IIRC, you're referring to the Superdisk drive. Apple has named a product "Superdrive" before though, the 3.5" floppy drives that could read MS-DOS disks (late 80s).
Stuff like the case covering the edge of the screen and partially covering a scroll bar in the still pictures is what makes me suspicious. It's possible that it's real and the case only is a mock up. I still don't think it's real but obviously I could be wrong.
There is no way that apple would put their badge on such a shoddy product, not these days anyway. Compare the "iWalk's" design with the iPod's. Come on people, if Apple wanted to break into the Pocket PC market (ie. more than just an organiser) it would have to be at least as good and look at least as cool as an iPaq. This doesn't even come close. Hell, it probably IS an iPaq under that god-awful case.
The poor design (that's a jog wheel?!) makes this an obvious fake.
You've got to be kidding right? Apple had different processors in machines of the same model?! I only ever had a Q700 and recently used it as a NetBSD PPP-sharing server. Worked well. It was a 68040 machine. I had heard that the whole Quadra line were 68040s. I guess I need to brush up on my Apple trivia.
Re:Picture of bills with US bill
on
The Euro
·
· Score: 2
My bad. It seems like, from link I posted, that the LCIIIs and lower were based on the 68030 not the 68LC030. The LC475 (one I had) however *was* a 68LC040 machine. The Quadras were 68040 machines. So LCs definitely weren't rebadged Quadras. They were completely different lines.
You may be thinking of the Centris (not sure). The LCs were the Low Cost machines. They had processors like the 68LC040 instead of the 68040, 68LC030 instead of the 68030, etc. IIRC, these chips didn't have FPUs on chip and relied on software. They also skimped on expansion: only one RAM slot and one PDS (processor direct slot).
Simple, they do this they lose MS Office. Linux may have survived without Office but Microsoft's withdrawal would kill MacOSX. Unless we can find a competitor that is *very* compatible with Office, it isn't going to happen.
You stop where apple stopped, with case. "Test" and "test" are the same but "One_two" isn't the same as "One two". Apple isn't the only one to go down this path and at least they made it case preserving. "Test" stays as "Test" and will never be printed as "test".
The first was copying and pasting in Linux. It has gotten *much* better in Mandrake 8.1 Gaming, where I'm at right now. I use KDE, so as a test I opened up Nautilus, copied the text from the address bar and pasted it into both vim and emacs, which would seem to be a pretty good test.
Congratulations, your preferred OS has the ability to copy and paste! Trying not to sound like a troll but other OS's seem to have no problem with it either and haven't had a problem with it since the mid-80s.
I know these UI problems aren't a fundamental problem with Linux and look forward to its continued improvement.
As far as Mac OS X and its interface, its nice that people used to generally weak interfaces think it is so great, but us long time Mac users are suffering a severe downgrade with Mac OS X and it Just Isn't Worth It for most of us.
I have a Mac Plus sitting on the desk next to me that we bought a LONG time ago. Is that "long time" enough for you? I have used MacOSX exclusively since the Public Beta. I dread having to boot into OS9 because of its weak interface. I fully respect your decision not to upgrade (yes *upgrade*). I am however sick of non-converters claiming things like "OSX is good for beginners but us power users need more". If you don't want to use it fine, but do realise that you are being left behind. I'd wager that a lot more people are currently happy with OSX than people who have *tried* it and given it a decent chance but still prefer OS9. It is not the next version of the MacOS, it is the first version of MacOSX. If you keep that in mind and stop trying to turn it into OS9 (like I did after about the first month), you'll have a much better experience with it.
If you've done this (with 10.1, *big* difference) and still aren't happy with it, I'll accept that. I believe that MacOSX cured a lot of the long lived problems with the classic MacOS. Yes, it introduced a few annoyances of its own but with each (free) upgrade that apple puts out their numbers are diminishing quickly. Apple is listening to user feedback. If you have a gripe with OSX, besides "Please kill the Dock", tell them about it.
I mostly agree with you. My point was that there is no such thing as a "Unix" application. You could define it as a posix compliant app but since we are talking GUI apps then this isn't far enough. I see where you are going. Your definition is that if it will run on *all* Unixes then it is a Unix app. Since X11 apps don't run on a stock OSX box, and OSX is a Unix, does that make X11 apps not Unix apps? My definition is that if it runs on *a* Unix then it is a Unix application.
Is there an actual correct definition? Personally, I think we're splitting hairs. I mean were arguing about a name that doesn't really exist. We know what Unix means, but Unix application? That's getting much more vague.
MacOSX is based on a BSD/Mach Kernel. But that doesnt make it Unix. The Unix compatibility is more of a one-way street than anything else.
How does that not make it Unix? OK, it's not binary compatible with Linux. It uses a different Window server than X11, is that a crime?
Cocoa has _NOTHING_ to do with Unix, and neither does carbon.
If you read my parent post, you'd realise that I was quibbling over them saying that, because it's a Mac Carbon application, it's not a Unix application.
wrong. Cocoa was pretty much done LONG before the idea of carbon came around.
Yes, and in between the public beta and the final (this time last year), came the great CoreFoundation/Carbon overhaul. They changed the implementations of a lot of stuff, Menus, strings, etc. Unless you were reading release notes, you would have missed it because they did a good job of it.
with terminal programs, you can simply port most *nix applications and have them run in the terminal without a problem.
The problem only arises if you try to use a GUI, under which case you would have to use quartz...
which has _NOTHING_ to do with x11 or gnome or kde or anything like that.
When did I claim anything otherwise?
BZZZZZZT.
nope. its a Unix application as much as OfficeXP is a VAX/XMS application (NT having some of its roots in VMS, Win32 having its roots in NT)
You lose me here. MacOSX has it's roots in Unix and it is *still* unix. NT is based on VMS but you can't really still call it that. Bad comparison!
Any Native MacOSX application, therefore, isnt written to the BSD layer, but to the cocoa and carbon layer that sits atop it.
Yes and most Linux applications are written to GUI libraries like GTK. Are you suggesting that GUI calls should be in the kernel?
OSX applications arent gonna evolve into Unix applications
No, they aren't going to turn into *Linux* applications. You seem to have the idea that Linux is the one and only Unix and unless it is EXACTLY compatible with Linux it isn't Unix. Sorry dude, X11 isn't synonymous with Unix GUI. It is the most popular window server for Unixes but the lack of X11 doesn't stop it being Unix.
Resisting the urge to make a passing "small brain" shot like you did.
How is Office X not a Unix application? Is it an Application? Yes. Does it run native on MacOSX? Yes. Is MacOSX a Unix OS? Yes. Seems like a Unix Application to me. What are you defining as Unix? CLI, X11, Cocoa?
Carbon Applications are every bit as Unix as Cocoa. Carbon is not some thin wrapper Apple devised to help developers port. In fact some aspects of Cocoa, under the OO level, are implemented using Carbon API calls.
I think this confusion is Apple's fault. They use terminology like a Terminal window "letting you talking directly to the Unix kernel". This is crap, the shell is just another program. They mystify Unix and make it sound harder than it really is.
In short, unless it is running in the classic environment (they all run as one application), it is a Unix Application.
Imagine if someone went to a photographer and had some "personal" photos taken for their spouse. And that the photographer made poster-size prints and put them in the front window with a sign saying, "Please don't look at these."
That is a very different situation. There is a difference between leaving something to be seen in a very public place and computer crime. The closer analogy to someone breaking into a computer is someone sneeking into a tree in someones backyard and looking through the partially open window and spying on them. Then again you'd probably think that it's their fault for leaving the blinds slightly open. An unprotected computer is not the same thing as a something intentionally made public.
I don't blame the enemy. Building a large metal cylinder, no matter how complex or unusual, is not a crime. Building a truck or a building that blows up or does really weird things when they encounter shells from said metal cylinder... that's questionable.
See how stupid it sounds when you give it a real world analogy? This is the same logic that says that if your house is unlocked then it's legal to rob it. If people were made to defend themselves from every threat then there'd be no need for police or defence forces. The sad thing is that some people believe this "Well, they were vulnerable, they were asking for it. They should have been more careful! Not my fault."
Now, I agree that Microsoft needs to focus more strongly on security but people who write malicous code are still criminals, not terrorists but still criminals.
How about gzipped XML? Or a compression scheme specially designed to compress XML? Really, this isn't that big a problem. In fact, a gzipped XML Word file would probably be smaller than the binary file as the text would be compressed as well. Faster processors make this easier than ever.
What is it? Fast memory that retains data even after you've turned the power off.
What's cool? MRAM uses magnetic charges instead of electricity to store bits; when you turn off your machine, your data remains in memory.
This sounds a hell of a lot like magnetic core memory. It's funny that they portray magnetic RAM as something new. Yes, I know the new implementation of this will be very different (sub micron scale etc) but the idea was popular decades ago. Does anyone have a good comparison of the old way and the planned new way?
I've seen a show on this guy, or a guy doing a similar thing. They're using several to at most a few dozen transistors to do this. ICs have hundreds of thousands to millions. I think his reasoning is this: a computer is made of transistors (these days) but a single transistor or a couple of them isn't a computer. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The thing that impressed me the most as I watched the show was that he could build one from a couple of old hand-held radios in about half an hour. It didn't have any kind of case on it and while it was "walking" he dropped his keys on it, shorting it's components. It promptly went into something resembeling a seiziure but when he removed the keys it went right on walking! How many computers are that durable?
These new bugs sound a bit more sophisticated but it seems to be the same general idea.
As for why Apple needs Linux, lets see what Linux has that Apple didn't have before OS X. The whole slew of technologies that *nix utilizes. Preemptive multitasking, protected memory, SMP. All of which are VERY important.
Yes, these are new with Mac OS X but since when did Linux have anything to do with it? Mac OS X is based on the Mach microkernel and BSD. You seem to be making the assumption that Unix==Linux.
A million and one Linux apps which are easily portable to darwin.
Yes, all command line or X windows based. The CLI ones are obviously important and useful to Mac OS X. The X Windows ones are mostly useless. Mac OS X doesn't have an X server. Sure, you can download one but, at > 40MB, how many will? I have one but I'm not average.
By the way, and I know you didn't say this, a lot of people seem to think that Mac OS X is going to help bring more apps to Linux. How? CLI possibly but I think that transfer is going to go in the other direction. GUI apps? Impossible. It'd be no easier than porting them from Windows. The GUI APIs are entirely different. If you want Mac OS X programs (Cocoa ones anyway) on Linux, go help out with GNUStep.
After saying all that, Linux and Mac OS X do have things to learn from each other. You just gave some bad examples. Linux could learn a lot from Aqua and Apple could learn a lot from the power of the open source model.
Maybe Linux isn't supposed to end up as a desktop OS and maybe Mac OS X isn't meant to be a server OS. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should take a lesson from biology: diversity is good. Monopolies run by ANY company or group are bad. I don't want everyone to be using the same OS as me, Linux, Windows or Mac OS X, the potential for virus and worm plagues is too high. Not to mention the stagnation that usually follows. I see the ideal as lots of standards: GUI API standards, networking standards, etc, etc. Then you'd have a very heterogeneous mix that is still largely compatible with each other
Wow! You sure proved me wrong. I just checked it on babelfish. I still stand by my comment that by the time the Chinese net users outnumber English speaking users, the MT software will be usable. But, as you showed, it definitely isn't there yet!
Looking at it, a lot of the mistakes are words not in its dictionary (net -> network), asymmetric synonyms (same problem -> similar question) ie. both phrases are probably the same in chinese but different in english, and general word order problems. I could *almost* understand it though.
How did eat get in there?!
Maybe this stuff won't get really practical until the software understands what you're saying, ie. rudimentary AI.
And how is the Internet supposed to draw people together when the same old language barrier still exists?"
Are you sure it will? Two words: machine translation. It is starting to get good now and by the time most Chinese people have unrestricted access to the net, it should be much better. I'm not saying that the software will translate Shakespeare perfectly but do human translators? My guess is that it'll help cross the barrier better than people who speak a language as their second but aren't professional linguists.
We will have the same problem we've had for millennia but soon we will have a means to solve it. How good was machine translation 10 years ago?
I'm all in favour of run-jumps and the like. I'm talking about games that let you change direction in mid air. Like if, in the air, you see that your jump will take you over the edge of a cliff, you hold down the "left" button and you land short of it. Not very realistic, unless of course you have some sort of thruster pack!
(1) Any government agent could crack your encryption...after all, a quantum computer could crack a fifteen thousand letter password in like two seconds. (of course, not for PGP, since it is based on unsolvable algaebraic formuli)
How is it based on unsolvable algebra? It's based on HARD algebra. The only reason public key encryption is currently secure is that it is much easier to multiply than factor. It may take a few seconds to encypt something but, without the private key, it takes a long time to crack on *current computers*. It *can* be done given enought grunt, see distributed.net. These Quantum computers (or their successors) can theoretically crack an encryptred message in about the same time as if you had the private key. It makes PGP, GPG, SSH, SSL etc (ie. all of them) about as secure as rot-13.
If we don't get a more secure encryption system out before the real quantum big guns come out, e-commerce etc is basically stuffed.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, you're referring to the Superdisk drive. Apple has named a product "Superdrive" before though, the 3.5" floppy drives that could read MS-DOS disks (late 80s).
Stuff like the case covering the edge of the screen and partially covering a scroll bar in the still pictures is what makes me suspicious. It's possible that it's real and the case only is a mock up. I still don't think it's real but obviously I could be wrong.
The poor design (that's a jog wheel?!) makes this an obvious fake.
You've got to be kidding right? Apple had different processors in machines of the same model?! I only ever had a Q700 and recently used it as a NetBSD PPP-sharing server. Worked well. It was a 68040 machine. I had heard that the whole Quadra line were 68040s. I guess I need to brush up on my Apple trivia.
A pound is worth more than a US dollar.
My bad. It seems like, from link I posted, that the LCIIIs and lower were based on the 68030 not the 68LC030. The LC475 (one I had) however *was* a 68LC040 machine. The Quadras were 68040 machines. So LCs definitely weren't rebadged Quadras. They were completely different lines.
Check out EveryMac for a list of macs models by processor.
Simple, they do this they lose MS Office. Linux may have survived without Office but Microsoft's withdrawal would kill MacOSX. Unless we can find a competitor that is *very* compatible with Office, it isn't going to happen.
You stop where apple stopped, with case. "Test" and "test" are the same but "One_two" isn't the same as "One two". Apple isn't the only one to go down this path and at least they made it case preserving. "Test" stays as "Test" and will never be printed as "test".
Congratulations, your preferred OS has the ability to copy and paste! Trying not to sound like a troll but other OS's seem to have no problem with it either and haven't had a problem with it since the mid-80s.
I know these UI problems aren't a fundamental problem with Linux and look forward to its continued improvement.
I have a Mac Plus sitting on the desk next to me that we bought a LONG time ago. Is that "long time" enough for you? I have used MacOSX exclusively since the Public Beta. I dread having to boot into OS9 because of its weak interface. I fully respect your decision not to upgrade (yes *upgrade*). I am however sick of non-converters claiming things like "OSX is good for beginners but us power users need more". If you don't want to use it fine, but do realise that you are being left behind. I'd wager that a lot more people are currently happy with OSX than people who have *tried* it and given it a decent chance but still prefer OS9. It is not the next version of the MacOS, it is the first version of MacOSX. If you keep that in mind and stop trying to turn it into OS9 (like I did after about the first month), you'll have a much better experience with it.
If you've done this (with 10.1, *big* difference) and still aren't happy with it, I'll accept that. I believe that MacOSX cured a lot of the long lived problems with the classic MacOS. Yes, it introduced a few annoyances of its own but with each (free) upgrade that apple puts out their numbers are diminishing quickly. Apple is listening to user feedback. If you have a gripe with OSX, besides "Please kill the Dock", tell them about it.
Is there an actual correct definition? Personally, I think we're splitting hairs. I mean were arguing about a name that doesn't really exist. We know what Unix means, but Unix application? That's getting much more vague.
How does that not make it Unix? OK, it's not binary compatible with Linux. It uses a different Window server than X11, is that a crime?
If you read my parent post, you'd realise that I was quibbling over them saying that, because it's a Mac Carbon application, it's not a Unix application.
Yes, and in between the public beta and the final (this time last year), came the great CoreFoundation/Carbon overhaul. They changed the implementations of a lot of stuff, Menus, strings, etc. Unless you were reading release notes, you would have missed it because they did a good job of it.
When did I claim anything otherwise?
You lose me here. MacOSX has it's roots in Unix and it is *still* unix. NT is based on VMS but you can't really still call it that. Bad comparison!
Yes and most Linux applications are written to GUI libraries like GTK. Are you suggesting that GUI calls should be in the kernel?
No, they aren't going to turn into *Linux* applications. You seem to have the idea that Linux is the one and only Unix and unless it is EXACTLY compatible with Linux it isn't Unix. Sorry dude, X11 isn't synonymous with Unix GUI. It is the most popular window server for Unixes but the lack of X11 doesn't stop it being Unix.
Resisting the urge to make a passing "small brain" shot like you did.
Not really. They both use the Mach 3 microkernel but that's pretty much where the similarity ends.
Carbon Applications are every bit as Unix as Cocoa. Carbon is not some thin wrapper Apple devised to help developers port. In fact some aspects of Cocoa, under the OO level, are implemented using Carbon API calls.
I think this confusion is Apple's fault. They use terminology like a Terminal window "letting you talking directly to the Unix kernel". This is crap, the shell is just another program. They mystify Unix and make it sound harder than it really is.
In short, unless it is running in the classic environment (they all run as one application), it is a Unix Application.
That is a very different situation. There is a difference between leaving something to be seen in a very public place and computer crime. The closer analogy to someone breaking into a computer is someone sneeking into a tree in someones backyard and looking through the partially open window and spying on them. Then again you'd probably think that it's their fault for leaving the blinds slightly open. An unprotected computer is not the same thing as a something intentionally made public.
See how stupid it sounds when you give it a real world analogy? This is the same logic that says that if your house is unlocked then it's legal to rob it. If people were made to defend themselves from every threat then there'd be no need for police or defence forces. The sad thing is that some people believe this "Well, they were vulnerable, they were asking for it. They should have been more careful! Not my fault."
Now, I agree that Microsoft needs to focus more strongly on security but people who write malicous code are still criminals, not terrorists but still criminals.
How about gzipped XML? Or a compression scheme specially designed to compress XML? Really, this isn't that big a problem. In fact, a gzipped XML Word file would probably be smaller than the binary file as the text would be compressed as well. Faster processors make this easier than ever.
This sounds a hell of a lot like magnetic core memory. It's funny that they portray magnetic RAM as something new. Yes, I know the new implementation of this will be very different (sub micron scale etc) but the idea was popular decades ago. Does anyone have a good comparison of the old way and the planned new way?
The thing that impressed me the most as I watched the show was that he could build one from a couple of old hand-held radios in about half an hour. It didn't have any kind of case on it and while it was "walking" he dropped his keys on it, shorting it's components. It promptly went into something resembeling a seiziure but when he removed the keys it went right on walking! How many computers are that durable?
These new bugs sound a bit more sophisticated but it seems to be the same general idea.
Yes, these are new with Mac OS X but since when did Linux have anything to do with it? Mac OS X is based on the Mach microkernel and BSD. You seem to be making the assumption that Unix==Linux.
Yes, all command line or X windows based. The CLI ones are obviously important and useful to Mac OS X. The X Windows ones are mostly useless. Mac OS X doesn't have an X server. Sure, you can download one but, at > 40MB, how many will? I have one but I'm not average.
By the way, and I know you didn't say this, a lot of people seem to think that Mac OS X is going to help bring more apps to Linux. How? CLI possibly but I think that transfer is going to go in the other direction. GUI apps? Impossible. It'd be no easier than porting them from Windows. The GUI APIs are entirely different. If you want Mac OS X programs (Cocoa ones anyway) on Linux, go help out with GNUStep.
After saying all that, Linux and Mac OS X do have things to learn from each other. You just gave some bad examples. Linux could learn a lot from Aqua and Apple could learn a lot from the power of the open source model.
Maybe Linux isn't supposed to end up as a desktop OS and maybe Mac OS X isn't meant to be a server OS. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should take a lesson from biology: diversity is good. Monopolies run by ANY company or group are bad. I don't want everyone to be using the same OS as me, Linux, Windows or Mac OS X, the potential for virus and worm plagues is too high. Not to mention the stagnation that usually follows. I see the ideal as lots of standards: GUI API standards, networking standards, etc, etc. Then you'd have a very heterogeneous mix that is still largely compatible with each other
Looking at it, a lot of the mistakes are words not in its dictionary (net -> network), asymmetric synonyms (same problem -> similar question) ie. both phrases are probably the same in chinese but different in english, and general word order problems. I could *almost* understand it though.
How did eat get in there?!
Maybe this stuff won't get really practical until the software understands what you're saying, ie. rudimentary AI.
Are you sure it will? Two words: machine translation. It is starting to get good now and by the time most Chinese people have unrestricted access to the net, it should be much better. I'm not saying that the software will translate Shakespeare perfectly but do human translators? My guess is that it'll help cross the barrier better than people who speak a language as their second but aren't professional linguists.
We will have the same problem we've had for millennia but soon we will have a means to solve it. How good was machine translation 10 years ago?
I'm all in favour of run-jumps and the like. I'm talking about games that let you change direction in mid air. Like if, in the air, you see that your jump will take you over the edge of a cliff, you hold down the "left" button and you land short of it. Not very realistic, unless of course you have some sort of thruster pack!
If we don't get a more secure encryption system out before the real quantum big guns come out, e-commerce etc is basically stuffed.