Corn ethanol isn't even that green. Sure, the ethanol itself is carbon-neutral, but the production of the corn leads to alot of pollution. The gas that goes into the tractors, the herbicide for the vast rolling fields, the enormous amounts of fertizilers, a huge chunk of our country having absolutely no biodiversity, the transportation costs of the corn. These all leave really big footprints.
Corn ethanol only exists because government subsidies allow it to exist. Brazil can do it cheaper and with less footprint, and the import tax on their ethanol proves this is all about subsidies and nothing about environmental concerns
If utube was smart, they would just get a new domain name for their tiny company and auction off utube.com to the highest bidder. Problem solved, money made.
What's more important is what it's clustering, 90 nanometer G5s. Apple and IBM are the first company to bring 90 nm processors to the market.
Xserve White Paper
Another Apple first, the first company to build a computer with a 90 nanometer processor. The Xserve G5 uses a G5 on a 90 nanometer process
Link
I found this out from arstechnica's forums
First, Pixar and Apple do share Steve Jobs' time, and without a doubt Jobs knew about the G5 when he built Pixar's render farm a year ago out of Dual Pentium4 1U rackmounts. So Intel is almost surely cheaper than a G5 render farm would be.
Second, the XServes would be far easier to maintain. Apple doesn't excel at only pretty translucent cases and lickable interfaces, they really excel at ease of use. And this applies to the render farm as well. Alot of apps, like XCode, use Rendezvous for distributed computing. Just plug a punch of XServes running an app together and you got yourself a render farm. Far easier than anything linux can do.
Third, Final Cut Pro and Photoshop are serious professional apps. Other Apple apps, like Shake and Logic are THE apps in their respective markets.
Fourth, Linux isn't dominating left and right. It is dominating the render farm because it is cheap and runs on cheap hardware. The workstation market is still anyone's market. Apple is in the perfect position to take over all those SGI and Sun boxes with OS X.
is sendmail all i need to start sending and receiving email on my own? i have a domain-name and website and I would like to run my own email. if i am running apple's mail, what do i need to do to get email from sendmail?
But people would be much more likely to buy a Mac if it could Windows too. The 970 is a great chip, but it doesn't put Intel to shame. And without being fantastically better, people would just buy the Windows/Intel instead of Windows/PPC. But if Microsoft would release WindowsPPC, you would see alot of people buying a Mac and a copy of Windows to dual boot. Far more than people would buy Windows/PPC and illegally run a hacked copy of OS X.
Windows on 970 would kill Apple?? Hell, it would save Apple. How many times, on slashdot even, have you heard "I would buy OS X if the barrier to entry wasn't so high." The number one complaint against Apple isn't high price, it's high priced systems that aren't flexible. If I have an expensive PC with Linux and I end up hating Linux, I can put one of a bizillion different OSes on it. But I can only put a handful on the PPC box, and I can't run Windows. But if WindowsPPC becomes a reality, you will start hearing "Hey, I'll buy Apple and if OS X doesn't work out for me, I'll throw Windows on it"
On the PowerPC, you can run 32-bit programs and 64-bit programs at the same time. Apple has chosen to keep the bulk of the OS at 32-bits because there is no advantage in upgrading. Remember, 64-bits is only useless for large memory addresses or really really big integers. For example, iTunes does not need more than 4-GB of RAM, so it will probably say 32-bits. Panther will support running 64-bit binaries, so say Final Cut Pro can address a large amount of RAM, but the collection of programs that make up the OS will probably stay 32-bit.
And I don't know why people are ripping on this strategy. This way Apple doesn't have to Ship 10.3 for the G5 and a seperate 10.3 for the G4. That just confuses customers and pisses off people who have a G4 and a G5. Now Apple can ship one version and only have small changes between the G4 and G5 versions, and let the installer make the appropiate changes. Also, Solaris did the same thing. Alot of there utilities were 32-bit for a long long time after 64-bit support came out, programs like top simply do not receive any advantages from being 64-bit.
The CPU to main memory link for the PowerPC 970 is a point-to-point protocal and can support up to 16 CPUs. And you can just hook a 970 to a Hypertransport link, all you need is a hypertransport bridge. Hypertransport can hook into PCI, PCI Express, Firewire, ATA.
That being said, I doubt the CPU to main memory link is a hypertransport link. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it used as the chipset glue.
Apple will be at MWNY, called Macworld Create I think. Apple will not be giving a Keynote address, which means no major announcements. (And 64-bit desktop computing counts as a major announcement)
In my opinion Cocoa does equate better. A Carbon application is not any slower than a Cocoa application, and it could easily be faster.
But a Cocoa application is more native. The user experience of a Cocoa application is better than a Carbon application because OS X was built for Cocoa apps. Carbon apps are just a way to make OS 9 apps available for OS X.
All I really want is Cocoa version of iTunes. I don't download music off the internet and I don't have an iPod. I just want the apps I use most on OS X to be true OS X apps.
But all I am expecting is iTunes 3.1 with music service integration and new iPods. Hopefully Panther will usher in a Cocoa Finder, Cocoa iTunes, and Cocoa Quicktime.
You don't need even the debug menu unless you wanna turn tabs on and off on the fly. (Which you might because clicking on a link opens a new tab, not a new window, which some might now like in all cases) In terminal just type
The answer, like all answers pretaining to Mac OS X, can be found by going to www.macosxhints.com. Their search engine sucks, but every hint, hack, and tip about OS X can be found there.
All you have to do is set an openfirmware password, which you can do with the install CD, and than you can disable booting from everything but the internal harddrive, and disable all kinds of booting except normal boots into Aqua.
But you do have a point, until you set that password, OS X is horribly insecure when it comes to physical access. You dont' even need a CD, just another Mac and a firewire cord. Macs can be booted as firewire drives by holding Command-T (target firewire disk mode), and then the computer is just seen as another HD.
Personally, the features are worth the "risk." No one is going to get to my computer in my room, and I have had to use Target disk mode when my computer wouldn't boot (by the way, you can't do a drag and drop install of Mac OS 9 from another Mac)
Slashdot Mirror
Corn ethanol isn't even that green. Sure, the ethanol itself is carbon-neutral, but the production of the corn leads to alot of pollution. The gas that goes into the tractors, the herbicide for the vast rolling fields, the enormous amounts of fertizilers, a huge chunk of our country having absolutely no biodiversity, the transportation costs of the corn. These all leave really big footprints. Corn ethanol only exists because government subsidies allow it to exist. Brazil can do it cheaper and with less footprint, and the import tax on their ethanol proves this is all about subsidies and nothing about environmental concerns
If utube was smart, they would just get a new domain name for their tiny company and auction off utube.com to the highest bidder. Problem solved, money made.
What's more important is what it's clustering, 90 nanometer G5s. Apple and IBM are the first company to bring 90 nm processors to the market. Xserve White Paper
Another Apple first, the first company to build a computer with a 90 nanometer processor. The Xserve G5 uses a G5 on a 90 nanometer process
Link
I found this out from arstechnica's forums
Yeah, freerangemac.com already has a fix for it though. Go grab version 2.1
I just want to know if he is on OS X yet. Last I heard, not even Jaguar was polished enough for him to jump from OS 9
First, Pixar and Apple do share Steve Jobs' time, and without a doubt Jobs knew about the G5 when he built Pixar's render farm a year ago out of Dual Pentium4 1U rackmounts. So Intel is almost surely cheaper than a G5 render farm would be. Second, the XServes would be far easier to maintain. Apple doesn't excel at only pretty translucent cases and lickable interfaces, they really excel at ease of use. And this applies to the render farm as well. Alot of apps, like XCode, use Rendezvous for distributed computing. Just plug a punch of XServes running an app together and you got yourself a render farm. Far easier than anything linux can do. Third, Final Cut Pro and Photoshop are serious professional apps. Other Apple apps, like Shake and Logic are THE apps in their respective markets. Fourth, Linux isn't dominating left and right. It is dominating the render farm because it is cheap and runs on cheap hardware. The workstation market is still anyone's market. Apple is in the perfect position to take over all those SGI and Sun boxes with OS X.
is sendmail all i need to start sending and receiving email on my own? i have a domain-name and website and I would like to run my own email. if i am running apple's mail, what do i need to do to get email from sendmail?
I mean far less, far less people would buy Windows/PPC and illegally run a hacked copy of OS X
But people would be much more likely to buy a Mac if it could Windows too. The 970 is a great chip, but it doesn't put Intel to shame. And without being fantastically better, people would just buy the Windows/Intel instead of Windows/PPC. But if Microsoft would release WindowsPPC, you would see alot of people buying a Mac and a copy of Windows to dual boot. Far more than people would buy Windows/PPC and illegally run a hacked copy of OS X.
Windows on 970 would kill Apple?? Hell, it would save Apple. How many times, on slashdot even, have you heard "I would buy OS X if the barrier to entry wasn't so high." The number one complaint against Apple isn't high price, it's high priced systems that aren't flexible. If I have an expensive PC with Linux and I end up hating Linux, I can put one of a bizillion different OSes on it. But I can only put a handful on the PPC box, and I can't run Windows. But if WindowsPPC becomes a reality, you will start hearing "Hey, I'll buy Apple and if OS X doesn't work out for me, I'll throw Windows on it"
And I don't know why people are ripping on this strategy. This way Apple doesn't have to Ship 10.3 for the G5 and a seperate 10.3 for the G4. That just confuses customers and pisses off people who have a G4 and a G5. Now Apple can ship one version and only have small changes between the G4 and G5 versions, and let the installer make the appropiate changes. Also, Solaris did the same thing. Alot of there utilities were 32-bit for a long long time after 64-bit support came out, programs like top simply do not receive any advantages from being 64-bit.
The CPU to main memory link for the PowerPC 970 is a point-to-point protocal and can support up to 16 CPUs. And you can just hook a 970 to a Hypertransport link, all you need is a hypertransport bridge. Hypertransport can hook into PCI, PCI Express, Firewire, ATA. That being said, I doubt the CPU to main memory link is a hypertransport link. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it used as the chipset glue.
Apple will be at MWNY, called Macworld Create I think. Apple will not be giving a Keynote address, which means no major announcements. (And 64-bit desktop computing counts as a major announcement)
I understand the concept of BitTorrent, but is it a faster download or is it just being nice to Terra Soft's poor little mirrors?
In my opinion Cocoa does equate better. A Carbon application is not any slower than a Cocoa application, and it could easily be faster. But a Cocoa application is more native. The user experience of a Cocoa application is better than a Carbon application because OS X was built for Cocoa apps. Carbon apps are just a way to make OS 9 apps available for OS X.
All I really want is Cocoa version of iTunes. I don't download music off the internet and I don't have an iPod. I just want the apps I use most on OS X to be true OS X apps. But all I am expecting is iTunes 3.1 with music service integration and new iPods. Hopefully Panther will usher in a Cocoa Finder, Cocoa iTunes, and Cocoa Quicktime.
You don't need even the debug menu unless you wanna turn tabs on and off on the fly. (Which you might because clicking on a link opens a new tab, not a new window, which some might now like in all cases) In terminal just type
"defaults write com.apple.safari TabbedBrowsing 1"
The answer, like all answers pretaining to Mac OS X, can be found by going to www.macosxhints.com. Their search engine sucks, but every hint, hack, and tip about OS X can be found there.
All you have to do is set an openfirmware password, which you can do with the install CD, and than you can disable booting from everything but the internal harddrive, and disable all kinds of booting except normal boots into Aqua.
But you do have a point, until you set that password, OS X is horribly insecure when it comes to physical access. You dont' even need a CD, just another Mac and a firewire cord. Macs can be booted as firewire drives by holding Command-T (target firewire disk mode), and then the computer is just seen as another HD.
Personally, the features are worth the "risk." No one is going to get to my computer in my room, and I have had to use Target disk mode when my computer wouldn't boot (by the way, you can't do a drag and drop install of Mac OS 9 from another Mac)