Dumb analogy. The router in question wasn't eating traffic.
If not, then it'd be no different than the U.S. lemon law on new vehicles in forcing them to buy the units back.
Are you thinking about the Uniform Commercial Code? If so, you need to read it before invoking it. The aforementioned problem is analogous to a loose bit of moulding on a car's interior. The dealer who sold it to you certainly has a moral obligation to try to make you happy with your purchase, but no legal obligation exists, because the defect does not constitute a substantial impairment.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And I could counter with the New York Times, the New York Post and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine.
Your information is out of date. Time Warner made the decision to migrate nearly a year ago. Conde Nast did it earlier this year.
I've got fifteen years in the industry. How about choo?
Twenty-one, if you broadly define "the industry." You want to compare resumes, or should we just drop our pants and get a ruler?
For example, if you're just doing general work (web browsing, office, coding (compiling excepted), so on), your computer is spending most of the time idle waiting for you to do something.
1993 called. They want their definition of "general work" back.
"General work" includes audio and video playback, the manipulation of tons of high-resolution bitmaps, checking for email periodically, processing both incoming and outgoing network traffic, regular interrupts for scheduling reminders, managing incoming and outgoing cell phone calls (God, how did we live before Bluetooth?), synchronizing personal databases, et cetera.
Your computer is doing a LOT while you're just sitting there zoning out.
Unless you aren't really using it for anything, of course. In which case you wasted a lot of money on it.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 4, Informative
ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal?
Thou shalt know what thou art talking about before thou postesth.
By your argument Firewire 800 is useless because Firewire 400 is what's in use *now*?
Well, no, that's not what his argument was, but it raises the important point: FireWire 800 is backwards-compatible. PCI Express is not. There's no way to take a PCI card and put it in a PCI Express slot. Can't be done.
On the other hand, you can plug a FireWire 400 device into a FireWire 800 port by using a six-pin to nine-pin cable, readily available.
New PCI-X development will be EOL'd in a few months as the entire world switches
You see the problem here, right? You just said "the whole world switches" and "in a few months" in the same breath. That's an oops on you.
Wrongo. If you get up and walk away, maybe, but not if you're actually, you know, USING your computer.
Whether my computer is faster than a single-processor equivalent when both are doing nothing is a question I've never bothered to ponder.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
What happens when the mobo fries on one of the old PowerMacs?
You call Apple and have them replace it. (I'm assuming. I have no idea what "mobo fries" means. Is that anything like chili fries? 'Cause I like chili fries.)
Apple's got the same basic support policy as every other vendor: five years after end-of-production to end-of-life.
What happens when you need to buy more computers?
If you're still stuck on five-year-old software and have no intention of upgrading, I'm pretty sure you're not anticipating a monster corporate growth spurt.
Can you dual-boot into Mac OS 9 for that legacy application that Classic won't run?
Can you name one such application? And QPS obviously doesn't count; we've already covered how (1) it's poop, (2) Quark in general has become poop, and (3) the industry is migrating away from Quark products. Let's talk about applications that people still actually use.
Gotta run. I'm desperately craving chili fries for some reason.
Ooops. I stand corrected. My bad. (In my own defense, pretty much everybody who says anything like "they're 4 months late" just fucking made it up. You're the exception.)
For most people, a dual CPU offers no real advantage.
Boy, is that ever not true.
Remember, we're talking about Mac OS X here. Mac OS X uses a task model that's very similar to the UNIX model you're probably familiar with. (It's Mach, not UNIX, but the gist is the same.) That means there's support for dual processors at the thread level, sure, but there's also support at the process level.
Right now, on the G4 I'm using to type this, I have 69 processes running. Not much: just the base OS, Safari, Mail, iChat, and iTunes. But on my machine, whatever task is next in the run queue gets run on whichever processor is free. (Yes, there's processor affinity. That's not important right now.)
The net result is that the amount of time a given process is runnable but not running is reduced, because I've got two, two, two Macs in one.
Bottom line? My Mac is faster and more responsive than an equivalent single-processor Mac. Not just sometimes, but always.
Two processors are better than one, period.
remember, the new machines are 4 months late because the CPU has hard to get
First, WTF? Please don't pull things like "4 months late" out of your butt and expect to be taken seriously. You haven't seen Apple's product release roadmaps. You don't know what you're talking about.
And secondly, the 2.5 GHz G5 isn't hard to get; it's hard to MAKE. IBM had lots of problems with their 90 nm fab process. It's not like supplies were constrained. The suckers just weren't coming out of the plant.
No, he's quoting. "Mac OS X dynamically adjusts the flow of the fluid and the speed of the fans based on temperature." How can you adjust the flow in a system that lacks any mechanism to regulate the flow?
The Apple diagram you linked to shows no pump.
LOL. The "diagram" is an illustration from a marketing brochure. You might as well say, "The diagram shows no floor. Therefore, the G5 floats unsupported above your desk."
This is hardly innovation.
So?
Re:Not surprising, and not bad.
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Nevertheless if someone has found a way to get on your machine
You do know that there's never been a recorded instance in the wild of a remote compromise of a Classic Mac OS machine, right? You could cook one up in your basement, I'm sure, but it's never happened out there in real life, ever.
come on, Appleshare is installed by default on OS-9!
Installed... but off. It has to be manually turned on.
You'd better back the hell off OS 9, man. As far as network security goes, it's top of the list.
Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club
on
RIP G4 PowerMac
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Apple is taking away the only lifeline for people who use QPS (try every Gannet paper in the world).
Holy shit! I had no idea that OS 9 machines are going to stop working! When is this supposed to happen? What, is there like a big switch in Cupertino or something, and Steve's gonna up and pull it one day?
Idiot.
Furthermore, I don't know HOW long it's been since QPS was used by "a majority of newspapers." It's been an InDesign world for more than a year now, doubly so since InDesign 3 came out last fall. I'm sure there are some folks who are sticking to obsolete junk, but there always are. Hell, some people still use Windows!
This is, far and away, the stupidest subject of rumor I've ever heard.
This isn't a case in which Apple could build them (faster G5's, and a laptop with a G5 in it) if they wanted and they're just holding out for a business case. And this isn't a case where they're making incremental improvements to the design to get it just right.
Both a 3 GHz G5 and a laptop with a G5 in it are TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES at this time.
When they cease to be impossible, Apple will make them.
This whole "they'll be announced in January" thing is crap. Utter, utter crap. It's not a rumor. It's just a guess.
I agree with you, but you left out something important: the 10 day "no questions asked here's another one" policy.
If you buy your Apple product (Mac, iPod, monitor, whatever) at an Apple retail store and you have ANY kind of problem with it at all in the first 10 days, take it back and they're GIVE YOU ANOTHER ONE RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT.
This has happened to me twice. The first time, I had to send my 17" Studio Display in to have the backlight repaired. I took it to my local Apple Store so they could take care of the logistics of shipping and receiving and all that poop. When it came back 2 days later, it had a scratch right in the middle of the screen. I showed it to the guy at the Genius Bar, and he handed me a brand new Studio Display right there. I took it home.
The second time, it happened to my girlfriend's PowerBook. She bought it, then after the first week noticed a problem with the graphics card. While she was at work I returned it for her, and came home with a brand new one.
The mark was under 50 GB; I'm not sure where it was, but it was related to the number of tracks, not the size of the library. When iTunes 4.5 came out, my library on my home machine was 42 GB and 11,000+ tracks. I had the problem.
If the government "forces" you to pay back the people you commited fraud against, is it "wildly disproportionate"?
WOAH. Fraud? What the fuck, dude? You're just making shit up now.
The difference is that a responsible party at the company knew there was a back door.
And if something bad happened as a result, that would suck for them.
I'm also sure they advertised the devices as having security features.
I'm totally, 100% certain that they did no such thing.
I'm not asking for compensation from damages caused
But that's all you're legally entitled to. You think you should be legally entitled to more, and I'm explaining to you that that's not how our system works.
You're saying that Netgear committed fraud, which is clearly not the case. Do you even know what we're talking about here?
Compare that to the G5, which is an entirely different architecture and very new.
The G5 is neither entirely different nor very new. It's kinda like a Pentium IV: a new chip based on an old architecture. The PowerPC architecture and instruction set have been around for more than 10 years; the first PowerPC-based Mac came out in 1994.
Most Dell desktops are a fair sight quieter than the G5, from what I've seen (and heard).
Adjust your thermostat, or don't work as hard.:-)
At normal room temperatures, say below 75 degrees F, a dual-processor G5 is very, very quiet. Not long after we got our G5's at the office, we had an AC unit fail. The temperature in the office climbed up to about 80 over the course of the afternoon, and the G5's got steadily louder as their fans ramped up to compensate.
Also, if your G5 is busier, it'll be noisier. During normal work, my G5 is nearly silent in my work environment. When I fire off a big Compressor batch job, the fans slowly ramp up.
Same with the liquid cooling; it's only there because the G5 runs incredibly hot.
A G5 at 2 GHz dissipates less heat than a Pentium Xeon at 3 GHz. Check the numbers. The Power Mac G5 has stuff like lots of fans and liquid cooling so it can be quiet.
For comparison, consider the Xserve. Same G5 processors, no liquid cooling, fewer fans. It's about as loud as your average Pentium-based rackmount server. Because it doesn't have to be quiet, you see.
Apple took it in the shorts when they released the mirrored-drive-doors G4's. They were LOUD, so loud that lots of Mac users were literally unable to use them. If you're doing audio work, you can't have a vacuum cleaner running under your desk all day. So now Apple spends a LOT of time and trouble to make things nice and quiet.
Just another data point: this is also true of my G4. (2002 model, dual-optical.) It's got an ATA-100 bus for two of the internal drives and an ATA-66 for the other two, plus an ATA-66 bus for the two optical drives. Open the case, you can see where the ribbon cables terminate, but their actual runs are tucked away nice and neat behind things.
However, if you look at Apple's rigged demo (the photoshop test)
Beg pardon? How is it a "rigged demo" if Apple takes one of the most widely-used cross-platform applications and... well, you know. Runs it. How does that constitute a "rigged demo?"
Besides, it's not just Photoshop. Photoshop on the G5 beat Photoshop on the Pentium, sure. But Logic on the G5 was also able to play four times as many tracks as Cubase on the Pentium, and Final Cut Pro was able to play back nearly twice as many SD streams as a PC-based Avid.
Requiring a refund would be a gross miscarriage of justice. IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY HARMED BY VENDOR NEGLIGENCE, you are entitled to compensator damages. If the harm is severe and the negligence was egregious, you might be entitled to punitive damages.
But IF YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY HARMED, i.e., you just don't like the product as designed, you are NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.
How can I make this more clear? More importantly, why should I bother?
Slashdot Mirror
Timbuktu and the like have been responsible for plenty of compromises
You can hardly count flaws in a piece of third-party software against the security record of the OS.
lousy network security and setup has been responsible for others.
Name one?
Seriously: there has never been a recorded instance of a compromised Mac OS 9 machine in the wild. Look it up.
Now, if that product routinely eats tapes
Dumb analogy. The router in question wasn't eating traffic.
If not, then it'd be no different than the U.S. lemon law on new vehicles in forcing them to buy the units back.
Are you thinking about the Uniform Commercial Code? If so, you need to read it before invoking it. The aforementioned problem is analogous to a loose bit of moulding on a car's interior. The dealer who sold it to you certainly has a moral obligation to try to make you happy with your purchase, but no legal obligation exists, because the defect does not constitute a substantial impairment.
And I could counter with the New York Times, the New York Post and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine.
Your information is out of date. Time Warner made the decision to migrate nearly a year ago. Conde Nast did it earlier this year.
I've got fifteen years in the industry. How about choo?
Twenty-one, if you broadly define "the industry." You want to compare resumes, or should we just drop our pants and get a ruler?
For example, if you're just doing general work (web browsing, office, coding (compiling excepted), so on), your computer is spending most of the time idle waiting for you to do something.
1993 called. They want their definition of "general work" back.
"General work" includes audio and video playback, the manipulation of tons of high-resolution bitmaps, checking for email periodically, processing both incoming and outgoing network traffic, regular interrupts for scheduling reminders, managing incoming and outgoing cell phone calls (God, how did we live before Bluetooth?), synchronizing personal databases, et cetera.
Your computer is doing a LOT while you're just sitting there zoning out.
Unless you aren't really using it for anything, of course. In which case you wasted a lot of money on it.
ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.
Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal?
Thou shalt know what thou art talking about before thou postesth.
By your argument Firewire 800 is useless because Firewire 400 is what's in use *now*?
Well, no, that's not what his argument was, but it raises the important point: FireWire 800 is backwards-compatible. PCI Express is not. There's no way to take a PCI card and put it in a PCI Express slot. Can't be done.
On the other hand, you can plug a FireWire 400 device into a FireWire 800 port by using a six-pin to nine-pin cable, readily available.
New PCI-X development will be EOL'd in a few months as the entire world switches
You see the problem here, right? You just said "the whole world switches" and "in a few months" in the same breath. That's an oops on you.
Because PCI-X, unlike PCI Express, is backwards compatible with PCI.
Most of the the time, the system is idling.
Wrongo. If you get up and walk away, maybe, but not if you're actually, you know, USING your computer.
Whether my computer is faster than a single-processor equivalent when both are doing nothing is a question I've never bothered to ponder.
What happens when the mobo fries on one of the old PowerMacs?
You call Apple and have them replace it. (I'm assuming. I have no idea what "mobo fries" means. Is that anything like chili fries? 'Cause I like chili fries.)
Apple's got the same basic support policy as every other vendor: five years after end-of-production to end-of-life.
What happens when you need to buy more computers?
If you're still stuck on five-year-old software and have no intention of upgrading, I'm pretty sure you're not anticipating a monster corporate growth spurt.
Can you dual-boot into Mac OS 9 for that legacy application that Classic won't run?
Can you name one such application? And QPS obviously doesn't count; we've already covered how (1) it's poop, (2) Quark in general has become poop, and (3) the industry is migrating away from Quark products. Let's talk about applications that people still actually use.
Gotta run. I'm desperately craving chili fries for some reason.
Ooops. I stand corrected. My bad. (In my own defense, pretty much everybody who says anything like "they're 4 months late" just fucking made it up. You're the exception.)
For most people, a dual CPU offers no real advantage.
Boy, is that ever not true.
Remember, we're talking about Mac OS X here. Mac OS X uses a task model that's very similar to the UNIX model you're probably familiar with. (It's Mach, not UNIX, but the gist is the same.) That means there's support for dual processors at the thread level, sure, but there's also support at the process level.
Right now, on the G4 I'm using to type this, I have 69 processes running. Not much: just the base OS, Safari, Mail, iChat, and iTunes. But on my machine, whatever task is next in the run queue gets run on whichever processor is free. (Yes, there's processor affinity. That's not important right now.)
The net result is that the amount of time a given process is runnable but not running is reduced, because I've got two, two, two Macs in one.
Bottom line? My Mac is faster and more responsive than an equivalent single-processor Mac. Not just sometimes, but always.
Two processors are better than one, period.
remember, the new machines are 4 months late because the CPU has hard to get
First, WTF? Please don't pull things like "4 months late" out of your butt and expect to be taken seriously. You haven't seen Apple's product release roadmaps. You don't know what you're talking about.
And secondly, the 2.5 GHz G5 isn't hard to get; it's hard to MAKE. IBM had lots of problems with their 90 nm fab process. It's not like supplies were constrained. The suckers just weren't coming out of the plant.
Your guessing.
No, he's quoting. "Mac OS X dynamically adjusts the flow of the fluid and the speed of the fans based on temperature." How can you adjust the flow in a system that lacks any mechanism to regulate the flow?
The Apple diagram you linked to shows no pump.
LOL. The "diagram" is an illustration from a marketing brochure. You might as well say, "The diagram shows no floor. Therefore, the G5 floats unsupported above your desk."
This is hardly innovation.
So?
Nevertheless if someone has found a way to get on your machine
You do know that there's never been a recorded instance in the wild of a remote compromise of a Classic Mac OS machine, right? You could cook one up in your basement, I'm sure, but it's never happened out there in real life, ever.
come on, Appleshare is installed by default on OS-9!
Installed... but off. It has to be manually turned on.
You'd better back the hell off OS 9, man. As far as network security goes, it's top of the list.
Apple is taking away the only lifeline for people who use QPS (try every Gannet paper in the world).
Holy shit! I had no idea that OS 9 machines are going to stop working! When is this supposed to happen? What, is there like a big switch in Cupertino or something, and Steve's gonna up and pull it one day?
Idiot.
Furthermore, I don't know HOW long it's been since QPS was used by "a majority of newspapers." It's been an InDesign world for more than a year now, doubly so since InDesign 3 came out last fall. I'm sure there are some folks who are sticking to obsolete junk, but there always are. Hell, some people still use Windows!
This is, far and away, the stupidest subject of rumor I've ever heard.
This isn't a case in which Apple could build them (faster G5's, and a laptop with a G5 in it) if they wanted and they're just holding out for a business case. And this isn't a case where they're making incremental improvements to the design to get it just right.
Both a 3 GHz G5 and a laptop with a G5 in it are TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES at this time.
When they cease to be impossible, Apple will make them.
This whole "they'll be announced in January" thing is crap. Utter, utter crap. It's not a rumor. It's just a guess.
I agree with you, but you left out something important: the 10 day "no questions asked here's another one" policy.
If you buy your Apple product (Mac, iPod, monitor, whatever) at an Apple retail store and you have ANY kind of problem with it at all in the first 10 days, take it back and they're GIVE YOU ANOTHER ONE RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT.
This has happened to me twice. The first time, I had to send my 17" Studio Display in to have the backlight repaired. I took it to my local Apple Store so they could take care of the logistics of shipping and receiving and all that poop. When it came back 2 days later, it had a scratch right in the middle of the screen. I showed it to the guy at the Genius Bar, and he handed me a brand new Studio Display right there. I took it home.
The second time, it happened to my girlfriend's PowerBook. She bought it, then after the first week noticed a problem with the graphics card. While she was at work I returned it for her, and came home with a brand new one.
You don't get that kind of service often.
The mark was under 50 GB; I'm not sure where it was, but it was related to the number of tracks, not the size of the library. When iTunes 4.5 came out, my library on my home machine was 42 GB and 11,000+ tracks. I had the problem.
And yeah, I can confirm that 4.6 has fixed it.
If the government "forces" you to pay back the people you commited fraud against, is it "wildly disproportionate"?
WOAH. Fraud? What the fuck, dude? You're just making shit up now.
The difference is that a responsible party at the company knew there was a back door.
And if something bad happened as a result, that would suck for them.
I'm also sure they advertised the devices as having security features.
I'm totally, 100% certain that they did no such thing.
I'm not asking for compensation from damages caused
But that's all you're legally entitled to. You think you should be legally entitled to more, and I'm explaining to you that that's not how our system works.
You're saying that Netgear committed fraud, which is clearly not the case. Do you even know what we're talking about here?
Compare that to the G5, which is an entirely different architecture and very new.
The G5 is neither entirely different nor very new. It's kinda like a Pentium IV: a new chip based on an old architecture. The PowerPC architecture and instruction set have been around for more than 10 years; the first PowerPC-based Mac came out in 1994.
Most Dell desktops are a fair sight quieter than the G5, from what I've seen (and heard).
:-)
Adjust your thermostat, or don't work as hard.
At normal room temperatures, say below 75 degrees F, a dual-processor G5 is very, very quiet. Not long after we got our G5's at the office, we had an AC unit fail. The temperature in the office climbed up to about 80 over the course of the afternoon, and the G5's got steadily louder as their fans ramped up to compensate.
Also, if your G5 is busier, it'll be noisier. During normal work, my G5 is nearly silent in my work environment. When I fire off a big Compressor batch job, the fans slowly ramp up.
Same with the liquid cooling; it's only there because the G5 runs incredibly hot.
A G5 at 2 GHz dissipates less heat than a Pentium Xeon at 3 GHz. Check the numbers. The Power Mac G5 has stuff like lots of fans and liquid cooling so it can be quiet.
For comparison, consider the Xserve. Same G5 processors, no liquid cooling, fewer fans. It's about as loud as your average Pentium-based rackmount server. Because it doesn't have to be quiet, you see.
Apple took it in the shorts when they released the mirrored-drive-doors G4's. They were LOUD, so loud that lots of Mac users were literally unable to use them. If you're doing audio work, you can't have a vacuum cleaner running under your desk all day. So now Apple spends a LOT of time and trouble to make things nice and quiet.
Just another data point: this is also true of my G4. (2002 model, dual-optical.) It's got an ATA-100 bus for two of the internal drives and an ATA-66 for the other two, plus an ATA-66 bus for the two optical drives. Open the case, you can see where the ribbon cables terminate, but their actual runs are tucked away nice and neat behind things.
That would be Fluorinert. Not a bad idea.
All the good parts of the Cray T90 were immersed in a big tank of Fluorinert.
However, if you look at Apple's rigged demo (the photoshop test)
Beg pardon? How is it a "rigged demo" if Apple takes one of the most widely-used cross-platform applications and... well, you know. Runs it. How does that constitute a "rigged demo?"
Besides, it's not just Photoshop. Photoshop on the G5 beat Photoshop on the Pentium, sure. But Logic on the G5 was also able to play four times as many tracks as Cubase on the Pentium, and Final Cut Pro was able to play back nearly twice as many SD streams as a PC-based Avid.
Rigged? Whatchoo talking 'bout, Willis?
What's odd: no pictures of the internals of the liquid-cooled model yet.
Here's a picture of the internals of a liquid-cooled model. All the guts are sealed, for obvious reasons.
How is it any different than requiring a refund?
Requiring a refund would be a gross miscarriage of justice. IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY HARMED BY VENDOR NEGLIGENCE, you are entitled to compensator damages. If the harm is severe and the negligence was egregious, you might be entitled to punitive damages.
But IF YOU ARE NOT ACTUALLY HARMED, i.e., you just don't like the product as designed, you are NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES.
How can I make this more clear? More importantly, why should I bother?