Now he might have had some idea that he wanted to give his money away before. However I think she has influenced him more that way.
Who honestyly knows how much of role Melinda plays in using their money for charity.
However I do know that part of his passion has been to give back to the world is something you can track in his speeches and work back to the early 80s.
If I were to guess, I would probably credit one of his parents for his philanthrapist ideals, as they were not poor, and gave a lot back to their community long before Bill had his own two dimes to rub together.
Re:DirectX: vendor-lock-in and avoid paying to SGI
on
Wine vs Windows Benchmarks
·
· Score: 3, Informative
SGI. Microsoft stopped OpenGL development by interfering with the OpenGL ARB, in order to catch up with their own solution, DirectX.
Love the 'personal' theories...
Microsoft did not even have an alternative to OpenGL in development when Microsoft pulled out of OpenGL. Microsoft pressed for OpenGL to enhance low level hardware support with intention of doing more than cad/engineering and supporting 3D rendering environment conducive to gaming and directly access video card hardware for gaming.
OpenGL told Microsoft to go pound sand, and that OpenGL was not for games or going to support direct hardware features for gaming.
Microsoft started stringing together a set of technologies that were called WinG, mainly a 2D form of rendering with plans for a new model that was a 3D rendering solution with direct video access on par of what the current DOS based games were used to, but in the Windows environment.
If OpenGL would have not 'played catch-up' to DirectX, and instead took Microsoft's recommendations at the time Microsoft was a big OpenGL proponent, there would never have been a DirectX, as OpenGL would be what Microsoft would be using, and contributing to instead.
The vendor lock in, was just a bonus in the long run, it was others involved in OpenGL that made the choice to not go for gaming.
But you can say it was about paying to SGI or a diabolical plan to take control of the gaming industry, but the facts don't support it.
The second part of this topic is that DirectX evolved to be more than an alternative to OpenGL, as it encapsulates everything from input devices, networking, to sound and voice.
When DirectX first existed it was the only game in town for any standardized interface to video for accelerated graphics in gaming. Now it is more than just Video...
I should update this post by noting that Apple has furthered their misleading of customers with new ads on their web site.
Let me quote their ads, for all that think Jobs was clear about it only being a SPEC comparison, because apparently that is not what Apple believes or is telling their customers.
"4x faster. (Wishes do come true.)" (15.4 MacBook Pro) "2x faster. Twice as amazing." (Base iMac)
I wonder if the UK will make Apple pull their ads for being misleading again this year...
I appreciate the Troll mod, but I would rather see people point out any facts in my post that are not accurate.
It is easy to mod down or hit Troll, maybe show some insight, and at least point out any fact I presented that is not true or was misleading to justify the standard anti-MS troll mod.
I applaud your research and clever pulling out of context statements, although the one site was not out of context, it was just repeating myth of someone not understanding the difference between 'adopting' a technology and being the basis of the technology.
Again I will repeat this for the slow learners, MPEG4's codecs were not based on Quicktime Technology, and the original MPEG4 codec technology was written by Microsoft.
Everyone else, don't be trolled by the above post, do a simple freaking google search for yourself on: Microsoft MPEG-4 v3 or MS-MPEG4 v3 or even Microsoft MPEG-4 v1.
I will also again repeat. DIVX is nothing more than a 'hack' of the original Microsoft of the MPEG4 codec technology.
Here, I will do a quick Google for the causal reader:
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codec-faq.htm What's the difference between DivX and MS MPEG4 v3? There's none, really. DivX is basically a step farther from the original hack of the MS MPEG4 v3 codec
http://www.am-soft.ru/fourcc.html "Microsoft MPEG-4 V1, V2 & V3 Microsoft MPEG4 Frozen These codecs were developed by Microsoft by draft MPEG-4 specs and were available some time ago with their Windows Media Tools (WMT) and MS NetShow package. However Microsoft has restricted the functionality of these codecs so that only native tools from Microsoft could use these compressors. The DivX team made a binary hack of MS MPEG4 V3 codec and called it DivX.
And of course how about posting a link to MPEG Specifications Body itself, cause apparently that would have not allowed the above poster to distort facts: http://www.m4if.org/mpeg4/
And now let's address your revisionist history of MSDOS and Stacker... You quote the Internet Myth regarding the lawsuit between Microsoft and Stac, but have you or any of your other drones actually read about the ruling 'specifically'.
If you had, you would see that it was a PATENT lawsuit, and NO CODE WAS STOLEN. PERIOD. (Go ahead and edit Wiki or keep saying it to yourself, it will not make it true.)
Let me repeat, MS did NOT use or STEAL any code from Stac. - Go read the lawsuit, for the love of God...
Here, let me give you a link to get you started if you want to find truth on the subject:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Stac_Electron ics Stac sued Microsoft for infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won; in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarded Stac $120 million in compensatory damages, coming to about $5.50 per copy of MS-DOS 6.0 that had been sold. The jury also agreed with a Microsoft counterclaim that Stac had misappropriated the Microsoft trade secret of a pre-loading feature that was included in Stacker 3.1, and simultaneously awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on the counterclaim. While Microsoft prepared an appeal, Stac was able to obtain a preliminary injunction from the court stopping the sales of all MS-DOS products that included DoubleSpace; by this time Microsoft had already started shipping an "upgrade" of MS-DOS to its OEM customers that removed DoubleSpace
As you see, NO CODE was Stolen by Microsoft, and the reason 6.21 even had to be released was because of the injunction by Stac to 'extort' Microsoft, which worked, as Microsoft basically bought the failing company.
And if you look at the case, the only thing MS did was create a technology that 'infringed' on their PATENTS - NOT STOLE CODE as you incorrectly state.
However, Stacker Willingly used a MS Trade Secret that was disclosed to them during this time, so Stac is the company that actually STOLE anything.
And you my friend are the one that needs a history lesson, next time try to provide facts instead of bloviating about old Internet Myths...
Well I do wish I could offer proof, but with the recent coverups, about all that is left of the story is clips of the un-edited interview that started the story.
NBC later 'censored' the transcript that brought up her name specifically in reference to the reported journalists that the NSA had spied on. However citing that the story was still being investigated, and they would release information on it at a later date.
As you will note I transposed the husband and wife. The wife was the one 'allegely' spied on (Christiane Amanpour), and the husband(J. Rubin), was the Senior National Security Adviser to John Kerry during his Presidential campaign.
Considering that the 'official' leak of the NSA tapping specifically said that many 'journalists' were tapped by the NSA, it isn't a far stretch to estimate that the outspoken Amanpour was a targeted journalist.
And even if she wasn't tapped, but other journalists were tapped, I will ask again, how is this protecting us from terrorists? Does anyone believe prominate journalists in the USA would be talking with terrorists about terror activities and NOT hand this information over?
Additionally, if these were legitimate wiretaps, they had 72hrs to obtain warrants after they started monitoring the journalist's communication, and the court set up to hand out the warrants has only refused 3 or 4 in its entire history.
So why not be up front about the wiretaps, what was the NSA under guidelines of the Bush Administration doing that was so 'secret' that they couldn't even reveal the tapping activity to the 'secret security' court set up specifically for these type of warrants? What journalist activities would be so secret that even obtaining a 'secret' warrant was not possible?
Do people not think for themselves anymore? Here is a tip - think past the one liners and short attention span content clips generated by Fox News and talking heads for the Republican Party. Sure what people say sometimes can sound good, but often it is just a good con game, and the one that is losing is you.
For example, be honest with yourself, do you really need to be a genius to not understand that reducing pollution regulations, and allowing more mercury into water really isn't a 'Clear Skies Act' as it was named?
And kindly mod my original post back up, I think I backed up my original statement, and my point...
Before Bill married Melinda I don't think he really though much about the world around him. Not to say that she hasn't changed him and now he does. But I think it more her and he just gets behind what she brings up.
I shall refer you to a 12-15 year old Playboy interview, where he said that later in life his plans were to set up organizations to give away the majority of his money.
He also stated that if he had children they would only receive a fraction of his money, so that they were comfortable, but encouraged to do good things with their own lives in the world.
This was before Melinda and him dated, let alone married.
Also MPEG4 is based on quicktime architecture not microsoft
Your post was so full of crap and 'allegations' I just am going to skip most of it. Also the Eola and stacker items you mention are not as clear as you make them out to be. Many companies actually broke both, and the Stacker was based on MS making MS-DOS incompatible, not TAKING the TECHNOLOGY, as this was never proved and later dropped from the lawsuit.
As for the other lawsuits, when you are the 800lb gorilla, you are also the cash cow of the patent and lawsuit world. Even Apple has been at the mercy of MANY lawsuits... And one important one, like from XEROX, where they lost for stealing GUI concepts they were not licensed to use.
As for the MPEG4 being based on Quicktime architecture? Are you high?
Just because Apple 'adapted' the MPEG4 technology and licensed it for quicktime is completely different than the MPEG4 codec being written or based on anything to do with Quicktime.
Up until Quicktime moved to MPEG4 technologies, it pretty much sucked, that is why it was the bastard step child of the audio/video streaming world when Real/RA and MS/AVI-WM technologies were prevailing, and still are.
Go look up the original MPEG4 codec information, you will find that it was code written by Microsoft and even Called MS-MPEG4 for a while in the developer world, as it was released as a development codec back in about 1998.
Go do some research instead of trying to defend your 'ideals' with nonsense.
When has MS EVER looked at competitors' standards and said anything but, "Let's make our own standard that does most of the same things, but is incompatible, and we'll break everyone else's product because everyone will use whatever we put into Windows"?
Ok, I stopped reading there...
You know NOTHING about Microsoft, except the 'evil slashdot' bias.
Go read up on technologies Microosft has pioneered, supported, and funded.
For example Visual Basic, instead of creating their own originally, they paid the original company VERY WELL for the ideas they had put in to it.
The same can be said of MANY technologies. Microsoft is more apt to buy the technology if it is good and pay the creators WELL than to RIP it off. Shall we talk about Apple and Konfabulator as an example of the 'opposite' of what Microsoft does?
They also were a STRONG supporter and part of the OpenGL group, up until the OpenGL group REFUSED to put hardware acceleration technologies into OpenGL, as Microsoft proposed based on gaming and 3D acceleration cards that were going to become common. OpenGL saw themselves as an 'engineer/CAD' model with no need for frills for texturing games at high frame rates.
Let's see what else off the top of my head... The defragmenter in WindowsXP is bought from the company that originally made a defragmenter for NT. Microsoft could have easily wrote their own, and instead rewarded the company by buying their work.
There are 100s of cases like this. Instead of 'squash' the cool technology Microsoft likes, then tend to try to use the exiting people's work and PAY them for it. Shall I constrast Apple and ripping off the Open Source world work of BSD and giving nothing back to the BSD technologies?
And I dare you to suggest Netscape as an example of MS squashing another company, as Microsoft tried to license Netscape long before they bought Mosaic for Internet Explorer - notice Bought, not ripped of Mosaic. Netscape screwed themselves as they did not want to make a portable engine out of the Netscape browser at the time.
Also don't cite Wordperfect or Lotus, as Microsoft literally begged both companies to write Windows versions of their software, and even offered to supply the companies with developers to assist in the process. Both companies told Microsoft to go pound sand, as they had their market and did not want a Windows Version.
Even in the Server/Networking world, Microsoft tried to license and work with Novell (which they did initially) until Novell told them to go pound sand as they wouldn't license the networking technology for Windows. Hence Windows for Workgroups, which was followed up by Novell's peer to peer solutions to try and compete.
So ask yourself, how much do you really know about Microsoft and what technology they have EVER stolen or taken or recreated.
Heck even with the Virus and Spyware technologies, they bought companies that put a lot of work into it recently.
Do you not think Microsoft could not have created their own, honestly, or at the very least copied what these companies were doing?
Instead they ONCE AGAIN, chose to pay these companies and people VERY WELL for the technology, even though most of it will be re-written.
Go research a bit of Microsoft, they have screwed up a bunch, but ripping off technologies without compensation is not something they are known for.
Microsoft also gives a lot of ideas and technology to the standards bodies of the web and the world that people don't even realize. Go look up for example who wrote the original MPEG4 codecs that the current MPEG4 and even DIVX are based on - Yes Microsoft. Also look up contributors to XML and CSS and other web standards that were given to the EVERYONE, things like XHTML. Also notice even their own Windows Media technologies were turned over to a standards body, hence VSC. Something not even Divx or Apple/Quicktime or Real have done with their media formats.
What does it do that I can't do with SVG, canvas, and other existing standards? I can see Flash as needing replaced but I can't see a benefit to replacing it with an even less open standard.
Well it can do a lot, but that is NOT the point...
This HAS nothing to do with SVG or killing Flash. These are the art side of the development tools for MS WPF technologies.
It is used to create 'interfaces' for applications in Windows and eventually online for Windows Users.
This is basically the art side of the MS new technologies that are not really in competition with anything but the Win32 GUI API drawing set. This is the replacement for Microsoft's internal rendering engine of Windows.
What this does do that SVG and Flash don't is inherently handle many more types of graphical display concepts, blending, transisitions, 3D workspace, Viewpoints, and even collision detection for 3D UI objects, as well as provide these object and work with controls for applications.
It is like Flash and SVG and Postscript on Crack with full 3D capabilities to CREATE A UI, either application or eventually Web 'pushed' application.
If Flash or SVG or any other of the current technologies could do any of these features, MS wouldn't have had to create this new system.
It does basics from drawing fonts to screen and printer, to making a 3D Cube spin in front of a building with clouds going by, and the 3D Cube has User Controls and Interface items on it.
This is basically moving Application UIs for Windows to the next generation, what people have complained about with Windows, that there was no inherent 3D inteface unless you wrote in DirectX. (Although not many other OSes have inherent 3D model rendering engines as a part of their standard API interface, not even OSX.)
So instead of having to drop to OpenGL or DirectX to do some really cool animations or 3D application interfaces, you can use this tool and the other new tools from Microsoft, and they work in the WPF, which calls DirectX for you. This is like making 3D simple application design and animations 'easy' for the casual programmer.
The causal programmer will also get something they can't get with SVG or Flash technology for their Windows application as they will get the speed of DirectX, where Flash and SVG don't give you that, even if you create a 'fake' 3D interface in them.
I wish people would take a look at these technologies and see where MS has done some really good work, that is beyond what others are doing. If not, all other OSes will be falling behind once again.
And the cool thing is, if the Linux and OSX world didn't want to have to 'create' their own version of this technology, MS is giving the keys away to it for free.
So you could create a WPF for OSX or Linux, drop it through to an accelerated OpenGL interface, and be able to use these technologies on ANY OS platform.
Just because MS designed the technologies and even if they are not 100% perfect, they are above 99% of what is out there for simple application design, the specifications for them are open - wide open even, and you could be writing a great KDE or OSX application using this interface technology with no intention of ever running it on Windows or having anything to do with Microsoft.
But the point is that they haven't... 32-bit drivers for a lot of older hardware were provided by microsoft and not the individual vendors in any case
With the exception of standard and universal drivers like ATAPI and SVGA, most drivers WERE supplied by vendors, not Microsoft.
By contrast, the sourcecode for these drivers is available for linux
This is true, but on a more limited scale than what people relize. Not all vendors provide the source for drivers, and many of the drivers are user created versions that A) Are not 100% compliant with the hardware B) Don't support all the features of the hardware.
So sure, you can say there are more 64bit drivers, but just like with my Epson example, I could say by using the ESC/2 drier variant, that I support all the epson printers. This does not mean I can use the CD printing features, the higher resolutions, or many of the other advanced features. (This is just an example, not a basis for argument.)
So in order to run 64bit windows on my existing AMD64 machine, i need a new nic, new videocard, and new soundcard...
Actually, NO... As you said the drivers that were SUPPLIED to Microsoft, even if they didn't write them, have been ported to 64bit versions. WindowsXP 64bit STILL supports MORE hardware than any 64bit Linux. PERIOD.
In fact, it supports more drivers than any 32bit Linux even.
So your argument has basis, it is just not refelected in reality.
And also BTW, when people in the Windows world DON'T have a 64bit driver for some strange piece of hardware, what do you think they do? They create their own, just like people in the Linux world do... When it comes down to it, there is no difference,
Windows users are NOT any more reliant on vendors than Linux users. Unless you have an inside track of vendors releasing driver source code to Linux users that Windows users can't see... And this doesn't happen.
Even when vendors release source for their drivers, Windows developers can grab the source and create a driver just as fast as a Linux user. PERIOD.
Not to mention the fact that i need to get a floppy drive so i can load SATA drivers to even install windows... 32bit windows won't install without a floppy drive either, but that's another matter, and it does support all my other hardware.
Actually, like many *nixes where you also encounter this problem, you can put the drivers on a CD, USB drive, Network Boot Share, etc... PS This would not be an issue for WindowsXP except it was released in 2001, that predates pretty much ALL SATA devices. Get it?
WindowsXP 64bit version has more driver support than ANY other OS in history, except the 32bit versions of WindowsXP.
Ok, I requoted this line from my post so you could re-read it...
It doesn't, the 64bit version lacks support for a LOT of older peripherals that were supported by the 32bit versions...
I NEVER said WindowsXP 64bit had more driver support than Windows XP 32bit. See above again.
By contrast, Linux actually supports a lot more hardware because the vast majority of the drivers for 32bit systems also work when recompiled for a 64bit system (and has done for years, a lot of hardware works on 64bit linux/alpha as well)
And this is different on Windows How? All the manufacturer has to do in most instances is simply recompile their drivers as well.
The only advantage that the Linux community has is that the majority of its drivers are moddified versions of various other drivers to support a specific piece of hardware, instead of a lot of the drivers being supplied by the Hardware Vendor.
I can think of several printer drivers that are good examples of this, sure you can get 50 Epson printer models to run under Linix for example, but they are using a common driver, and not always supporting all the features of the specific printer.
You can do this in Windows to, just use the ESC/2 driver and virtually all Epson printers work without specific drviers.
As for serious hardcore drivers like from NVidia and ATI, the 64bit versions are just as reliant on the Vendor to provide them in Linux as they are in Windows. PERIOD.
Except that Microsoft takes the strategy much, much further than KDE does -- not only is explorer the component for rendering HTML, but it also renders the desktop, taskbar, start menu, etc.
Please for the love of God tell me you were kidding?
The HTML rendering Engine is NOT Explorer, nor is it even Internet Explorer. And Explorer is NOT Internet Explorer. Understand?
Sure Explorer can call features from the HTML rendering engine, just like it can call feautres from the BMP and Font rendering engines. But this does NOT mean Explorer itself is a PART of the HTML rendering engine.
Addtionally, The Taskbar, Start Menu, etc are not rendered using the HTML engine, and the only time the desktop is rendered along side the HTML rendering engine is when Active Desktop or HTML apps or Pages are placed running on the desktop. Just because Explorer can use the HTML engine does not make it the HTML engine. You could set the system that Explorer NEVER calls any functions out of the HTML engine if you really wanted...
Just remember this, the HTML rendering engine in Windows is what everyone hates. It is not Explorer nor even Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a fairly small application that wraps around the HTML engine technologies to give the engine an application interface.
As for the whole HTML rendering being allowed in the OS and other applications, I think the whole argument is a place were people are mislead or try to be misleading.
Almost ALL modern OSes do this or use this to one extent or another. Additionally, even if the OS interface doesn't provide a 'common' HTML rendering technology for third party applications, many third party applications either tap into or strap on HTML engines for everything from part of their UI to their help systems.
So remember before people get on their anti-MS soap boxes, remember - ALL OSes do this, or allow this in one way or another. From OSX to Solaris. PERIOD.
Furthermore, it's not terribly relevant. Windows XP isn't 64-bit, and yet the majority of x86-64 systems ship with it.
Ah, true that the 32bit Version of WindowsXP is shipped even on many 64bit systems; however, a REAL FULL 64bit version of WindowsXP does exist, and is a FREE upgrade to anyone using a 64bit Processor where the manufacturer did not ship the 32bit version.
Now show me where I can get the 64bit version of OSX for my 'performance' 64bit G5?
Actually, Apple's "performance" Mac is a Dual Dual-Core 64-bit G5.
Get back to me when they ship their performance Intel versions. Also note what you are admitting... The G5 'performance' Macs you can buy now are ALREADY slower than the Intel Duo iMacs introduced, even using the Mac World specifications. And sadly, the G5 being the 'performance' Macs are far behind currect x86 system offerings.
Apple bashed x86 because it was CISC. But since it no longer is, Apple's complaints no longer apply, so it's not hypocritical of Apple to use x86.
This is not true, even if you belive this is why Apple bashed the x86 platform.
1) Apple based the x86 platform because it was not their CPU or architecture. (Adobe even had to stand up to Apple, and say, hey Photoshop and Illustrator will run faster on Windows x86 PCs than on Macs)
2) The x86 CPUs are not any more CISC than the PowerPC CPUs are non-CISC. The x86 CPU architecture is a bit more complex than to call it a CISC processor, go look up some of the technologies AMD and INTEL are actually using. Even the Intel 486 used RISC technologies to augment the included CISC portions of the CPU.
3) The 68xxx CPUs in Prior Macs were CISC as well, and Apple bashed the Intel x86 CPUs then as well.
It comes down to Apple's disdain for whatever they were not using at the time. Just like they bashed Color displays in the 80s to as far as two-button Mice as late as the early 2000s.
You act like the x86 changed in the last couple of years, and it really hasn't. And even in the last couple of years, Apple was STILL bashing the x86 CPU market.
The only change is Apple got a sweet deal from Intel, and no longer wanted to develop the PowerPC technologies.
(And the Apple excuses that the PowerPCs/IBM development was not moving along fast enough was pure crap. MS took the PowerPC architecture and in less than a couple of years, pulled out a tri-core 3ghz version of the technology for a Video Game Console. - Just imagine if Apple has put this type of work in the PowerPC line, we might have Dual Tri-Core G6s from Apple by now instead of them running to Intel, and in the long run pushing out products that are AGAIN slower than the average Windows PC sold.)
"Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster." -- Steve Jobs
Oh, sorry, you were using your post to bitch about a bunch of other off-topic Apple things that didn't have to do with the discussion while praising your expensive nuclear laptop with the 1 hour battery life. My bad
My laptop was mentioned to set a bar, that Apple will not meet. Apple, you know the 'innovative - technology' leader. (Or what they once sold their systems as, at least.)
Quote the keynote all you want, there are many parts of the keynote that tended to brush aside Jobs' little disclaimers.
And my point of the keynote, was if his 'qualifiers' were Apple being honest with their customers, then Jobs failed, as the Apple Marketing machine, including their press releases, and even the consumer Web Site, specifically are misleading the average consumer.
Bash MacWorld for the article, but even their 'average' consumer expectations were drawn from the Apple Marketing, not Jobs' qualifiers during his keynote.
Go read the Apple.com website, the press releases, and then come back here and tell us how you honestly believe they are being completely honest and not misleading the 'average' consumer...
That must really bring in the chicks. Even better, the massive, sun-like heat generated against your lap will ensure you never impregnate anyone. Where do I order?
Sorry, unlike the pimple crowd, I'm not looking for 'chicks', happily married...
But I can work and test and develop on a laptop that outperforms most desktops. I get about 5500 3dMark 2005, and can play virtually any game at the notebook's native 1920x1200 resolution with 4xFSAA.
The 'performance' Mac is not running on a Dual Core 32 bit proc, it's running a Dual G5 64 bit proc. The iMac is not Apple's fastest machine.
And yeah - I want 64 bit - I'm not happy with the move to Intel. I would've been a lot happier with AMD. But I care a whole lot more about the OS than the hardware it runs on.
I completely agree with you...
Now as a 'Mac Customer' you need to tell Apple this, don't be happy with the flavor of the week they are trying to push at their base market.
Also demand for them to deliver a real 64bit version of OSX. They might as well make the leap for their performance line, when they move to 64bit Intel processors.
That way they do the full platform migration and catch 64bit drivers, etc, all in one shot, and not have to do a 64bit transition down the road. I truly wish they would have picked a 64bit processor for the first x86 generation Macs, and done the 64bit thing fully during this transition already.
Even with the vast driver support of XP 64bit, there is still a gap in the market, and as Apple ventures into the x86 world, they are going to be hit with this gap harder than anyone.
I apologize for not having more time, so I will just hit the couple of things that jumped off the page.
OS X benefits from its FreeBSD underpinnings
Ok, you really don't understand what you are saying, or are intentionally trying to mislead people.
OSX is NOT BSD. It is using a BSD Interface to the kernel. PERIOD.
OSX is Darwin - there really is a BIG difference, and Darwin DOES NOT inherent the security and reliability of other BSD kernel interfacing variants. This is also true that FreeBSD and OpenBSD don't inherent each other's reliability or strengths. I wish people would quit confusing this.
OS X uses a BSD-based filesystem and CDSA to do the same things.
A) No... and B) they are NOT doing the same thing. Not even remotely the same.
Using your myopic view of NTFS, I could say FAT was the same as NTFS then too, because I could use ZIP encryption/compression on FAT... Which is completely WRONG, and misleading...
There is NO FS for OSX that natively supports all the features that NTFS does 'inherently'. Sure you can add features on to other good file systems, but then it isn't just the file system you have reference anymore, but the add-on as well.
Prove me wrong, I would welcome seeing a new FS technology. Find a FS that natively supports journalling, encryption, compression, security, meta-data, and is extensible with entry point code execution.
Go look this stuff up, these forums are not Operating System Architecture 101...
PS. To get past the 'simple file sharing, and simple security' on XP Home, just boot into safe mode and log in as an administrator. You will then have the full sharing and secuirty interface tools that are available in XP Professional, that normal home users don't really need to be playing with by default, but they are still there.
About the only one I can think of is their nudge-nudge-wink-wink DRM in iTunes, but they pretty much have to if they're going to make the labels happy
A) The same could be said about MS Media Player formats and technologies, as they actually handed them over to a standards body, even the DRM, so *wink* MS is more standard and 'open' about their media formats than Apple even...
B) Ok, have you noticed the Aqua interface on OSX, or the entire GUI sitting on top of Darwin that is essentially what people see as OSX? Now tell me again, that the only one you could think of was the nudge wink DRM in iTunes?
You have to be really funny or Apple changed their minds about locking every bit of OSX that was not required to be open in the last 10 minutes.
(Apple has actually bent the open source world over, used the great minds from it, and gave them a carrot on a stick, with no REAL contribution back, what so ever... Darwin is even a joke with the poor level of source, commenting and disclosure Apple released back.)
Please stop excusing a company just because they make cute computers...
Steve Jobs said that he was talking about the processors being faster...and he specifically said not everything is going to be faster like the hard drives and memory etc etc. Just the processors which is why he showed the SPECmarks or whatever this phantom benchmark that, to my knowledge, isn't a free download from anywhere. Or was I the only one that heard him prefacing the results?
Oh well, let the Mac bashing continue, blood is in the water.
Possibly, but then why does their web site specifically word things to make the 'average' consumer think the new computers are going to be twice as fast?
Did he not convey this to his Marketing and Web team well enough that they wouldn't use wording to mislead customers again?
www.apple.com "iMac has always made it fast and easy to do the most amazing things. Now the fast and easy part literally doubles overnight -- because the newest iMac computers are powered by the Intel Core Duo."
This is going to be another one of the 'first 64bit desktop computer' things... Which was very closely worded, but yet mislead the majority of the Apple consumer market (to the point the UK made Apple pull ads stating such facts)
And ironically, OSX still isn't a 64bit OS before the G5 is already outdated, and now their new 'performance' Mac is running on a Dual Core 32bit processor...
What happened to leading the 64bit revolution crap we had to listen to uninformed Mac Users recite from the Apple Marketing book?
And here I am sitting with a Dual Core 64bit Notebook, that is almost twice the rated SPEC 'benchmark' of the Mac Intel Duo, and the Apple world is going crazy on how superior their stuff is already. (Even Apple's Web Site, not just the fan boys and girls.)
Lame, once again, and ONCE AGAIN - MAC Customers SHOULD BE DEMANDING MORE FROM APPLE, and instead are just drinking whatever kool-aid the Apple Marketing Buzz gives them...
Didn't CISC really die with the advent of the Pentium Pro? Hasn't every x86 since then been a shallow CISC interface to a RISC core?
Seems silly to me for anyone to be flying a CISC flag these days when the majority of CISC CPU's in desktops and servers are not really CISC at the core.
So isn't CISC mostly just a legacy?
This would be a classic post of missing the point and focusing on the 'wording' used, instead of what the person was meaning...
Let me rephrase it for the myopic... "Apple bashed the x86 architecture."
Slashdot Mirror
Now he might have had some idea that he wanted to give his money away before. However I think she has influenced him more that way.
Who honestyly knows how much of role Melinda plays in using their money for charity.
However I do know that part of his passion has been to give back to the world is something you can track in his speeches and work back to the early 80s.
If I were to guess, I would probably credit one of his parents for his philanthrapist ideals, as they were not poor, and gave a lot back to their community long before Bill had his own two dimes to rub together.
SGI. Microsoft stopped OpenGL development by interfering with the OpenGL ARB, in order to catch up with their own solution, DirectX.
Love the 'personal' theories...
Microsoft did not even have an alternative to OpenGL in development when Microsoft pulled out of OpenGL. Microsoft pressed for OpenGL to enhance low level hardware support with intention of doing more than cad/engineering and supporting 3D rendering environment conducive to gaming and directly access video card hardware for gaming.
OpenGL told Microsoft to go pound sand, and that OpenGL was not for games or going to support direct hardware features for gaming.
Microsoft started stringing together a set of technologies that were called WinG, mainly a 2D form of rendering with plans for a new model that was a 3D rendering solution with direct video access on par of what the current DOS based games were used to, but in the Windows environment.
If OpenGL would have not 'played catch-up' to DirectX, and instead took Microsoft's recommendations at the time Microsoft was a big OpenGL proponent, there would never have been a DirectX, as OpenGL would be what Microsoft would be using, and contributing to instead.
The vendor lock in, was just a bonus in the long run, it was others involved in OpenGL that made the choice to not go for gaming.
But you can say it was about paying to SGI or a diabolical plan to take control of the gaming industry, but the facts don't support it.
The second part of this topic is that DirectX evolved to be more than an alternative to OpenGL, as it encapsulates everything from input devices, networking, to sound and voice.
When DirectX first existed it was the only game in town for any standardized interface to video for accelerated graphics in gaming. Now it is more than just Video...
I should update this post by noting that Apple has furthered their misleading of customers with new ads on their web site.
Let me quote their ads, for all that think Jobs was clear about it only being a SPEC comparison, because apparently that is not what Apple believes or is telling their customers.
"4x faster. (Wishes do come true.)" (15.4 MacBook Pro)
"2x faster. Twice as amazing." (Base iMac)
I wonder if the UK will make Apple pull their ads for being misleading again this year...
I appreciate the Troll mod, but I would rather see people point out any facts in my post that are not accurate.
It is easy to mod down or hit Troll, maybe show some insight, and at least point out any fact I presented that is not true or was misleading to justify the standard anti-MS troll mod.
I applaud your research and clever pulling out of context statements, although the one site was not out of context, it was just repeating myth of someone not understanding the difference between 'adopting' a technology and being the basis of the technology.
n ics
Again I will repeat this for the slow learners, MPEG4's codecs were not based on Quicktime Technology, and the original MPEG4 codec technology was written by Microsoft.
Everyone else, don't be trolled by the above post, do a simple freaking google search for yourself on: Microsoft MPEG-4 v3 or
MS-MPEG4 v3 or even Microsoft MPEG-4 v1.
I will also again repeat. DIVX is nothing more than a 'hack' of the original Microsoft of the MPEG4 codec technology.
Here, I will do a quick Google for the causal reader:
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codec-faq.htm
What's the difference between DivX and MS MPEG4 v3?
There's none, really. DivX is basically a step farther from the original hack of the MS MPEG4 v3 codec
http://www.am-soft.ru/fourcc.html
"Microsoft MPEG-4 V1, V2 & V3 Microsoft MPEG4 Frozen These codecs were developed by Microsoft by draft MPEG-4 specs and were available some time ago with their Windows Media Tools (WMT) and MS NetShow package. However Microsoft has restricted the functionality of these codecs so that only native tools from Microsoft could use these compressors. The DivX team made a binary hack of MS MPEG4 V3 codec and called it DivX.
And of course how about posting a link to MPEG Specifications Body itself, cause apparently that would have not allowed the above poster to distort facts:
http://www.m4if.org/mpeg4/
And now let's address your revisionist history of MSDOS and Stacker... You quote the Internet Myth regarding the lawsuit between Microsoft and Stac, but have you or any of your other drones actually read about the ruling 'specifically'.
If you had, you would see that it was a PATENT lawsuit, and NO CODE WAS STOLEN. PERIOD. (Go ahead and edit Wiki or keep saying it to yourself, it will not make it true.)
Let me repeat, MS did NOT use or STEAL any code from Stac. - Go read the lawsuit, for the love of God...
Here, let me give you a link to get you started if you want to find truth on the subject:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Stac_Electro
Stac sued Microsoft for infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won; in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarded Stac $120 million in compensatory damages, coming to about $5.50 per copy of MS-DOS 6.0 that had been sold. The jury also agreed with a Microsoft counterclaim that Stac had misappropriated the Microsoft trade secret of a pre-loading feature that was included in Stacker 3.1, and simultaneously awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on the counterclaim.
While Microsoft prepared an appeal, Stac was able to obtain a preliminary injunction from the court stopping the sales of all MS-DOS products that included DoubleSpace; by this time Microsoft had already started shipping an "upgrade" of MS-DOS to its OEM customers that removed DoubleSpace
As you see, NO CODE was Stolen by Microsoft, and the reason 6.21 even had to be released was because of the injunction by Stac to 'extort' Microsoft, which worked, as Microsoft basically bought the failing company.
And if you look at the case, the only thing MS did was create a technology that 'infringed' on their PATENTS - NOT STOLE CODE as you incorrectly state.
However, Stacker Willingly used a MS Trade Secret that was disclosed to them during this time, so Stac is the company that actually STOLE anything.
And you my friend are the one that needs a history lesson, next time try to provide facts instead of bloviating about old Internet Myths...
Well I do wish I could offer proof, but with the recent coverups, about all that is left of the story is clips of the un-edited interview that started the story.
NBC later 'censored' the transcript that brought up her name specifically in reference to the reported journalists that the NSA had spied on. However citing that the story was still being investigated, and they would release information on it at a later date.
As you will note I transposed the husband and wife. The wife was the one 'allegely' spied on (Christiane Amanpour), and the husband(J. Rubin), was the Senior National Security Adviser to John Kerry during his Presidential campaign.
Considering that the 'official' leak of the NSA tapping specifically said that many 'journalists' were tapped by the NSA, it isn't a far stretch to estimate that the outspoken Amanpour was a targeted journalist.
And even if she wasn't tapped, but other journalists were tapped, I will ask again, how is this protecting us from terrorists? Does anyone believe prominate journalists in the USA would be talking with terrorists about terror activities and NOT hand this information over?
Additionally, if these were legitimate wiretaps, they had 72hrs to obtain warrants after they started monitoring the journalist's communication, and the court set up to hand out the warrants has only refused 3 or 4 in its entire history.
So why not be up front about the wiretaps, what was the NSA under guidelines of the Bush Administration doing that was so 'secret' that they couldn't even reveal the tapping activity to the 'secret security' court set up specifically for these type of warrants? What journalist activities would be so secret that even obtaining a 'secret' warrant was not possible?
Do people not think for themselves anymore? Here is a tip - think past the one liners and short attention span content clips generated by Fox News and talking heads for the Republican Party. Sure what people say sometimes can sound good, but often it is just a good con game, and the one that is losing is you.
For example, be honest with yourself, do you really need to be a genius to not understand that reducing pollution regulations, and allowing more mercury into water really isn't a 'Clear Skies Act' as it was named?
And kindly mod my original post back up, I think I backed up my original statement, and my point...
Before Bill married Melinda I don't think he really though much about the world around him. Not to say that she hasn't changed him and now he does. But I think it more her and he just gets behind what she brings up.
I shall refer you to a 12-15 year old Playboy interview, where he said that later in life his plans were to set up organizations to give away the majority of his money.
He also stated that if he had children they would only receive a fraction of his money, so that they were comfortable, but encouraged to do good things with their own lives in the world.
This was before Melinda and him dated, let alone married.
One of the wiretaps was on the husband of Kerry's campaign manager...
I would assume to indirectly monitor his wife's work on the Kerry Campaign. That is up for opinion though...
So tell me again how this is keeping us safe from terrorism?
Also MPEG4 is based on quicktime architecture not microsoft
Your post was so full of crap and 'allegations' I just am going to skip most of it. Also the Eola and stacker items you mention are not as clear as you make them out to be. Many companies actually broke both, and the Stacker was based on MS making MS-DOS incompatible, not TAKING the TECHNOLOGY, as this was never proved and later dropped from the lawsuit.
As for the other lawsuits, when you are the 800lb gorilla, you are also the cash cow of the patent and lawsuit world. Even Apple has been at the mercy of MANY lawsuits... And one important one, like from XEROX, where they lost for stealing GUI concepts they were not licensed to use.
As for the MPEG4 being based on Quicktime architecture? Are you high?
Just because Apple 'adapted' the MPEG4 technology and licensed it for quicktime is completely different than the MPEG4 codec being written or based on anything to do with Quicktime.
Up until Quicktime moved to MPEG4 technologies, it pretty much sucked, that is why it was the bastard step child of the audio/video streaming world when Real/RA and MS/AVI-WM technologies were prevailing, and still are.
Go look up the original MPEG4 codec information, you will find that it was code written by Microsoft and even Called MS-MPEG4 for a while in the developer world, as it was released as a development codec back in about 1998.
Go do some research instead of trying to defend your 'ideals' with nonsense.
When has MS EVER looked at competitors' standards and said anything but, "Let's make our own standard that does most of the same things, but is incompatible, and we'll break everyone else's product because everyone will use whatever we put into Windows"?
Ok, I stopped reading there...
You know NOTHING about Microsoft, except the 'evil slashdot' bias.
Go read up on technologies Microosft has pioneered, supported, and funded.
For example Visual Basic, instead of creating their own originally, they paid the original company VERY WELL for the ideas they had put in to it.
The same can be said of MANY technologies. Microsoft is more apt to buy the technology if it is good and pay the creators WELL than to RIP it off. Shall we talk about Apple and Konfabulator as an example of the 'opposite' of what Microsoft does?
They also were a STRONG supporter and part of the OpenGL group, up until the OpenGL group REFUSED to put hardware acceleration technologies into OpenGL, as Microsoft proposed based on gaming and 3D acceleration cards that were going to become common. OpenGL saw themselves as an 'engineer/CAD' model with no need for frills for texturing games at high frame rates.
Let's see what else off the top of my head... The defragmenter in WindowsXP is bought from the company that originally made a defragmenter for NT. Microsoft could have easily wrote their own, and instead rewarded the company by buying their work.
There are 100s of cases like this. Instead of 'squash' the cool technology Microsoft likes, then tend to try to use the exiting people's work and PAY them for it. Shall I constrast Apple and ripping off the Open Source world work of BSD and giving nothing back to the BSD technologies?
And I dare you to suggest Netscape as an example of MS squashing another company, as Microsoft tried to license Netscape long before they bought Mosaic for Internet Explorer - notice Bought, not ripped of Mosaic. Netscape screwed themselves as they did not want to make a portable engine out of the Netscape browser at the time.
Also don't cite Wordperfect or Lotus, as Microsoft literally begged both companies to write Windows versions of their software, and even offered to supply the companies with developers to assist in the process. Both companies told Microsoft to go pound sand, as they had their market and did not want a Windows Version.
Even in the Server/Networking world, Microsoft tried to license and work with Novell (which they did initially) until Novell told them to go pound sand as they wouldn't license the networking technology for Windows. Hence Windows for Workgroups, which was followed up by Novell's peer to peer solutions to try and compete.
So ask yourself, how much do you really know about Microsoft and what technology they have EVER stolen or taken or recreated.
Heck even with the Virus and Spyware technologies, they bought companies that put a lot of work into it recently.
Do you not think Microsoft could not have created their own, honestly, or at the very least copied what these companies were doing?
Instead they ONCE AGAIN, chose to pay these companies and people VERY WELL for the technology, even though most of it will be re-written.
Go research a bit of Microsoft, they have screwed up a bunch, but ripping off technologies without compensation is not something they are known for.
Microsoft also gives a lot of ideas and technology to the standards bodies of the web and the world that people don't even realize. Go look up for example who wrote the original MPEG4 codecs that the current MPEG4 and even DIVX are based on - Yes Microsoft. Also look up contributors to XML and CSS and other web standards that were given to the EVERYONE, things like XHTML. Also notice even their own Windows Media technologies were turned over to a standards body, hence VSC. Something not even Divx or Apple/Quicktime or Real have done with their media formats.
In today's world, one of the easiest
I'll look at their other attempts at web technology with less doubt
Ok, read the post or go to www.microsoft.com
This is NOT web technology, although it could be used via the web...
It is the presentaion/graphics foundation of the next generation of Windows.
What does it do that I can't do with SVG, canvas, and other existing standards? I can see Flash as needing replaced but I can't see a benefit to replacing it with an even less open standard.
Well it can do a lot, but that is NOT the point...
This HAS nothing to do with SVG or killing Flash. These are the art side of the development tools for MS WPF technologies.
It is used to create 'interfaces' for applications in Windows and eventually online for Windows Users.
This is basically the art side of the MS new technologies that are not really in competition with anything but the Win32 GUI API drawing set. This is the replacement for Microsoft's internal rendering engine of Windows.
What this does do that SVG and Flash don't is inherently handle many more types of graphical display concepts, blending, transisitions, 3D workspace, Viewpoints, and even collision detection for 3D UI objects, as well as provide these object and work with controls for applications.
It is like Flash and SVG and Postscript on Crack with full 3D capabilities to CREATE A UI, either application or eventually Web 'pushed' application.
If Flash or SVG or any other of the current technologies could do any of these features, MS wouldn't have had to create this new system.
It does basics from drawing fonts to screen and printer, to making a 3D Cube spin in front of a building with clouds going by, and the 3D Cube has User Controls and Interface items on it.
This is basically moving Application UIs for Windows to the next generation, what people have complained about with Windows, that there was no inherent 3D inteface unless you wrote in DirectX. (Although not many other OSes have inherent 3D model rendering engines as a part of their standard API interface, not even OSX.)
So instead of having to drop to OpenGL or DirectX to do some really cool animations or 3D application interfaces, you can use this tool and the other new tools from Microsoft, and they work in the WPF, which calls DirectX for you. This is like making 3D simple application design and animations 'easy' for the casual programmer.
The causal programmer will also get something they can't get with SVG or Flash technology for their Windows application as they will get the speed of DirectX, where Flash and SVG don't give you that, even if you create a 'fake' 3D interface in them.
I wish people would take a look at these technologies and see where MS has done some really good work, that is beyond what others are doing. If not, all other OSes will be falling behind once again.
And the cool thing is, if the Linux and OSX world didn't want to have to 'create' their own version of this technology, MS is giving the keys away to it for free.
So you could create a WPF for OSX or Linux, drop it through to an accelerated OpenGL interface, and be able to use these technologies on ANY OS platform.
Just because MS designed the technologies and even if they are not 100% perfect, they are above 99% of what is out there for simple application design, the specifications for them are open - wide open even, and you could be writing a great KDE or OSX application using this interface technology with no intention of ever running it on Windows or having anything to do with Microsoft.
But the point is that they haven't...
32-bit drivers for a lot of older hardware were provided by microsoft and not the individual vendors in any case
With the exception of standard and universal drivers like ATAPI and SVGA, most drivers WERE supplied by vendors, not Microsoft.
By contrast, the sourcecode for these drivers is available for linux
This is true, but on a more limited scale than what people relize. Not all vendors provide the source for drivers, and many of the drivers are user created versions that A) Are not 100% compliant with the hardware B) Don't support all the features of the hardware.
So sure, you can say there are more 64bit drivers, but just like with my Epson example, I could say by using the ESC/2 drier variant, that I support all the epson printers. This does not mean I can use the CD printing features, the higher resolutions, or many of the other advanced features. (This is just an example, not a basis for argument.)
So in order to run 64bit windows on my existing AMD64 machine, i need a new nic, new videocard, and new soundcard...
Actually, NO... As you said the drivers that were SUPPLIED to Microsoft, even if they didn't write them, have been ported to 64bit versions. WindowsXP 64bit STILL supports MORE hardware than any 64bit Linux. PERIOD.
In fact, it supports more drivers than any 32bit Linux even.
So your argument has basis, it is just not refelected in reality.
And also BTW, when people in the Windows world DON'T have a 64bit driver for some strange piece of hardware, what do you think they do? They create their own, just like people in the Linux world do... When it comes down to it, there is no difference,
Windows users are NOT any more reliant on vendors than Linux users. Unless you have an inside track of vendors releasing driver source code to Linux users that Windows users can't see... And this doesn't happen.
Even when vendors release source for their drivers, Windows developers can grab the source and create a driver just as fast as a Linux user. PERIOD.
Not to mention the fact that i need to get a floppy drive so i can load SATA drivers to even install windows...
32bit windows won't install without a floppy drive either, but that's another matter, and it does support all my other hardware.
Actually, like many *nixes where you also encounter this problem, you can put the drivers on a CD, USB drive, Network Boot Share, etc... PS This would not be an issue for WindowsXP except it was released in 2001, that predates pretty much ALL SATA devices. Get it?
WindowsXP 64bit version has more driver support than ANY other OS in history, except the 32bit versions of WindowsXP.
Ok, I requoted this line from my post so you could re-read it...
It doesn't, the 64bit version lacks support for a LOT of older peripherals that were supported by the 32bit versions...
I NEVER said WindowsXP 64bit had more driver support than Windows XP 32bit. See above again.
By contrast, Linux actually supports a lot more hardware because the vast majority of the drivers for 32bit systems also work when recompiled for a 64bit system (and has done for years, a lot of hardware works on 64bit linux/alpha as well)
And this is different on Windows How? All the manufacturer has to do in most instances is simply recompile their drivers as well.
The only advantage that the Linux community has is that the majority of its drivers are moddified versions of various other drivers to support a specific piece of hardware, instead of a lot of the drivers being supplied by the Hardware Vendor.
I can think of several printer drivers that are good examples of this, sure you can get 50 Epson printer models to run under Linix for example, but they are using a common driver, and not always supporting all the features of the specific printer.
You can do this in Windows to, just use the ESC/2 driver and virtually all Epson printers work without specific drviers.
As for serious hardcore drivers like from NVidia and ATI, the 64bit versions are just as reliant on the Vendor to provide them in Linux as they are in Windows. PERIOD.
Except that Microsoft takes the strategy much, much further than KDE does -- not only is explorer the component for rendering HTML, but it also renders the desktop, taskbar, start menu, etc.
Please for the love of God tell me you were kidding?
The HTML rendering Engine is NOT Explorer, nor is it even Internet Explorer. And Explorer is NOT Internet Explorer. Understand?
Sure Explorer can call features from the HTML rendering engine, just like it can call feautres from the BMP and Font rendering engines. But this does NOT mean Explorer itself is a PART of the HTML rendering engine.
Addtionally, The Taskbar, Start Menu, etc are not rendered using the HTML engine, and the only time the desktop is rendered along side the HTML rendering engine is when Active Desktop or HTML apps or Pages are placed running on the desktop. Just because Explorer can use the HTML engine does not make it the HTML engine. You could set the system that Explorer NEVER calls any functions out of the HTML engine if you really wanted...
Just remember this, the HTML rendering engine in Windows is what everyone hates. It is not Explorer nor even Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a fairly small application that wraps around the HTML engine technologies to give the engine an application interface.
As for the whole HTML rendering being allowed in the OS and other applications, I think the whole argument is a place were people are mislead or try to be misleading.
Almost ALL modern OSes do this or use this to one extent or another. Additionally, even if the OS interface doesn't provide a 'common' HTML rendering technology for third party applications, many third party applications either tap into or strap on HTML engines for everything from part of their UI to their help systems.
So remember before people get on their anti-MS soap boxes, remember - ALL OSes do this, or allow this in one way or another. From OSX to Solaris. PERIOD.
Furthermore, it's not terribly relevant. Windows XP isn't 64-bit, and yet the majority of x86-64 systems ship with it.
Ah, true that the 32bit Version of WindowsXP is shipped even on many 64bit systems; however, a REAL FULL 64bit version of WindowsXP does exist, and is a FREE upgrade to anyone using a 64bit Processor where the manufacturer did not ship the 32bit version.
Now show me where I can get the 64bit version of OSX for my 'performance' 64bit G5?
Actually, Apple's "performance" Mac is a Dual Dual-Core 64-bit G5.
Get back to me when they ship their performance Intel versions. Also note what you are admitting... The G5 'performance' Macs you can buy now are ALREADY slower than the Intel Duo iMacs introduced, even using the Mac World specifications. And sadly, the G5 being the 'performance' Macs are far behind currect x86 system offerings.
Apple bashed x86 because it was CISC. But since it no longer is, Apple's complaints no longer apply, so it's not hypocritical of Apple to use x86.
This is not true, even if you belive this is why Apple bashed the x86 platform.
1) Apple based the x86 platform because it was not their CPU or architecture. (Adobe even had to stand up to Apple, and say, hey Photoshop and Illustrator will run faster on Windows x86 PCs than on Macs)
2) The x86 CPUs are not any more CISC than the PowerPC CPUs are non-CISC. The x86 CPU architecture is a bit more complex than to call it a CISC processor, go look up some of the technologies AMD and INTEL are actually using. Even the Intel 486 used RISC technologies to augment the included CISC portions of the CPU.
3) The 68xxx CPUs in Prior Macs were CISC as well, and Apple bashed the Intel x86 CPUs then as well.
It comes down to Apple's disdain for whatever they were not using at the time. Just like they bashed Color displays in the 80s to as far as two-button Mice as late as the early 2000s.
You act like the x86 changed in the last couple of years, and it really hasn't. And even in the last couple of years, Apple was STILL bashing the x86 CPU market.
The only change is Apple got a sweet deal from Intel, and no longer wanted to develop the PowerPC technologies.
(And the Apple excuses that the PowerPCs/IBM development was not moving along fast enough was pure crap. MS took the PowerPC architecture and in less than a couple of years, pulled out a tri-core 3ghz version of the technology for a Video Game Console. - Just imagine if Apple has put this type of work in the PowerPC line, we might have Dual Tri-Core G6s from Apple by now instead of them running to Intel, and in the long run pushing out products that are AGAIN slower than the average Windows PC sold.)
"Now everything's not going to run 2-3X. You know the disks aren't 2-3X faster, etc., but on the most important benchmarks, 2 to 3 times faster." -- Steve Jobs
Oh, sorry, you were using your post to bitch about a bunch of other off-topic Apple things that didn't have to do with the discussion while praising your expensive nuclear laptop with the 1 hour battery life. My bad
My laptop was mentioned to set a bar, that Apple will not meet. Apple, you know the 'innovative - technology' leader. (Or what they once sold their systems as, at least.)
Quote the keynote all you want, there are many parts of the keynote that tended to brush aside Jobs' little disclaimers.
And my point of the keynote, was if his 'qualifiers' were Apple being honest with their customers, then Jobs failed, as the Apple Marketing machine, including their press releases, and even the consumer Web Site, specifically are misleading the average consumer.
Bash MacWorld for the article, but even their 'average' consumer expectations were drawn from the Apple Marketing, not Jobs' qualifiers during his keynote.
Go read the Apple.com website, the press releases, and then come back here and tell us how you honestly believe they are being completely honest and not misleading the 'average' consumer...
Even with the vast driver support of XP 64bit..." You were being sarcastic, right?
WindowsXP 64bit version has more driver support than ANY other OS in history, except the 32bit versions of WindowsXP.
(And I'm not talking about platforms but hardware it runs on and peripherals, video, sound, etc...)
Go look it up, it is sadly true...
That must really bring in the chicks. Even better, the massive, sun-like heat generated against your lap will ensure you never impregnate anyone. Where do I order?
Sorry, unlike the pimple crowd, I'm not looking for 'chicks', happily married...
But I can work and test and develop on a laptop that outperforms most desktops. I get about 5500 3dMark 2005, and can play virtually any game at the notebook's native 1920x1200 resolution with 4xFSAA.
Chick magnet, no, productive and fast, yes.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
The 'performance' Mac is not running on a Dual Core 32 bit proc, it's running a Dual G5 64 bit proc. The iMac is not Apple's fastest machine.
And yeah - I want 64 bit - I'm not happy with the move to Intel. I would've been a lot happier with AMD. But I care a whole lot more about the OS than the hardware it runs on.
I completely agree with you...
Now as a 'Mac Customer' you need to tell Apple this, don't be happy with the flavor of the week they are trying to push at their base market.
Also demand for them to deliver a real 64bit version of OSX. They might as well make the leap for their performance line, when they move to 64bit Intel processors.
That way they do the full platform migration and catch 64bit drivers, etc, all in one shot, and not have to do a 64bit transition down the road. I truly wish they would have picked a 64bit processor for the first x86 generation Macs, and done the 64bit thing fully during this transition already.
Even with the vast driver support of XP 64bit, there is still a gap in the market, and as Apple ventures into the x86 world, they are going to be hit with this gap harder than anyone.
Take Care,
TheNetAvenger
I apologize for not having more time, so I will just hit the couple of things that jumped off the page.
OS X benefits from its FreeBSD underpinnings
Ok, you really don't understand what you are saying, or are intentionally trying to mislead people.
OSX is NOT BSD. It is using a BSD Interface to the kernel. PERIOD.
OSX is Darwin - there really is a BIG difference, and Darwin DOES NOT inherent the security and reliability of other BSD kernel interfacing variants. This is also true that FreeBSD and OpenBSD don't inherent each other's reliability or strengths. I wish people would quit confusing this.
OS X uses a BSD-based filesystem and CDSA to do the same things.
A) No... and B) they are NOT doing the same thing. Not even remotely the same.
Using your myopic view of NTFS, I could say FAT was the same as NTFS then too, because I could use ZIP encryption/compression on FAT... Which is completely WRONG, and misleading...
There is NO FS for OSX that natively supports all the features that NTFS does 'inherently'. Sure you can add features on to other good file systems, but then it isn't just the file system you have reference anymore, but the add-on as well.
Prove me wrong, I would welcome seeing a new FS technology. Find a FS that natively supports journalling, encryption, compression, security, meta-data, and is extensible with entry point code execution.
Go look this stuff up, these forums are not Operating System Architecture 101...
PS. To get past the 'simple file sharing, and simple security' on XP Home, just boot into safe mode and log in as an administrator. You will then have the full sharing and secuirty interface tools that are available in XP Professional, that normal home users don't really need to be playing with by default, but they are still there.
About the only one I can think of is their nudge-nudge-wink-wink DRM in iTunes, but they pretty much have to if they're going to make the labels happy
A) The same could be said about MS Media Player formats and technologies, as they actually handed them over to a standards body, even the DRM, so *wink* MS is more standard and 'open' about their media formats than Apple even...
B) Ok, have you noticed the Aqua interface on OSX, or the entire GUI sitting on top of Darwin that is essentially what people see as OSX? Now tell me again, that the only one you could think of was the nudge wink DRM in iTunes?
You have to be really funny or Apple changed their minds about locking every bit of OSX that was not required to be open in the last 10 minutes.
(Apple has actually bent the open source world over, used the great minds from it, and gave them a carrot on a stick, with no REAL contribution back, what so ever... Darwin is even a joke with the poor level of source, commenting and disclosure Apple released back.)
Please stop excusing a company just because they make cute computers...
Steve Jobs said that he was talking about the processors being faster...and he specifically said not everything is going to be faster like the hard drives and memory etc etc. Just the processors which is why he showed the SPECmarks or whatever this phantom benchmark that, to my knowledge, isn't a free download from anywhere. Or was I the only one that heard him prefacing the results?
Oh well, let the Mac bashing continue, blood is in the water.
Possibly, but then why does their web site specifically word things to make the 'average' consumer think the new computers are going to be twice as fast?
Did he not convey this to his Marketing and Web team well enough that they wouldn't use wording to mislead customers again?
www.apple.com
"iMac has always made it fast and easy to do the most amazing things. Now the fast and easy part literally doubles overnight -- because the newest iMac computers are powered by the Intel Core Duo."
This is going to be another one of the 'first 64bit desktop computer' things... Which was very closely worded, but yet mislead the majority of the Apple consumer market (to the point the UK made Apple pull ads stating such facts)
And ironically, OSX still isn't a 64bit OS before the G5 is already outdated, and now their new 'performance' Mac is running on a Dual Core 32bit processor...
What happened to leading the 64bit revolution crap we had to listen to uninformed Mac Users recite from the Apple Marketing book?
And here I am sitting with a Dual Core 64bit Notebook, that is almost twice the rated SPEC 'benchmark' of the Mac Intel Duo, and the Apple world is going crazy on how superior their stuff is already. (Even Apple's Web Site, not just the fan boys and girls.)
Lame, once again, and ONCE AGAIN - MAC Customers SHOULD BE DEMANDING MORE FROM APPLE, and instead are just drinking whatever kool-aid the Apple Marketing Buzz gives them...
Didn't CISC really die with the advent of the Pentium Pro? Hasn't every x86 since then been a shallow CISC interface to a RISC core?
Seems silly to me for anyone to be flying a CISC flag these days when the majority of CISC CPU's in desktops and servers are not really CISC at the core.
So isn't CISC mostly just a legacy?
This would be a classic post of missing the point and focusing on the 'wording' used, instead of what the person was meaning...
Let me rephrase it for the myopic... "Apple bashed the x86 architecture."