I'm sure we're having a semantic disagreement here, but just because one of AMD's offerings costs less than a performance-comparable Intel offering doesn't mean they're not "competing". AMD is in DIRECT competition with Intel, and is hoping to win customers precisely BY pricing some of these products less.
AMD's only meaningful competition here is Intel, and it makes no sense to assert that AMD is somehow not "competing" with Intel's offerings because AMD's is cheaper. It might make sense to YOU, or a geek building his own whitebox PC, thinking, "Wow, AMD's offering is so much better and cheaper, it's like there's no competition from Intel." Yeah, well, Intel still has the vast majority of the marketplace for those products. AMD is trying to win those markets from Intel, by making a superior product and pricing it cheaper. This is what we call "competition".
Further, I'm sure it would come as quite a surprise to AMD that they're not "competing" with Intel.
So you're telling me that AMD offerings aren't competing with Intel?
"Comparatively priced" has nothing to do with whether or not the products are competing with each other. They ARE competing with each other, even if one of the offerings is ten times the other.
Yes, of course price is viewed as an aspect of competition. But your assertion would mean that AMD doesn't compete with Intel at all simply because a given product in a particular category might be cheaper, and as we know, that's completely false, not to mention antithetical to AMD launching an antitrust lawsuit against Intel, alleging anticompetitive practices.
Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that Apple would use AMD products where they made sense in the future, and that the Intel announcement, specifically, was intended to be one of simplicity that wouldn't rile up Wall Street and analysts, and we can see that they've succeeded in spades. However, once the transition to the x86 architecture is over, there is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD (and/or x86-64/EM64T from Intel or AMD) where appropriate......except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.
Since the transition of high end machines is two and a half years out ("end of 2007"), it's likely that at least some of this will have shaken out by then. So even IF there are any types of exclusivity arrangements with Intel on Apple's part, either explicit or implicit (and please note, there is nothing to suggest there is), Apple, along with many other x86 vendors, will be free to choose the best processor solutions for their products - including those from AMD.
Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier.
All that said, choice and competition is still a good thing for this marketplace.
What did Apple announce at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 6, 2005?
Apple announced that it is transitioning from PowerPC processors provided by IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola) to x86 architecture processors from Intel. The first Intel-based Macs will ship before mid-2006, and the transition will be complete by the end of 2007.
Where can I find out more official information about this announcement?
The following scenario likely contributed to this decision:
IBM has been unable to meet its performance commitments for the PowerPC 970 family (G5) processors. In mid-2003, IBM promised 3 GHz G5s to Apple by mid-2004. As of mid-2005, 3 GHz G5s are still not available, over two years after the initial announcement, and over one year after the promised delivery.[1]
Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that IBM will make 3.2 GHz triple-core G5 derivatives available to Microsoft for Xbox 360.[2] IBM is also concentrating efforts on chips for Nintendo Revolution and Sony PlayStation 3.[3, 3.1] With IBM concentrating on expensive high-end server class processors and the console and embedded markets, and with Apple at less than 2%[4] of IBM's PowerPC business, it was clear IBM's priorities were focused elsewhere.
Apple is also less than 3%[4] of Freescale's PowerPC business, with Freescale focusing on embedded, communications, and automotive markets. The priorities of IBM and Freescale do not coincide with performance and other needs of the traditional desktop and portable computing marketplace.
What has Apple done to prepare for this transition?
Apple has been publicly maintaining the core OS of Mac OS X, Darwin, for both PowerPC and x86 platforms since the release of Mac OS X. Internally, Apple has been secretly maintaining Mac OS X in its entirety and all Apple applications for both PowerPC and x86 for over 5 years, since before Mac OS X's public release.[5] Mac OS X's predecessors also ran on x86.
Apple has made available Xcode 2.1, which adds the capability of creating PowerPC/x86 universal binaries. Xcode 2.1 can be used on either PowerPC or x86 systems to create universal binaries. Application developers already using Xcode in most cases need only recompile their application with an additional checkbox adding x86 architecture support.
Apple has also licensed[6] QuickTransit from Transitive Corporation for Rosetta, a realtime binary translation system to support PowerPC binaries seamlessly on x86 hardware. The current performance of Rosetta
And then there's this completely fabricated gem from the election: Trail Tails: What's that face?
Are you serious?
That's a HUMOR piece.
The original is still right here; why did you link to it on another site that deleted the reference graphic to "Trail Tales", and the archives of other little stories that made up the "Trail Tales" series ("Trail Tales" was a humorous/funny/"insider" take on some of the pre-election mania, and was NOT part of, or related to, official hard news coverage of the election)?
Further, the current article contains: "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest". Even if you argue that it could have been taken seriously, FOX News did exactly what people say it doesn't do, which is retract and correct itself; a correction that is still there today. Further, it wasn't even up for a whole day!
I don't even know what to say to this.
It's NOT news, or intended to be taken as news or factual content (e.g., Kerry saying he should do manicures). It's like many of the little fanicful parodies of the process that have been seen on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, LA Times Washinton Post, and in syndication the nation over, from liberals and conservatives alike.
As for your "Media Matters(TM)" crap (one of the main organizations constantly out to "prove" that FOX News is a right-wing propaganda mouthpiece), once again, are you serious? They picked like, what, a dozen of what they claim are errors out of how many thousands upon thousands of hours of 24/7 programming? Christ, I can remember watching CNN or CBS before the election and hearing their "hard news" anchors put "spin" on things themselves as well, in the other direction. I mean, when you have an organization who is embodied by the idea that many people are distraught by the fact FOX News even exists and whose sole goal is to promote the agenda that FOX News is hopelessly biased to the right and is on some secret campaign against innocent liberals and puppy dogs everywhere, what do you expect? You could just as easily tick off occasional inaccuracies, or things you disagree with (e.g., referring to the DeLay issue as "intensely partisan" - who's to say it's not? Is that not accurate?) from other news outlets as well. But unfortunately, conservative activists don't seem to have the amount of time on their hands to start websites specifically to discredit their ideological opponents as the liberal/progressive ones do. Go figure.
I posted a Newsweek story that speaks EXACTLY to CNN's response to FOX News, trying to reinvent itself as a news source, and then posted a UCLA study that mechanically attempts to discover the centrism of various hard news content from the major networks, websites, and printed media.
I then make some observations to the effect that lambasting FOX News' news content for the content of its EDITORIAL shows would be the same as attacking the New York Times' news content for the content if its Op-Ed page.
But don't worry, it will get modded down to -1, just like you want it to.
Slashdot: where we consider all views, as long as they're in agreement with our own.
I explained exactly what it had to do with the topic in question, which is why CNN is so far behind FOX News in ratings, and is trying to do something about it, which then responds to the
Also, if you think I or FOX News is "far right", you have no fucking clue what "far right" is. Further, I am not an "evangelical". And lastly, I'm not sure what on my web site you find objectionable or "evidence" that I'm an "evangelical". In fact, there is nothing related with any religion or evangelism anywhere on my website.
Also, what in the living FUCK does any of my post have to do with "values"?
I await what is sure to be a stunningly cogent reply.
...to win viewers/readers from FOX News. There's a Newsweek piece about it this week.
[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff, and creating a new international news show at noon. These are only the first steps in a broad overhaul plan aimed at getting the pioneering and once dominant cable news network out of a seemingly perennial second-place finish, far behind Fox News.
And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:
Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist.
and
Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.
Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). [...] the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. [...] Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. [...] The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.
Please note:
These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. (emphasis mine)
It makes me sad when people can't tell the difference between NEWS and OP-ED. Do people also have that same problem with the editorial page of the New York Times? Or just, say, Sean Hannity on FOX News? Is it acceptable to judge the news gathering and reporting capability of the Times by exclusively evaluating the content of its opinion page?
Further, one of the prime measures this report uses is the scoring for members of Congress by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-described "nation's oldest liberal lobbying group".
Now, some might say that comparing news to members of Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, isn't an effective measure (especially if you believe there is virtually no real difference between today's politicians). But at least take time to consider the report.
Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual N
And this technology is, in part, targeted at low- to mid-range systems and laptops, meaning it's not going to be part of video chipsets that only cost $599...further meaning that it wouldn't be beyond the realm of comprehension, since Apple is already an ATI customer, for Apple to use something like this in a Mac mini-type product, answering the questions of "how could the Mac mini possibly play back HD?" in the Mac-mini-as-HD-media-center Mac-mini-as-iTunes-HD-Movie-Store-player scenarios.
Off-topic? No, the R520 is mentioned directly in the submission, and one of its primary features is H.264 hardware acceleration. This is huge.
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claims are in direct violation of Contois' patent. These areas include iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
"By reason of Apple's infringing activities, Contois has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount yet to be determined," the suit reads. "On information and belief, Apple's infringement has been and continues to be willful."
----
Yeah. And it's only been out for, what 4 and a half years now (Jan 2001)?
Unless their proprietary hardware (like their touch pad, for instance) is fully supported by Windows, a mac will still be just as useless for gaming.
...because so many people use a touchpad for gaming. Dumbass.
Further, a VM can be used to support Windows - including DirectX - at near-native speed on the hardware, without even having to boot directly into Windows.
So, in short, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you'll be able to run Windows and its applications - including games - on Mac hardware at near-native performance commensurate with the hardware and video card, while still being booted into Mac OS X.
Anything authoritative will be covered by NDA, and Apple will likely not release specs of the Developer Transition Kit, since it doesn't represent a shipping product anyway, and for various other reasons.
MacInTouch Reader In response to the BIOS statements, the Intel Developer Transition Platform is NOT a "PHOENIX BIOS". PHOENIX is a specific BIOS maker, and this is not a PHOENIX BIOS. It is an Intel BIOS.
Further, it's no mystery how to get into almost any BIOS under the sun: just hold F2 at boot (F2 and alt-enter cover the vast majority of PC BIOSes). However, this means little, since this is merely a developer testing and transition platform only; the developer systems also don't have FireWire 800, or Bluetooth, or AirPort.
Does that mean that final products won't have these? Of course not. The transition platform's BIOS also has floppy support. Does that mean that Intel Macs will have floppy drives? No. The point is that the developer platform does not represent what will - or won't - be in shipping products. To see what Apple will be shipping with Intel processors in a year or two (or longer), look to Intel's roadmap. To see what technologies Apple will include, look to Apple's history and the current products: shipping Intel-based Macs will have all of the Mac features and functionality we have come to depend on.
Further, Apple has not forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace. But let's take this transition one step at a time.
NOTHING (including Apple itself) says Apple WILL be using this.
The article says apple COULD or MIGHT use this to lock Mac OS X to its own hardware; nothing more. They have no inside or special information - they're simply speculating on how Apple MIGHT lock Mac OS X to its own hardware IF it so desired. Apple also MIGHT not do anything of the sort, and simply limit Mac OS X to Apple hardware via the EULA, non-support on non-Apple hardware, lack of drivers, etc. (And this is news how, exactly?)
Will Apple's hardware check for a signed loader and lock the hardware to only running their OS as well?
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Apple has already shown it's willing to completely switch processor architectures, and you're telling me that, once they've made the transition to x86, they won't avail themselves of the best technology available, including from AMD (as do other x86 vendors)?
The Intel announcement, specifically (vs, say, AMD), was one of political expedience, convenience, exclusivity, and simplicity. The analysts and press are happy because it's Intel, and no one in the mainstream media or financial circles freaked out about it. (Phase 1, complete.)
But after the x86 switch is over, utilizing the best technology from traditional x86 architecture vendors, including AMD, is a foregone conclusion.
Use your heads, people. Apple isn't wed to Intel any more than it was to IBM. Or Motorola/Freescale.
We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
> I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.
The general consensus I've heard from other developers is: 1) They don't want us to use BIOS 2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF 3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI
This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.
Hey dumbass, he already corrected himself in the very fucking answer to that question, and no, they won't stop people from installing Windows, but shipping Apple/Intel hardware won't look ANYTHING like the developer transition platform, and, since Apple itself won't be supporting Windows on it, won't provide all of the necessary Windows drivers and Windows support for it, meaning that running Windows on an Intel-based Mac might not be as simple as just booting from an XP (or Longhorn) CD and installing it, and that some speciality hardware and chipsets included on the motherboard might have no support in Windows at all and no vendor source (e.g. Apple) to obtain them from.
The developer transition platform may boot Windows directly, but that's because it's generic enough. And you may be able to hack Windows onto future Intel-based Macs, but it won't be something that Apple even cares about supporting. No, they won't "stop" it, but it may not be as simple as putting it on any other normal PC, because Intel-based Macs won't just be basically an Apple-branded PC.
Apple is now less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business, and less than 3% of Freescale's.
IBM is focused on the server market, embedded markets, and gaming console marketplace. Not desktop and portable (especially), areas where Apple desperately needs processors.
Freescale is, and has been, focused on the embedded, communications and automotive markets, and the fact that some of the processors were also good for some Apple products was almost incidental.
PowerPC in the desktop marketplace is going nowhere fast, and IBM has shown that in spades for the last two years. Its renewed focus and commitment to the game console market eclipses any priorities Apple would ever hope IBM to have.
So, Apple made a tough choice. A choice its been planning for, just in case, for over 5 years.
The Intel (vs AMD) move was one of convenience and political expedience. Intel gets a big PR win, Apple gets its point across. Once the x86 architecture switch is complete, the hard part is over, and Apple is free to use other products from, e.g., AMD, as do many other x86 vendors. And Apple hasn't forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace in the least. The message now is simple, and has to be kept simple: we're moving to x86.
Further, PowerPC support WILL continue for an indefinite period into the future. The Mac OS X product lifecycle is now about two years. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) will ship likely around MWSF 2007, and will support PowerPC. It will have a lifecycle of two years, for a total of continuing support for four years from now. Apple has been providing security updates for the previous version of the OS from the current one since Mac OS X 10.0; therefore, we can assume security updates and fixes for a minimum of six years. And that's just from what we know now; the support may in fact last longer than that.
At some point, support for older hardware is dropped from the current version of the OS (e.g., G3s). What's the difference whether the hardware that supplants it contains an IBM PowerPC G6 or an Intel Pentium 6?
Further, this crap about software companies - already using Xcode, mind you - arbitrarily dropping PowerPC support from their applications early is complete, unadulterated bullshit. Aside from which, the 68K -> PPC transition, as rocky as it was, is often viewed as the quintessential success in hardware transitions.
I'm sorry if some people really want people to panic and stop buying all PowerPC hardware, and possibly commit mass suicide. But with the CLEAR commitment of Freescale and IBM to literally everywhere but the desktop(/portable) market in terms of the features and performance Apple needs, I can't see this decision as anything but a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
13 discrete speakers and a subwoofer?
Coming to a home near me?
Rrrriiiiight.
See, I have what we call "2.0 surround sound". It "surrounds" me from both corners of my living room.
I'm sure we're having a semantic disagreement here, but just because one of AMD's offerings costs less than a performance-comparable Intel offering doesn't mean they're not "competing". AMD is in DIRECT competition with Intel, and is hoping to win customers precisely BY pricing some of these products less.
AMD's only meaningful competition here is Intel, and it makes no sense to assert that AMD is somehow not "competing" with Intel's offerings because AMD's is cheaper. It might make sense to YOU, or a geek building his own whitebox PC, thinking, "Wow, AMD's offering is so much better and cheaper, it's like there's no competition from Intel." Yeah, well, Intel still has the vast majority of the marketplace for those products. AMD is trying to win those markets from Intel, by making a superior product and pricing it cheaper. This is what we call "competition".
Further, I'm sure it would come as quite a surprise to AMD that they're not "competing" with Intel.
Now you know how Mac fans feel about Office
;-)
What, you mean how Office is completely self-contained in a single directory, and it's just a drag-and-drop installation (or removal)?
Yeah, real hard.
(And yes, I know you were talking about the product, be he's talking about the "annoying installer".)
So you're telling me that AMD offerings aren't competing with Intel?
"Comparatively priced" has nothing to do with whether or not the products are competing with each other. They ARE competing with each other, even if one of the offerings is ten times the other.
Yes, of course price is viewed as an aspect of competition. But your assertion would mean that AMD doesn't compete with Intel at all simply because a given product in a particular category might be cheaper, and as we know, that's completely false, not to mention antithetical to AMD launching an antitrust lawsuit against Intel, alleging anticompetitive practices.
Before this, it was already pretty much a foregone conclusion that Apple would use AMD products where they made sense in the future, and that the Intel announcement, specifically, was intended to be one of simplicity that wouldn't rile up Wall Street and analysts, and we can see that they've succeeded in spades. However, once the transition to the x86 architecture is over, there is nothing stopping Apple from using AMD (and/or x86-64/EM64T from Intel or AMD) where appropriate... ...except, possibly, strongarm tactics by Intel.
Since the transition of high end machines is two and a half years out ("end of 2007"), it's likely that at least some of this will have shaken out by then. So even IF there are any types of exclusivity arrangements with Intel on Apple's part, either explicit or implicit (and please note, there is nothing to suggest there is), Apple, along with many other x86 vendors, will be free to choose the best processor solutions for their products - including those from AMD.
Remember, too, though, that while AMD may have superior products in certain, specific areas, since it shares manufacturing/fabrication capability with IBM, it has run into many of the same manufacturing and supply problems as IBM. Superior products are fine - if you can actually ship them. Intel, while you can cherry-pick instances of supply problems, has proven itself to be a stable and consistent supplier.
All that said, choice and competition is still a good thing for this marketplace.
For more on the transition, see Apple/Intel FAQ.
If Apple are only getting 2% of the PPC CPU's produced, where the hell are the rest going?
IBM's own very wide array of PowerPC-based servers.
Telecommunications equipment.
Automotive engine control systems.
Transmission control systems.
Networking equipment.
Satellites.
Many, many more embedded applications.
PowerPC is used in a *lot* more places than it's used in "computers".
http://appleintelfaq.com/
What did Apple announce at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) on June 6, 2005?
Apple announced that it is transitioning from PowerPC processors provided by IBM and Freescale (formerly Motorola) to x86 architecture processors from Intel. The first Intel-based Macs will ship before mid-2006, and the transition will be complete by the end of 2007.
Where can I find out more official information about this announcement?
Apple press release
Intel press release
WWDC keynote address (Transcript)
Why did Apple make this change?
The following scenario likely contributed to this decision:
IBM has been unable to meet its performance commitments for the PowerPC 970 family (G5) processors. In mid-2003, IBM promised 3 GHz G5s to Apple by mid-2004. As of mid-2005, 3 GHz G5s are still not available, over two years after the initial announcement, and over one year after the promised delivery.[1]
Meanwhile, Microsoft has announced that IBM will make 3.2 GHz triple-core G5 derivatives available to Microsoft for Xbox 360.[2] IBM is also concentrating efforts on chips for Nintendo Revolution and Sony PlayStation 3.[3, 3.1] With IBM concentrating on expensive high-end server class processors and the console and embedded markets, and with Apple at less than 2%[4] of IBM's PowerPC business, it was clear IBM's priorities were focused elsewhere.
Apple is also less than 3%[4] of Freescale's PowerPC business, with Freescale focusing on embedded, communications, and automotive markets. The priorities of IBM and Freescale do not coincide with performance and other needs of the traditional desktop and portable computing marketplace.
What has Apple done to prepare for this transition?
Apple has been publicly maintaining the core OS of Mac OS X, Darwin, for both PowerPC and x86 platforms since the release of Mac OS X. Internally, Apple has been secretly maintaining Mac OS X in its entirety and all Apple applications for both PowerPC and x86 for over 5 years, since before Mac OS X's public release.[5] Mac OS X's predecessors also ran on x86.
Apple has made available Xcode 2.1, which adds the capability of creating PowerPC/x86 universal binaries. Xcode 2.1 can be used on either PowerPC or x86 systems to create universal binaries. Application developers already using Xcode in most cases need only recompile their application with an additional checkbox adding x86 architecture support.
Apple has also licensed[6] QuickTransit from Transitive Corporation for Rosetta, a realtime binary translation system to support PowerPC binaries seamlessly on x86 hardware. The current performance of Rosetta
And then there's this completely fabricated gem from the election:
Trail Tails: What's that face?
Are you serious?
That's a HUMOR piece.
The original is still right here; why did you link to it on another site that deleted the reference graphic to "Trail Tales", and the archives of other little stories that made up the "Trail Tales" series ("Trail Tales" was a humorous/funny/"insider" take on some of the pre-election mania, and was NOT part of, or related to, official hard news coverage of the election)?
Further, the current article contains: "The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest". Even if you argue that it could have been taken seriously, FOX News did exactly what people say it doesn't do, which is retract and correct itself; a correction that is still there today. Further, it wasn't even up for a whole day!
I don't even know what to say to this.
It's NOT news, or intended to be taken as news or factual content (e.g., Kerry saying he should do manicures). It's like many of the little fanicful parodies of the process that have been seen on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, LA Times Washinton Post, and in syndication the nation over, from liberals and conservatives alike.
As for your "Media Matters(TM)" crap (one of the main organizations constantly out to "prove" that FOX News is a right-wing propaganda mouthpiece), once again, are you serious? They picked like, what, a dozen of what they claim are errors out of how many thousands upon thousands of hours of 24/7 programming? Christ, I can remember watching CNN or CBS before the election and hearing their "hard news" anchors put "spin" on things themselves as well, in the other direction. I mean, when you have an organization who is embodied by the idea that many people are distraught by the fact FOX News even exists and whose sole goal is to promote the agenda that FOX News is hopelessly biased to the right and is on some secret campaign against innocent liberals and puppy dogs everywhere, what do you expect? You could just as easily tick off occasional inaccuracies, or things you disagree with (e.g., referring to the DeLay issue as "intensely partisan" - who's to say it's not? Is that not accurate?) from other news outlets as well. But unfortunately, conservative activists don't seem to have the amount of time on their hands to start websites specifically to discredit their ideological opponents as the liberal/progressive ones do. Go figure.
Because it's in disagreement with you?
I posted a Newsweek story that speaks EXACTLY to CNN's response to FOX News, trying to reinvent itself as a news source, and then posted a UCLA study that mechanically attempts to discover the centrism of various hard news content from the major networks, websites, and printed media.
I then make some observations to the effect that lambasting FOX News' news content for the content of its EDITORIAL shows would be the same as attacking the New York Times' news content for the content if its Op-Ed page.
But don't worry, it will get modded down to -1, just like you want it to.
Slashdot: where we consider all views, as long as they're in agreement with our own.
I explained exactly what it had to do with the topic in question, which is why CNN is so far behind FOX News in ratings, and is trying to do something about it, which then responds to the
Also, if you think I or FOX News is "far right", you have no fucking clue what "far right" is. Further, I am not an "evangelical". And lastly, I'm not sure what on my web site you find objectionable or "evidence" that I'm an "evangelical". In fact, there is nothing related with any religion or evangelism anywhere on my website.
Also, what in the living FUCK does any of my post have to do with "values"?
I await what is sure to be a stunningly cogent reply.
...to win viewers/readers from FOX News. There's a Newsweek piece about it this week.
[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff, and creating a new international news show at noon. These are only the first steps in a broad overhaul plan aimed at getting the pioneering and once dominant cable news network out of a seemingly perennial second-place finish, far behind Fox News.
And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm
which finds, in part
Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist.
and
Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.
Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). [...] the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. [...] Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. [...] The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.
Please note:
These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. (emphasis mine)
It makes me sad when people can't tell the difference between NEWS and OP-ED. Do people also have that same problem with the editorial page of the New York Times? Or just, say, Sean Hannity on FOX News? Is it acceptable to judge the news gathering and reporting capability of the Times by exclusively evaluating the content of its opinion page?
Further, one of the prime measures this report uses is the scoring for members of Congress by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-described "nation's oldest liberal lobbying group".
Now, some might say that comparing news to members of Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, isn't an effective measure (especially if you believe there is virtually no real difference between today's politicians). But at least take time to consider the report.
Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual N
The 7800 is $599.
Some of the R520 family offerings will be targeted at entire computers that are under $500.
So, yes, BFD.
...has hardware H.264 codec support.
And this technology is, in part, targeted at low- to mid-range systems and laptops, meaning it's not going to be part of video chipsets that only cost $599...further meaning that it wouldn't be beyond the realm of comprehension, since Apple is already an ATI customer, for Apple to use something like this in a Mac mini-type product, answering the questions of "how could the Mac mini possibly play back HD?" in the Mac-mini-as-HD-media-center Mac-mini-as-iTunes-HD-Movie-Store-player scenarios.
Off-topic? No, the R520 is mentioned directly in the submission, and one of its primary features is H.264 hardware acceleration. This is huge.
Apple/Intel FAQ
Specifically, Contois documented 19 interface aspects of the iTunes software that it claims are in direct violation of Contois' patent. These areas include iTunes' menu selection process to allow the user to select music to be played, the ability of the software to transfer music tracks to a portable music player, and search capabilities such as sorting music tracks by their genre, artist and album attributes.
"By reason of Apple's infringing activities, Contois has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount yet to be determined," the suit reads. "On information and belief, Apple's infringement has been and continues to be willful."
----
Yeah. And it's only been out for, what 4 and a half years now (Jan 2001)?
...because so many people use a touchpad for gaming. Dumbass.
Further, a VM can be used to support Windows - including DirectX - at near-native speed on the hardware, without even having to boot directly into Windows.
So, in short, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that you'll be able to run Windows and its applications - including games - on Mac hardware at near-native performance commensurate with the hardware and video card, while still being booted into Mac OS X.
Nice troll, though.
Jobs said nothing of the sort.
It was Apple VP Phil Schiller, and "not letting OS X run on non-Apple hardware" doesn't mean it HAS to be stopped via technological means.
So again, this is speculation, at best.
Anything authoritative will be covered by NDA, and Apple will likely not release specs of the Developer Transition Kit, since it doesn't represent a shipping product anyway, and for various other reasons.
But the BIOS version has been posted around publicly on forums; also, note http://macintouch.com/macintel04.html:
MacInTouch Reader
In response to the BIOS statements, the Intel Developer Transition Platform is NOT a "PHOENIX BIOS". PHOENIX is a specific BIOS maker, and this is not a PHOENIX BIOS. It is an Intel BIOS.
Further, it's no mystery how to get into almost any BIOS under the sun: just hold F2 at boot (F2 and alt-enter cover the vast majority of PC BIOSes). However, this means little, since this is merely a developer testing and transition platform only; the developer systems also don't have FireWire 800, or Bluetooth, or AirPort.
Does that mean that final products won't have these? Of course not. The transition platform's BIOS also has floppy support. Does that mean that Intel Macs will have floppy drives? No. The point is that the developer platform does not represent what will - or won't - be in shipping products. To see what Apple will be shipping with Intel processors in a year or two (or longer), look to Intel's roadmap. To see what technologies Apple will include, look to Apple's history and the current products: shipping Intel-based Macs will have all of the Mac features and functionality we have come to depend on.
Further, Apple has not forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace. But let's take this transition one step at a time.
FYI, the Developer Transition Kit machines DO NOT contain a Phoenix BIOS, as has been incorrectly reported by xlr8yourmac and regurgitated elsewhere.
They contain a standard Intel-branded BIOS (EV91510A.86X.0450).
NOTHING (including Apple itself) says Apple WILL be using this.
The article says apple COULD or MIGHT use this to lock Mac OS X to its own hardware; nothing more. They have no inside or special information - they're simply speculating on how Apple MIGHT lock Mac OS X to its own hardware IF it so desired. Apple also MIGHT not do anything of the sort, and simply limit Mac OS X to Apple hardware via the EULA, non-support on non-Apple hardware, lack of drivers, etc. (And this is news how, exactly?)
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
Apple has already shown it's willing to completely switch processor architectures, and you're telling me that, once they've made the transition to x86, they won't avail themselves of the best technology available, including from AMD (as do other x86 vendors)?
The Intel announcement, specifically (vs, say, AMD), was one of political expedience, convenience, exclusivity, and simplicity. The analysts and press are happy because it's Intel, and no one in the mainstream media or financial circles freaked out about it. (Phase 1, complete.)
But after the x86 switch is over, utilizing the best technology from traditional x86 architecture vendors, including AMD, is a foregone conclusion.
Use your heads, people. Apple isn't wed to Intel any more than it was to IBM. Or Motorola/Freescale.
Who said Apple will use BIOS in its shipping Intel-based Macs?
0 5/Jun/msg00020.html:
I nterface
Just because the developer transition platform is using an Intel BIOS doesn't mean that shipping Intel-based Macs in one to two years will:
From Dean Reece of Apple http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-drivers/20
We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
> I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.
The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI
This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.
Hang in there...
- Dean
Information on EFI:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_
Hey dumbass, he already corrected himself in the very fucking answer to that question, and no, they won't stop people from installing Windows, but shipping Apple/Intel hardware won't look ANYTHING like the developer transition platform, and, since Apple itself won't be supporting Windows on it, won't provide all of the necessary Windows drivers and Windows support for it, meaning that running Windows on an Intel-based Mac might not be as simple as just booting from an XP (or Longhorn) CD and installing it, and that some speciality hardware and chipsets included on the motherboard might have no support in Windows at all and no vendor source (e.g. Apple) to obtain them from.
The developer transition platform may boot Windows directly, but that's because it's generic enough. And you may be able to hack Windows onto future Intel-based Macs, but it won't be something that Apple even cares about supporting. No, they won't "stop" it, but it may not be as simple as putting it on any other normal PC, because Intel-based Macs won't just be basically an Apple-branded PC.
This is ridiculous.
Let's take a step back:
Apple is now less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business, and less than 3% of Freescale's.
IBM is focused on the server market, embedded markets, and gaming console marketplace. Not desktop and portable (especially), areas where Apple desperately needs processors.
Freescale is, and has been, focused on the embedded, communications and automotive markets, and the fact that some of the processors were also good for some Apple products was almost incidental.
PowerPC in the desktop marketplace is going nowhere fast, and IBM has shown that in spades for the last two years. Its renewed focus and commitment to the game console market eclipses any priorities Apple would ever hope IBM to have.
So, Apple made a tough choice. A choice its been planning for, just in case, for over 5 years.
The Intel (vs AMD) move was one of convenience and political expedience. Intel gets a big PR win, Apple gets its point across. Once the x86 architecture switch is complete, the hard part is over, and Apple is free to use other products from, e.g., AMD, as do many other x86 vendors. And Apple hasn't forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace in the least. The message now is simple, and has to be kept simple: we're moving to x86.
Further, PowerPC support WILL continue for an indefinite period into the future. The Mac OS X product lifecycle is now about two years. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) will ship likely around MWSF 2007, and will support PowerPC. It will have a lifecycle of two years, for a total of continuing support for four years from now. Apple has been providing security updates for the previous version of the OS from the current one since Mac OS X 10.0; therefore, we can assume security updates and fixes for a minimum of six years. And that's just from what we know now; the support may in fact last longer than that.
At some point, support for older hardware is dropped from the current version of the OS (e.g., G3s). What's the difference whether the hardware that supplants it contains an IBM PowerPC G6 or an Intel Pentium 6?
Further, this crap about software companies - already using Xcode, mind you - arbitrarily dropping PowerPC support from their applications early is complete, unadulterated bullshit. Aside from which, the 68K -> PPC transition, as rocky as it was, is often viewed as the quintessential success in hardware transitions.
I'm sorry if some people really want people to panic and stop buying all PowerPC hardware, and possibly commit mass suicide. But with the CLEAR commitment of Freescale and IBM to literally everywhere but the desktop(/portable) market in terms of the features and performance Apple needs, I can't see this decision as anything but a good thing.