I seem to remember something about loggerheads from both Apple and the KHTML team on those source code releases. Like two tigers in a room trying to decide how to cook a goat.
"All" including the in-house closed-source stuff they paid a huge bunch of coders to write, or do you think that literally everything Apple turns out is just "polished" OSS material with a fancy GUI on it?
I think the GP's context is that "professional" in this term means "coders who do it for a living" rather than just as a hobby, or a professional who contributes to OSS in their spare time. I know it's clearly not that simple, but I don;t think the inference is that OSS coders are not professionals, just that they don't get to spend as much time on non-commercial projects in most cases (excepting things like Firefox, or something like Open Office or other 'keynote' large, supported projects).
Apple have released a lot more to the FOSS community than they were "forced to" by the licences - in that respect they are similar to other big fishes like IBM and even Microsoft (shock horror).
So sure, Apple haters will jump on "Webkit came from KHTML, they *have* to release changes!" (read: they wouldn't if they could find any legal way around it) and ignore things that they did write in house and open source with no prodding. libdispatch just happens to be one of those things.
And of course, the way to solve those distortions was always an inverse tachyon pulse from the main deflector - a procedure that always had to be jury rigged at the last minute, and always seemed to elude Geordi and Data until the last 10 minutes of the show.
Inverse tachyon pulses were used so frequently that you think they'd have used some sort of main deflector preset - I assume that the ability to save configurations is still around when we have FTL spaceships.
No one at Apple is deluded, and this wasn't "pushed on Apple" since the story is pure fiction: Apple does not charge a $10k design fee as a barrier to entry.
I actually think a fee of some sort here would be advisable for the "LP" so that there was at least some barrier to entry so that you couldn't just add a couple of photos and call it an LP and charge £25 for it. If there's a small barrier to entry (10k is not small really) then it would prevent (hopefully) dilution of the "LP" section with copies of Britney's latest musical abortion with a couple of shots of her in rehab rebranded as a "special edition".
According to the story linked there though, there is no $10k design fee.
You are making my point, and also trying to turn it around that I'm being "elitist" somehow for justifying the cost of a Mac over a PC.
My whole point is that the price of the iMac on the desk in front of me was worth it for what I need it to do - internet, email, word processing, speadsheets, calendars/tasklists, basic gaming, music, DVDs and other miscellaneous computer tasks like photos, making CDs.
I could have bought a PC to do all of those tasks, but I prefer doing them on the Mac - the machine itself looks nice and is very practical (one cable unplugged, into its box [that has a handle] and I'm off to a friend's house for gaming or any other task like some video editing and so on), and I like the OS. Windows isn't all that bad, but I just prefer OS X. No need for malware protection software or updating virus definitions, no activation after an install or rebuild [and yes, I have done that to my Mac, despite what some Mac users will say about never reinstalling], and most of all, it was extremely convenient.
I have built my own PCs in the past (running W2k) but decided to change platform and never looked back. I have a boot camp install of XP that I very rarely boot up if there is some crucial piece of software that is crucial that is windows only, although the last time I did that was to run the EvEMon skills tool before I left the game [whole thing is in.NET).
I don't have anything against anyone who is building their own, or running Windows, or Linux, or FreeBSD - I am just a content computer user who found that the price of the iMac was worth it for the value I get out of it, in terms of the actual hardware and the user experience.
Just because I use and like Apple products doesn't make me beholden to their ad campaigns or corporate messages. "Oh you use an Apple, therefore the 'I'm a Mac, I'm a PC' Ads must totally represent your feelings on the issue!" - yeah, I'm afraid not.
I once bought a loaf of bread in Morrison's, but I still think their advert with Richard Hammond pulling a shopping cart up a cliff to "look for great meat" is stupid.
If I was in the survey, I would be in the "Owns a Mac and a PC" but I'm not a representiative sample - I in fact own about 5 Macs and 1 PC - the PC being the last box I built myself that has w2k on it. I guess I have 2 PCs if you count the fact that the iMac dual boots XP and OS X.
If you think you have to "put up with a torrent of abuse" as a PC owner for buying a PC with Windows, then try being a Mac user for about 5 minutes. Not only do you face abuse from people who "know" computers and hate Macs, you have to deal with people who are totally computer clueless but who somehow "know" that it's cool to bash Macs. Door swings both ways. Zealots and elitists/jerks on both sides.
Put it this way, other than choking a bit on BBC iPlayer because the CPU just can't quite handle the HQ setting, I have yet to come across a website (java, flash or otherwise) that doesn't work, and Java with a big J, no script I have not had much experience with (or rather exposure too, I think I had a couple of Java-based apps a while back but otherwise can't comment).
If Java compatibility is broken on PPC 10.5, then it would also be pretty broken on Intel 10.5 since the OS is the same, for most of the high level stuff (comes on the same disc even), unless the Java runtime is a specific PPC build, or it's broken full stop.
My god, I haven't seen this old meme posted since my early days on slashdot, back when you had to build up a head of steam and stoke the boiler to keep the modem working.
I think it really is hard to distinguish between the two at the hardware level these days, apart from the way the stuff is packaged (and there is a lot to be said about the design and construction of the cases - Apple takes a lot of care with them, in terms of aesthetics and in terms of engineering, while your options in terms of PC cases range from 'it's a box that holds the bits' to "carefully crafted and designed with just as much thought as Apple's cases".
What things will you find on a PC that you won't find on a Mac? All of the various esoteric hardware can be fitted to a Mac too.
Unfortunately, you bought at precisely the wrong time - right during a major architecture shift, and I was expecting them to drop PPC builds at the 10.5 stage.
Same thing happened when OS X came out - some OS9 machines just couldn't handle it.
I have a Powerbook G4 15", 1.5Ghz that will have to live out its life with 10.5 - it's just the nature of the game with a change from PPC to Intel chips. Since the equivalent 5 year old PC laptop is still going to have an X86, Windows doesn't have to face that issue - you just have to convince Windows 7 to install and run on that thing, which is the equivalent requirement to 10.6 on a G4 PB.
What crack are you smoking and where can I get it.
A 5 year old Mac would be something sold in 2004 (2009-5 = 2004), so that would be models like the iBook G4 (1Ghz), PB 12", iMac G5 (slim white - same case as the 1st gen intel iMac), Powerbook 15" G4 (1Ghz to 1.5Gz), Powermac G5 and Xserve G5.
I have 3 Macs in that range (Powerbook 15" 1.5Ghz, iBook G4 and iMac G5 1.8Ghz.
The Powerbook G4 is running on my desk *right now* with the latest version of 10.5 on it, running just fine. I even installed a security update for it that Apple released not long ago.
Funny that for "obsolete hardware".
10.6 is the first major shift Apple has made to finally put PPC to bed (ie, you can't run it on PPC) - when they switched to Intel they continued to roll universal binaries of everything and even kept the Classic environment running until long after it finally should have died for people who just couldn't let go of OS9 apps. So, up until the 10.6 release, the 2004 era macs on my desk (and even the headless iBook G3 I have that was rumbling along quite happily as a silent, book-sized file server) was untroubled by any "forced upgrades" that Apple was pushing at me - in fact, they have been very accommodating with backwards compatibility where possible (classic, rosetta, universal binaries, X-code dev tools with build settings that could target older OS builds [10.2, 10.3 and 1.4 as I remember]).
You can "do things" with old Mac hardware that is just as vintage as 10 year and 5 year old PCs with just as much efficacy, you just seem to be of the opinion that Apple has been slamming doors unnecessarily to drive hardware sales.
Final Cut Express, or iMovie are the "home" editing software for the Mac.
iMovie is free (if your machine came with iLife - don't think they bundle it with iMacs any more, so it would be $70 or something, combined with iPhoto and iDVD), and FCE is about $200 and is much more fully featured - it has the bulk of the tools that a home editor would care about from FCP.
Original iMovie was a bit basic, but the new one is pretty good.
The iMac uses "desktop" parts - desktop cpu, ram, hd, optical drive, screen, psu etc etc.
I think only the base iMac uses what could be called "laptop" parts - the GPU. The higher power iMacs use desktop GPUs (modest models though they may be compared to bleeding edge, 9.4kW 8-slot, LN2 cooled cards in PCs).
No, the reason a Mac costs more is that it is pitched at a different market - Apple don't sell a budget, it's part of the brand. So most of the consumer level gear is similarly priced to a budget PC+extras to match the specs - but this doesn't just mean "same RAM size, same CPU, same HD space", but includes things like "machined aluminium case" instead of "plastic case" and "firewire and camera as standard" compared to "sometimes has firewire [varies so wildly by model] and camera optional".
As with any consumer gadget, you have to decide on a personal level whether buying a Mac is worth the price of it - as many people on slashdot will tell you, for them they are overpriced and they can do better with a whitebox store and an afternoon building something to slap Ubuntu on.
It's no different to the guy who buys a slightly more expensive car than the next guy because he likes it better. Sure you have your guy who buys a car to lord it over people with cheaper cars, but most people who buy the more expensive one just happened to like it and felt the cost was worth it.
On that I am not certain - if Palm is using a USB logo anywhere on their device or packaging or indicating that it has USB compatibility then there will certainly have been a contract or ToU they have to abide by.
This may be covered implicitly (or explicitly with signed documents) when you implement a hardware device that talks on the USB bus (either by using a generic off the shelf USB chip, or rolling your own.
So, as to Palm's specific ills vs the USB IF, I am not totally clear - but Apple *does* have a licensed USB vendor ID and are entitled to protect it (or have the USB IF protect it for them by going after Palm in the event that they continue to use it).
You'll notice that the parent post used no such "n00bsp3ak" language, and was quite plain in their language and hardly a rabid fanboy on either side of the issue.
You however, are anonymous.
Either way, Apple are protecting their trademark in the computer sector - Woolworths are trying to get a generic trademark that would enable them to use it in the computer sector.
What will probably happen is that either it will be dismissed (and Apple will have done enough to tick the box 'defending trademark' for future lawsuits), or Woolworths will be allowed to trademark it, but not in connection with computers or cellphones or music players and so on.
If by "crippling their software" you mean "more stringently conforming to the USB standard to ensure that Vendor IDs are properly verified" then yes.
Seriously, when Microsoft decides to deliberately break a standard (for its own ends) it's "MS is evil!", when Apple decides to very strictly conform to a standard (for its own ends) then it's "Apple is evil!"
I think what this means is that standards don't mean anything? Is that right?
So no one needs to bother conforming to any standards, just do whatever you like.
Is this USB port going to provide 5V across the pins when I connect it? It might. What do you mean. Well, it might be 5V across the pins, it might not be. But it's in the standard. Well, so are USB Vendor IDs, but you don't have to follow that. Why not? Because Apple are evil. Right. So, 5V across these two pins, maybe? Well, it might be those two pins, it might be a different pair.....
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to remember something about loggerheads from both Apple and the KHTML team on those source code releases. Like two tigers in a room trying to decide how to cook a goat.
"All" including the in-house closed-source stuff they paid a huge bunch of coders to write, or do you think that literally everything Apple turns out is just "polished" OSS material with a fancy GUI on it?
I think the GP's context is that "professional" in this term means "coders who do it for a living" rather than just as a hobby, or a professional who contributes to OSS in their spare time. I know it's clearly not that simple, but I don;t think the inference is that OSS coders are not professionals, just that they don't get to spend as much time on non-commercial projects in most cases (excepting things like Firefox, or something like Open Office or other 'keynote' large, supported projects).
Apple have released a lot more to the FOSS community than they were "forced to" by the licences - in that respect they are similar to other big fishes like IBM and even Microsoft (shock horror).
So sure, Apple haters will jump on "Webkit came from KHTML, they *have* to release changes!" (read: they wouldn't if they could find any legal way around it) and ignore things that they did write in house and open source with no prodding. libdispatch just happens to be one of those things.
And of course, the way to solve those distortions was always an inverse tachyon pulse from the main deflector - a procedure that always had to be jury rigged at the last minute, and always seemed to elude Geordi and Data until the last 10 minutes of the show.
Inverse tachyon pulses were used so frequently that you think they'd have used some sort of main deflector preset - I assume that the ability to save configurations is still around when we have FTL spaceships.
No one at Apple is deluded, and this wasn't "pushed on Apple" since the story is pure fiction: Apple does not charge a $10k design fee as a barrier to entry.
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1038901&c=1
It seems someone had a beef with iTunes and decided to make something up.
So you never heard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_This_the_Way_to_Amarillo either then?
No negative moderation needed really, just the link to the story where Apple denies it is charging this 10k fee.
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1038901&c=1
I actually think a fee of some sort here would be advisable for the "LP" so that there was at least some barrier to entry so that you couldn't just add a couple of photos and call it an LP and charge £25 for it. If there's a small barrier to entry (10k is not small really) then it would prevent (hopefully) dilution of the "LP" section with copies of Britney's latest musical abortion with a couple of shots of her in rehab rebranded as a "special edition".
According to the story linked there though, there is no $10k design fee.
Except that Apple are not charging 10k per design.
http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1038901&c=1
You are making my point, and also trying to turn it around that I'm being "elitist" somehow for justifying the cost of a Mac over a PC.
My whole point is that the price of the iMac on the desk in front of me was worth it for what I need it to do - internet, email, word processing, speadsheets, calendars/tasklists, basic gaming, music, DVDs and other miscellaneous computer tasks like photos, making CDs.
I could have bought a PC to do all of those tasks, but I prefer doing them on the Mac - the machine itself looks nice and is very practical (one cable unplugged, into its box [that has a handle] and I'm off to a friend's house for gaming or any other task like some video editing and so on), and I like the OS. Windows isn't all that bad, but I just prefer OS X. No need for malware protection software or updating virus definitions, no activation after an install or rebuild [and yes, I have done that to my Mac, despite what some Mac users will say about never reinstalling], and most of all, it was extremely convenient.
I have built my own PCs in the past (running W2k) but decided to change platform and never looked back. I have a boot camp install of XP that I very rarely boot up if there is some crucial piece of software that is crucial that is windows only, although the last time I did that was to run the EvEMon skills tool before I left the game [whole thing is in .NET).
I don't have anything against anyone who is building their own, or running Windows, or Linux, or FreeBSD - I am just a content computer user who found that the price of the iMac was worth it for the value I get out of it, in terms of the actual hardware and the user experience.
Just because I use and like Apple products doesn't make me beholden to their ad campaigns or corporate messages. "Oh you use an Apple, therefore the 'I'm a Mac, I'm a PC' Ads must totally represent your feelings on the issue!" - yeah, I'm afraid not.
I once bought a loaf of bread in Morrison's, but I still think their advert with Richard Hammond pulling a shopping cart up a cliff to "look for great meat" is stupid.
If I was in the survey, I would be in the "Owns a Mac and a PC" but I'm not a representiative sample - I in fact own about 5 Macs and 1 PC - the PC being the last box I built myself that has w2k on it. I guess I have 2 PCs if you count the fact that the iMac dual boots XP and OS X.
If you think you have to "put up with a torrent of abuse" as a PC owner for buying a PC with Windows, then try being a Mac user for about 5 minutes. Not only do you face abuse from people who "know" computers and hate Macs, you have to deal with people who are totally computer clueless but who somehow "know" that it's cool to bash Macs. Door swings both ways. Zealots and elitists/jerks on both sides.
Put it this way, other than choking a bit on BBC iPlayer because the CPU just can't quite handle the HQ setting, I have yet to come across a website (java, flash or otherwise) that doesn't work, and Java with a big J, no script I have not had much experience with (or rather exposure too, I think I had a couple of Java-based apps a while back but otherwise can't comment).
If Java compatibility is broken on PPC 10.5, then it would also be pretty broken on Intel 10.5 since the OS is the same, for most of the high level stuff (comes on the same disc even), unless the Java runtime is a specific PPC build, or it's broken full stop.
My god, I haven't seen this old meme posted since my early days on slashdot, back when you had to build up a head of steam and stoke the boiler to keep the modem working.
Like what?
I think it really is hard to distinguish between the two at the hardware level these days, apart from the way the stuff is packaged (and there is a lot to be said about the design and construction of the cases - Apple takes a lot of care with them, in terms of aesthetics and in terms of engineering, while your options in terms of PC cases range from 'it's a box that holds the bits' to "carefully crafted and designed with just as much thought as Apple's cases".
What things will you find on a PC that you won't find on a Mac? All of the various esoteric hardware can be fitted to a Mac too.
It depends what you are selling.
If Apple does have what you need, you can buy something else. That is your choice.
Apple chooses not to sell a cheap budget model. Choices are good right?
Unfortunately, you bought at precisely the wrong time - right during a major architecture shift, and I was expecting them to drop PPC builds at the 10.5 stage.
Same thing happened when OS X came out - some OS9 machines just couldn't handle it.
I have a Powerbook G4 15", 1.5Ghz that will have to live out its life with 10.5 - it's just the nature of the game with a change from PPC to Intel chips. Since the equivalent 5 year old PC laptop is still going to have an X86, Windows doesn't have to face that issue - you just have to convince Windows 7 to install and run on that thing, which is the equivalent requirement to 10.6 on a G4 PB.
5 year old Mac hard to keep up to date?!
What crack are you smoking and where can I get it.
A 5 year old Mac would be something sold in 2004 (2009-5 = 2004), so that would be models like the iBook G4 (1Ghz), PB 12", iMac G5 (slim white - same case as the 1st gen intel iMac), Powerbook 15" G4 (1Ghz to 1.5Gz), Powermac G5 and Xserve G5.
I have 3 Macs in that range (Powerbook 15" 1.5Ghz, iBook G4 and iMac G5 1.8Ghz.
The Powerbook G4 is running on my desk *right now* with the latest version of 10.5 on it, running just fine. I even installed a security update for it that Apple released not long ago.
Funny that for "obsolete hardware".
10.6 is the first major shift Apple has made to finally put PPC to bed (ie, you can't run it on PPC) - when they switched to Intel they continued to roll universal binaries of everything and even kept the Classic environment running until long after it finally should have died for people who just couldn't let go of OS9 apps. So, up until the 10.6 release, the 2004 era macs on my desk (and even the headless iBook G3 I have that was rumbling along quite happily as a silent, book-sized file server) was untroubled by any "forced upgrades" that Apple was pushing at me - in fact, they have been very accommodating with backwards compatibility where possible (classic, rosetta, universal binaries, X-code dev tools with build settings that could target older OS builds [10.2, 10.3 and 1.4 as I remember]).
You can "do things" with old Mac hardware that is just as vintage as 10 year and 5 year old PCs with just as much efficacy, you just seem to be of the opinion that Apple has been slamming doors unnecessarily to drive hardware sales.
Final Cut Express, or iMovie are the "home" editing software for the Mac.
iMovie is free (if your machine came with iLife - don't think they bundle it with iMacs any more, so it would be $70 or something, combined with iPhoto and iDVD), and FCE is about $200 and is much more fully featured - it has the bulk of the tools that a home editor would care about from FCP.
Original iMovie was a bit basic, but the new one is pretty good.
You're in the typo detection business I assume.
The iMac uses "desktop" parts - desktop cpu, ram, hd, optical drive, screen, psu etc etc.
I think only the base iMac uses what could be called "laptop" parts - the GPU. The higher power iMacs use desktop GPUs (modest models though they may be compared to bleeding edge, 9.4kW 8-slot, LN2 cooled cards in PCs).
No, the reason a Mac costs more is that it is pitched at a different market - Apple don't sell a budget, it's part of the brand. So most of the consumer level gear is similarly priced to a budget PC+extras to match the specs - but this doesn't just mean "same RAM size, same CPU, same HD space", but includes things like "machined aluminium case" instead of "plastic case" and "firewire and camera as standard" compared to "sometimes has firewire [varies so wildly by model] and camera optional".
As with any consumer gadget, you have to decide on a personal level whether buying a Mac is worth the price of it - as many people on slashdot will tell you, for them they are overpriced and they can do better with a whitebox store and an afternoon building something to slap Ubuntu on.
It's no different to the guy who buys a slightly more expensive car than the next guy because he likes it better. Sure you have your guy who buys a car to lord it over people with cheaper cars, but most people who buy the more expensive one just happened to like it and felt the cost was worth it.
GENERIC TRADEMARK THAT COVERS ALL SECTORS versus Apple COMPUTER (one of the SECTORS covered by a GENERIC trademark).
On that I am not certain - if Palm is using a USB logo anywhere on their device or packaging or indicating that it has USB compatibility then there will certainly have been a contract or ToU they have to abide by.
This may be covered implicitly (or explicitly with signed documents) when you implement a hardware device that talks on the USB bus (either by using a generic off the shelf USB chip, or rolling your own.
So, as to Palm's specific ills vs the USB IF, I am not totally clear - but Apple *does* have a licensed USB vendor ID and are entitled to protect it (or have the USB IF protect it for them by going after Palm in the event that they continue to use it).
+3 insightful?
*sigh*
Source? Even National Inquirer will do.
Even Steve Ballmer's butler will do, but this needs a source or it's just plain heresy.
You'll notice that the parent post used no such "n00bsp3ak" language, and was quite plain in their language and hardly a rabid fanboy on either side of the issue.
You however, are anonymous.
Either way, Apple are protecting their trademark in the computer sector - Woolworths are trying to get a generic trademark that would enable them to use it in the computer sector.
What will probably happen is that either it will be dismissed (and Apple will have done enough to tick the box 'defending trademark' for future lawsuits), or Woolworths will be allowed to trademark it, but not in connection with computers or cellphones or music players and so on.
You do if the company in question is filing for a generic trademark that would also allow it to be used in the same sector as Apple computer.
If God existed, he might have prior art.
You have to exist to be able to file for a trademark.
If by "crippling their software" you mean "more stringently conforming to the USB standard to ensure that Vendor IDs are properly verified" then yes.
Seriously, when Microsoft decides to deliberately break a standard (for its own ends) it's "MS is evil!", when Apple decides to very strictly conform to a standard (for its own ends) then it's "Apple is evil!"
I think what this means is that standards don't mean anything? Is that right?
So no one needs to bother conforming to any standards, just do whatever you like.
Is this USB port going to provide 5V across the pins when I connect it?
It might.
What do you mean.
Well, it might be 5V across the pins, it might not be.
But it's in the standard.
Well, so are USB Vendor IDs, but you don't have to follow that.
Why not?
Because Apple are evil.
Right.
So, 5V across these two pins, maybe?
Well, it might be those two pins, it might be a different pair.....
deformation?
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Wrong.
Please try again, thanks for playing.