To be fair, screws started disappearing from Macs with the introduction of the Macintosh II. The IIci had literally two little plastic clips that held the top of the case on.
From the factory both the II & IIci came with a single screw holding the top of the case on, but everyone I know who opened a IIci case never reinstalled that screw - for the most part the II was the same way, though the sheer size of that beast could cause the case to flex & pop the top if you weren't careful while moving it.
Now back in the day of the Mac II, screws were definitely the rage in PC computing. And Apple never entirely abandon screws. Anyone who fought with a 8x0/9x0/8x00/9x00 knows this all too well. And most, if not all, of Apple's All-In-One designs used/use screws extensively.
FWIW, there were a few Commodore 64/128 trojans that did the same kind of thing to a 1541. In that case it seeked the head beyond the max, then in about a quarter, then out to the max, etc. - repeated as quickly as possible.
'course since the 1541 was built like a tank, with tolerances you could drive a truck through, it just misaligned the head and didn't destroy anything. Even then you had to let it sit there and make an awful racket for a minute or two (at least).
But if you were naive enough to let it sit there - just take it into the shop, put the head back into alignment, and everything became right with the world again... hard to do that with a HD...
Are you in column view mode? It's possible that any click will cause Finder to call the originating app so it can preview the contents in the right-most pane.
If that's true, it doesn't mean the application is executing the contents of the file on right-click, just reading it so it can spit back the appropriate preview to Finder for the right-most pane.
'course I could be wrong... then again, I'm still running 10.3.9, don't use Safari, and pay attention to the files I download...
Spray painting swastikas on government buildings is bad, but spraying them on a neighbor's garage door is somehow different?
The original comment has merit - our public officials shouldn't let their minions get away with stuff like this. The responsible thing for them to do is sh*tcan the individual(s) performing these borderline activities on public dollars, thereby sending a message to the rest of their staff.
But that'd require congresscritters to actually work for a living, so it'll never happen - if anything I can see some of them encouraging this kind of activity.
As far as I can tell, this guy is claiming that all updates to OSX have been written for x86 first, then source code was modified to work on the PPC architecture.
Personally, I'm a pretty big Apple fanboy, and I've never heard anything like that even remotely discussed. On one hand Apple is writing hardware-agnostic code as much as possible since that will port from A to B to C to D without much, if any, fiddling. Where the code is compiled at that point is mostly academic (so long as it's written properly).
But the components that are architecture-specific are, by definition, hardware-specific. It's going to be very hard to test the drivers for all the sundry components that go into a G5 motherboard on an Intel-based system. Closest you could come is to compile on x86, using the appropriate flags on the compiler, so it spits out something that is PPC-compatible, then transfer the file over to the G5 through various means (mounted HD with filesystem driver, network, etc). Remember, PPC is big endian, x86 is little endian - they're not even compatible byte-by-byte.
Of course, what probably yields rise to this speculation is that x86 versions of OSX have existed from day 1. Of course, there's no better way to test whether you've truly written platform-agnostic code than to compile it on multiple platforms. When it comes down to it, where the code is compiled first is a moot point, since it's being compiled on both to make sure that the code works on both platforms.
Technically the beachball means a process is not responding to GUI events (or a facsimile of that kind of problem).
If you get a beachball while hovering over an Entourage window, that means Entourage is off doing something and can't respond to any kind of GUI input. It doesn't mean the OS has gone off into limbo, just the Entourage process(es).
No matter what hardware is running OSX, you're still going to see beachballs from time to time, since they're generally the result of poor code. I see them in Entourage all the time, hence my example - though in initial versions of OSX you'd see a distressing number of beachballs in Finder. (shrug)
The #1 thing that's bugged me for ages about McAfee is false positives for executable worms/viruses inside data files.
Got a 600+ MB video file? Well, that's not going to stop McAfee from reporting that it's infected with an executable-only worm. Sure, it's only reporting the infection because the correct sequence of bytes occurs 300MB into the file, but hey now, glue logic like that costs money to program, and they're not in business to spend money.
I can't even tell you the number of tech support calls I got from McAfee users claiming that our game was infected with a virus. And they were always so indignant about it too...
Frankly, I'll be happy when McAfee dies out altogether. Symantec isn't all that much better, but at least their Corporate/Enterprise AV products haven't been destroyed yet - if you opt for retail, well, good freakin' luck.
Personally, if I were in charge of writing the laws in SK, I'd make it be a requirement to have custom ringtones for each type of indictment. Only the ringtone would be decreed by the state - "(bing) (bing) (bong) You've been indicted for fraud."
Now that I think about it, I suspect DeLay may have had a nightmare or two about that scenario.
Don't ask me to link to it, since I don't know if it's available online, but back when the original GT3 was released a magazine had an interview with some of the people who developed it.
In that article, one of the interviewees mentioned that they toyed with having cops pull you over for traffic violations. They nixed it because it became far too hard to accomplish missions, much less just tool around town, and they just couldn't put a genuinely fun game together with that in the mix.
In other words, they tried it your way and it just didn't work. If you think you know of a way to make it work - hey, it's a big industry. Go nuts.
Personally, I can't think of any way to make a fun game with that kind of anal retentive attention to detail in the mix. It's like the Golf "simulators" that became so fixated on "realistic simulation" that they simulated themselves right out of the market. What's left are golf games where the physics have been fudged a little so people will actually want to PLAY the game.
That's the point of a game, remember - to play it. To have fun while playing it. That's why it's a game.
While I agree with you in principle about multiple-compression artifacts building up, in my real world experimentation if you select a high enough bitrate the MP3 doesn't actually introduce any artifacts that you can hear.
The downside is you end up effectively doubling the size of the file in order to future-proof it.
Personally, I would go about future-proofing through the myriad of other means that are available, but... to each his own...
Mmmkay. So, how well is OS X running on your Dell Inspiron?
Oh, wait, you've got a hardware vendor lock-in.
Except, of course, neither of these situations make sense. Windows isn't available for PPC, just as OS X isn't available for x86. Both platforms can of course run a myriad of Linux & BSD variants.
Hence there is no "lock-in" going on, I just can't run Windows native any more than you can run OS X native.
But I do agree that this is a non-story. Your arguments aren't very well thought out.
I think the most telling part of the article was the following line:
Dinon knew what to do. "But I never did it because my neighbors are older."
So this guy buys an access point, knows how to enable security, but doesn't because he thinks his neighbors don't know what they're doing.
That's a valid excuse? What happens if someone younger moves into the neighborhood? Do you enable encryption then? What if their grandchildren come for a visit and put your system into scriptkiddy hell? Do you enable it then?
At what point does common sense outweigh laziness for this jackass?
Name a phone with a non-replaceable battery. Name a computer with a non-replaceable battery. Camera... UPS... hell, possibly even a defribrillator.
The last cordless phone I owned, several years ago, had a battery just as non-replaceable as the iPod. Can't tell you the brand name of it, it was a cheap hunk of junk but worked for my few analog purposes.
Of course, I'm assuming non-replaceable means I have to open the case up to replace the battery, since that's all thats necessary for both an iPod and that old cordless phone. And just like an iPod, I had to hunt down a third party replacement battery, the manufacturer didn't offer one themselves.
The odd thing is I don't remember hearing about a class action suit against that phone manufacturer. Perhaps their pockets weren't deep enough?
Bah. I suppose my car battery is non-replaceable since I have to pop the hood to replace it.
Don't open anything up, arr matey, inside there be dragons and voodoo.
Yeah, normal VNC on Windows has pretty bad screen updates.
However the mirror display drivers that are out there work very, very well. Unfortunately they're not 100% so I don't really recommend going hog-wild on production systems but they work great - when they work.
UltraVNC & TightVNC both have mirror drivers, there probably are some other VNC branches that support it too. Though I never did get TightVNC's driver to work...
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair Flip4Mac has worked much better for me than WMP ever did.
Admittedly I don't play a lot of WMV files, but F4M has played everything I've come across - something I can't say about WMP.
To be fair, screws started disappearing from Macs with the introduction of the Macintosh II. The IIci had literally two little plastic clips that held the top of the case on.
From the factory both the II & IIci came with a single screw holding the top of the case on, but everyone I know who opened a IIci case never reinstalled that screw - for the most part the II was the same way, though the sheer size of that beast could cause the case to flex & pop the top if you weren't careful while moving it.
Now back in the day of the Mac II, screws were definitely the rage in PC computing. And Apple never entirely abandon screws. Anyone who fought with a 8x0/9x0/8x00/9x00 knows this all too well. And most, if not all, of Apple's All-In-One designs used/use screws extensively.
And none of that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue nonsense, I'm not going to make THAT mistake again...
FWIW, there were a few Commodore 64/128 trojans that did the same kind of thing to a 1541. In that case it seeked the head beyond the max, then in about a quarter, then out to the max, etc. - repeated as quickly as possible.
'course since the 1541 was built like a tank, with tolerances you could drive a truck through, it just misaligned the head and didn't destroy anything. Even then you had to let it sit there and make an awful racket for a minute or two (at least).
But if you were naive enough to let it sit there - just take it into the shop, put the head back into alignment, and everything became right with the world again... hard to do that with a HD...
Taunt Taunt
Are you in column view mode? It's possible that any click will cause Finder to call the originating app so it can preview the contents in the right-most pane.
If that's true, it doesn't mean the application is executing the contents of the file on right-click, just reading it so it can spit back the appropriate preview to Finder for the right-most pane.
'course I could be wrong... then again, I'm still running 10.3.9, don't use Safari, and pay attention to the files I download...
Which changes things how?
Spray painting swastikas on government buildings is bad, but spraying them on a neighbor's garage door is somehow different?
The original comment has merit - our public officials shouldn't let their minions get away with stuff like this. The responsible thing for them to do is sh*tcan the individual(s) performing these borderline activities on public dollars, thereby sending a message to the rest of their staff.
But that'd require congresscritters to actually work for a living, so it'll never happen - if anything I can see some of them encouraging this kind of activity.
As far as I can tell, this guy is claiming that all updates to OSX have been written for x86 first, then source code was modified to work on the PPC architecture.
Personally, I'm a pretty big Apple fanboy, and I've never heard anything like that even remotely discussed. On one hand Apple is writing hardware-agnostic code as much as possible since that will port from A to B to C to D without much, if any, fiddling. Where the code is compiled at that point is mostly academic (so long as it's written properly).
But the components that are architecture-specific are, by definition, hardware-specific. It's going to be very hard to test the drivers for all the sundry components that go into a G5 motherboard on an Intel-based system. Closest you could come is to compile on x86, using the appropriate flags on the compiler, so it spits out something that is PPC-compatible, then transfer the file over to the G5 through various means (mounted HD with filesystem driver, network, etc). Remember, PPC is big endian, x86 is little endian - they're not even compatible byte-by-byte.
Of course, what probably yields rise to this speculation is that x86 versions of OSX have existed from day 1. Of course, there's no better way to test whether you've truly written platform-agnostic code than to compile it on multiple platforms. When it comes down to it, where the code is compiled first is a moot point, since it's being compiled on both to make sure that the code works on both platforms.
Technically the beachball means a process is not responding to GUI events (or a facsimile of that kind of problem).
If you get a beachball while hovering over an Entourage window, that means Entourage is off doing something and can't respond to any kind of GUI input. It doesn't mean the OS has gone off into limbo, just the Entourage process(es).
No matter what hardware is running OSX, you're still going to see beachballs from time to time, since they're generally the result of poor code. I see them in Entourage all the time, hence my example - though in initial versions of OSX you'd see a distressing number of beachballs in Finder. (shrug)
The #1 thing that's bugged me for ages about McAfee is false positives for executable worms/viruses inside data files.
Got a 600+ MB video file? Well, that's not going to stop McAfee from reporting that it's infected with an executable-only worm. Sure, it's only reporting the infection because the correct sequence of bytes occurs 300MB into the file, but hey now, glue logic like that costs money to program, and they're not in business to spend money.
I can't even tell you the number of tech support calls I got from McAfee users claiming that our game was infected with a virus. And they were always so indignant about it too...
Frankly, I'll be happy when McAfee dies out altogether. Symantec isn't all that much better, but at least their Corporate/Enterprise AV products haven't been destroyed yet - if you opt for retail, well, good freakin' luck.
Personally, if I were in charge of writing the laws in SK, I'd make it be a requirement to have custom ringtones for each type of indictment. Only the ringtone would be decreed by the state - "(bing) (bing) (bong) You've been indicted for fraud."
Now that I think about it, I suspect DeLay may have had a nightmare or two about that scenario.
How dare you call me a bum!
I'm suing you for libel. Why, after Tom Cruise's lawyers get through with you...
Don't ask me to link to it, since I don't know if it's available online, but back when the original GT3 was released a magazine had an interview with some of the people who developed it.
In that article, one of the interviewees mentioned that they toyed with having cops pull you over for traffic violations. They nixed it because it became far too hard to accomplish missions, much less just tool around town, and they just couldn't put a genuinely fun game together with that in the mix.
In other words, they tried it your way and it just didn't work. If you think you know of a way to make it work - hey, it's a big industry. Go nuts.
Personally, I can't think of any way to make a fun game with that kind of anal retentive attention to detail in the mix. It's like the Golf "simulators" that became so fixated on "realistic simulation" that they simulated themselves right out of the market. What's left are golf games where the physics have been fudged a little so people will actually want to PLAY the game.
That's the point of a game, remember - to play it. To have fun while playing it. That's why it's a game.
While I agree with you in principle about multiple-compression artifacts building up, in my real world experimentation if you select a high enough bitrate the MP3 doesn't actually introduce any artifacts that you can hear.
The downside is you end up effectively doubling the size of the file in order to future-proof it.
Personally, I would go about future-proofing through the myriad of other means that are available, but... to each his own...
You fail English? That unpossible!
That's Max Power to you! He enjoys hanging around with Ed Begley Jr., who drives a car powered by his own sense of self-satisfaction.
Remember - there's the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way! (It's like the wrong way, but faster!)
I'm so disappointed. I thought you were saying that McBride mentioned the hamster dance in one of his tirades.
Nothing creates investor confidence like a CEO that's clearly gone completely insane.
Mmmkay. So, how well is OS X running on your Dell Inspiron?
Oh, wait, you've got a hardware vendor lock-in.
Except, of course, neither of these situations make sense. Windows isn't available for PPC, just as OS X isn't available for x86. Both platforms can of course run a myriad of Linux & BSD variants.
Hence there is no "lock-in" going on, I just can't run Windows native any more than you can run OS X native.
But I do agree that this is a non-story. Your arguments aren't very well thought out.
With you at NASA's helm, we'd never have found out if mice could sort tiny screws in space.
That's a valid excuse? What happens if someone younger moves into the neighborhood? Do you enable encryption then? What if their grandchildren come for a visit and put your system into scriptkiddy hell? Do you enable it then?
At what point does common sense outweigh laziness for this jackass?
To be fair, sane video is out of the question with a screen that small.
The greyscale iPods were capable of playing video. But with a higher bit depth I don't know if the color iPods will be similarly capable.
I now feel the need to butcher an old saying:
When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom.
Of course, I'm assuming non-replaceable means I have to open the case up to replace the battery, since that's all thats necessary for both an iPod and that old cordless phone. And just like an iPod, I had to hunt down a third party replacement battery, the manufacturer didn't offer one themselves.
The odd thing is I don't remember hearing about a class action suit against that phone manufacturer. Perhaps their pockets weren't deep enough?
Bah. I suppose my car battery is non-replaceable since I have to pop the hood to replace it.
Don't open anything up, arr matey, inside there be dragons and voodoo.
Yeah, normal VNC on Windows has pretty bad screen updates.
However the mirror display drivers that are out there work very, very well. Unfortunately they're not 100% so I don't really recommend going hog-wild on production systems but they work great - when they work.
UltraVNC & TightVNC both have mirror drivers, there probably are some other VNC branches that support it too. Though I never did get TightVNC's driver to work...
I never forget about the monkey.