You're fucked anyway - the store requirements for the developer specify intel binaries only, no PPC code, so even if you get the store you won;t be able to run anything that they sell on it.
I have known since 2005 that PPC was a dead end - ever since the major announcement about the architecture switch. It's a pain in the ass - but I repurposed my PPC machine into a Linux machine.
Apple provided support for the transition over the intervening 6 years, with rosetta and fat binaries, but at some point they have to draw a line, just as they did with Classic - years after OS 9 was gone.
No, this will never be the "only" way to install apps on the Mac. The store has a built in update system, like it does on the iPhone, so the app itself doesn't need to have any secondary mechanism to do so.
All Apple are doing is adding a package manager-a-like to OS X. I mean, the package manager is the *only* way to get software on Linux, right? Right?
PPC is very much the red headed stepchild of the Ubuntu community, certainly (I run PPC Ubuntu on a PB15) - it's not even officially supported. It's no worse off than just keeping OS X 10.5 on there, but I fancied trying something new.
Keep deluding yourself that 10.6 was "merely" equivalent to a Service Pack; it's not going to make it so.
It wasn't the same as a change from 10.4 to 10.5 ($99) in terms of features - especially front-facing features that are easy to market, but it was considerably more than just a service pack.
And the loudest. The thing was so noisy, US pilots that escorted it gave it a nickname that I cannot recall right now, but that I heard in a documentary somewhere. It is one of the noisiest aircraft in existence.
So, if you choose to patronise the Mac App store at all, even if you also get software from other sources, you are a "meek follower" and "too timid and incompetent to handle actual computer programs".
Interesting. How very black and white your world is.
For the record, I watch the BBC, where swearing is not allowed before 8pm. Does that mean I'm too meek and incompetent to handle swearing?
I believe the term is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
You realise that a large number of people here on slashdot make their living writing software? 99% profit? Nonsense, unless you consider their salary to be part of that "profit".
It costs time, and by extension, money to write good software. Not all software can exist in the OSS space where the time given (which is considerable) is donated for free by the developers - at some point they need to be paid for their work, either by writing commercial software, or by working for companies that develop OSS software and raise money to pay for it in other ways.
I am not a software developer, and in fact am struggling as we speak to write a simple (2x2) * (2x1) matrix multiplier in C, but I am aware that software doesn't just appear ready compiled and packaged, ready to be dropped onto a CD or into an online store and sold for vast profits.
And you seem to have no idea how expensive it is to run a 24/7 (ish) distribution system and micropayment collection system.
Developers have welcomed it as a pretty reasonable fee to eliminate the hassle of handling all that stuff themselves, leaving them free to work on what actually matters to them: the apps themselves.
I think Apple are amending their interface guidelines to include the full screen behaviours of their newest version of iLife. At least, that seemed to be the inference during the keynote.
I thought slashdot liked to yell and froth about how this logical fallacy was overused by pretty much every article where it appears, and yet here you are.
Extrapolate the Flash performance on OS X, of which iOS is a close relative (kernel and base system are pretty much the same). Also looking at the the flash performance on other mobile devices like Android, which have not been all that great.
See my post above for OS X issues.
Fucking shitty slashcode won't let me paste today. Soem days it works, some days it doesn't. Comment ID is 34769404, attached to a reply to the GP.
I doubt it - anyone who has used Flash on OS X would be able to tell you that from personal experience. Flash performance on OS X is simply terrible, and not for any of the reasons Adobe likes to trot out (like 'no access to hidden APIs' or other such nonsense) - other plugin apps that do a similar job to Flash work perfectly well, like Microsoft Silverlight of all things, and On2's built in Flash emulator that was part of their encoding suite back when it was all a separate app and could create standalone Flash videos.
Adobe's Flash code on OS X is just woeful, and for one reason: the previous maintainers, and then Adobe themselves, completely neglected it and are now playing catchup as fast as they can (the 10.1 release is considerably better and saw a 20-25% drop in CPU use, but that still leaves a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo at 65% CPU use playing simple Flash content. This isn't even including anything to do with hardware H.264 decoding (which is supported on OS X now).
iOS is a customised version of OS X running a similar kernel and base system with a custom graphics layer on top, and a ported version of Flash would suffer the same performance problems as it does on OS X. The only issue is that they can't "hide" those performance issues by throwing a Core 2 Duo's full power at them, so your little flash game looks like it's performing ok... at near 90% CPU use. There's just no excess horsepower to throw at it on a mobile phone. Maybe when we have dual core 2Ghz phones - those aren;t actually far off.
I wish Flash performed better on OS X all the time - I've got no serious axe to grind with Adobe (other than wanting open web standards ultimately), so I wish they'd fix it. HD content on BBC iPlayer via the flash player drops frames and stutters on my iMac. The exact same flash stream played by XBMC on the same OS purrs along nicely at 35% CPU with no playback issues at all. Tell me, what are the XBMC devs doing that Adobe is not? Perhaps Adobe could ask them?
I have steam and have many games on it. The most expensive one cost me £8 or something. I only buy during the (frequent) sales if I happen to be on the lookout for new games.
This Christmas, for example, they were running a gigantic sale with 75% to 90% off many titles - I picked up the entire Killing Floor bundle with all the expansions and download packs for the cost of a cup of coffee.
Sure, you can buy the games at their high price point if you like - especially around release - but they almost always come down in a Steam sale. Civ V was selling on Steam for full retail around the time of its launch (and in pre order leading up to the launch), and yet over Christmas it was 25% off, with extra content bundled in. I didn;t buy it (computer doesn't meet specs), but it won;t be the only time it's available at a discount, and next time it's likely to be even cheaper.
There was a case about this in the UK with some dance track that sampled James Brown, and he raised a massive stink about it, so they replaced it with a sound-a-like, then reaped the benefits as the the royalties flowed in since they got to number one for a while. No royalties for James Brown! A little different than actually covering a song, but a good display of karma.
Have you tried the "song is part of a compilation" flag? Or select all the tracks except track 1 and select "skip when shuffling", then also enabling "part of a gapless album"?
Perhaps a little convoluted and I am not sure how this would behave in shuffle if track 1 was picked.
No it isn't. It's a design for a server infrastructure that manages network clients, for example in a large corporate environment, with the ability to have custom OS images ready to go depending on the type of client without having to set up and prepare a whole load of specific ones. It has absolutely nothing to do with "cloud computing".
Seriously, read the actual patent. The article is just FUD and buzzwords and baseless speculation.
Apple has had network booting for some time now (hold N while booting, or select "network" as your default startup disk). I think the article is after some cheap clickthrough, or some cheap FUD. This is from a site linking to a related article citing OS X as "the most dangerous OS [in terms of malware issues] to use in 2010", based on some security company that "won;t give details, but claims the 'penchant for secrecy' and the '644Mb OS update' are sufficient reason to crown it the riskiest OS to use in 2010.
So, ignoring the detailed security knowledgebase articles that accompany every update, including more in depth ones for people who want more detail is "secretive", and let's not forget, the lack of any serious malware outbreak on OS X in.... well, ever, let alone 2010. No one is claiming OS X is immune to security threats or malware/trojans/viruses, but calling it "the most dangerous OS of 2010 [in security terms]" is just nonsense.
So, in my opinion, move along, nothing to see here.
It is lamentable, and there's some effort to keep backwards compatibility (Xcode has a feature that allows you to target specific builds of OS X to assist you in rolling out software for older versions if you want).
The only upside is the smaller cost of upgrading your software - 10.6 is only $25, and 10.5 was $99, so it lessens the blow somewhat. Not ideal, but it could be worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You're fucked anyway - the store requirements for the developer specify intel binaries only, no PPC code, so even if you get the store you won;t be able to run anything that they sell on it.
I have known since 2005 that PPC was a dead end - ever since the major announcement about the architecture switch. It's a pain in the ass - but I repurposed my PPC machine into a Linux machine.
Apple provided support for the transition over the intervening 6 years, with rosetta and fat binaries, but at some point they have to draw a line, just as they did with Classic - years after OS 9 was gone.
No, this will never be the "only" way to install apps on the Mac. The store has a built in update system, like it does on the iPhone, so the app itself doesn't need to have any secondary mechanism to do so.
All Apple are doing is adding a package manager-a-like to OS X. I mean, the package manager is the *only* way to get software on Linux, right? Right?
PPC is very much the red headed stepchild of the Ubuntu community, certainly (I run PPC Ubuntu on a PB15) - it's not even officially supported. It's no worse off than just keeping OS X 10.5 on there, but I fancied trying something new.
Keep deluding yourself that 10.6 was "merely" equivalent to a Service Pack; it's not going to make it so.
It wasn't the same as a change from 10.4 to 10.5 ($99) in terms of features - especially front-facing features that are easy to market, but it was considerably more than just a service pack.
And the loudest. The thing was so noisy, US pilots that escorted it gave it a nickname that I cannot recall right now, but that I heard in a documentary somewhere. It is one of the noisiest aircraft in existence.
Much like certain versions of Android not being compatible with older phones, or phones that are locked down.
So, if you choose to patronise the Mac App store at all, even if you also get software from other sources, you are a "meek follower" and "too timid and incompetent to handle actual computer programs".
Interesting. How very black and white your world is.
For the record, I watch the BBC, where swearing is not allowed before 8pm. Does that mean I'm too meek and incompetent to handle swearing?
I believe the term is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
No you weren't, so Apple hasn't "lost a sale" that it was never going to get in the first place.
If you actually *were* then, goodness, you're fickle. It must be a minefield trying to navigate through your life on a day to day basis.
You realise that a large number of people here on slashdot make their living writing software? 99% profit? Nonsense, unless you consider their salary to be part of that "profit".
It costs time, and by extension, money to write good software. Not all software can exist in the OSS space where the time given (which is considerable) is donated for free by the developers - at some point they need to be paid for their work, either by writing commercial software, or by working for companies that develop OSS software and raise money to pay for it in other ways.
I am not a software developer, and in fact am struggling as we speak to write a simple (2x2) * (2x1) matrix multiplier in C, but I am aware that software doesn't just appear ready compiled and packaged, ready to be dropped onto a CD or into an online store and sold for vast profits.
And you seem to have no idea how expensive it is to run a 24/7 (ish) distribution system and micropayment collection system.
Developers have welcomed it as a pretty reasonable fee to eliminate the hassle of handling all that stuff themselves, leaving them free to work on what actually matters to them: the apps themselves.
I think Apple are amending their interface guidelines to include the full screen behaviours of their newest version of iLife. At least, that seemed to be the inference during the keynote.
So, they are not allowed to set the rules for what is sold in their store?
They should somehow be a special case, different from every other store owner in existence.
Gotcha.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc, eh?
I thought slashdot liked to yell and froth about how this logical fallacy was overused by pretty much every article where it appears, and yet here you are.
Extrapolate the Flash performance on OS X, of which iOS is a close relative (kernel and base system are pretty much the same). Also looking at the the flash performance on other mobile devices like Android, which have not been all that great.
See my post above for OS X issues.
Fucking shitty slashcode won't let me paste today. Soem days it works, some days it doesn't. Comment ID is 34769404, attached to a reply to the GP.
I doubt it - anyone who has used Flash on OS X would be able to tell you that from personal experience. Flash performance on OS X is simply terrible, and not for any of the reasons Adobe likes to trot out (like 'no access to hidden APIs' or other such nonsense) - other plugin apps that do a similar job to Flash work perfectly well, like Microsoft Silverlight of all things, and On2's built in Flash emulator that was part of their encoding suite back when it was all a separate app and could create standalone Flash videos.
Adobe's Flash code on OS X is just woeful, and for one reason: the previous maintainers, and then Adobe themselves, completely neglected it and are now playing catchup as fast as they can (the 10.1 release is considerably better and saw a 20-25% drop in CPU use, but that still leaves a 2Ghz Core 2 Duo at 65% CPU use playing simple Flash content. This isn't even including anything to do with hardware H.264 decoding (which is supported on OS X now).
iOS is a customised version of OS X running a similar kernel and base system with a custom graphics layer on top, and a ported version of Flash would suffer the same performance problems as it does on OS X. The only issue is that they can't "hide" those performance issues by throwing a Core 2 Duo's full power at them, so your little flash game looks like it's performing ok... at near 90% CPU use. There's just no excess horsepower to throw at it on a mobile phone. Maybe when we have dual core 2Ghz phones - those aren;t actually far off.
I wish Flash performed better on OS X all the time - I've got no serious axe to grind with Adobe (other than wanting open web standards ultimately), so I wish they'd fix it. HD content on BBC iPlayer via the flash player drops frames and stutters on my iMac. The exact same flash stream played by XBMC on the same OS purrs along nicely at 35% CPU with no playback issues at all. Tell me, what are the XBMC devs doing that Adobe is not? Perhaps Adobe could ask them?
I have steam and have many games on it. The most expensive one cost me £8 or something. I only buy during the (frequent) sales if I happen to be on the lookout for new games.
This Christmas, for example, they were running a gigantic sale with 75% to 90% off many titles - I picked up the entire Killing Floor bundle with all the expansions and download packs for the cost of a cup of coffee.
Sure, you can buy the games at their high price point if you like - especially around release - but they almost always come down in a Steam sale. Civ V was selling on Steam for full retail around the time of its launch (and in pre order leading up to the launch), and yet over Christmas it was 25% off, with extra content bundled in. I didn;t buy it (computer doesn't meet specs), but it won;t be the only time it's available at a discount, and next time it's likely to be even cheaper.
And the government hasn't put mind controlling chemicals in free school milk...... yet.
Welcome to the late 90s, when AppleTalk was obsolete. Apple fully supports NFS, but defaults to AFP for network sharing.
There was a case about this in the UK with some dance track that sampled James Brown, and he raised a massive stink about it, so they replaced it with a sound-a-like, then reaped the benefits as the the royalties flowed in since they got to number one for a while. No royalties for James Brown! A little different than actually covering a song, but a good display of karma.
Have you tried the "song is part of a compilation" flag? Or select all the tracks except track 1 and select "skip when shuffling", then also enabling "part of a gapless album"?
Perhaps a little convoluted and I am not sure how this would behave in shuffle if track 1 was picked.
They were offered $100 million *each* to go back to touring, but turned it down, but said they would still do charity gigs.
They really don't need money - their monthly earnings from current album sales alone keeps them more than comfortable.
No it isn't. It's a design for a server infrastructure that manages network clients, for example in a large corporate environment, with the ability to have custom OS images ready to go depending on the type of client without having to set up and prepare a whole load of specific ones. It has absolutely nothing to do with "cloud computing".
Seriously, read the actual patent. The article is just FUD and buzzwords and baseless speculation.
The article is nonsense.
Apple has had network booting for some time now (hold N while booting, or select "network" as your default startup disk). I think the article is after some cheap clickthrough, or some cheap FUD. This is from a site linking to a related article citing OS X as "the most dangerous OS [in terms of malware issues] to use in 2010", based on some security company that "won;t give details, but claims the 'penchant for secrecy' and the '644Mb OS update' are sufficient reason to crown it the riskiest OS to use in 2010.
So, ignoring the detailed security knowledgebase articles that accompany every update, including more in depth ones for people who want more detail is "secretive", and let's not forget, the lack of any serious malware outbreak on OS X in.... well, ever, let alone 2010. No one is claiming OS X is immune to security threats or malware/trojans/viruses, but calling it "the most dangerous OS of 2010 [in security terms]" is just nonsense.
So, in my opinion, move along, nothing to see here.
Ah yes, because Apple open sourced HFS+ a while back; there'd be no reason not to include it I guess. One of the benefits of open source code.
It is lamentable, and there's some effort to keep backwards compatibility (Xcode has a feature that allows you to target specific builds of OS X to assist you in rolling out software for older versions if you want).
The only upside is the smaller cost of upgrading your software - 10.6 is only $25, and 10.5 was $99, so it lessens the blow somewhat. Not ideal, but it could be worse.