There is not much information out about the G5. The roadmap say it has a new bus topology and a new pipeline. Also an "extensible architecture" is mentioned (whatever that is.)
It's not the first time MS is having problem with the French governement. In answer to some query of the French governement about some Y2K issue, MS told them they should upgrade their software (that they just bought one year ago); the Frencg gov was not so pleased about being taxed an upgrade just so their brand new windows boxes could work past Dec 99. They started some ivestigations earlier this year.
On another note, the professor has a very good, if you have a windows box and you buy a new one, you pay for Windows twice. France has some good consumers protections organizations, tho I don't know how effective they are.
Either they can break it, or they have a way around like (like snooping the keys a way or another, or getting the keystroke directly, etc.) We often tend to forget encryption is just one step of the security process, it's perfectly possible to have a completely good encryption system and yet not achieve security because of a weak link in the process.
However I think easing the restriction will be nice for doing business online. I confess I'm less worried about the NSA or some other governemantal agency (from the US or another country) spying on communications than of some random criminal spying on comunications and using the data for some theft or malicious purpose. I think better encryption will serve us against the later.
They sound pretty optimistic. They have yet to do a 32'000 'neurons' based unit and they already think they can do a one billion unit within a year of the 32'000 one?
IBM's Mr. Akazawa created a buzz with the announcement that a 700-MHz G3 chip based on SOI technology would be released this year. Meanwhile, Interware's Mr. Nakajima showed a road map of his company's product line and said the company plans to release 1-GHz G4 upgrades by the end of 2000 and will offer a G4 upgrade card for the iMac.
Quoted from http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/09/12/tokyo.html
I don't know for the others, but I think MS and Adobe have some kind of deal. (Who knows, maybe MS will buy Adobe once Adobe is done eating the graphic/desktop publishing market:)
Apple and I am sure some other big names are behind BSD too. I think Apple chose BSD over Linux for MacOS X because: a) NexT was already using some flavor of BSD b) the BSD license let them make proprietary extensions without having to release the source.
So with Darwin (the kernel used by MacOS X client & server) you have the BSD & Mach based kernel/core, and at the top of that Apple will put their proprietary technology (Mac GUI, Quicktime, etc etc.)
I'm not sure if they could do that with a Linux or another GPLed OS.
I'm not sure how they can sue someone for having a link to some resource on the web. Wouldn't it be like suing people for having bibliographies in their book/articles?
I can understand the issues with embedding someone else content in your own frames, or using someone else artwork (gif, mov, etc.)
But just suing for just giving a pointer to it, that doesn't seem realistic. I wonder how what's their rationale.
Except that to get on the box you have to reach it physically. If someone physically get access to your unix box, they can do quite a few things too (there was a./ thread about that a couple of weeks ago)
As far as buffer overrun goes... well since the MacOS doesn't have a shell nor a CLI, I don't know if that would do you any good.
AFAIK if they are using Webstar they must be running MacOS 8.x, not MacOS X server as some previous comments suggested.
In the June 1999 issue of MacTech Magazine there was an interview with Chuck Shotton. He is the guy who created, in 93, the first Mac http server MacHTTP, which later became Webstar. In the interview he explains how they made Webstar into a high-performance web server. To summarize: a) use of caching to avoid hitting on the dog slow MacOS filesystem b) optimizations to have the right balance between I/O time and calculation/processing time c) taking advantage of the MacOS thread manager and the fact the MacOS 8.x is NOT a premptive multitasked OS.
c) will sounds odd to most; what they do is that since the app has control over the premption (rather than the OS) they use that advantage to minimize the number of context switches, etc. i.e. they have their own highly tuned and specific scheduler rather than relying on the generic scheduler of the OS.
This is pretty cool on a dedicated MacOS box that do just web server. As for MacOS crashing, my router is running MacOS 8.6, it has been up & running nicely since I last booted it, one month ago; it has never crashed so far.
Note: I'm not saying MacOS is the best, fatest and most stable OS out there; just that for some applications a Mac can be stable and fast plenty.
As far as security go, since you can't remotely login on a Mac and since there is no shell, you don't have any risk of someone exploiting some buffer overflow bug or remotely using the box. (Note tho that you could add softwares to control you Mac remotely, like Timbuktu or VNC, but then you are taking risks, as on any other OS with such means.)
Just my $0.02
Janus
Re:Thoughts on Be/PPC
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 1
A few years back, I went at a Be demo, at Be's HQ. The marketing VP doing the demo swore BeOS would never run on Intel CPU because they were such pieces of crap.
A few years later and a few millions dollars from Intel injeceted into be and... well you know the story, Be's PowerPC effort is dying (dead?)
As for Apple worrying about BeOS... I don't get it... since running BeOS on Apple HW would require buiding a Mac, I don't see where Apple lose any money. If Apple lose any money it's by having Be users buy PCs rather than Macs.
Also JLG criticizing Apple for being closed makes me laugh, he was the one who tipped the balance (when he was VP at Apple) and voted against the Macintosh OS to be licensed to anyone. And so Apple remained closed and proprietary.
I think Be not supporting the PowerPC HW anymore boils down to: a) lots of Intel investements in Be (money, support, etc.) b) JLG being bitter for not having been bought by Apple and such not cashing in hundreds of millions. (NexT got bought.) Jobs and JLG probably doesn't go along well either (that's two strong head and fiery beasts we have here:)
Given the situation Be is in, I can understand they don't want to lose a)
Does't the G4 w/ Altivec has a 32 bits integer unit, 64 bits FP unit and a 128 bits vector unit? Isn't that a better deal than just 64 bits for integer and FP?
Slashdot Mirror
There is not much information out about the G5.
The roadmap say it has a new bus topology and a new pipeline.
Also an "extensible architecture" is mentioned (whatever that is.)
It's not the first time MS is having problem with the French governement. In answer to some query of the French governement about some Y2K issue, MS told them they should upgrade their software (that they just bought one year ago); the Frencg gov was not so pleased about being taxed an upgrade just so their brand new windows boxes could work past Dec 99. They started some ivestigations earlier this year.
On another note, the professor has a very good, if you have a windows box and you buy a new one, you pay for Windows twice. France has some good consumers protections organizations, tho I don't know how effective they are.
Janus
Either they can break it, or they have a way around like (like snooping the keys a way or another, or getting the keystroke directly, etc.)
We often tend to forget encryption is just one step of the security process, it's perfectly possible to have a completely good encryption system and yet not achieve security because of a weak link in the process.
However I think easing the restriction will be nice for doing business online. I confess I'm less worried about the NSA or some other governemantal agency (from the US or another country) spying on communications than of some random criminal spying on comunications and using the data for some theft or malicious purpose.
I think better encryption will serve us against the later.
Janus
They sound pretty optimistic. They have yet to do a 32'000 'neurons' based unit and they already think they can do a one billion unit within a year of the 32'000 one?
At Chiba (Japan) World PC Expo
IBM's Mr. Akazawa created a buzz with the announcement that a 700-MHz G3 chip based on SOI technology would be released this year. Meanwhile, Interware's Mr. Nakajima showed a road map of his company's product line and said the company plans to release 1-GHz G4 upgrades by the end of 2000 and will offer a G4 upgrade card for the iMac.
Quoted from http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/09/12/tokyo.html
Unless there is a backdoor. Which is what the clipper proposal was about.
This sounds different tho. But who knows...
I wonder if you look at the silicon of that chip you see NSA Key written in the circuitry? :-)
> Pagemaker
:)
There is MS Publisher.
I don't know for the others, but I think MS and Adobe have some kind of deal. (Who knows, maybe MS will buy Adobe once Adobe is done eating the graphic/desktop publishing market
Apple and I am sure some other big names are behind BSD too. I think Apple chose BSD over Linux for MacOS X because:
a) NexT was already using some flavor of BSD
b) the BSD license let them make proprietary extensions without having to release the source.
So with Darwin (the kernel used by MacOS X client & server) you have the BSD & Mach based kernel/core, and at the top of that Apple will put their proprietary technology (Mac GUI, Quicktime, etc etc.)
I'm not sure if they could do that with a Linux or another GPLed OS.
Janus
I'm not sure how they can sue someone for having a link to some resource on the web. Wouldn't it be like suing people for having bibliographies in their book/articles?
I can understand the issues with embedding someone else content in your own frames, or using someone else artwork (gif, mov, etc.)
But just suing for just giving a pointer to it, that doesn't seem realistic. I wonder how what's their rationale.
Except that to get on the box you have to reach it physically. ./ thread about that a couple of weeks ago)
If someone physically get access to your unix box, they can do quite a few things too (there was a
As far as buffer overrun goes... well since the MacOS doesn't have a shell nor a CLI, I don't know if that would do you any good.
AFAIK if they are using Webstar they must be running MacOS 8.x, not MacOS X server as some previous comments suggested.
In the June 1999 issue of MacTech Magazine there was an interview with Chuck Shotton. He is the guy who created, in 93, the first Mac http server MacHTTP, which later became Webstar.
In the interview he explains how they made Webstar into a high-performance web server. To summarize:
a) use of caching to avoid hitting on the dog slow MacOS filesystem
b) optimizations to have the right balance between I/O time and calculation/processing time
c) taking advantage of the MacOS thread manager and the fact the MacOS 8.x is NOT a premptive multitasked OS.
c) will sounds odd to most; what they do is that since the app has control over the premption (rather than the OS) they use that advantage to minimize the number of context switches, etc. i.e. they have their own highly tuned and specific scheduler rather than relying on the generic scheduler of the OS.
This is pretty cool on a dedicated MacOS box that do just web server.
As for MacOS crashing, my router is running MacOS 8.6, it has been up & running nicely since I last booted it, one month ago; it has never crashed so far.
Note: I'm not saying MacOS is the best, fatest and most stable OS out there; just that for some applications a Mac can be stable and fast plenty.
As far as security go, since you can't remotely login on a Mac and since there is no shell, you don't have any risk of someone exploiting some buffer overflow bug or remotely using the box. (Note tho that you could add softwares to control you Mac remotely, like Timbuktu or VNC, but then you are taking risks, as on any other OS with such means.)
Just my $0.02
Janus
A few years back, I went at a Be demo, at Be's HQ. The marketing VP doing the demo swore BeOS would never run on Intel CPU because they were such pieces of crap.
:)
A few years later and a few millions dollars from Intel injeceted into be and... well you know the story, Be's PowerPC effort is dying (dead?)
As for Apple worrying about BeOS... I don't get it... since running BeOS on Apple HW would require buiding a Mac, I don't see where Apple lose any money. If Apple lose any money it's by having Be users buy PCs rather than Macs.
Also JLG criticizing Apple for being closed makes me laugh, he was the one who tipped the balance (when he was VP at Apple) and voted against the Macintosh OS to be licensed to anyone. And so Apple remained closed and proprietary.
I think Be not supporting the PowerPC HW anymore boils down to:
a) lots of Intel investements in Be (money, support, etc.)
b) JLG being bitter for not having been bought by Apple and such not cashing in hundreds of millions. (NexT got bought.) Jobs and JLG probably doesn't go along well either (that's two strong head and fiery beasts we have here
Given the situation Be is in, I can understand they don't want to lose a)
I wish them luck on the Intel side of the fence.
Just my $0.02
Janus
Does't the G4 w/ Altivec has a 32 bits integer unit, 64 bits FP unit and a 128 bits vector unit?
Isn't that a better deal than just 64 bits for integer and FP?