Well, maybe he couldn't have switched his Office suite? Some of the file formats work with the alternatives, to be sure, but I imagine there has to be something that only Office apps can read. Even if there isn't, are the people he's sending his files to going to know what to do with an AppleWorks or OpenOffice document?
(If OpenOffice uses the exact same file formats, don't shoot me. I haven't used it because I haven't needed to.)
I wonder if the real issue is not that they are practicing geology, in the sense that school science clubs and hobbyists do, but rather in the sense that they are selling their "findings', claim to know what they're doing, and yet don't seem to have any sort of certification, licensing, or references to prove it.
California is looking into claims that the site is practicing geology without a license."
The "state of California" appears to think that it owns earthquake waves and considers itself the granted entity to contract the study of earthquake waves. If that is true, then I'll be the first to issue a license to anyone that desires to harvest cheese on the moon.
The "state of California" also appears to think that it owns the human body. Wow, after this, I don't think I'm going to go to anybody who's a licensed doctor, lawyer, or teacher.
Sometimes 2.5 + 2.5 is > 4. Have you played Giants: Citizen Kabuto on a Mac? I played it on my dual 450, watching top on my iBook after ssh'ing in. Giants used every last clock cycle (0.0% idle CPU time). Indeed, occasionally the game would appear to stop using one of them, and it slowed to a crawl. When OmniGroup ported it, they said it was the only version of the game to support multiple processors. I suppose this is also an answer to the other poster who said that PC's have "done SMP for years".
- Apple is currently planning to include the chips in cases painted red with a lobster form factor. That combined with the odor has guaranteed Apple computers a place in seafood restaurants.
- Apple also hopes to release additional "flavors" of the chip for the general public, including strawberry, blueberry, lime, orange, and grape.
- The new chips will ship from IBM in foil bags containing approximately 1.5 oz of chips.
One, expect several replies from people saying they don't run Windows on their PCs. Wait for the classic "Grandma Linux" story.
Two, the fact that Macs are attractive, and that some people buy them because of that, is precisely why one of my friends hates people who do that. Of course, he also has as 20GB+ porn collection of people most would consider attractive.
At that point, what you really want is a cross between an iPod and an iBook: something that can run OS X but not be so big. (I don't think it's very possible to run a "slim" OS X, and if such a contraption had a 20GB hard drive, it wouldn't be necessary. Could be an install option, though.)
I see a few problems with making it Newton-sized, however. For starters, a CPU powerful enough to actually run OS X, even a trimmed version of it, would have to be at least a G3, not the specialized version found in the iPod. The display, as you mention, would have to be a very high quality one if it's going to be so small. Probably 800x600, the same as my iBook. And at that point, you're probably looking at a power drain such that you'd either get jack for battery life, or you'd have to have a battery big enough that you'd end up with a laptop anyway.
I think the closest you could come to the device you describe, at least at the moment, would be something like a PBG4, but lacking an optical drive, with one FireWire port (for synching), one USB port (for keyboard or mic, should you need one), and one video port, preferably one which video could be converted by a cable to whatever format you need. Oh, and a screen half the size. If there's space, sure through in Bluetooth or AirPort.
As for an iPod-sized device running OS X? I don't think so. At least not for a couple years. Then again, Apple has been know to surprise. As they did with the G4 Powerbooks.
I wonder if this is related to their recent decision to let Mac users buy Entourage without purchasing the entire Office suite. Or more accurately, if that was related to this.
Actually, there's been some speculation (which is probably only that, speculation) that Apple may re-enter the PDA market at some point. The Mac pundits seem to think it may grow out the iPod at some point.
Perhaps at the moment, Apple doesn't think they would have anything better to offer. Some think that was the reason for Safari-- that Mac users didn't really like their browsers and/or that Apple could do better (which so far, they have.)
Personally, I have limited use for a PDA. What I'd prefer to see is an iPod expanded to play more media files, such as movies. If they put in some sort of "QuickTime chip", instead of one that can only decode MP3's, they might have a cool little TV-ish thing. Unfortunately, that'd raise the price even higher, since you wouldn't want a B/W passive matrix for a screen for that.
I was going to respond specifically to this comment, but so much of it is off-topic, I'll just say read this one and you'll see some of the dangers inherent in letting a trademark slip into common use. The author of that comment goes a little overboard, but oh well.
Oops, sorry. I view comments in Newest First, and I didn't make it that far down the page. ^^;
On the other hand, those three keys aren't nearly as comfortable as two. Ah well, I guess I still don't see what the big deal is, but Apple remains true to form in adding to its software what the users want.
After e-mailing Bare Bones about the lack of BBEdit Lite, he pointed out that there's a demo version of TextWrangler, with the standard 30-day trial period. Now, I've been using BBEdit Lite for well more than 30 days, and I'm probably going to get the full version soon, but I doubt after only 30 days I would've had enough use of it to buy a pay version.
I don't really care. If there isn't a keyboard shortcut for switching between tabs, I just won't bother. Maybe Cmd-` can be remapped to it?
I often see reasons like "it's faster" as to why tabs are superior to separate windows. Maybe, if there's a shortcut.
I also see "less RAM usage" as a selling point for tabs. So? I just upgraded from 512MB to 1GB in my computer. No real performance difference. In fact, it might even be slower now, since the hard drive spins down more. I remember a thread or story around here somewhere saying that the performance gains on Mac OS X are negligible after 256MB.
Sorry, it's just hard to get excited over a new feature when there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what you're currently using.
Oh, and whoever had 50 tabs open in Linux: you're supposed to close them when you're done with them!
Step 1: Connect CD player to Mac via audio cable.
Step 2: Start recording using your favorite audio recording
Step 3: Push play on the CD player.
Step 4: Stop both
Granted, that's a pain, but at least when you're done, you have no reason to keep the CD.
No, it's classic apps that run only in Classic. Cocoa run only in OS X. Carbon apps, depending on how they're compiled, may be run in OS X, OS 9, or Classic mode.
That's all well and good, but one of those with only 16 processors will cost you $1,252,330. That's the cost of about 330 dual processor Xserves. Surely those Xserves can be clustered somehow.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, maybe he couldn't have switched his Office suite? Some of the file formats work with the alternatives, to be sure, but I imagine there has to be something that only Office apps can read. Even if there isn't, are the people he's sending his files to going to know what to do with an AppleWorks or OpenOffice document?
(If OpenOffice uses the exact same file formats, don't shoot me. I haven't used it because I haven't needed to.)
I needed an excuse to reboot my iBook.
Is anyone else unnerved when there are no new updates for a while? To anything?
I wonder if the real issue is not that they are practicing geology, in the sense that school science clubs and hobbyists do, but rather in the sense that they are selling their "findings', claim to know what they're doing, and yet don't seem to have any sort of certification, licensing, or references to prove it.
The "state of California" also appears to think that it owns the human body. Wow, after this, I don't think I'm going to go to anybody who's a licensed doctor, lawyer, or teacher.
Funny? How about informative? I spent a good 20 minutes at that site before realizing I was still on slashdot!
3 GB of cache? I sure hope that's a typo.
Sometimes 2.5 + 2.5 is > 4. Have you played Giants: Citizen Kabuto on a Mac? I played it on my dual 450, watching top on my iBook after ssh'ing in. Giants used every last clock cycle (0.0% idle CPU time). Indeed, occasionally the game would appear to stop using one of them, and it slowed to a crawl. When OmniGroup ported it, they said it was the only version of the game to support multiple processors. I suppose this is also an answer to the other poster who said that PC's have "done SMP for years".
- Apple is currently planning to include the chips in cases painted red with a lobster form factor. That combined with the odor has guaranteed Apple computers a place in seafood restaurants.
- Apple also hopes to release additional "flavors" of the chip for the general public, including strawberry, blueberry, lime, orange, and grape.
- The new chips will ship from IBM in foil bags containing approximately 1.5 oz of chips.
- IBM is planning a tie-in with Frito-Lay.
I find it worth it just for the 100MB disk space.
Two things:
One, expect several replies from people saying they don't run Windows on their PCs. Wait for the classic "Grandma Linux" story.
Two, the fact that Macs are attractive, and that some people buy them because of that, is precisely why one of my friends hates people who do that. Of course, he also has as 20GB+ porn collection of people most would consider attractive.
At that point, what you really want is a cross between an iPod and an iBook: something that can run OS X but not be so big. (I don't think it's very possible to run a "slim" OS X, and if such a contraption had a 20GB hard drive, it wouldn't be necessary. Could be an install option, though.)
I see a few problems with making it Newton-sized, however. For starters, a CPU powerful enough to actually run OS X, even a trimmed version of it, would have to be at least a G3, not the specialized version found in the iPod. The display, as you mention, would have to be a very high quality one if it's going to be so small. Probably 800x600, the same as my iBook. And at that point, you're probably looking at a power drain such that you'd either get jack for battery life, or you'd have to have a battery big enough that you'd end up with a laptop anyway.
I think the closest you could come to the device you describe, at least at the moment, would be something like a PBG4, but lacking an optical drive, with one FireWire port (for synching), one USB port (for keyboard or mic, should you need one), and one video port, preferably one which video could be converted by a cable to whatever format you need. Oh, and a screen half the size. If there's space, sure through in Bluetooth or AirPort.
As for an iPod-sized device running OS X? I don't think so. At least not for a couple years. Then again, Apple has been know to surprise. As they did with the G4 Powerbooks.
Implying that's not the case already?
I wonder if this is related to their recent decision to let Mac users buy Entourage without purchasing the entire Office suite. Or more accurately, if that was related to this.
Actually, there's been some speculation (which is probably only that, speculation) that Apple may re-enter the PDA market at some point. The Mac pundits seem to think it may grow out the iPod at some point.
Perhaps at the moment, Apple doesn't think they would have anything better to offer. Some think that was the reason for Safari-- that Mac users didn't really like their browsers and/or that Apple could do better (which so far, they have.)
Personally, I have limited use for a PDA. What I'd prefer to see is an iPod expanded to play more media files, such as movies. If they put in some sort of "QuickTime chip", instead of one that can only decode MP3's, they might have a cool little TV-ish thing. Unfortunately, that'd raise the price even higher, since you wouldn't want a B/W passive matrix for a screen for that.
...if anyone still googles on Yahoo! or some other search engine.
if anyone else can find themselves searching by username but not by real name.
I was going to respond specifically to this comment, but so much of it is off-topic, I'll just say read this one and you'll see some of the dangers inherent in letting a trademark slip into common use. The author of that comment goes a little overboard, but oh well.
Oops, sorry. I view comments in Newest First, and I didn't make it that far down the page. ^^;
On the other hand, those three keys aren't nearly as comfortable as two. Ah well, I guess I still don't see what the big deal is, but Apple remains true to form in adding to its software what the users want.
After e-mailing Bare Bones about the lack of BBEdit Lite, he pointed out that there's a demo version of TextWrangler, with the standard 30-day trial period. Now, I've been using BBEdit Lite for well more than 30 days, and I'm probably going to get the full version soon, but I doubt after only 30 days I would've had enough use of it to buy a pay version.
I don't really care. If there isn't a keyboard shortcut for switching between tabs, I just won't bother. Maybe Cmd-` can be remapped to it?
I often see reasons like "it's faster" as to why tabs are superior to separate windows. Maybe, if there's a shortcut.
I also see "less RAM usage" as a selling point for tabs. So? I just upgraded from 512MB to 1GB in my computer. No real performance difference. In fact, it might even be slower now, since the hard drive spins down more. I remember a thread or story around here somewhere saying that the performance gains on Mac OS X are negligible after 256MB.
Sorry, it's just hard to get excited over a new feature when there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what you're currently using.
Oh, and whoever had 50 tabs open in Linux: you're supposed to close them when you're done with them!
Step 1: Connect CD player to Mac via audio cable.
Step 2: Start recording using your favorite audio recording
Step 3: Push play on the CD player.
Step 4: Stop both
Granted, that's a pain, but at least when you're done, you have no reason to keep the CD.
Oh, I thought it was a spell that allowed you to draw a card as part of its resolution.
In any case, good call.
Can someone mod this as both offtopic and funny?
Those looking for answers here may also want to visit the other thread on this subject.
No, it's classic apps that run only in Classic. Cocoa run only in OS X. Carbon apps, depending on how they're compiled, may be run in OS X, OS 9, or Classic mode.
That's all well and good, but one of those with only 16 processors will cost you $1,252,330. That's the cost of about 330 dual processor Xserves. Surely those Xserves can be clustered somehow.