The only reason they like to harp on this is that someone at Apple figured out that a single calculation (on the original G4s @ 400Mhz) took less time than it did for the light from your monitor to travel the 12" to your face.
Someone refresh my memory - I seem to recall (not being a hardcore cpu guy myself, but just an enthusiast) that 64 bit calculations were useless to the vast majority of computing tasks. That is, 32-bit precision was all anyone needs, for most things.
Could someone with a clue maybe give us some examples of why a 64 bit PowerPC is a Good Thing?
I'm a little surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet (so I could find, anyways...)
Could Apple use the IBM/Sony/Toshiba Cell chip?
I know it might be meaningless speculation given the paltry amount of info (and signal-to-noise ration of marketing), but, c'mon.. just ponder a moment.
Apple has a sizeable investment in Toshiba, one would think primarily for LCDs. Sony and Apple don't seem to have any trouble playing together (FireWire). IBM probably wants Apple's chip business back - and they will be using the Cell in servers.
It's supposed to be engineered with multimedia in mind. Apple even seems to embrace the massively parallel approach to solving hard media-oriented computing tasks as Sony (Altivec vs. VMUs.)
Since $1600 worth of mac hardware will be outperformed on any given application by $800 worth of x86 hardware, You are paying $800 for the privlage of using OS X.
Even if that were actually true, what is it that makes you relate processor performance to application performance, or any of the other hardware in the system? Not to mention, your performance?
Frankly, maybe I would pay double for a system that doesn't jerk me off, so to speak.
As long as you keep slobbering after each new shiny mac, reguardless of how outdated the hardware is, Jobs will continue to sell you crap and charge you extra for the "privlage".
See above point. Check your definition of 'outdated'.
For the good of apple, there needs to be a groundswell of dissent among the apple loyalists. When apple's fanatic user base stops shining Jobs' knob, he will decide to put some hardware reaserch and developement dollars into something besides a circuit to give the white LED power indicator 300 levels of fade.
CmdrZarx: Have the communications gone out, 3rd-blue-grade solider Narx?
Narx: Yes, excellency. Soon the humans will quake in fear when they learn of our... I'm sorry, excellency.. I'm receiving some rather disturbing news over the sub-ether...
CmdrZarx: What is it, Narx?
Narx: Uh... the humans have made their own circles, and are running a sweepstakes.. they seem very popular... wait.. something about a 'Led Zeppelin'...
CmdrZarx: No no no.. a zeppelin? Don't they know those circles are our parking instructions!?! Forget it, invade immediately.
Re:Maya still has greater appeal on non-macs
on
Maya for Mac OS X
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What are you talking about. The GeForce4 card is capable of utterly flattening what you'll find in most modern SGI desktops. The only thing that comes close to 1 billion texels/sec is an Octane2, and they're probably on-par. (I'd take the SGI for better colour fidelity, but still.)
As for Linux taking over - that is for rendering. 'Rendering' is a giant, noisy wall somewhere in the back where the artists fear to tread. The creative tools necessary for high-end 3D are not, no how, available for Linux. What modeler are you using? GIMP for textures, really? I don't know any graphic artist who would consider it for a nanosecond.
Isn't it about time the automobile was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does BMW maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The 320i has become the Edsel of automotive transportation, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if BMW never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Ford/GM automobiles?
I'm not writing this column as a car basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the BMW buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the automobile as an old hound that can't hunt.
...
I won't continue; you get the point. As someone else pointed out, it's staggering to note the incessant yammering of half-baked columnists who insist that someone needs to completely re-invent the graphical user interface. What do you think they want?
Seriously? What do they want? Is it not possible that the steering wheel has been used in cars for decades because... it works really well for aiming a car where you want it to go? Is it possible that a mouse is simply the most effective tool for pointing on a 2D screen? (er, trackballs etc. notwithstanding...) Is it possible that this just works, and works well?
Seems to me, we need a new interface when we arrive at a completely new output mechanism for computers. That is, a mouse works great for your flat, 2-dimensional, no-parallax screen. If you had a (oh, I don't know) 3D screen, you'd need a new device, and ergo, a new interface, right?
I can't give any credence to these writers. They are emoting loudly from their anuses.
Just a little insight into what a film crew's mindset is regarding citizens on-location.
Up here in Toronto, I run into it all the time.
The door to my apartment is in a back alley that runs parallel to Queen St.; this is what US film crews use as a New York Double. I'm constantly tripping over them on my way in and out during the summer. They don't like *any* people walking around anywhere near the set, for good reason or no. At first I thought they were being dicks - after all, I live here. I had a friendly DOP explain it to me differently:
They stopped shooting in Chinatown after the residents there glommed onto the idea of banging pots and pans, and generally yelling their heads off, when a film crew was nearby. That way they would all need to be paid off, you see.
Considering the high-profile nature of The Matrix, and the inherit danger in the shoot, it's the only way to go. I'm assuming CG isn't an option, just considering the complexity of the shot, and the fact that the W. Bros. have access to everything just short of ILM, and didn't go that way. The economic benefits to Sydney outweigh the annoyance by far.
(Incidentally, I'm surprised at how many people caught the 'December 2000' typo, but haven't mentioned that the headline is wrong: this is a shot for Matrix Revolutions, not Reloaded... we won't see this fabled sequence until late 2003...)
A little foreshadowing...
on
Review: U-571
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm not really sure why this review popped up now, either; it's like the author saw it on TV last night and just got really worked up about it.
On another note, here's a little nugget to take away with you: the clown who directed U-571 (Jonathan Mastow) is directing Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.
You may not have liked Titanic, but I'll take Cameron any day of the week over this hack.
Upon inserting a copy-protected CD, the following dialog box appears:
"Warning: the media you have inserted is masquerading as a bona fide Compact Disc. We here at Apple are determined to kick the record companies in the nuts, because our company is run by freedom-loving hippies. Click Eject to remove the media, click Burn to fry the disc with the internal laser, or click Sosumi to link directly to a class-action lawsuit."
Somebody mod the above post up, it contains valuable info about how to deal with the stuck disc. There is a manual eject on the new iMacs, as with all Macs.
I hear this vast sucking sound; it's coming from a massive lack of information about the one thing most of us are craving on OS X: speed. If others could chime in on this thread maybe we can figure some things out.
From what I've gleaned so far we know the following:
- QE is said to need a "nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance."
- The wording on the above statement may or may not be read as "requires", depending on whom you ask.
- The tech involved in such a feat described (single pipeline of composited video) is really advanced and interesting, and raises questions; i.e. what does it mean for OS X when the entire drawing system is offloaded to custom chips? (or on a completely side note: what does it mean when you have standardized hardware-accel. video for your OS, and the Finder is now utterly replaceable? Things like this?)
- The tech involved in QE may have come from Raycer, a company Apple acquired in early 2000. Raycer developed high-performance 3D visualization solutions using OpenGL. Apple consequently has a patent (lost the #, sorry) on vague things like 'large-scale grid transformations' (paraphrasing).
- A lot of us iBook owners, and other Rage128-based Mac owners, would like to know if QE will work partially, or at all, on this hardware.
So who can comment intelligently on what's happening here?
The common conception of Microsoft in the public (well, up here in Toronto, anyways) seems to be mirroring that of any other giant greedy corporation (like Rogers, or Bell)... the difference is that the attitude doesn't stabilize. Bell has been around a long time, we're all used to hating and tolerating them. Microsoft is new; the public hasn't had enough time to get used to the idea of another monopoly.
MS's moves in phones, consoles, and this whole subscription-software thing have earned them some seriously bad ink. All of my friends hate them, geeks or no. It's almost as if things have gotten bad enough on the desktop that users are inclined for the first time to stick their heads up and look around for alternatives.
Ugh. This got long. Anyways, good point. I think Microsoft is like the Cricketeers(?) from HHTG. The best way to deal with them is to lock them in a room alone. Their own destructive tendencies will turn inwards, eventually.
Given the usual reaction I get when I name my URL for people - a.cx domain, Christmas Island - the.pro would actually be a hassle. You have to carefully repeat yourself whenever the suffix of your domain isn't.com.
Now, considering I paid like $50 for 5 years, I don't feel so bad. The dot-tv guys are suckers.
Incidentally, the Saudi TLD is.eh - I can't believe someone hasn't tapped the Canadian market yet! (yeah, I'm one of em, eh)
I've always noticed that for some reason, the font on the iBook keyboard is different from every other mac. It uses Myriad (caps), with the letter prominently figured in the middle of the key, rather than the lower-left italicized font they've used since the dawn of time.
I don't know... while I agree with what you are saying, I think there is real value in having an 'event' with the robots that has a real-world analogue. It gets kids, and like-minded adults involved; it has excitement; big sponsors to add glamour.
Sure, it's all fluff, but they've done a pretty good job of keeping things 'in the name of science', for the most part (like the balance competition). I don't see how it hurts anything. Sure, it's more impressive and useful to send a robot down a mineshaft (or whatever), but it's just not that exciting. Get the kids hooked on robots now - they'll prove themselves once the gee-whiz factor gets old.
After reading that article, my first thought, as, say, the prosecuting attorney, would be:
Gates: It'll break Windows if we remove IE.
Me: Innovate, Mntherfncker! INNOVATE!
Why does no one mention in the case that Windows is this way because they made it this way. They can unmake it. Of course they can... everyone here knows this. Seems like they're hiding under a technical excuse; they really, really don't want to take IE out. The 'heart' of the system? Puh-leeze. What about the kernal?
I also still think it's odd that IE for Mac doesn't get mentioned, too. There's your completely independent 'application' in action. Remove it by dragging the big shiny icon to the trash.
Speaking of which... to prove IE is the real culprit here, try this:
open IE
surf to Slashdot
while it's churning, click and hold on the menubar
Bingo! everything stops. That, my friends, is something you should never see in OS X. IE is totally single-threaded. It's like sending your G3/4 back in time.
I remember asking a techie (before I was one, a long time ago) why they didn't just make black computers. Seemed like the logical thing to do; remember when televisions were furniture? Like wooden cabinets and such? Sony's minimalist black design pretty much set the trend for years to come.
Anyways, his answer: "When you put a black computer on a desk in an office near a window, the thing will melt."
Slashdot Mirror
Witness http://www.ibook.com
Hence, faster-than-light computing.
A what now? Not sure about that. Don't see anything sticking out that says DCOM.
Mine's purple.
Could someone with a clue maybe give us some examples of why a 64 bit PowerPC is a Good Thing?
Could Apple use the IBM/Sony/Toshiba Cell chip?
I know it might be meaningless speculation given the paltry amount of info (and signal-to-noise ration of marketing), but, c'mon.. just ponder a moment.
Apple has a sizeable investment in Toshiba, one would think primarily for LCDs. Sony and Apple don't seem to have any trouble playing together (FireWire). IBM probably wants Apple's chip business back - and they will be using the Cell in servers.
It's supposed to be engineered with multimedia in mind. Apple even seems to embrace the massively parallel approach to solving hard media-oriented computing tasks as Sony (Altivec vs. VMUs.)
?
Even if that were actually true, what is it that makes you relate processor performance to application performance, or any of the other hardware in the system? Not to mention, your performance?
Frankly, maybe I would pay double for a system that doesn't jerk me off, so to speak.
As long as you keep slobbering after each new shiny mac, reguardless of how outdated the hardware is, Jobs will continue to sell you crap and charge you extra for the "privlage".
See above point. Check your definition of 'outdated'.
For the good of apple, there needs to be a groundswell of dissent among the apple loyalists. When apple's fanatic user base stops shining Jobs' knob, he will decide to put some hardware reaserch and developement dollars into something besides a circuit to give the white LED power indicator 300 levels of fade.
Do you really think it took... never mind.
Somewhere in orbit...
CmdrZarx: Have the communications gone out, 3rd-blue-grade solider Narx?
Narx: Yes, excellency. Soon the humans will quake in fear when they learn of our... I'm sorry, excellency.. I'm receiving some rather disturbing news over the sub-ether...
CmdrZarx: What is it, Narx?
Narx: Uh... the humans have made their own circles, and are running a sweepstakes.. they seem very popular... wait.. something about a 'Led Zeppelin'...
CmdrZarx: No no no.. a zeppelin? Don't they know those circles are our parking instructions!?! Forget it, invade immediately.
it's a Xbox, isn't it! I just know it.
As for Linux taking over - that is for rendering. 'Rendering' is a giant, noisy wall somewhere in the back where the artists fear to tread. The creative tools necessary for high-end 3D are not, no how, available for Linux. What modeler are you using? GIMP for textures, really? I don't know any graphic artist who would consider it for a nanosecond.
RenderMan, yes.
Isn't it about time the automobile was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does BMW maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The 320i has become the Edsel of automotive transportation, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if BMW never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Ford/GM automobiles?
I'm not writing this column as a car basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the BMW buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the automobile as an old hound that can't hunt.
I won't continue; you get the point. As someone else pointed out, it's staggering to note the incessant yammering of half-baked columnists who insist that someone needs to completely re-invent the graphical user interface. What do you think they want?
Seriously? What do they want? Is it not possible that the steering wheel has been used in cars for decades because... it works really well for aiming a car where you want it to go? Is it possible that a mouse is simply the most effective tool for pointing on a 2D screen? (er, trackballs etc. notwithstanding...) Is it possible that this just works, and works well?
Seems to me, we need a new interface when we arrive at a completely new output mechanism for computers. That is, a mouse works great for your flat, 2-dimensional, no-parallax screen. If you had a (oh, I don't know) 3D screen, you'd need a new device, and ergo, a new interface, right?
I can't give any credence to these writers. They are emoting loudly from their anuses.
On a side note, Dvorak is an artful troll.
You're right about the fact that robots *should* have a proven track record. Not everyone is so logical.
The door to my apartment is in a back alley that runs parallel to Queen St.; this is what US film crews use as a New York Double. I'm constantly tripping over them on my way in and out during the summer. They don't like *any* people walking around anywhere near the set, for good reason or no. At first I thought they were being dicks - after all, I live here. I had a friendly DOP explain it to me differently:
They stopped shooting in Chinatown after the residents there glommed onto the idea of banging pots and pans, and generally yelling their heads off, when a film crew was nearby. That way they would all need to be paid off, you see.
Considering the high-profile nature of The Matrix, and the inherit danger in the shoot, it's the only way to go. I'm assuming CG isn't an option, just considering the complexity of the shot, and the fact that the W. Bros. have access to everything just short of ILM, and didn't go that way. The economic benefits to Sydney outweigh the annoyance by far.
(Incidentally, I'm surprised at how many people caught the 'December 2000' typo, but haven't mentioned that the headline is wrong: this is a shot for Matrix Revolutions, not Reloaded... we won't see this fabled sequence until late 2003...)
On another note, here's a little nugget to take away with you: the clown who directed U-571 (Jonathan Mastow) is directing Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.
You may not have liked Titanic, but I'll take Cameron any day of the week over this hack.
Upon inserting a copy-protected CD, the following dialog box appears:
"Warning: the media you have inserted is masquerading as a bona fide Compact Disc. We here at Apple are determined to kick the record companies in the nuts, because our company is run by freedom-loving hippies. Click Eject to remove the media, click Burn to fry the disc with the internal laser, or click Sosumi to link directly to a class-action lawsuit."
Somebody mod the above post up, it contains valuable info about how to deal with the stuck disc. There is a manual eject on the new iMacs, as with all Macs.
From what I've gleaned so far we know the following:
- QE is said to need a "nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance."
- The wording on the above statement may or may not be read as "requires", depending on whom you ask.
- The tech involved in such a feat described (single pipeline of composited video) is really advanced and interesting, and raises questions; i.e. what does it mean for OS X when the entire drawing system is offloaded to custom chips? (or on a completely side note: what does it mean when you have standardized hardware-accel. video for your OS, and the Finder is now utterly replaceable? Things like this?)
- The tech involved in QE may have come from Raycer, a company Apple acquired in early 2000. Raycer developed high-performance 3D visualization solutions using OpenGL. Apple consequently has a patent (lost the #, sorry) on vague things like 'large-scale grid transformations' (paraphrasing).
- A lot of us iBook owners, and other Rage128-based Mac owners, would like to know if QE will work partially, or at all, on this hardware.
So who can comment intelligently on what's happening here?
The common conception of Microsoft in the public (well, up here in Toronto, anyways) seems to be mirroring that of any other giant greedy corporation (like Rogers, or Bell)... the difference is that the attitude doesn't stabilize. Bell has been around a long time, we're all used to hating and tolerating them. Microsoft is new; the public hasn't had enough time to get used to the idea of another monopoly.
MS's moves in phones, consoles, and this whole subscription-software thing have earned them some seriously bad ink. All of my friends hate them, geeks or no. It's almost as if things have gotten bad enough on the desktop that users are inclined for the first time to stick their heads up and look around for alternatives.
Ugh. This got long. Anyways, good point. I think Microsoft is like the Cricketeers(?) from HHTG. The best way to deal with them is to lock them in a room alone. Their own destructive tendencies will turn inwards, eventually.
Now, considering I paid like $50 for 5 years, I don't feel so bad. The dot-tv guys are suckers.
Incidentally, the Saudi TLD is .eh - I can't believe someone hasn't tapped the Canadian market yet! (yeah, I'm one of em, eh)
Maybe it's an educational thing. Who knows.
Sure, it's all fluff, but they've done a pretty good job of keeping things 'in the name of science', for the most part (like the balance competition). I don't see how it hurts anything. Sure, it's more impressive and useful to send a robot down a mineshaft (or whatever), but it's just not that exciting. Get the kids hooked on robots now - they'll prove themselves once the gee-whiz factor gets old.
In related news today, the Brazilian contender for this year's Robot Soccer Cup was disqualified after testing positive for overclocking.
Gates: It'll break Windows if we remove IE.
Me: Innovate, Mntherfncker! INNOVATE!
Why does no one mention in the case that Windows is this way because they made it this way. They can unmake it. Of course they can... everyone here knows this. Seems like they're hiding under a technical excuse; they really, really don't want to take IE out. The 'heart' of the system? Puh-leeze. What about the kernal?
I also still think it's odd that IE for Mac doesn't get mentioned, too. There's your completely independent 'application' in action. Remove it by dragging the big shiny icon to the trash.
[whirrrr. thupa thupa thupa thupa thupa GRRRRRRR]
open IE
surf to Slashdot
while it's churning, click and hold on the menubar
Bingo! everything stops. That, my friends, is something you should never see in OS X. IE is totally single-threaded. It's like sending your G3/4 back in time.
Yeah, OmniWeb/Chimera all the way.
Anyways, his answer:
"When you put a black computer on a desk in an office near a window, the thing will melt."
Kind of an issue...