I was attempting to point out that the commenter used HD interchangeably with H.264 which is incorrect, regardless of the intentions of the guy that wants HD video conferencing.
To state that HD will not work on a Mac mini is misleading. To state that decoding H.264 at HD resolutions on Mac mini will not work is more appropriate.
Trying to decode an HD stream on a Mac mini is probably not that good of an idea - a single G4 doesn't have quite enough power to manage it.
H.264 != HD !!!
H.264 is a codec that can encode video at any size, including standard definition down to sizes that fit on mobile phones up to HD. A raw high definition stream that is not encoded with such a computationally-intensive codec as H.264 will probably play on a Mac mini. There was a big hubbub about this over in the MacNN Forums about whether PowerBooks can decode HD-quality H.264 video (the answer is not quite).
Umm, doesn't XSLT transform an XML document (like XHTML) into another valid XML document? Since HTML 4.01 is not an XML format, an XSLT transformation isn't really possible, I believe.
The old iPod offered 30 minute skip protection, looks like the new models a slightly less 25 minutes (big deal). They use RAM to keep a the great skip-protection system in order, so I'm sure they have reduced slightly the amount of RAM used in skip protection, thus reducing overall power requirements.
Spinning the HD up and down is also a great consumer of power, fine tuning the iPod to do this less frequently w/o interrupting music playback would also greatly lower power consumption.
Charter is the WORST provider (and only real broadband provider of services for under $50/month) in Reno. They cap our downloads at 1 megabit and squeeze our uploads (I might as well be uploading from a 56k modem). Charter.net even blocks ports like 1723 (used for PPTP), hoping to move customers over to a business-tiered pricing structure (more on this later). Where the hell is all this excess fiber capacity when you need it if broadband providers will not actually provide.
In this case, I must argue that competition would be better. We need wireless mesh networks to start popping up, we need neighborhood networks, anything to diversify the options. How the hell are we supposed to move to ultrabroadband in the next 10 years if this situation keeps up.
Interestingly enought, I was even willing to pay Charter to move to a business-tiered pricing scheme, but low and behold - they have no method of actually getting in touch with their business services group. You call a local number and are actually routed to some So. Cal office, who kindly informs me (several times) that the business services department (located in Reno, oddly enough) does not have a direct number; all messages given to the unknowing So. Cal people are diligently passed on. I've called three times, left three messages for the business office to contact me, but alas - no one ever calls. I guess they don't want my business after all!
The improvments made from 10.0.4 to 10.1 to the current 10.2 release is drastic. Try it with the latest version. 10.0.4 was very weak in terms of any possible integration with Windows (did not even come with Samba). 10.2 has the latest and greatest, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the support there.
I don't think this is correct - Mac OS X client has virtually all the same software under the hood: it's just missing a front-end GUI. You can do virtually all the same stuff on the client as the server (just requires all that *NIX knowledge to get at it).
Directory services, however, are fully configurable via/Applications/Utitlies/Directory Access on Mac OS X client.
There are options in there to authentication to an AD server. Check it out!
1. Open/Applications/Utitilities/Directory Access 2. Configure LDAPv3 3. Click New 4. Enter in info, making sure you select server type as Active Directory 5. Click on Authentication Tab, switch search to "Custom Path" 6. Click Add, and choose the new LDAP configuration you just made for your AD server 7. Test it out.
I must ward that I have never done this before (only glanced at the instructions). The instructions for 10.2 cannot be all that different from 10.1, so...
Apparently not. By entering "Active Directory under OS X" the very first entry is a PDF by Apple with instructions on page 35 on how to setup clients to authenticate to the active directory domain controller.
Slashdot Mirror
Family mentioned on /. == sweet!
I was attempting to point out that the commenter used HD interchangeably with H.264 which is incorrect, regardless of the intentions of the guy that wants HD video conferencing.
To state that HD will not work on a Mac mini is misleading. To state that decoding H.264 at HD resolutions on Mac mini will not work is more appropriate.
Sorry about the confusion.
Trying to decode an HD stream on a Mac mini is probably not that good of an idea - a single G4 doesn't have quite enough power to manage it.
H.264 != HD !!!
H.264 is a codec that can encode video at any size, including standard definition down to sizes that fit on mobile phones up to HD. A raw high definition stream that is not encoded with such a computationally-intensive codec as H.264 will probably play on a Mac mini. There was a big hubbub about this over in the MacNN Forums about whether PowerBooks can decode HD-quality H.264 video (the answer is not quite).
Umm, doesn't XSLT transform an XML document (like XHTML) into another valid XML document? Since HTML 4.01 is not an XML format, an XSLT transformation isn't really possible, I believe.
The old iPod offered 30 minute skip protection, looks like the new models a slightly less 25 minutes (big deal). They use RAM to keep a the great skip-protection system in order, so I'm sure they have reduced slightly the amount of RAM used in skip protection, thus reducing overall power requirements.
Spinning the HD up and down is also a great consumer of power, fine tuning the iPod to do this less frequently w/o interrupting music playback would also greatly lower power consumption.
Charter is the WORST provider (and only real broadband provider of services for under $50/month) in Reno. They cap our downloads at 1 megabit and squeeze our uploads (I might as well be uploading from a 56k modem). Charter.net even blocks ports like 1723 (used for PPTP), hoping to move customers over to a business-tiered pricing structure (more on this later). Where the hell is all this excess fiber capacity when you need it if broadband providers will not actually provide.
In this case, I must argue that competition would be better. We need wireless mesh networks to start popping up, we need neighborhood networks, anything to diversify the options. How the hell are we supposed to move to ultrabroadband in the next 10 years if this situation keeps up.
Interestingly enought, I was even willing to pay Charter to move to a business-tiered pricing scheme, but low and behold - they have no method of actually getting in touch with their business services group. You call a local number and are actually routed to some So. Cal office, who kindly informs me (several times) that the business services department (located in Reno, oddly enough) does not have a direct number; all messages given to the unknowing So. Cal people are diligently passed on. I've called three times, left three messages for the business office to contact me, but alas - no one ever calls. I guess they don't want my business after all!
The improvments made from 10.0.4 to 10.1 to the current 10.2 release is drastic. Try it with the latest version. 10.0.4 was very weak in terms of any possible integration with Windows (did not even come with Samba). 10.2 has the latest and greatest, and I wouldn't be surprised to find the support there.
I don't think this is correct - Mac OS X client has virtually all the same software under the hood: it's just missing a front-end GUI. You can do virtually all the same stuff on the client as the server (just requires all that *NIX knowledge to get at it).
/Applications/Utitlies/Directory Access on Mac OS X client.
Directory services, however, are fully configurable via
There are options in there to authentication to an AD server. Check it out!
1. Open /Applications/Utitilities/Directory Access
2. Configure LDAPv3
3. Click New
4. Enter in info, making sure you select server type as Active Directory
5. Click on Authentication Tab, switch search to "Custom Path"
6. Click Add, and choose the new LDAP configuration you just made for your AD server
7. Test it out.
I must ward that I have never done this before (only glanced at the instructions). The instructions for 10.2 cannot be all that different from 10.1, so...
Apparently not. By entering "Active Directory under OS X" the very first entry is a PDF by Apple with instructions on page 35 on how to setup clients to authenticate to the active directory domain controller.
Here is the link for the uniniated:
MacOSXwithActiveDirectory.pdf