Perhaps. It seems an odd statement to make, even from MS. It's a bit like there's a presumption on their part that a company making an OS won't release all info about the system to the world, but instead will keep little 'secrets' to make their product better.
Clue to MS: Safari's "secret" is khtml. It's open.
Your comment is the equivalent of "It's good to see the Windows community as fanatical as ever, would mozilla even run on a 16Mhz 386" or "Would QuarkXPress even run on an 8Mhz Mac Plus"
Mind you, the AmigaOne, having been out nearly a year now, still doesn't have an OS written for it.
I hear after Mozilla is ported, someone will be working on getting networking going for it.
I've never used Quark and don't reckon I'd drop nearly a grand for such a tool even if I were running OSX, but I'm just curious... every visual page layout program I've used to date has been much more of a pain in the ass to use than the results justified
If you really wanted an example, Compare a standard desktop PC to IBM room-sized big iron, and that's the same kind of comparison as Word/Publisher is to XPress.
Same here, and it's pretty close. Most browsers support it in some fashion, and it IS technically superior to GIF format images.
It's a little like MP3 vs OGG, except PNG is far closer to acceptance in general applications than OGG is for music.
Curiously, does IE support more than one alpha channel with PNG? last I looked it didn't, but that was a long long time ago; most everything else did at the time
Another problem is the dreadful quality problems with clones. I worked phone support for several thousand MacOS installs, spread across anything from the first model powermacs to the newest G4s at the times.
When it came to hardware failures, the mac clones outnumbered the apple made macs by something like 10 to 1. Considering there were far less clones in our installation than real macs, that's a pretty heavy bias against the clone boxes. The most common things to go were power supplies, CDROMs and floppy drives.
Quality control was just nowhere near Apple's own. There are varying thoughts on how good Apple's quality is, but there's no doubt the clones were far, far worse.
The look is one part of the industrial design. Actually creating something -functional- while keeping that look is a whole lot harder.
I think most of us could create the look of a possible next Apple machine with a 3D renderer or photoshop, but then having the knowhow of materials design to implement it, while also having the guts of a computer fit, is far more a talent. It's probably the nittygritty 90% perspiration part of industrial design, and Ive is involved in the whole process.
As for whether it was ripped off someone elses sketch, I doubt anyone will ever know. Only thing for sure is Ive and his team did a great job of bringing it to reality.
$1599US for a powerbook12 is $2451 australian, with a direct currency conversion - something that will always be under the real cost due to importing, our taxes etc.
Still, the Australian base powerbook12 is $3995. $1500+ difference.
Probably clusters of just about any cheap all-identical hardware. It seems to suit the concept of clustering well. Sony have already done all the marketing and hardware price cutting to get the machines out there and used, while subsidising that cost with the games they sell. They'll only get cheaper. On top of that, they're identical systems that'll stay pretty much the same for the next 2-3 years. Good for spares in the future when three of your boxes have worn out, and the pet rat belonging to professor sieslak upstairs has pissed in two.
I don't see the above post as a troll. Opera for mac so far has been THE worst browser on the platform. Even when Netscape 6 was at its worst, Opera was still slower.
When it comes to efficiency and leanness, the Opera versions that have been released for macs are nowhere to be seen. It's small bytewise, but doesn't have anything to show for it. Netscape 7 is faster. Mozilla is faster. IE is faster. Then move up to Firebird, Camino and Safari and they're faster still.
It seems truly a case of needing Ghz machines to get a useful browsing experience from Opera. Why pay money for what's undoubtedly the SLOWEST product in its class on macs?
I admit I haven't used Opera enough to have a really good grasp on how well it renders, or how buggy it is or isn't, but across all the macs I've used it with, it's consistently performed like a machine at a tenth the speed it was actually running on. Ugh
As well as quite a bit of the history itself, the abilities of these machines is an important thing to keep current in the minds of new coders/designers/etc. It's saddening to see a current 'newbie' coder dismiss say, a Pentium 75 as useless, or a 25Mhz 68040 as past any possibly use, when the majority of their work is on tiny C apps or basic shell scripting.
It's totally unlike say, cars - where a good high performance 1970s muscle car could thrash a brand new family car in speed, so people stay grounded in what the technology can do, but sometimes I feel only embedded device designers truly have a feel for what can be done with what hardware.
Maybe I'm old and that makes me think a 3Ghz computer for email and wordprocessing is overkill.
I'm not saying we all should restrict ourselves to "the good old days" of 486s, just that it's a good thing to know how much performance we have in our current machines, and how it places historically
If MOL manages to get to the point where it can run OSX as well as it runs OS9, then it's set for some good things.
I run OSX, OS9 and Debian PPC iMac 400. Under MOL, OS9 runs as quickly as it ever did on the iMac. (ignoring for the moment the fucked up networking which is flakey-as).
For running an OSX system on non apple hardware, it may be possible to get a Pegasos board, booting an absolutely minimal Linux install purely for the purposes of bypassing the Apple Hardware Tax.
What hold would this give MS over Apple's OSX? I can't see MS going for the jugular with respect to Linux but leaving Apple all alive and well.
Apple use UNIX on their site, they're selling a FreeBSD based UNIX derivative. Do MS now control the fate of the name UNIX, the style of OS that is UNIX, or just a few choice bits of code that nobody will give a shit about?
As I've been told time and time again by those paragons of intelligence on IRC, everyone knows it was in 1993 when teh intarweb became pop-u-lar.
Of course, that's ignoring my use of the net in the 1980s, which must be my defective old memory, something I caught of those old codgers at university who had been using it for 15 years before that...
At the moment, we have a standard way of talking to a CPU (the architecture of it - Windows runs on x86, OSX runs on PPC for example) and there's a standard way of talking to a graphics card (OpenGL for one). For different processes, we'd need standards to talk to those extra processes. As for now, Central Processing (by defintion) and Visualisation are two parts to using a computer that are important to a large enough group of computer users that those standards have emerged.
As for anything else? Perhaps when the Next Big Killer App comes along that needs more processing, we may have something similar for that. Personally I think it'll only be a few years before ALL computers have dedicated DNA folding & analysis hardware because hey, you know how we're all into that now!
A comparison that may help understand the problem might be to suggest keeping say, an Altivec unit, but dropping the main processor.
Sure you'd be able to do some hellish good data transforms, and perhaps a 'CPU' with a dozen of these Altivec units could crunch through some RC5-72 units like crazy, but not much else!
Re:About as viral as accidentally giving away secr
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. Apple for one have worked things succesfully and released some of their apps next to GPL apps. It's part of the nature of reality, the GPL has certain conditions if you wish to release work under it, and Apple understand and have met those.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps. It seems an odd statement to make, even from MS. It's a bit like there's a presumption on their part that a company making an OS won't release all info about the system to the world, but instead will keep little 'secrets' to make their product better.
Clue to MS: Safari's "secret" is khtml. It's open.
Curious term - considering changes of weight in a gold bar was measured using lasers and the changing vibration of silicon (to condense things badly)
I don't know about anyone else, but when weighing, lasering, or vibrating things... using my nose is one of the last options I'd consider
Maybe it's just me.
What do you call amigaos 4.0?
"vaporware"
The newest Amigas are AmigaOnes, 800Mhz G4 boxes
Your comment is the equivalent of "It's good to see the Windows community as fanatical as ever, would mozilla even run on a 16Mhz 386" or "Would QuarkXPress even run on an 8Mhz Mac Plus"
Mind you, the AmigaOne, having been out nearly a year now, still doesn't have an OS written for it.
I hear after Mozilla is ported, someone will be working on getting networking going for it.
I've never used Quark and don't reckon I'd drop nearly a grand for such a tool even if I were running OSX, but I'm just curious... every visual page layout program I've used to date has been much more of a pain in the ass to use than the results justified
It's not the tool for you then, if LaTeX can give you what you need. XPress has been -the- tool (despite it being painful in a few areas) for creating magazines, newspapers and pro publications, for a long time. Pick a magazine you like, and it's almost certainly laid out in XPress. Most newspapers, most brochures, most anything professional print. It's not -meant- for producing small school leaflets, or scientific papers, or a resumé or letter to the family.
If you really wanted an example, Compare a standard desktop PC to IBM room-sized big iron, and that's the same kind of comparison as Word/Publisher is to XPress.
Same here, and it's pretty close. Most browsers support it in some fashion, and it IS technically superior to GIF format images.
It's a little like MP3 vs OGG, except PNG is far closer to acceptance in general applications than OGG is for music.
Curiously, does IE support more than one alpha channel with PNG? last I looked it didn't, but that was a long long time ago; most everything else did at the time
Another problem is the dreadful quality problems with clones. I worked phone support for several thousand MacOS installs, spread across anything from the first model powermacs to the newest G4s at the times.
When it came to hardware failures, the mac clones outnumbered the apple made macs by something like 10 to 1. Considering there were far less clones in our installation than real macs, that's a pretty heavy bias against the clone boxes. The most common things to go were power supplies, CDROMs and floppy drives.
Quality control was just nowhere near Apple's own. There are varying thoughts on how good Apple's quality is, but there's no doubt the clones were far, far worse.
The look is one part of the industrial design. Actually creating something -functional- while keeping that look is a whole lot harder.
I think most of us could create the look of a possible next Apple machine with a 3D renderer or photoshop, but then having the knowhow of materials design to implement it, while also having the guts of a computer fit, is far more a talent. It's probably the nittygritty 90% perspiration part of industrial design, and Ive is involved in the whole process.
As for whether it was ripped off someone elses sketch, I doubt anyone will ever know. Only thing for sure is Ive and his team did a great job of bringing it to reality.
While the article doesn't mention it, macnn's story on the price drop does.
The prices are:
12" Combo drive PowerBook - $1,599 ($200 drop)
12" SuperDrive PowerBook - $1,799 ($200 drop)
15" Combo drive PowerBook - $1,999 ($300 drop)
15" SuperDrive PowerBook - $2,599 ($200 drop).
Nice drop on the 15" combo drive powerbook.
Holy crap there's a disparity there.
$1599US for a powerbook12 is $2451 australian, with a direct currency conversion - something that will always be under the real cost due to importing, our taxes etc.
Still, the Australian base powerbook12 is $3995. $1500+ difference.
bah!
Whoever holds the patents may require other sites to pay them licensing royalties
Or they could be sane and let the world continue as it has been, succesfully.
Speaking of the gameboy advance SP, can you imagine an iBook like this thing running linux?
A server in your pocket, or maybe two
All ports are turned off by default, with no way to turn them on. Also, networking hasn't been compiled into the kernel.
Not only that, no users are allowed. not even root.
It's supplied preinstalled on a PC with no powerswitch. hell, no PSU even.
They think of everything...
I can see the XBox handheld now
:P
One foot by 3 inches thick and about 6 inches deep. Somewhere around the size of a PS2
What will they think of next?
Probably clusters of just about any cheap all-identical hardware. It seems to suit the concept of clustering well. Sony have already done all the marketing and hardware price cutting to get the machines out there and used, while subsidising that cost with the games they sell. They'll only get cheaper. On top of that, they're identical systems that'll stay pretty much the same for the next 2-3 years. Good for spares in the future when three of your boxes have worn out, and the pet rat belonging to professor sieslak upstairs has pissed in two.
Sounds good to me!
I don't see the above post as a troll. Opera for mac so far has been THE worst browser on the platform. Even when Netscape 6 was at its worst, Opera was still slower.
When it comes to efficiency and leanness, the Opera versions that have been released for macs are nowhere to be seen. It's small bytewise, but doesn't have anything to show for it. Netscape 7 is faster. Mozilla is faster. IE is faster. Then move up to Firebird, Camino and Safari and they're faster still.
It seems truly a case of needing Ghz machines to get a useful browsing experience from Opera. Why pay money for what's undoubtedly the SLOWEST product in its class on macs?
I admit I haven't used Opera enough to have a really good grasp on how well it renders, or how buggy it is or isn't, but across all the macs I've used it with, it's consistently performed like a machine at a tenth the speed it was actually running on. Ugh
If you poison us, shall we not die?
You don't seem to have yet.
As well as quite a bit of the history itself, the abilities of these machines is an important thing to keep current in the minds of new coders/designers/etc. It's saddening to see a current 'newbie' coder dismiss say, a Pentium 75 as useless, or a 25Mhz 68040 as past any possibly use, when the majority of their work is on tiny C apps or basic shell scripting.
It's totally unlike say, cars - where a good high performance 1970s muscle car could thrash a brand new family car in speed, so people stay grounded in what the technology can do, but sometimes I feel only embedded device designers truly have a feel for what can be done with what hardware.
Maybe I'm old and that makes me think a 3Ghz computer for email and wordprocessing is overkill.
I'm not saying we all should restrict ourselves to "the good old days" of 486s, just that it's a good thing to know how much performance we have in our current machines, and how it places historically
MacOS X is stable, but the article describes MorphOS - the PPC AmigaOS 'clone' which isn't quite all there yet.
:)
Some small missing things, like say, networking
If MOL manages to get to the point where it can run OSX as well as it runs OS9, then it's set for some good things.
I run OSX, OS9 and Debian PPC iMac 400. Under MOL, OS9 runs as quickly as it ever did on the iMac. (ignoring for the moment the fucked up networking which is flakey-as).
For running an OSX system on non apple hardware, it may be possible to get a Pegasos board, booting an absolutely minimal Linux install purely for the purposes of bypassing the Apple Hardware Tax.
What hold would this give MS over Apple's OSX? I can't see MS going for the jugular with respect to Linux but leaving Apple all alive and well.
Apple use UNIX on their site, they're selling a FreeBSD based UNIX derivative. Do MS now control the fate of the name UNIX, the style of OS that is UNIX, or just a few choice bits of code that nobody will give a shit about?
As I've been told time and time again by those paragons of intelligence on IRC, everyone knows it was in 1993 when teh intarweb became pop-u-lar.
Of course, that's ignoring my use of the net in the 1980s, which must be my defective old memory, something I caught of those old codgers at university who had been using it for 15 years before that...
Standards, would be my first guess.
:)
At the moment, we have a standard way of talking to a CPU (the architecture of it - Windows runs on x86, OSX runs on PPC for example) and there's a standard way of talking to a graphics card (OpenGL for one). For different processes, we'd need standards to talk to those extra processes. As for now, Central Processing (by defintion) and Visualisation are two parts to using a computer that are important to a large enough group of computer users that those standards have emerged.
As for anything else? Perhaps when the Next Big Killer App comes along that needs more processing, we may have something similar for that. Personally I think it'll only be a few years before ALL computers have dedicated DNA folding & analysis hardware because hey, you know how we're all into that now!
(yes, I'm kidding
A comparison that may help understand the problem might be to suggest keeping say, an Altivec unit, but dropping the main processor.
Sure you'd be able to do some hellish good data transforms, and perhaps a 'CPU' with a dozen of these Altivec units could crunch through some RC5-72 units like crazy, but not much else!
Exactly. Apple for one have worked things succesfully and released some of their apps next to GPL apps. It's part of the nature of reality, the GPL has certain conditions if you wish to release work under it, and Apple understand and have met those.