Apple's netboot allows Macs to boot from a server. You can have one specially configured copy of MscOS on a machine running Mac OS X Server and then have a whole lab of Macs boot from it. They don't enen need to have hard drives. This is, of course, extremely bandwith intensive and that's why Apple has been pushing gigabit ethernet.
If I had another 8 GB or so free on my HD, I would have converted it to uncompressed video instead of Cinepak. Cinepak is the only codec which comes with VirtualDub that is common to QT and also has no restrictions on proportions, framerates, etc.
Converting to Cinepak as the intermediate format does cause the end product to be a little grainy but, at least, I can have a look at what's in the movie.
I have the DivX codec (v. 5) on QT 6 and it does not play the DivX 5.0.2 AVI clips which I have. I don't know if that means it supports only up to 5.0 and 5.0.2 is too new or whether there is some other glitch. I did rule out an incorrect fourCC as explained in the DivX Tool 1.2 documentation.
I have been able to play all MPEG-4 and DivX versions of AVI except for DivX 5.0.2 with Quictime 6 beta and a few components downloaded free from Versiontracker.
For DivX 5.0.2, you can use the free (GPL) program VirtualDub (www.virtualdub.org) on Windows to convert the file to a codec which QuickTime can understand and then transfer the file back to a Mac. Be warned, it took hours for Windows to convert a file I had from DivX 5.0.2 to Cinepak. Fortunately, it only took minutes for QuickTime Pro on the Mac to convert the file back from Cinepak to standard MPEG-4.
The discussion about security vulnerability as a function of market share is not new but consider this: Think of the network as a whole and not just individual machines. Viruses are an example of common mode failure - a situation where all systems of a particular type fail in response to something. The way to combat this is through diversity.
We are vulnerable because of the lopsided distribution of operating systems. If we had better balance, not 95% Windows, it would be harder for any virus to spread.
After you get past the problem of needing PPC hardware instead of Intel, Mac OS X gives you some advantages. It's easier for Windows users to use than any other alternative OS. There are some well established commercial, but cheaper or at least less restrictive, alternatives to MS Office like AppleWorks, Nisus Writer, FileMaker, Deneba Canvas, Mariner, etc. And you've increasingly got open source stuff like OpenOffice.
Translation of MS Office documents is always a big issue and nothing is perfect at doing that. There are some global translators availible for Mac OS X which will allow you to convert MS Office to a variety of formats. MacLinkPlus is one of the oldest and most refined solutions for that purpose. There is a new competitor to it called VINC which promises to be even better for some kinds of formatting (I have not really had a chance to put it to a hard test yet). Another new and interesting one is AntiWordService. It works by way of Mac OS X's services archetecture and allows you to directly open Word documents in any Cocoa applocation which can read text.
My point is that Apple has been competing with Microsoft for the desktop a lot longer than anyone else has and that process has led to a very comprehensive set of solutions for breaking free of Microsoft, either part way or all the way. Linux developers should take note of both Apple's failures and successes.
Apple has always been careful to compare the G4 to the Pentium 4 and not Athlon. The tests I have seen comparing all three (even by MacAddict) tend to more than validate AMD's claim that the Athlon is faster Mhz for Mhz than the Pentium.
Apple has tended to fulfill Moore's Law in fits and starts rather than the smooth curve you see with the x86. They pulled well ahead about 3 years ago and then hardly moved until just recently. We'll see how far the current surge takes us.
Speaking of 64-bit processors, I suspect that the more portable UNIX core of Mac OS X will allow Apple to support a 64-bit machine at the consumer level before Windows can.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's netboot allows Macs to boot from a server. You can have one specially configured copy of MscOS on a machine running Mac OS X Server and then have a whole lab of Macs boot from it. They don't enen need to have hard drives. This is, of course, extremely bandwith intensive and that's why Apple has been pushing gigabit ethernet.
If I had another 8 GB or so free on my HD, I would have converted it to uncompressed video instead of Cinepak. Cinepak is the only codec which comes with VirtualDub that is common to QT and also has no restrictions on proportions, framerates, etc. Converting to Cinepak as the intermediate format does cause the end product to be a little grainy but, at least, I can have a look at what's in the movie.
I have the DivX codec (v. 5) on QT 6 and it does not play the DivX 5.0.2 AVI clips which I have. I don't know if that means it supports only up to 5.0 and 5.0.2 is too new or whether there is some other glitch. I did rule out an incorrect fourCC as explained in the DivX Tool 1.2 documentation.
I have been able to play all MPEG-4 and DivX versions of AVI except for DivX 5.0.2 with Quictime 6 beta and a few components downloaded free from Versiontracker.
For DivX 5.0.2, you can use the free (GPL) program VirtualDub (www.virtualdub.org) on Windows to convert the file to a codec which QuickTime can understand and then transfer the file back to a Mac. Be warned, it took hours for Windows to convert a file I had from DivX 5.0.2 to Cinepak. Fortunately, it only took minutes for QuickTime Pro on the Mac to convert the file back from Cinepak to standard MPEG-4.
The discussion about security vulnerability as a function of market share is not new but consider this: Think of the network as a whole and not just individual machines. Viruses are an example of common mode failure - a situation where all systems of a particular type fail in response to something. The way to combat this is through diversity.
We are vulnerable because of the lopsided distribution of operating systems. If we had better balance, not 95% Windows, it would be harder for any virus to spread.
You mean they spent a billion+ dollars developing this thing to transfer complexity to the compiler?
After you get past the problem of needing PPC hardware instead of Intel, Mac OS X gives you some advantages. It's easier for Windows users to use than any other alternative OS. There are some well established commercial, but cheaper or at least less restrictive, alternatives to MS Office like AppleWorks, Nisus Writer, FileMaker, Deneba Canvas, Mariner, etc. And you've increasingly got open source stuff like OpenOffice.
Translation of MS Office documents is always a big issue and nothing is perfect at doing that. There are some global translators availible for Mac OS X which will allow you to convert MS Office to a variety of formats. MacLinkPlus is one of the oldest and most refined solutions for that purpose. There is a new competitor to it called VINC which promises to be even better for some kinds of formatting (I have not really had a chance to put it to a hard test yet). Another new and interesting one is AntiWordService. It works by way of Mac OS X's services archetecture and allows you to directly open Word documents in any Cocoa applocation which can read text.
My point is that Apple has been competing with Microsoft for the desktop a lot longer than anyone else has and that process has led to a very comprehensive set of solutions for breaking free of Microsoft, either part way or all the way. Linux developers should take note of both Apple's failures and successes.
Apple has always been careful to compare the G4 to the Pentium 4 and not Athlon. The tests I have seen comparing all three (even by MacAddict) tend to more than validate AMD's claim that the Athlon is faster Mhz for Mhz than the Pentium.
Apple has tended to fulfill Moore's Law in fits and starts rather than the smooth curve you see with the x86. They pulled well ahead about 3 years ago and then hardly moved until just recently. We'll see how far the current surge takes us.
Speaking of 64-bit processors, I suspect that the more portable UNIX core of Mac OS X will allow Apple to support a 64-bit machine at the consumer level before Windows can.