They're only not work if they use new frameworks that weren't available in Jaguar. Just like new apps for Jaguar only don't work in 10.1 if they use Jaguar frameworks -- most apps work on both.
Re:Had to be first, didn't you?
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Ever hear of Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, AMD, Transmeta? There are plenty of choices in the PC world.
Ever hear of Mac OS X, BeOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, IBM, Motorola? There are plenty of choices in the Mac world.
"Single vendor" is a red herring. As long as you choose to work in a space that is based on open standards, you're good to go even if you decide to change to another platform. Apple embraces and creates open standards. Using a Mac doesn't lock me into the platform in the same way that using Linux doesn't lock me into the platform. However, when I was a Windows user, I was locked into the platform in some ways and its only getting harder for present day Windows users.
PS - You can configure the optical drive on the iBook and PowerBook.
True. Before OS X, Macs had pretty good hardware but a (technically) inferior OS. Now they have a great OS but poor hardware. This will be the first time in many years that they'll have solid offerings on both fronts.
Even as a recent (1-2 years) switcher, I have to recognize the fact that the time period that Apple didn't have the superior platform was between 1995 (Windows 95) and 2001 (Mac OS X) which is a very short period of time.
"Bad grammar, but optical audio in a graphics machine? I'm sorry but this sounds like wishful thinking. One more point impossible."
This one does puzzle me slightly, but Apple don't consider their machines "graphics machines". Macs are all-purpose. It's no fault of Apple if they are pigeonholed by others as "only for graphics". Also, even if they were "graphics machines," video editing kind of requires sound...
Macintoshes are also used by most people in the recording industry.
Because FW800 is not backwards compatible. The connector is physically different. They have to stick with 400 for now.
Yes it is backwards compatible. It does use an improved connector, but I believe they currently ship 800/400 adapters with all of their Macs that have 800 on them. The reason to still have 400 on it is that it typically hasn't been maxxed out yet and the iPod still has a 400 connector on one end.
Apple didn't do it on purpose. Apple did it first. Everyone else based their operating system on the Mac OS with their own changes some of them to try to lock in users to their platform, some of them because they thought they were better.
Re:"Actively searching for new suppliers"?
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 1
As it means I won't have to return to the store that I rented them from and give them back, they can just be binned instead (Although what impact this will have on the environment must be concidered of course).
I can tell you right now. It's going to have a negative impact on the environment.
Macs come with Java and GCC. They also come with Project Builder which is an excellent IDE for building Macintosh applications, Java applications, and Unix CLI tools.
These tools are also available as a free download as part of the Developer Tools.
We know that an Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would probably cost less than a PowerPC platform Mac currently does, and run faster too. (Please, I'm a big Apple fan too, but I'm not blinded by Apples-sponsored benchmarks that use applications that have been optimised for their current hardware but ignore more popular software that hasn't been optimised in their favour.)
Competition is a good thing. You shouldn't be cheering for x, y, and z platform to consolidate on a chip. Without the PowerPC beating x86 back in the day, Intel's clock wouldn't be where it is today. I want Apple to stay on PowerPC because it is a very elegant design and because it means there is more competition. Asking them to switch to whatever is currently the fastest clock is very short-sighted.
Clockspeed doesn't matter. The G4 currently has a sub-par bus interface which is the real limiter for its performance. These processors will simply be even more starved for data.
I haven't been keeping up with news about this game. Is there a Macintosh version coming out? Return to Castle Wolfenstein is available for Mac OS X, so I would think it would be easy to get this out for it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
They're only not work if they use new frameworks that weren't available in Jaguar. Just like new apps for Jaguar only don't work in 10.1 if they use Jaguar frameworks -- most apps work on both.
No, they were Macdotted.
That's funny. My PowerMac G3 450 runs OS X more responsively than my ThinkPad T23 runs Win2000.
"Single vendor" is a red herring. As long as you choose to work in a space that is based on open standards, you're good to go even if you decide to change to another platform. Apple embraces and creates open standards. Using a Mac doesn't lock me into the platform in the same way that using Linux doesn't lock me into the platform. However, when I was a Windows user, I was locked into the platform in some ways and its only getting harder for present day Windows users.
PS - You can configure the optical drive on the iBook and PowerBook.
Even as a recent (1-2 years) switcher, I have to recognize the fact that the time period that Apple didn't have the superior platform was between 1995 (Windows 95) and 2001 (Mac OS X) which is a very short period of time.
No, the next version of Windows will be called Windows 2004 .Net# System.
The had a G3 just like Apple. I think the G5 is named G5 because it is a 5 megapixel camera.
Macintoshes are also used by most people in the recording industry.
Yes it is backwards compatible. It does use an improved connector, but I believe they currently ship 800/400 adapters with all of their Macs that have 800 on them. The reason to still have 400 on it is that it typically hasn't been maxxed out yet and the iPod still has a 400 connector on one end.
Everybody pays a premium for the newest processors. Try buying a Gateway with the latest and greatest from Intel. It'll probably be $3000.
They bought the concept from Xerox. Microsoft didn't. Apple was the first to bring it to market.
Apple didn't do it on purpose. Apple did it first. Everyone else based their operating system on the Mac OS with their own changes some of them to try to lock in users to their platform, some of them because they thought they were better.
Apple isn't a monopoly.
I can tell you right now. It's going to have a negative impact on the environment.
Macs come with Java and GCC. They also come with Project Builder which is an excellent IDE for building Macintosh applications, Java applications, and Unix CLI tools.
These tools are also available as a free download as part of the Developer Tools.
Woz never worked for Atari. Jobs did. Jobs worked on Breakout and got help on the side from Woz.
Don't you mean Job's Breakout? ;)
Yeah, I know.
Aqua is just as (if not more-so) responsive on my G3 450 as Windows 2000 is on my x86 1Ghz. And I'm not even able to take advantage of Quartz Extreme.
Competition is a good thing. You shouldn't be cheering for x, y, and z platform to consolidate on a chip. Without the PowerPC beating x86 back in the day, Intel's clock wouldn't be where it is today. I want Apple to stay on PowerPC because it is a very elegant design and because it means there is more competition. Asking them to switch to whatever is currently the fastest clock is very short-sighted.
Clockspeed doesn't matter. The G4 currently has a sub-par bus interface which is the real limiter for its performance. These processors will simply be even more starved for data.
You do know that two button mouses are supported by the Mac OS, don't you?
I haven't been keeping up with news about this game. Is there a Macintosh version coming out? Return to Castle Wolfenstein is available for Mac OS X, so I would think it would be easy to get this out for it as well.