I belive the border agents ran somethign like 327 million people at land borders in 2004 alone. This brings the total down to around $1.20 -$1.50 a person screened. I would say that is a very efficent process for a government agency.
You have to ask though, if that money wouldn't be better spent on agents and informers to infiltrate Al Queda.
Mossad is fantastically cost-effective. Maybe we should just subcontract to them.
I don't think for one minute a regular Mac user is going to even take advantage of the Boot Camp software.
Guess again.
A whole lot of Mac users have one or two apps that they have to use for work, that aren't available for the Mac. Also, anyone designing a web site pretty much has to test it with Internet Exploder. Boot Camp is the alternative to wasting desk space for a Dell.
its MAIN flaw is that it gives developers a good excuse not to do a native Linux port.
Who needs an excuse? Game developers do the math, and if there aren't enough sales to make it worth their time to do a particular port, they don't have to.
The big secret is that OS X's stability is based largely on the fact that Apple makes all the decisions on hardware configurations and certification for themselves.
When I was running NeXTSTEP on generic x86 machines, it was rock-solid. Installation was the hurdle, but once you were up, you were up.
The existence of an alternative OS would make the big box vendors very happy. It would give them someone to play off of MSFT; "Cut your price by five bucks a copy or I'll sell more OS X boxes". Of course they'd be doing the same thing to Apple.
Actually, Apple and MS would probably both tell them to take a hike. Apple sells its own hardware, and MS has plenty of other vendors willing to ship their crap.
The reaction would most definitely be various "upgrades" from Windows Update that would mysteriously cause the Cocoa layer to break in unpleasant ways.
Indeed. In fact, they wouldn't even need to do it actively. If they simply refrained from testing with Cocoa apps, they'd even have plausible deniability.
I'm sure that Apple will do everything within their power to keep Microsoft Office on Mac OS X.
Yes they do, but that's no reason to remain helpless. MS could yank MS Office on the Mac, and Apple had better be developing an alternative as we speak.
I was yelling as loud as anyone else when Apple reneged on the promise they'd made at WWDC three years in a row that a Cocoa runtime would be available for windows, at no charge. I still think it's something Apple probably should have done, since MS's hammer-lock on the industry isn't because of their crap knock-off the the Mac's UI, it's the number of developers who are locked into their APIs. If Yellow box had been kept alive,.NOT wouldn't have been able to take over the windows developers quite so easily.
Nevertheless, the yellow box depended on Display Postscript, which Apple and Adobe couldn't come to terms on licensing (Probably because anyone could have written far better PDF-manipulating app that Acrobat in about a week using Cocoa.)
When Apple abandoned DPS for Quartz 2D, the amount of work necessary to implement Cocoa on windows got a lot bigger. Windows simply doesn't have a lot of the underlying facilties on which Cocoa depends today. Their POSIX layer is a joke. Their graphics are only begining to catch up to Jaguar. Their reliability? Well, don't get me started.
But, all that being said, the main reason why Apple's not going to revive Cocoa on Windows is that there just isn't enough money to be made selling developer tools on Windows. Compare Apple's revenues to RealBasic, Delphi, and CodeWarrior combined. It's not worth it just so that Apple can make life better for developers on the other platform.
The release of the Bootcamp Beta opens the door for Apple becoming a Windows OEM and shipping dualboot systems with Windows and OS X.
Apple's not going to go down the Windows rathole. They're very clear, right on the Boot Camp web page that they don't sell or support windows.
Remember, Steve was selling OpenStep for Windows back in '97, and it was not a pleasant thing to be dependent on MS's good will to stay in business. I'm sure that's why iWork was started, and I'm just as sure that the iWork crew are hard at work on replacing every part of MS Office with an app that stands head and shoulders above its counterpart, just as Keynote does.
They couldn't do it today, but once iWork is finished they can handle MS cutting off development of Office for OS X.
Unlike Be, Apple's not a competitor that Microsoft can simply destroy by threatening anyone who might include OS X on their PCs. They sell their own hardware, and also unlike Be, they could offer enough of a benefit to the Dells and Sonys of the world to be worth standing up to MS over.
Steve put a lot of things in play that had been considered over and done with for many years. I wouldn't rule out a play for OS dominance within ten years, especially if all he needs to do is top Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Also worth noting, Che is still a hero to many in south America
Yes, education is in a sorry state in much of the world. What's your point?
-jcr
Think twice about that suggestion the next time you accidentally (or on purpose) stick some duct tape to any part of your exposed flesh.
No problem. We shed skin constantly. Whatever gets stuck on you, wait a day or so and it will come off.
-jcr
I belive the border agents ran somethign like 327 million people at land borders in 2004 alone. This brings the total down to around $1.20 -$1.50 a person screened. I would say that is a very efficent process for a government agency.
You have to ask though, if that money wouldn't be better spent on agents and informers to infiltrate Al Queda.
Mossad is fantastically cost-effective. Maybe we should just subcontract to them.
-jcr
Especially if you like Windows apps that follow Mac UI conventions.
Exactly. It's one bit of blessed relief in the vast wasteland of Windows apps.
-jcr
Maybe you should tune into 60 minutes more often.
Ah, yes.. 60 minutes, that paragon of objectivity.
-jcr
I disallow use of my software by anyone in a posession of a Che Guevarra T-shirt, for example
I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but what if they just wear it ironically?
-jcr
No, that's the term I've been using ever since MS bought it from Spyglass and started screwing it up.
-jcr
I don't think for one minute a regular Mac user is going to even take advantage of the Boot Camp software.
Guess again.
A whole lot of Mac users have one or two apps that they have to use for work, that aren't available for the Mac. Also, anyone designing a web site pretty much has to test it with Internet Exploder. Boot Camp is the alternative to wasting desk space for a Dell.
-jcr
Best app on Windows, bar none.
-jcr
So no. The developers don't decide
When I said "game developers", I was referring to the companies, not the individual engineers.
-jcr
They also happen to have an excellent piece of software that I do want. But they won't sell it to me.
Sure they will, they just won't do it under your terms. That doesn't entitle you to steal it, sunshine.
-jcr
its MAIN flaw is that it gives developers a good excuse not to do a native Linux port.
Who needs an excuse? Game developers do the math, and if there aren't enough sales to make it worth their time to do a particular port, they don't have to.
-jcr
Only corporations and people without a teenage relative pay for Windows.
As well as everyone who buys a Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony, or Lenovo PC.
-jcr
The big secret is that OS X's stability is based largely on the fact that Apple makes all the decisions on hardware configurations and certification for themselves.
When I was running NeXTSTEP on generic x86 machines, it was rock-solid. Installation was the hurdle, but once you were up, you were up.
-jcr
They're claiming that by virtue of their throwing their weight behind a technology, they can be the catalyst to make standards actually be useful.
Yeah, like the way that they drove adoption of USB, 802.11, Firewire, ZeroConf, and EFI!
Oh, wait...
-jcr
No, in my case JCR stands for John Charles Randolph.
-jcr
Man, I haven't heard anything about clockless processors in two decades or more. Fantastic!
-jcr
The existence of an alternative OS would make the big box vendors very happy. It would give them someone to play off of MSFT; "Cut your price by five bucks a copy or I'll sell more OS X boxes". Of course they'd be doing the same thing to Apple.
Actually, Apple and MS would probably both tell them to take a hike. Apple sells its own hardware, and MS has plenty of other vendors willing to ship their crap.
-jcr
The reaction would most definitely be various "upgrades" from Windows Update that would mysteriously cause the Cocoa layer to break in unpleasant ways.
Indeed. In fact, they wouldn't even need to do it actively. If they simply refrained from testing with Cocoa apps, they'd even have plausible deniability.
-jcr
I'm sure that Apple will do everything within their power to keep Microsoft Office on Mac OS X.
Yes they do, but that's no reason to remain helpless. MS could yank MS Office on the Mac, and Apple had better be developing an alternative as we speak.
-jcr
Microsoft makes lots and lots of money with DevTools.
Sorry, I should have been more specific: there isn't enough money to be made selling third-party developer tools on windows.
-jcr
As I said over on Macslash:
.NOT wouldn't have been able to take over the windows developers quite so easily.
I was yelling as loud as anyone else when Apple reneged on the promise they'd made at WWDC three years in a row that a Cocoa runtime would be available for windows, at no charge. I still think it's something Apple probably should have done, since MS's hammer-lock on the industry isn't because of their crap knock-off the the Mac's UI, it's the number of developers who are locked into their APIs. If Yellow box had been kept alive,
Nevertheless, the yellow box depended on Display Postscript, which Apple and Adobe couldn't come to terms on licensing (Probably because anyone could have written far better PDF-manipulating app that Acrobat in about a week using Cocoa.)
When Apple abandoned DPS for Quartz 2D, the amount of work necessary to implement Cocoa on windows got a lot bigger. Windows simply doesn't have a lot of the underlying facilties on which Cocoa depends today. Their POSIX layer is a joke. Their graphics are only begining to catch up to Jaguar. Their reliability? Well, don't get me started.
But, all that being said, the main reason why Apple's not going to revive Cocoa on Windows is that there just isn't enough money to be made selling developer tools on Windows. Compare Apple's revenues to RealBasic, Delphi, and CodeWarrior combined. It's not worth it just so that Apple can make life better for developers on the other platform.
-jcr
The release of the Bootcamp Beta opens the door for Apple becoming a Windows OEM and shipping dualboot systems with Windows and OS X.
Apple's not going to go down the Windows rathole. They're very clear, right on the Boot Camp web page that they don't sell or support windows.
Remember, Steve was selling OpenStep for Windows back in '97, and it was not a pleasant thing to be dependent on MS's good will to stay in business. I'm sure that's why iWork was started, and I'm just as sure that the iWork crew are hard at work on replacing every part of MS Office with an app that stands head and shoulders above its counterpart, just as Keynote does.
-jcr
They couldn't do it today, but once iWork is finished they can handle MS cutting off development of Office for OS X.
Unlike Be, Apple's not a competitor that Microsoft can simply destroy by threatening anyone who might include OS X on their PCs. They sell their own hardware, and also unlike Be, they could offer enough of a benefit to the Dells and Sonys of the world to be worth standing up to MS over.
Steve put a lot of things in play that had been considered over and done with for many years. I wouldn't rule out a play for OS dominance within ten years, especially if all he needs to do is top Vista.
-jcr
nobody understands or cares about "Plays for sure".
I beg to differ. I think most people understand that "plays for sure" means "doesn't work with your iPod."
-jcr