I'm sorry, I know most geeks are excited about the technological side of this project and like hearing what the military is doing with technology, but I have to say this is a waste of money.
Ask any Infantryman what he thinks of the Stryker and he will tell you, in more colorful language most likely, that he absolutely hates it. It's a poorly coneived vehicle that was originally intended to transport Infantry squads around. The units currently deployed in Iraq have a pathetic iron cage that was added to the outside of them that is supposed to act as a net to catch rocket-propelled grenades because the skin of the Styrker is too thin to protect against them (this was just added recently when the Stryker was sent to Iraq, for some reason nobody ever thought this was necessary before the guys who actually had to ride in them said fuck it). New units are planned but they will be considerably heavier and slower due to a thicker skin (which defeats the original intention of having a quick moving vehicle in the first place).
The Army really should abandon putting more research into the Stryker and devert that funding elsewhere where it will actually be useful.
There's a video at CNET showing Carly with the new HP-branded iPod, which is identical to the iPod except for color and logo (the Apple logo still appears at startup).
First he duped articles on Slashdot, then he shamelessly duped the title from ArsTechnica to Slashdot! What's next!? Slashdot Duped (http://dotslash.org)? Oh yeah, and Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 does not equal Winamp 5. It equals 2*Winamp 5, so I guess it's a buy one get one free sale.
This posting is free of all logic and sense, courtesy of a blue pill.
Well, this has to be a record dupe, under one hour and the dupe immediately follows the original. Although, of greater interest to Slashdot readers, we now have the opportunity to compare the significant differences in headline titles. What do you prefer:
"Culture of UNIX and Windows Programmers"
or
"Explaining The Windows/UNIX Cultural Divide"
Oh, I don't think he has to worry about the taxes anymore. Our good friend George fixed that for him. Besides, would you really mind paying taxes on a billion dollars? I think I could live with it.
If you follow that little link I gave you for Apple's benchmark claims, you'll see that the performance advantage Apple is claiming for its Dual 2Ghz G5 (I wrote Dual if you reread) is almost identical to what NASA is claiming for the Dual 2GHz G5 against a 2.66MHz P4.
Apple claims 15.7 for the Dual 2GHz G5, and the 3GHz P4 getting an 8.07. NASA gives the Dual 2GHz G5 498MFLOPS and the 2.66GHz P4 255MFLOPS.
If you use your math skills: 15.7 / 8.07 about equals 498 / 255. So therefore we can draw the conclusion that they have similar results.
Now, NASA only used a 2.66MHz P4 while Apple used a 3GHz P4. Although remember NASA's figure that the P4 had 0.096 MFLOPS/MHz? Give the P4 333 more MHz, and you find it has about 286.968 MFLOPS. NASA also suggests a 20% performance increase can be expected with compilers that take advantage of the G5.
Although, even without this increase Apple's benchmark and NASA's benchmarks are very close. Which would lead one to draw the conclusion that Apple's benchmarks were in fact valid.
I should also note that a P4 would not perform as well in a dual system as the G5 does. So your 500 MFLOPS number is a little rediculous. The G5 which is an amazing dual proc chip saw it's 254 MFLOPS for a single processor (508 when doubled) drop to 498 MFLOPS in a dual system. And the P4 isn't designed for a dual system, doesn't support HyperTransport, etc.
Microsoft Windows XP Pro: Full price: $299
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Upgrapde: $199
http://shop.microsoft.com/Referral/Productinfo.asp ?siteID=10798
MacOS X 10.3/2/1 Full price: $129
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Microsoft Windows XP Pro (5 Users): $1315.60
MacOS X 10.3/2/1 (5 Users): $199
If you bought Windows XP ($299), and then can upgrapde to Longhorn for $199, you paid $498. If you bought MacOS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, you paid $516. Pretty similar, and that's assuming you only have to pay $199 for Longhorn. In the meantime, Apple users enjoy continued advance, while Windows stagnates for 4+ years.
Do the same with a family licence of 5. Buy Windows XP for $1315.60, then upgrade for $875.60: $2191.20 (over 4 years, for 5 people: $109.56/user/year).
Buy MacOS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 (5 User Licence): $796 (over 4 years, for 5 people: $39.80/user/year).
Using http://shopper.cnet.com I found a copy of Windows XP Pro for $207, and an upgrade for Windows XP Pro for $177. I found a copy of MacOS X 10.2 for $98.
If these prices hold over to the newer Operating Systems these companies release, then Windows would cost $384 (23% savings), and MacOS X would cost $196 (24% savings). If you bought every point upgrade Apple released it would cost $392.
Though dual processor benchmarks are not presented in detail here, it is worth noting that the G5 system benchmarked at 498 MFLOPS and 0.125 MFLOPS/MHz for scalar Jet3D performance when two processors were used.
By adding a second processor, the MFLOPS/Mhz output only dropped from 0.127 to 0.125 MFLOPS/Mhz. This chip can definitely perform in a multi-processor environment. The P4 scored 0.096 MFLOPS/MHz with a single processor.
Apple's benchmarks which were highly criticized by some, gave the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 a 194.5% performance advantage over a 3GHz P4 in SPECfp_rate_base2000. The G5 getting a score of 15.7, and the P4 getting an 8.07.
NASA's study found the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 to score 498 MFLOPS for their Jet3D performance. A P4 running at 2.66GHz scored 255 MFLOPS: a 195.3% performance advantage for the G5 in this test. If we assume a direct correlation between MHz and MFLOPS for the P4 (which would actually overstate the performance of the P4) and increase the P4's score by 12.782% this would give the 3GHz P4 a score of 287.594 MFLOPS. This is still a 173.16% performance advantage for the G5, and NASA states that a 20% increase in performance for the G5 would be reasonable "when G5-aware compiler tools become available."
So it would seem NASA's benchmarks go a long way in validating the benchmarks for the G5 that Apple released last month at the WWDC. In fact, NASA appears to be giving the G5 even better scores than Apple and Veritest did.
The vector tests that NASA performed to test the G5's AltiVec instruction set produce some even more impressive results, and would be a good indication for why the G5 outpaced the Xeon and P4 by such dramatic amounts on real world tests (at times more than 700% faster than a 3GHz P4). "The vector version of Jet3D runs an order of magnitude faster than the scalar version (speedups of 10X-13X are typical)." The dual 2GHz G5 was benchmarked at 5177 MFLOPS (a 1040% increase over the scalar test) and 1.29 MFLOPS/MHz. This also seems accurate considering Ars Technica's claim that the AltiVec engine wasn't as well integrated into the G5 as it was in the G4. The 2GHz G5 (single cpu) scored 2755 MFLOPS, or 1.378 MFLOPS/MHz, which shows a slightly larger performance hit for vector operations than floating point operations when moving to a dual G5.
If you look it up yourself, Microsoft's contributions doesn't rank anywhere near the top compared to other donors. In fact, they contribute fairly evenly to both parties.
They are listed as contributing 59% to Republicans and only 41% to Democrats. In 1996 before the antitrust trial began they donated 54% to Democrats and 44% to Republicans. Before that it was even more extreme, in 1992 donating 77% to Democrats and 20% to Republicans. In fact, during the antritrust trial in 1998 they donated 64% to Republicans and 36% to Democrats.
So in a 2 year time span, from 1996-1998, when the antitrust trial began, there is a massive shift of funding, as the Republicans received almost an 800% increase in funding from Microsoft.
But the antitrust trial couldn't possibly be to blame for such a dramatic shift in funding. It must be a complete coincidence.
The armed forces [especially the Army] are very hard up for geeks right now, I've been talking to a couple recruiters over the last few weeks and they've all been extremely excited to speak with someone who has a college degree and good computer skills.
This is unfortunately extremely true. I'm in the Army myself, and I usually don't even bother to talk to anyone from our Automations department (who actually receive about 24 weeks training in Windows, Solaris, and UNIX... although almost exclusively Windows). We have 18 people in our Automations department, 3 of which have ever *heard* of Linux, 1 of which has heard of Linux because I showed it to them, and the other 2 who actually use it at home. The other 15 I think would go braindead before I even got to a command line (and remember, they've supposedly had training on UNIX).
That's the state most Brigades in the Army are in right now. We're actually lucky to have 2 people who know what Linux is. Those 2 people actually get 95% of the work done as well, the other 16 sit around and unlock accounts for people when they enter their password wrong 4 times and make bad patch cable (they've never made one right for me yet... I stole some crimpers from them a while ago and just make my own now if I need some).
The sterotype that the US Government has all the coolest stuff is really way off. We may have the coolest stuff that goes "BOOM", but we also have a monopoly on the technology. When it comes to computer technology we are in many ways still in the 1970s, and continuing to fall behind.
Dak
Can it compete with itself?
on
Mac OS X Hints
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I visited MacOSXhints.com frequently when I first started adopting MacOS X (when it first was being brought to market), and I found it quite useful at the time. However, as I became more proficient with the OS itself, I've found that I rarely visit the web site now. Upon doing so recently, I also felt the new hints being published daily simply weren't as intriguing as they first were. Many of them had little to do with the OS itself, except for perhaps listing hardware or software that was now compatible and how to use it.
I haven't read the book, although I would imagine a fair number of the hints published are from earlier in MacOS X's lifecycle. This would be good to help new users adopt to the OS, although with all the hints available online for free (with a decent search engine attached), is there really enough incentive for people to get the book as well?
Then comes a uniform with built-in tourniquets that one day might be tightened and loosened remotely.
Being a soldier, I have a pretty good feeling that the US Military would have a hard time selling the idea of remotely controlled tourniquets to soldiers who would be wearing the uniform. This is similar to the concept behind a flak jacket where the armour is hard near vital organs and softer around them (the idea is that a projectile won't shatter if it penetrates the armor, causing more damage, although try telling that to a soldier in the field).
The first thing that came to my mind when I read that is an enemy infiltrating our communications system and activating tourniquets on every American soldier on the battle field, whether they can see them or not.
Dak
Reading through these comments so far it doesn't seem many people have read through the entire article. The summary doesn't really give an accurate picture of what the "20%" speed bumb is.
What was that? A lead in? Yeah, ok, now let me see if I can shed some light on these rumors (well ok.... I'm going to shamelessly quote the article in an attempt at karma whoring):
Interestingly, Motorola said it had been delivering low-k dielectric 0.18 micron SOI processors for a full quarter. The 7455 is just such a chip - Motorola's claim may explain why Apple has had such success overclocking the 1GHz 0.18 micron MPC7455 to 1.42GHz in its Power Mac models.
So for those of you mentioning that a 1.42GHz G4 already exists, this is being referred to as an overclocked 1GHz G4.
The implication in his comment is that since Motorola can use the technology in its 0.13 micron chips, it will be able to really run with it when it makes the transition to 90nm.
The other claim being made is that substantially faster G4s than previously expected will be in the pipeline. The G4 was originally expected to top out at 1.3GHz, although may be pushed beyond that now (2GHz+ was rumored).
Assuming a direct correlation (big assumption), with Apple overclocking a 1GHz machine to 1.42GHz, 2.84GHz could be considered possible. The other nice point in the article was that Motorola is supposedly targeting the processor for low power consumption (read: 20W).
This could bring the G4, at least for a time, up to par with the 970. TheRegister made a prediction based on the G4's low power consumption that Apple may choose a mix (like they used to). Placing the 970 in their pro desktop computers, and the G4 in their portables.
I'd prefer to see the 970 across the board, but I guess we'll all know soon enough.
Actually it's not the *only* PowerBook G4 being used here right now. I've got an 867MHz PowerBook G4 I bought back in July 2002 that I am using while stationed in Camp Va, Kuwait. I use it for very similar reasons to Major Weed, although I had to purchase mine myself.
CNN just reported at 10:13am EST that the shuttle Columbia, carrying a crew of 7, broke up 200,000 feet over Texas.
NASA has never lost a crew on its return trip home in 42 years of space flight. Here's hoping for the best.
Humbly,
Dak
Apple announced it was increasing its prices on the iMac $100 each in March, and ended a promotion on its LCDs. Since then IBM, Dell, Sony, Compaq and Gateway (that I know of, probably others too) have announced they're rising prices 10% to 30%.
Memory has already doubled to tripled in price, and LCDs are up 25%.
The time for bargains was over a month ago, if you buy today or wait 2 weeks not much is going to change.
I've heard OS 10.2 is supposed to come with J2SE 1.4 due out this summer... seeing as how 1.5 won't be out until 2003, they're not too far behind.
Although, according to an InfoWorld article, Sun's actually considering using some optimizations Apple included in its JVM... "mapping [shared system libraries] into memory at run time" to "boost loading speed and reduce memory consumption."
Anyone else feel this way about basically every "innovation" out of Microsoft? All the hype, and I start wondering if maybe, this time, they actually managed to get it right...
I mean, first it's just frightening to think, not to mention the whole morale dilemma about actually using a superior product from a company you revile... and then of course there's the part where pork starts to fly and a huge order for sweaters for Hell comes in.
OK, so I'm trolling... although I still find it amusing how worked up people get before a M$ announcement, then the sigh of relief you can hear geeks around the world breathing at the same time when we all realize it may take over the world, but at least it's still Microsoft.
I can't believe so many people have taken the lawsuit flamebait in this article seriously. A few jabs at Apple I would expect, but it seems to be practically the only thing being commented on.
Apple has attempted to protect its trademarks... whether you like it or not that's how US law works, if you don't protect it you lose it (look at the debacle M$ got itself into in the Lindows suit).
But seriously believing Apple would sue over the right to use your hardware however you like? Would you expect Apple to sue someone for installing LinuxPPC on their Mac, or using (or allowing someone to use) an Apple Cinema Display with their PC? Of course not.
Apple has nothing against the work MediaFour is doing and besides asking them to change the product name (see above... trademarks etc) have given them their blessing. As others have noted already and I can affirm, Apple actually suggests the product when asked about using the iPod with a PC (this from an employee at an Apple store). Of course they're not going to advertise it and try to offer a better solution on the Mac to encourage people to switch to the platform, but if you're sold on Linux but want a cool MP3 player, they're not going to complain.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask any Infantryman what he thinks of the Stryker and he will tell you, in more colorful language most likely, that he absolutely hates it. It's a poorly coneived vehicle that was originally intended to transport Infantry squads around. The units currently deployed in Iraq have a pathetic iron cage that was added to the outside of them that is supposed to act as a net to catch rocket-propelled grenades because the skin of the Styrker is too thin to protect against them (this was just added recently when the Stryker was sent to Iraq, for some reason nobody ever thought this was necessary before the guys who actually had to ride in them said fuck it). New units are planned but they will be considerably heavier and slower due to a thicker skin (which defeats the original intention of having a quick moving vehicle in the first place).
The Army really should abandon putting more research into the Stryker and devert that funding elsewhere where it will actually be useful.
Just a soldier's 2 cents.
Slight paraphrase: You can have any operating system you want as long as you want Windows.
The "hPod" will have a HP logo on it, although the Apple logo still appears at startup.
Check it out here
This posting is free of all logic and sense, courtesy of a blue pill.
"Culture of UNIX and Windows Programmers"
or
"Explaining The Windows/UNIX Cultural Divide"
personally I'm leaning toward the latter.
Cheers.
Dak
Oh, I don't think he has to worry about the taxes anymore. Our good friend George fixed that for him. Besides, would you really mind paying taxes on a billion dollars? I think I could live with it.
Apple claims 15.7 for the Dual 2GHz G5, and the 3GHz P4 getting an 8.07. NASA gives the Dual 2GHz G5 498MFLOPS and the 2.66GHz P4 255MFLOPS.
If you use your math skills: 15.7 / 8.07 about equals 498 / 255. So therefore we can draw the conclusion that they have similar results.
Now, NASA only used a 2.66MHz P4 while Apple used a 3GHz P4. Although remember NASA's figure that the P4 had 0.096 MFLOPS/MHz? Give the P4 333 more MHz, and you find it has about 286.968 MFLOPS. NASA also suggests a 20% performance increase can be expected with compilers that take advantage of the G5.
Although, even without this increase Apple's benchmark and NASA's benchmarks are very close. Which would lead one to draw the conclusion that Apple's benchmarks were in fact valid.
I should also note that a P4 would not perform as well in a dual system as the G5 does. So your 500 MFLOPS number is a little rediculous. The G5 which is an amazing dual proc chip saw it's 254 MFLOPS for a single processor (508 when doubled) drop to 498 MFLOPS in a dual system. And the P4 isn't designed for a dual system, doesn't support HyperTransport, etc.
Dak
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Upgrapde: $199
http://shop.microsoft.com/Referral/Productinfo.as
MacOS X 10.3/2/1 Full price: $129
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Microsoft Windows XP Pro (5 Users): $1315.60
MacOS X 10.3/2/1 (5 Users): $199
If you bought Windows XP ($299), and then can upgrapde to Longhorn for $199, you paid $498. If you bought MacOS X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, you paid $516. Pretty similar, and that's assuming you only have to pay $199 for Longhorn. In the meantime, Apple users enjoy continued advance, while Windows stagnates for 4+ years.
Do the same with a family licence of 5. Buy Windows XP for $1315.60, then upgrade for $875.60: $2191.20 (over 4 years, for 5 people: $109.56/user/year).
Buy MacOS 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 (5 User Licence): $796 (over 4 years, for 5 people: $39.80/user/year).
Using http://shopper.cnet.com I found a copy of Windows XP Pro for $207, and an upgrade for Windows XP Pro for $177. I found a copy of MacOS X 10.2 for $98.
If these prices hold over to the newer Operating Systems these companies release, then Windows would cost $384 (23% savings), and MacOS X would cost $196 (24% savings). If you bought every point upgrade Apple released it would cost $392.
Dak
By adding a second processor, the MFLOPS/Mhz output only dropped from 0.127 to 0.125 MFLOPS/Mhz. This chip can definitely perform in a multi-processor environment. The P4 scored 0.096 MFLOPS/MHz with a single processor.
Apple's benchmarks which were highly criticized by some, gave the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 a 194.5% performance advantage over a 3GHz P4 in SPECfp_rate_base2000. The G5 getting a score of 15.7, and the P4 getting an 8.07.
NASA's study found the Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 to score 498 MFLOPS for their Jet3D performance. A P4 running at 2.66GHz scored 255 MFLOPS: a 195.3% performance advantage for the G5 in this test. If we assume a direct correlation between MHz and MFLOPS for the P4 (which would actually overstate the performance of the P4) and increase the P4's score by 12.782% this would give the 3GHz P4 a score of 287.594 MFLOPS. This is still a 173.16% performance advantage for the G5, and NASA states that a 20% increase in performance for the G5 would be reasonable "when G5-aware compiler tools become available."
So it would seem NASA's benchmarks go a long way in validating the benchmarks for the G5 that Apple released last month at the WWDC. In fact, NASA appears to be giving the G5 even better scores than Apple and Veritest did.
The vector tests that NASA performed to test the G5's AltiVec instruction set produce some even more impressive results, and would be a good indication for why the G5 outpaced the Xeon and P4 by such dramatic amounts on real world tests (at times more than 700% faster than a 3GHz P4). "The vector version of Jet3D runs an order of magnitude faster than the scalar version (speedups of 10X-13X are typical)." The dual 2GHz G5 was benchmarked at 5177 MFLOPS (a 1040% increase over the scalar test) and 1.29 MFLOPS/MHz. This also seems accurate considering Ars Technica's claim that the AltiVec engine wasn't as well integrated into the G5 as it was in the G4. The 2GHz G5 (single cpu) scored 2755 MFLOPS, or 1.378 MFLOPS/MHz, which shows a slightly larger performance hit for vector operations than floating point operations when moving to a dual G5.
Dak
Funny you mention that. Because I did look it up myself and your findings don't really match the numbers. Microsoft is the #1 contributor for Computers/Internet donors.
They are listed as contributing 59% to Republicans and only 41% to Democrats. In 1996 before the antitrust trial began they donated 54% to Democrats and 44% to Republicans. Before that it was even more extreme, in 1992 donating 77% to Democrats and 20% to Republicans. In fact, during the antritrust trial in 1998 they donated 64% to Republicans and 36% to Democrats.
So in a 2 year time span, from 1996-1998, when the antitrust trial began, there is a massive shift of funding, as the Republicans received almost an 800% increase in funding from Microsoft.
But the antitrust trial couldn't possibly be to blame for such a dramatic shift in funding. It must be a complete coincidence.
Dak
This is unfortunately extremely true. I'm in the Army myself, and I usually don't even bother to talk to anyone from our Automations department (who actually receive about 24 weeks training in Windows, Solaris, and UNIX... although almost exclusively Windows). We have 18 people in our Automations department, 3 of which have ever *heard* of Linux, 1 of which has heard of Linux because I showed it to them, and the other 2 who actually use it at home. The other 15 I think would go braindead before I even got to a command line (and remember, they've supposedly had training on UNIX).
That's the state most Brigades in the Army are in right now. We're actually lucky to have 2 people who know what Linux is. Those 2 people actually get 95% of the work done as well, the other 16 sit around and unlock accounts for people when they enter their password wrong 4 times and make bad patch cable (they've never made one right for me yet... I stole some crimpers from them a while ago and just make my own now if I need some).
The sterotype that the US Government has all the coolest stuff is really way off. We may have the coolest stuff that goes "BOOM", but we also have a monopoly on the technology. When it comes to computer technology we are in many ways still in the 1970s, and continuing to fall behind.
Dak
I haven't read the book, although I would imagine a fair number of the hints published are from earlier in MacOS X's lifecycle. This would be good to help new users adopt to the OS, although with all the hints available online for free (with a decent search engine attached), is there really enough incentive for people to get the book as well?
Cheers.
Being a soldier, I have a pretty good feeling that the US Military would have a hard time selling the idea of remotely controlled tourniquets to soldiers who would be wearing the uniform. This is similar to the concept behind a flak jacket where the armour is hard near vital organs and softer around them (the idea is that a projectile won't shatter if it penetrates the armor, causing more damage, although try telling that to a soldier in the field).
The first thing that came to my mind when I read that is an enemy infiltrating our communications system and activating tourniquets on every American soldier on the battle field, whether they can see them or not. Dak
What was that? A lead in? Yeah, ok, now let me see if I can shed some light on these rumors (well ok.... I'm going to shamelessly quote the article in an attempt at karma whoring):
Interestingly, Motorola said it had been delivering low-k dielectric 0.18 micron SOI processors for a full quarter. The 7455 is just such a chip - Motorola's claim may explain why Apple has had such success overclocking the 1GHz 0.18 micron MPC7455 to 1.42GHz in its Power Mac models.
So for those of you mentioning that a 1.42GHz G4 already exists, this is being referred to as an overclocked 1GHz G4.
The implication in his comment is that since Motorola can use the technology in its 0.13 micron chips, it will be able to really run with it when it makes the transition to 90nm.
The other claim being made is that substantially faster G4s than previously expected will be in the pipeline. The G4 was originally expected to top out at 1.3GHz, although may be pushed beyond that now (2GHz+ was rumored).
Assuming a direct correlation (big assumption), with Apple overclocking a 1GHz machine to 1.42GHz, 2.84GHz could be considered possible. The other nice point in the article was that Motorola is supposedly targeting the processor for low power consumption (read: 20W).
This could bring the G4, at least for a time, up to par with the 970. TheRegister made a prediction based on the G4's low power consumption that Apple may choose a mix (like they used to). Placing the 970 in their pro desktop computers, and the G4 in their portables.
I'd prefer to see the 970 across the board, but I guess we'll all know soon enough.
Cheers.
Actually it's not the *only* PowerBook G4 being used here right now. I've got an 867MHz PowerBook G4 I bought back in July 2002 that I am using while stationed in Camp Va, Kuwait. I use it for very similar reasons to Major Weed, although I had to purchase mine myself.
CNN just reported at 10:13am EST that the shuttle Columbia, carrying a crew of 7, broke up 200,000 feet over Texas. NASA has never lost a crew on its return trip home in 42 years of space flight. Here's hoping for the best. Humbly, Dak
Memory has already doubled to tripled in price, and LCDs are up 25%.
The time for bargains was over a month ago, if you buy today or wait 2 weeks not much is going to change.
And how much does having a $4000 monorail in your backyard increase your home owners insurance? :p
The only thing that could possibly be more pathetic is this getting modded up as Informative.
Although, according to an InfoWorld article, Sun's actually considering using some optimizations Apple included in its JVM... "mapping [shared system libraries] into memory at run time" to "boost loading speed and reduce memory consumption."
I mean, first it's just frightening to think, not to mention the whole morale dilemma about actually using a superior product from a company you revile... and then of course there's the part where pork starts to fly and a huge order for sweaters for Hell comes in.
OK, so I'm trolling... although I still find it amusing how worked up people get before a M$ announcement, then the sigh of relief you can hear geeks around the world breathing at the same time when we all realize it may take over the world, but at least it's still Microsoft.
You are free to breath out now.
Apple has attempted to protect its trademarks... whether you like it or not that's how US law works, if you don't protect it you lose it (look at the debacle M$ got itself into in the Lindows suit).
But seriously believing Apple would sue over the right to use your hardware however you like? Would you expect Apple to sue someone for installing LinuxPPC on their Mac, or using (or allowing someone to use) an Apple Cinema Display with their PC? Of course not.
Apple has nothing against the work MediaFour is doing and besides asking them to change the product name (see above... trademarks etc) have given them their blessing. As others have noted already and I can affirm, Apple actually suggests the product when asked about using the iPod with a PC (this from an employee at an Apple store). Of course they're not going to advertise it and try to offer a better solution on the Mac to encourage people to switch to the platform, but if you're sold on Linux but want a cool MP3 player, they're not going to complain.
Anyone else wondering how many of the votes thrown out in Florida were pornographic also? :)