It isn't that by installing Windows on Mac Machines will initiate a theft problem, but by installing OSX on Whiteboxes, will see a rise in pirated software for OSX.
Yeah, but the quote says that Windows running on Mac may "motivate some devious users to steal Mac software." Which makes no sense. What, are they going to fileshare Mac programs from their Windows P2P networks? Only if they're too dumb to realize that they could just do that from OSX. The real threat is, as you say, someone hacking OSX to run on commodity PC hardware. I imagine that Apple will make this as difficult as possible to achieve.
Which is why I'm wondering why the switch to Intel isn't about cheap hardware.
It's not, cause Apple is never going to make "cheap" hardware. Maybe the switch to Intel will lower their cost some and thus bring down prices a little, but Apple computers will still be premium computers at a premium price.
...but I'll fork over $200 to try out their OS for fun.
So why not fork over an extra $200 to buy your next computer from Apple? It will be a very high end Intel system that you can run Windows on, and you can toy with OSX if you want to. Apple is never going to release OSX for the general Wintel market, their business model doesn't work that way. But now they've applied the licensing scheme to their hardware-oriented model: Instead of making their OS run on other computers, they've made their computers run other OSes. Now switchers can still run windows on their new Apple, and try out OSX (which sells itself).
Have their shiny colored computers boosted them "considerably" so far, or was it their generally good hardware architecture and cleanly-integrated OS? Sigh.
Actually, yes their shiny colored computers HAVE boosted their sales considerably. Do you remember the first iMac? Do you think that it would've sold as well if it was beige? No, because the shiny colors made them distinctive and people are drawn to something that stands out.
Secondly, this is a much more interesting technology than some stupid inserts to change the color of your shoes. This is an extremely good way to provide feedback to the user from a distance. Suppose I'm in bed and I see my phone ring red so I know it's my girlfriend? Suppose I walk into my room and know that I don't have any new mail because my monitor isn't green? Maybe there is a problem with something that I'm rendering and I didn't see it because the screen saver kicked in? My monitor could flash red. The display on electronic devices is very good for giving a lot of information, but it also requires a lot of attention. This technology can notify you of important things quickly and without having to squint at a tiny little screen. I think this is going to be very big.
The idea that Carbon is somehow slower or less efficient than Cocoa is a fiction
I never said that Carbon was slower than cocoa, in fact I even said at the end of my post that Carbon was a good API. The problem with it is that it is nowhere near as good at multithreading as Cocoa is, and this is where the problems lie. When there are file operations moving large numbers of files around, the finder crawls. The one thing about cocoa applications is that no matter how dog slow a program is doing a task, in general it wont affect your ability to do something else in that program.
-z
Re:The Finder still needs work
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The underlying OS is very fast. The GUI/Finder needs all the help it can get. Even after 10.1 and 10.2!
The biggest problem with the OS X finder is that is was programmed in Carbon, and not Cocoa. Back when OSX was still on the drawing board, third party developers insisted that Apple program the finder in Carbon or they wouldn't develop any apps for it. This was to ensure that the Carbon API got due attention and third parties wouldn't be stranded with a half finished API. This strategy worked well for Carbon, as it turned into a very useable API, unfortunately the finder can be very sluggish and is not multithreaded very well. I hope Apple makes a cocoa version soon.
My question is this.....the problem with the TiBooks is the airport reception, so how does an 802.11 card that transmits more power help this problem?
The metal enclosure of the TiBook impedes signals from going in and out so I doubt that fixing only one side of the problem will really have that much effect.
Besides, what idiot granted them a patent on a SERIAL NUMBER?
The thing about patent law is that you can get a patent for just about anything and the patent office generally won't bother to check if you really deserve the patent or not. They have too many requests to do such a thing. The process of determining your right to a patent is relinquished to the already overburdened justice system when someone decides to use their patent against an allegedly infringing company.
The patent office is merely a way of getting a record saying "I had [this idea] on [this date]".
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't that by installing Windows on Mac Machines will initiate a theft problem, but by installing OSX on Whiteboxes, will see a rise in pirated software for OSX.
Yeah, but the quote says that Windows running on Mac may "motivate some devious users to steal Mac software." Which makes no sense. What, are they going to fileshare Mac programs from their Windows P2P networks? Only if they're too dumb to realize that they could just do that from OSX. The real threat is, as you say, someone hacking OSX to run on commodity PC hardware. I imagine that Apple will make this as difficult as possible to achieve.
-z
Which is why I'm wondering why the switch to Intel isn't about cheap hardware.
It's not, cause Apple is never going to make "cheap" hardware. Maybe the switch to Intel will lower their cost some and thus bring down prices a little, but Apple computers will still be premium computers at a premium price.
So why not fork over an extra $200 to buy your next computer from Apple? It will be a very high end Intel system that you can run Windows on, and you can toy with OSX if you want to. Apple is never going to release OSX for the general Wintel market, their business model doesn't work that way. But now they've applied the licensing scheme to their hardware-oriented model: Instead of making their OS run on other computers, they've made their computers run other OSes. Now switchers can still run windows on their new Apple, and try out OSX (which sells itself).
-z
Doesn't this constitute racketeering?
Selling protection from the threat that they create?
Godfather Bill strikes again....
Have their shiny colored computers boosted them "considerably" so far, or was it their generally good hardware architecture and cleanly-integrated OS? Sigh.
Actually, yes their shiny colored computers HAVE boosted their sales considerably. Do you remember the first iMac? Do you think that it would've sold as well if it was beige? No, because the shiny colors made them distinctive and people are drawn to something that stands out.
Secondly, this is a much more interesting technology than some stupid inserts to change the color of your shoes. This is an extremely good way to provide feedback to the user from a distance. Suppose I'm in bed and I see my phone ring red so I know it's my girlfriend? Suppose I walk into my room and know that I don't have any new mail because my monitor isn't green? Maybe there is a problem with something that I'm rendering and I didn't see it because the screen saver kicked in? My monitor could flash red. The display on electronic devices is very good for giving a lot of information, but it also requires a lot of attention. This technology can notify you of important things quickly and without having to squint at a tiny little screen. I think this is going to be very big.
-ZFrom the KB article:
In a matter of months, they went from nothing to being the fifth largest server maker in the US!
Just a correction....but they are the fifth largest 1U rackmount server maker in the US, which is a far cry from the fifth largest server maker.
-zDon't you find it the least bit funny that you're trying to help him to cause a kernel panic on his computer?
Hey, this is OS X we're talking about here. Unlike in the Windows world, you really gotta put some effort into making the system crash.
It's damn funny what a novelty it is to us OS X users to see the system crash....I did it.....just for fun.
-ZThe idea that Carbon is somehow slower or less efficient than Cocoa is a fiction
I never said that Carbon was slower than cocoa, in fact I even said at the end of my post that Carbon was a good API. The problem with it is that it is nowhere near as good at multithreading as Cocoa is, and this is where the problems lie. When there are file operations moving large numbers of files around, the finder crawls. The one thing about cocoa applications is that no matter how dog slow a program is doing a task, in general it wont affect your ability to do something else in that program.
-zThe underlying OS is very fast. The GUI/Finder needs all the help it can get. Even after 10.1 and 10.2!
The biggest problem with the OS X finder is that is was programmed in Carbon, and not Cocoa. Back when OSX was still on the drawing board, third party developers insisted that Apple program the finder in Carbon or they wouldn't develop any apps for it. This was to ensure that the Carbon API got due attention and third parties wouldn't be stranded with a half finished API. This strategy worked well for Carbon, as it turned into a very useable API, unfortunately the finder can be very sluggish and is not multithreaded very well. I hope Apple makes a cocoa version soon.
-z
can't be bothered to put a spellchecker into their story posting system.
Get yourself a machine to run OSX on and every app written in cocoa can spell check every text entry field. (including my web browser)
-ZMy question is this.....the problem with the TiBooks is the airport reception, so how does an 802.11 card that transmits more power help this problem?
The metal enclosure of the TiBook impedes signals from going in and out so I doubt that fixing only one side of the problem will really have that much effect.
You need a better card and a better base station.
-ZThe thing about patent law is that you can get a patent for just about anything and the patent office generally won't bother to check if you really deserve the patent or not. They have too many requests to do such a thing. The process of determining your right to a patent is relinquished to the already overburdened justice system when someone decides to use their patent against an allegedly infringing company.
The patent office is merely a way of getting a record saying "I had [this idea] on [this date]".
I really can't possibly see this lawsuit winning. This is the same model of registration that the software industry has been using for years.
If this isn't an example of prior art, then I don't know what is. Once again, the consumer is getting screwed while the lawyers cash in....