managers again asked the budget questions, but weren't accepting the usual answers. "Why do we need to upgrade?" IT managers were able to answer firmly in the past that these upgrades would improve performance, or administration. But managers knew, now, from personal experience that their computer running Windows 98 or 2000 was just fine, and didn't want their copies of Office 2000 messed with for now.
As the IT monies dried up, IT managers (and contractor companies) tightened their belts and downsized, kicking out some experienced techs but quite a few inexperienced (but certified!) techs to the curb. Windows didn't need armies to support any longer. Servers didn't either--a few new technologies consolidated some sysadmin functions.
And now we're back to the availability of techs and sysadmins with real experience, talent, and diversity. You could be a Windows NT admin, but you may also know Linux. No longer was there room for "computer religion." You might do Mac desktops, but also know PC desktops. It's a screwy kind of Darwinism (no pun intended for the OS X folks), but the competition between the stable UNIX operating systems vs. all things Microsoft have brought a new (or rediscovered?) dawn to the personal computing world: the generally stable computer.
Are techs still needed? Sure. However, if all you have are a bunch of certification certificates beyond you and little experience, those papers and 50 cents are probably worth a cup of coffee at McDonalds.
It should be noted that, of any personal computer, only Apple can even consider such moves without significantly affecting (adversely) the potency of their computers. No other mobo spec maker can, or has, dramatically changed their systems in the way that Apple does.
I presume the same, that is, that Apple is seriously considering a processor change. It may be for performance, but the decision will also be for a cost advantage. ANYTHING to reduce the cost of a Macintosh yet provide the same performance and convenience is a Good Thing for Mac sales.
Maybe, as an add-on feature, they could allow GRACE to do exactly what the Daleks do. OK, maybe a water pistol or paintballs...but the effect would be nice.
We all know of the "spat," as Steve Jobs called it, with the sales of Office X for Mac OS X, and the Mac Business Unit's comment alluding to "reevaluating" the future development.
I don't feel that Microsoft would drop Office for Mac OS X because antitrust red flags (and lawsuits) would be dropping into the Federal courts, placing MS in another legal pickle.
Apple's public support of StarOffice is actually another bow to the power of open source software (of which OpenOffice is, I know, but not StarOffice--uh..kinda?). The problem that Apple might see is that the "radical" OSS community that shuns ALL things MS would not buy or cannot afford Office X. So, for these users (as part of an incentive to pull them to OS X from other *nixes), StarOffice would be available and in a condition that works natively and well in OS X. (I'm not trying to avoid discussing AppleWorks, but it is not as robust as either Office or StarOffice.)
And, should MS discontinue development of Office, Apple also has a strong backup productivity suite that may be less expensive.
Yes, I'm fully aware of the PowerPCs origins. My comment doesn't imply anything otherwise, it just wasn't specific. IBM didn't solely create the PowerPC spec, however--this was created through Apple and Motorola as well.
I don't have enough knowledge of Intel's vector processing abilities, so I'm not setting up a debate on this, but need to ask a few questions.
Is this SSE2 built in standard Pentiums, or only in Itaniums or other processors from Intel?
If this vector processing is available, why does a PowerPC G4 Mac running Photoshop tend to match or exceed the processing time in accelerated functions on images in Photoshop on Intel hardware (these are Pentiums used in the various informal tests that Apple and others have done)? Is Photoshop not optimized to take advantage of SSE2 (or the particular vector code available) so that, given its larger clock cycles and system bus than the current G4s, the Intel chip should whip around a G4 handling the same tasks as if it were standing still? This, of course, presumes that Apple and others don't "cook the books" in their demonstrations.
If Intel's vector code is as relatively convenient and as powerful as you describe, then this is a good thing should Apple consider a move to Intel processors--without this acceleration, there's not much of an advantage for their hardware.
Don't presume that moving to Intel hardware will create a Mac with the highly-modifiable box you take for granted on PCs.
Apple survives today because their boxes are designed to make a user's life easier. That means, despite a change to the processor, it is very likely that Apple would still have a custom motherboard available ONLY from Apple, still use Open Firmware rather than a PC BIOS, (this is done on Sun as well) and still not be subject to the resource-hungry design of the aging PC design.
Intel may assist Apple in a mobo design, but Apple will not release it for general consumption. If they want to continue to survive as a business, it would be suicide to do so. Apple is a hardware company. They have to keep some things closed to keep a competitive edge. The hardware would be generally closed-source, along with the upper layers of Mac OS X (Darwin, the core of OS X, is open source and works right now on x86 as well as PPC.).
A more serious matter would be the Pentium's lack of Altivec--the vector processing unit and the true power in the PowerPC chip that lets it keep up with Pentiums doing the same calculations in most instances, despite PPC chips having half the clock speed.
Not insurmountable things, however. I tire of the PowerPC production issues at Motorola. I would rather get IBM to make the chips--they should know how, since the PowerPC chip uses the same tech as in the POWER mainframe chips.
I've had an old ixMICRO TV tuner card in my B/W G3 for a couple of years. Works well, but has a slight problem in that the company that made it went belly up, and there is no Mac OS X software for it.
Since then, there were next to ZERO Macintosh TV tuners out there for Mac OS X use. ATI appears to have one, but its feature set is limited. Eskape Labs has been working on its MyTV OS X software for over a year now, and was in the running for my money until EyeTV showed up.
A USB TV tuner is a good fit. It doesn't suck up a precious PCI slot. It can be moved to any computer with cable hookup and USB. Works great with older or laptop Macs. Fits everyone I need for my new home.
The PTR features are a bonus, but will be very much appreciated. The price can't be beat, either. Competitive products will cost up to $1000 since they have internal hard drives. EyeTV appears to balance the abilities of the Mac with the features of a basic PTR.
The RCA video inputs also allow you to use the computer as a quickie display for today's game consoles such as PlayStation, or a basic video input for your camera.
Not a bad price at $199 (during Macworld, only $179), and the product quality looks good. While FireWire may seem a logical choice, it's overkill--USB has more than enough bandwidth. The only thing you need is to keep some drive space clear.
Informative. You deserve a mod point for that--if I had one to give.:)
Using Aqua should give the game a somewhat better appearance on OS X, but the game interface itself still seems a little scary. Oh, well--it's something I'll try out later, in any case.
It's perfectly fine for Microsoft to grouse about Office v.X sales, although they should be well-aware from their own experience with Windows 95 and later that transition to a new operating system and its applications takes time.
Mac OS X's acceptance rate is increasing, and will continue to do so as more games and general software is moved to work in OS X only. This transition will happen strongest in the businesses that use Macintosh systems, then homes, with educators last. Businesses can afford the transition and have already scheduled new systems. Homes have a mix of old and new things that Mac OS X must use, but the purchase of a new computer typically calls for a new printer to replace the ratty one.
Educators are moving very slowly to OS X client since a lot of their software for students and administrators doesn't yet run in Mac OS X. However, Mac OS X Server may have a big acceptance in their IT shops because of its NetBoot and Macintosh Manager network-based client services.
I think that Office v.X gives a lot of users a reason to switch. But $500 for an office suite, especially since AppleWorks comes installed on an iMac, is a price that only a few are willing to pay. Apple users have never really subscribed to the "upgrade annually" mentality that IT pros and home PC users have only began to shake off. Office 2000 for Macintosh works fine in the Classic environment of OS X. Why hasn't Microsoft given them a reason to switch? (One idea: MS should accept a trade-in on old original MS Office software disks--PC or Mac--for a rebate on Office v.X)
The fine line part is that Microsoft must not cut the cord on Mac Office development as lawsuits would be cut for antitrust violations faster than you can do a gaussian blur in Photoshop on a G4. Microsoft can't generate further news that shows how they can bully other companies by threatening--the current distrust by stockholders in Wall Street could lead Microsoft into a different court.
For now, however, I think MS is correct in its criticism. They aren't starving for money, but MS has been watching their revenues drop, too, and want as many dollars as the market will give them. Whether this comment from the MBU has anything to do with Apple's new aggressive marketing is a guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Two quick answers:
One: Mac OS X is the only UNIX that has Microsoft Office available to it, period. If you want to be a hermit and be unable to send your scientific reports to PC users since you have inappropriate software, then Linux is for you.
Two: Mac OS X may not be the sleekest girl on the block, but her OS underpinnings have been around as long, if not longer, than Linux. Under those "glassy effects" (which are optimized for speed in the 10.2 update) is a CLI and OS kernel that soars.
Nothing is useless in OS X. These scientists just believe that using your OS is more productive than having to play with the damn thing each time someone in the Linux dev group sneezes and makes Yet Another Attempt At a Stable Kernel.
The key to open hardware, in my opinion, is paradoxical. To have open hardware, your design must be closed, immutable.
That's the only reason why Apple survives, even thrives today, because they control the OS as well as the hardware.
Just because the design is closed doesn't mean, however, that the use and functionality of the system cannot be adjusted. You can slam as many drives, RAM, processor upgrades, and PCI cards in a desktop Mac as you would any other PC. Only the circuit designs remain under the control of one company.
In the case of Apple, it's a benevolent dictatorship at the moment, with a CEO who is outspoken on DRM issues.
The Intel world is problematic because Intel calls the shots. This is good because all companies must follow the designs that fit their processor. But it leaves us in that benevolent dictatorship again. Add the Microsoft layers and things are pro-DRM again.
Yet, take out the MS layers and Intel loses the need for most of its processors and cannot afford to make them.
So, it does seem that the only way to break into a true open hardware design is to break out of the traditional processor model. The PowerPC chip specs are openly available, but I don't see processor manufacturing becoming a home or OSS project. Too much capital and hardware.
Was it the Crusoe project that was trying to make a processor that ran any OS? Could that be the key? Was it cheaper?
Somehow, there's gotta be a way to make a cheaper processor.
Newton discovered gravity through an apple. Now Apple Computer can perhaps discover a solution.
Apple's AirPort base station is unobtrusive, is 802.11b and works with any other PC wireless card. The base station can be hidden under a thin, balsa wood box and painted to look like an artifact. You don't need a Mac to use it--Apple offers a Windows version of the Admin software for the base station.
Likewise, any other base station should be able to take some camouflage. The info didn't say if the computers themselves had to have their lines hidden.
The human brain burns, by calculation, about 20 watts of power.
The Pentium 4 does 75 watts. W.T.F.
For cryin' out loud--instead of some water cooling, why don't take advantage of the inferno and add a damn Easy-Bake Oven as an upgrade? I can make some brownies while I'm blowing the brownies out of some fragbait in Unreal Tournament.
Apple announces their entrance into the bionics market with a new prosthetic for the rest of us: the iEye.
"We feel that a clear vision is needed in the synthetic vision market, and Apple is excited to bring a new light to users with vision problems." said CEO Steve Jobs at a recent press conference.
The iEye uses Bluetooth technology to mesh the camera of the iEye to a user's Macintosh product. From there, a second Bluetooth receptor disguised as a user's 2nd molar sends basic visual stimuli to the user's brain.
"We know that our vision-impaired users will give their eyeteeth for our new product." Jobs said.
International versions of the iEye include the PopEye (for maritime users with stronger water resistant features), and the EyeYiEye (for members of the Hispanic community).
When asked why the iEye uses a Mac as a "middleman" device rather than transmitting the signal directly to the molar-shaped receptor, Apple responded, "Uh...it's..um...a part of the digital hub...and...er...well, it goes well with...um...can we call you back on this?"
Steve Austin-style "boop-boop-boop-boop" sound effects for magnification will be available in a later package.
Great point, especially about WebStar. In its Mac OS 9 incarnation, that thing was practically uncrackable. You're right...old Mac OS had few methods to jump into it. Apple seems to understand that in OS X, since most of the ways in are disabled by default. Good for them, and us.
Yep, I remember the AutoStart joys. That QT "feature" was not amusing. Most viruses today do rely a lot of scripts and other niceties that MS throws in, don't they?
If Pd is wired up as everything else in Windows has been, you're right...they'll find a bum to bugger.
I've already gushed about this gem o' news already, concerning MS's piss-poor plan to introduce better security in their OS's via Palladium...
Apple's pro iron today is quite expandable. If a new IBM chip arrives that can handle DDR memory as it should, your investment in a new Power Mac will pay off in spades with an upgrade from places like PowerLogix and Sonnet. I just upgraded a now-3-year old Power Mac G3 Blue and White (the first Macs with the current pro chassis) from a 350MHz G3 to a 550MHz G4. With OS X on it, this system rocks...and now I'm reticent to sell it as planned.
In any case, the new systems are still a great buy. It's a UNIX box, folks. More processors mean more processes. At least the systems aren't SLOWER. I take the benchmarks from Bare Feats with a grain of salts. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary. I'm betting these systems will rock when the Mac version of Jedi Knight II shows up.
The mere need for Pd wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that Windows is a single-user operating system hastily and badly written as a pseudo-multiuser OS with inherently poor and hackable security. Microsoft Windows is what would've happened to the original Mac OS if Apple was successful in hacking their old Mac OS (pre-Mac OS X) to work as a multiuser, multithreaded OS, IMHO.
The only thing that made Windows different from the old Mac OS in terms of security is that the Mac OS never reached a critical mass of users. So, as a result, virus makers never bothered to make the volume of viruses or hacks to penetrate the old Mac OS.
Microsoft, IMHO, is trying to simply wrap up their inherent inability to write anything with sufficient security by making a product, and charging users for something they should expect as part of any trustworthy operating system's initial cost of purchase.
Of course, there's no guarantee it will work as advertised--another Microsoft trait.
I don't want to dampen the Linux love fest at all, but I want to know if any attendees picked up a Mac OS X user's lunch tab while they were there.
:)
Lunch in SF can be pretty expensive, and Mac users have already given their shirt to buy a Macintosh, so...
It would be more practical to use FreeDOS.
Since Mac OS X does not exist per se for PCs, Dell would have to go to the next best thing: Darwin, the open source core OS from Mac OS X, which does run on x86 and is free.
It would do a hell of a lot more than FreeDOS.
Why would you NEED a Zip drive as a built-in option when you can burn a CD that holds over 6 times as much?
You can still buy a USB or FireWire Zip drive and connect it externally, but now Apple doesn't dedicate a place in the case that is a waste of space for anything other than a Zip drive.
That makes perfect sense. Last thing I would've wanted to do was find yet more new and annoying ways to connect things. Thanks for the clarification.
ANYTHING to keep from scraping my damn knuckles or cracking fingernails when removing a drive is fine with me.
I would've been happy with a connector technology based on FireWire, but if this is cheaper, as easy to connect as FireWire, and no slower than current ATA, then break out the pinatas filled with old hard drives and the Louisville Sluggers.
This was going to happen since nothing can stay badly broken forever, not even Microsoft Windows.
The success of IT rested on three assumptions:
1) The Internet was a cash cow that needed only to be milked.
2) Microsoft Windows was the key to all things in the computer world.
3) IT staffing is always needed to service the legions of PCs in business.
But each of these failed to pan out for logical reasons. The Internet was a cash strategy, but was abused by stupid people placing money into businesses without a business plan and no real product--dot-coms. Bye-bye, they said to their money. Screwed up the stock market, that.
Microsoft Windows was indeed the way to all things computer-related, from apps to training. And quite a few businesses contracted with "kitchen-sink" computer service companies who could buy, service, or administrate all kinds of PCs (unless you're Mac OS or Linux--that's another sad story in most locations). And training would guarantee most everyone with certification the chance to submit their resumes.
But this business was based on the fact that Microsoft Windows was ALWAYS in need of maintenance and companies would ALWAYS upgrade their systems for the "latest and greatest."
Enter Windows 2000--the first Windows OS whose stability and performance claims were justified. Microsoft built this OS with greater strengths as word spread of a newcomer that was free and just as stable: Linux.
As budgets tightened, managers again asked the budget questions, but weren't accepting the usual answers. "Why do we need to upgrade?" IT managers were able to answer firmly in the past that these upgrades would improve performance, or administration. But managers knew, now, from personal experience that their computer running Windows 98 or 2000 was just fine, and didn't want their copies of Office 2000 messed with for now.
As the IT monies dried up, IT managers (and contractor companies) tightened their belts and downsized, kicking out some experienced techs but quite a few inexperienced (but certified!) techs to the curb. Windows didn't need armies to support any longer. Servers didn't either--a few new technologies consolidated some sysadmin functions.
And now we're back to the availability of techs and sysadmins with real experience, talent, and diversity. You could be a Windows NT admin, but you may also know Linux. No longer was there room for "computer religion." You might do Mac desktops, but also know PC desktops. It's a screwy kind of Darwinism (no pun intended for the OS X folks), but the competition between the stable UNIX operating systems vs. all things Microsoft have brought a new (or rediscovered?) dawn to the personal computing world: the generally stable computer.
Are techs still needed? Sure. However, if all you have are a bunch of certification certificates beyond you and little experience, those papers and 50 cents are probably worth a cup of coffee at McDonalds.
We NEVER expect the SpanishInquisition...
Excellent, most excellent presumptions.
It should be noted that, of any personal computer, only Apple can even consider such moves without significantly affecting (adversely) the potency of their computers. No other mobo spec maker can, or has, dramatically changed their systems in the way that Apple does.
I presume the same, that is, that Apple is seriously considering a processor change. It may be for performance, but the decision will also be for a cost advantage. ANYTHING to reduce the cost of a Macintosh yet provide the same performance and convenience is a Good Thing for Mac sales.
Maybe, as an add-on feature, they could allow GRACE to do exactly what the Daleks do. OK, maybe a water pistol or paintballs...but the effect would be nice.
We all know of the "spat," as Steve Jobs called it, with the sales of Office X for Mac OS X, and the Mac Business Unit's comment alluding to "reevaluating" the future development.
I don't feel that Microsoft would drop Office for Mac OS X because antitrust red flags (and lawsuits) would be dropping into the Federal courts, placing MS in another legal pickle.
Apple's public support of StarOffice is actually another bow to the power of open source software (of which OpenOffice is, I know, but not StarOffice--uh..kinda?). The problem that Apple might see is that the "radical" OSS community that shuns ALL things MS would not buy or cannot afford Office X. So, for these users (as part of an incentive to pull them to OS X from other *nixes), StarOffice would be available and in a condition that works natively and well in OS X. (I'm not trying to avoid discussing AppleWorks, but it is not as robust as either Office or StarOffice.)
And, should MS discontinue development of Office, Apple also has a strong backup productivity suite that may be less expensive.
That's because we'll record it for streaming broadcast over the 'net...
Yes, I'm fully aware of the PowerPCs origins. My comment doesn't imply anything otherwise, it just wasn't specific. IBM didn't solely create the PowerPC spec, however--this was created through Apple and Motorola as well.
I don't have enough knowledge of Intel's vector processing abilities, so I'm not setting up a debate on this, but need to ask a few questions.
Is this SSE2 built in standard Pentiums, or only in Itaniums or other processors from Intel?
If this vector processing is available, why does a PowerPC G4 Mac running Photoshop tend to match or exceed the processing time in accelerated functions on images in Photoshop on Intel hardware (these are Pentiums used in the various informal tests that Apple and others have done)? Is Photoshop not optimized to take advantage of SSE2 (or the particular vector code available) so that, given its larger clock cycles and system bus than the current G4s, the Intel chip should whip around a G4 handling the same tasks as if it were standing still? This, of course, presumes that Apple and others don't "cook the books" in their demonstrations.
If Intel's vector code is as relatively convenient and as powerful as you describe, then this is a good thing should Apple consider a move to Intel processors--without this acceleration, there's not much of an advantage for their hardware.
Don't presume that moving to Intel hardware will create a Mac with the highly-modifiable box you take for granted on PCs.
Apple survives today because their boxes are designed to make a user's life easier. That means, despite a change to the processor, it is very likely that Apple would still have a custom motherboard available ONLY from Apple, still use Open Firmware rather than a PC BIOS, (this is done on Sun as well) and still not be subject to the resource-hungry design of the aging PC design.
Intel may assist Apple in a mobo design, but Apple will not release it for general consumption. If they want to continue to survive as a business, it would be suicide to do so. Apple is a hardware company. They have to keep some things closed to keep a competitive edge. The hardware would be generally closed-source, along with the upper layers of Mac OS X (Darwin, the core of OS X, is open source and works right now on x86 as well as PPC.).
A more serious matter would be the Pentium's lack of Altivec--the vector processing unit and the true power in the PowerPC chip that lets it keep up with Pentiums doing the same calculations in most instances, despite PPC chips having half the clock speed.
Not insurmountable things, however. I tire of the PowerPC production issues at Motorola. I would rather get IBM to make the chips--they should know how, since the PowerPC chip uses the same tech as in the POWER mainframe chips.
I've had an old ixMICRO TV tuner card in my B/W G3 for a couple of years. Works well, but has a slight problem in that the company that made it went belly up, and there is no Mac OS X software for it.
Since then, there were next to ZERO Macintosh TV tuners out there for Mac OS X use. ATI appears to have one, but its feature set is limited. Eskape Labs has been working on its MyTV OS X software for over a year now, and was in the running for my money until EyeTV showed up.
A USB TV tuner is a good fit. It doesn't suck up a precious PCI slot. It can be moved to any computer with cable hookup and USB. Works great with older or laptop Macs. Fits everyone I need for my new home.
The PTR features are a bonus, but will be very much appreciated. The price can't be beat, either. Competitive products will cost up to $1000 since they have internal hard drives. EyeTV appears to balance the abilities of the Mac with the features of a basic PTR.
The RCA video inputs also allow you to use the computer as a quickie display for today's game consoles such as PlayStation, or a basic video input for your camera.
Not a bad price at $199 (during Macworld, only $179), and the product quality looks good. While FireWire may seem a logical choice, it's overkill--USB has more than enough bandwidth. The only thing you need is to keep some drive space clear.
Informative. You deserve a mod point for that--if I had one to give. :)
Using Aqua should give the game a somewhat better appearance on OS X, but the game interface itself still seems a little scary. Oh, well--it's something I'll try out later, in any case.
It's perfectly fine for Microsoft to grouse about Office v.X sales, although they should be well-aware from their own experience with Windows 95 and later that transition to a new operating system and its applications takes time.
Mac OS X's acceptance rate is increasing, and will continue to do so as more games and general software is moved to work in OS X only. This transition will happen strongest in the businesses that use Macintosh systems, then homes, with educators last. Businesses can afford the transition and have already scheduled new systems. Homes have a mix of old and new things that Mac OS X must use, but the purchase of a new computer typically calls for a new printer to replace the ratty one.
Educators are moving very slowly to OS X client since a lot of their software for students and administrators doesn't yet run in Mac OS X. However, Mac OS X Server may have a big acceptance in their IT shops because of its NetBoot and Macintosh Manager network-based client services.
I think that Office v.X gives a lot of users a reason to switch. But $500 for an office suite, especially since AppleWorks comes installed on an iMac, is a price that only a few are willing to pay. Apple users have never really subscribed to the "upgrade annually" mentality that IT pros and home PC users have only began to shake off. Office 2000 for Macintosh works fine in the Classic environment of OS X. Why hasn't Microsoft given them a reason to switch? (One idea: MS should accept a trade-in on old original MS Office software disks--PC or Mac--for a rebate on Office v.X)
The fine line part is that Microsoft must not cut the cord on Mac Office development as lawsuits would be cut for antitrust violations faster than you can do a gaussian blur in Photoshop on a G4. Microsoft can't generate further news that shows how they can bully other companies by threatening--the current distrust by stockholders in Wall Street could lead Microsoft into a different court.
For now, however, I think MS is correct in its criticism. They aren't starving for money, but MS has been watching their revenues drop, too, and want as many dollars as the market will give them. Whether this comment from the MBU has anything to do with Apple's new aggressive marketing is a guess.