Well, since these astronomers base their predictions on the stars, you would think that the location of spacial objects to be important...
But there's one little problem. The star charts in use by Astrologers is based on how the stars looked during the times of the ancient greeks.
The position of the stars have moved 'A LOT' since then. I think she'd be better off updating her star charts, than worrying that NASA nudged some tiny comet off course by about 2 cm.
>>I don't call a so-called *Supreme-court-of-law*, a place where 5-4 decisions are allowed.
Well, I think you need to calm down. I'm not a supporter of this decision.
But I'd like to point out that the famous Roe V. Wade that legalized abortion was also a 5-4 decision.
Sometimes the courts are just as divided as the population on such issues. If you insisted on unanimous votes by the court, nothing would ever get approved.
Speaking as a veteran, I would say that the reason is that the easiest way to pay for a college education for a middle class student is to go into the military.
College costs big money. It's not an easy thing for most lower-middle and midde-middle income families to take on the kind of debt that is required to obtain a college degree.
The reality is the United States has a draft today.
It's just an economic draft.
Kids who can afford to pay for college do so. Those who can't afford to pay for it and still want an education go into the military.
Actually, real American companies shuffle their assets to offshore companies, then declare bankruptcy.
Next they void their retiree health benefits and offload employee pensions to the government.
High-paying jobs remaining in the reorganized company are then sent off to another country where labor costs are lower.
Finally, they give their CEO and Chairmen multimillion dollar golden parachutes.
The CEOs ride off into the sunset as rich as can be. The employees are then sent off to work at fast food restaurants where they can rest easy knowing that at least they can be assured that they'll have social security when they get older...
Well, that is because Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company.
They make almost all their revenue from hardware. So, if they let any generic pc run OS X, then where does their revenue come from? The sale volume of OS X would not be enough to survive as a company, not unless or until their market share is much, much higher than 3 percent.
I don't see this as a big issue. If you really, really wanted to run OS X, you'll buy an apple branded computer. You'll have more OS choice because you'll still be able to run windows.
But it really is ridiculous to ask Apple to commit what amounts to corporate suicide by letting just any old pc run OS X. They need the hardware revenue to continue improving the OS. Maybe some day they could open it up to other pcs, but that won't happen unless their market share is much, much higher.
Sure just letting OS X run on any old pc would raise their marketshare... but they're running a business. They need to do it in a way that they continue to be profitable.
I'm not saying I agree with the article. But I think you missed the piece's point.
Apple is the ONLY PC maker that owns its own OS. If Intel wants to compete with Microsoft in that space, they need an Operating System. Linux is hardly a threat in the desktop OS space. It's simply not polished enough.
Having said that, I think the article is a stretch. But interesting all the same.
Well, your assumption about the cost of the OS being equal would be an incorrect one.
A single-user full version of Windows costs $299.
A single-user full version of Mac OS X cast $129.
Using your assumption that everything else was equal, I think many would use the Mac.
Plus, Apple will allow you to run Windows on their Intel Macs. You won't be able to run Mac OS on a Dell.
If Apple comes even close in price to the other pc makers, they'll be no reason not to go with Apple. You'd simply have more OS choices with Apple hardware.
Actually, Apple considered using PowerPC NT as the basis for its next generation OS before they ultimately switched to NextStep. But of course, that was years and years ago.
The answer to your question about dual booting is yes. Apple officials have said they have no plans to prevent users from installing and running windows.
>> After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
The news is actually better than dual boot though. With Virtual PC, you will be able to run XP in an application window on Mac OS. You won't need to reboot. And, because it's running on an X86 chip already, the performance should be as good as Windows running on a dedicated PC.
>>Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
Well, you'll be able to run Windows via Virtual PC. Since you won't have the overhead of emulating the x86 processor, you'll have real world Windows performance. This will be better than a dual boot system since you'll be able to run windows inside a Mac application.
Microsoft has already said they will continue supporting Mac OS X -- even with the move to Intel.
Well, since you decided to be a grammar nazi, I should point out that Apple is not a plural entity. Apple is a single entity. Therefore, you should have written IT is not multiple...
>>Apple is a single company. They are not multiple entities, and therefor call for a singular agreement.
This of course also means that if Windows users really love the iMac or Mac mini, they could buy the hardware and install Windows on it.
Apple makes its money from hardware, I'm sure they could care less if users decide to run Windows or linux on it. Just as long as they make their money from it.
It just occurred to me that there's another upside of Apple switching to Intel.
Currently, if you want to switch from Windows to the Mac you have to buy a powerpc-based machine that runs only OS X (and linux). If you switch and decide it was a mistake and you really would rather have a Windows PC, you are pretty much stuck.
I assume that there would be no reason that an Intel-based Mac could not also run Windows.
If that is the case, you've just made switching to Apple hardware a much more compelling option. You get the chance to try out the Mac, without the risk that you may regret it later.
1) Chip supply. IBM and Motorola have had repeated problems supplying Apple with the number of chips that Apple needs. Intel will not have this problem.
IBM is now something like two years behind on its promised 3 Ghz chips.
2) Laptops. Apple needs a low-heat G-5 chip for it's laptops. From all accounts, it may be as long as two years before IBM or Motorola will be able to provide these chips.
3) Cost. Apple, according to today's NY Times, in its latest renegotiations with IBM wanted a discount on the price of the PowerPC chips. IBM essentally said forget about it.
4) There's no way Apple will NOT have a way for users to run their old applications on the new Intel/Macs. There will be some form of emulation available -- count on it.
Well, one application which would see a HUGE performace increase is virtual pc.
I wonder what would happen if Apple decided to license virtual pc and include it within their own OS?
Before the lunatics start attacking me, just consider this: Before going with NextStep as their next generation OS, Apple had discussions with Microsoft to consider licensing NT on PowerPC as the basis for the basis for their next generation OS.
On the other hand, maybe Apple will bring back the Yellowbox. This was a NextStep technology that developers could program to that would allow your applications to run on both NextStep and Windows. Essentially, when you installed a Yellowbox application on windows, you installed an invisible Nextstep layer on Windows. In other words, the OS was included within the application.
>>>If Apple were ever serious about this, they wouldve done it when first migrating to OSX. That would've been the perfect time, since OSX needed completely new application support and Motorola had hit a wall with the PPC. But come 5 years later, Apple now has more developers and users then ever before
Well, I can assure you that someone who started developing for the Mac with OS X did not develop Carbon applications. (based on the old os 9 technology).
These applications would be Cocoa-based applications and they would be very easily ported to Intel OS X.
Well, that doesn't mean that Intel was the source for the story.
However, if the source for the story IS Intel, then it is most likely true.
My guess is this story, however much some folks don't want to hear it, is true.
MacRumors.com previously reported that Apple may have quietly invested in a company back in 2001 that makes a product that would allow binaries on one platform to run on another without a huge performance hit. Click on the above link for that story.
>>In 2001, Transitive Technologies demonstrated a technology called "Dynamite" which allowed code written for one CPU to be run efficiently on another CPU. This "translator" was said to dynamically translate and accelerate binaries -- claiming to provide substantial performance over traditional "emulators". Recent numbers claim 80% performance matching.
Some more details came in 2003 at which time a "major" customer was reported. While speculation pointed towards Apple, no reliable reports emerged.
Transitive once again made headlines in September 2004 when they announced a derivative product called QuickTransit. They have since announced having a number of customers including Silicon Graphics Incorporated.
QuickTransit allows software compiled for one processor/operating system to be run on another processor/operating system.
According to an unconfirmed report, there is evidence that Apple has had special internal seeds of Tiger which support this technology for the x86 platform. Beyond allowing Tiger to run on x86, perhaps more significantly is the potential to also allow existing Mac OS X applications to be run on the x86 (PC) platform without recompilation. Otherwise, requiring developers to recompile all current Mac OS X applications has been seen as a major hurdle in providing Mac OS X on the PC.
Actually, your first point would depend on where it happened and if the person shooting the criminal was possessed the gun legally.
If you walk into my house and are trying to kill someone with a gun, knife, etc. I have a legally justified right to stop you, even if it means shooting you.
Finally, the reason the police can't do what you describe is a little issue with something called "due process."
The police officer has to go through the courts to do anything like what you describe.
Yes, they go after phishers. But they do it with search warrants, etc. If the site is hosted outside of their jurisdiction, there's little they can do, other than request help from law enforcement in that locality.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since these astronomers base their predictions on the stars, you would think that the location of spacial objects to be important...
But there's one little problem. The star charts in use by Astrologers is based on how the stars looked during the times of the ancient greeks.
The position of the stars have moved 'A LOT' since then. I think she'd be better off updating her star charts, than worrying that NASA nudged some tiny comet off course by about 2 cm.
well, since the boomer will remain the majority in numbers for say, oh, the next 30 years, I think we're gonna have a long wait.
Not me.
I own a couple of music cds. I make my own mixes from those cds. I then burn that mix to a new cd.
Nothing illegal there.
>>I don't call a so-called *Supreme-court-of-law*, a place where 5-4 decisions are allowed.
Well, I think you need to calm down. I'm not a supporter of this decision.
But I'd like to point out that the famous Roe V. Wade that legalized abortion was also a 5-4 decision.
Sometimes the courts are just as divided as the population on such issues. If you insisted on unanimous votes by the court, nothing would ever get approved.
Speaking as a veteran, I would say that the reason is that the easiest way to pay for a college education for a middle class student is to go into the military.
College costs big money. It's not an easy thing for most lower-middle and midde-middle income families to take on the kind of debt that is required to obtain a college degree.
The reality is the United States has a draft today.
It's just an economic draft.
Kids who can afford to pay for college do so. Those who can't afford to pay for it and still want an education go into the military.
Actually, real American companies shuffle their assets to offshore companies, then declare bankruptcy.
Next they void their retiree health benefits and offload employee pensions to the government.
High-paying jobs remaining in the reorganized company are then sent off to another country where labor costs are lower.
Finally, they give their CEO and Chairmen multimillion dollar golden parachutes.
The CEOs ride off into the sunset as rich as can be. The employees are then sent off to work at fast food restaurants where they can rest easy knowing that at least they can be assured that they'll have social security when they get older...
Oh yeah. Forget that last part.
Nope.
I served in the military. (famous for odd speech). All missiles are ballistic missiles. Yes it's redundant, but it's just the way it is.
>>ballistics missile
All missiles are ballistic missiles.
Perhaps you mean ICBM? (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile).
That is incorrect.
You can purchase a FULL version of OS X, not the upgrade, for $129.
You can get a family license for five Macs in your house for $199. Just go to apple.com and click on the apple store.
I realize you are referring to the price of a Mac Mini. But your posting really could mislead someone about what the real cost of the OS is.
Well, that is because Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company.
They make almost all their revenue from hardware. So, if they let any generic pc run OS X, then where does their revenue come from? The sale volume of OS X would not be enough to survive as a company, not unless or until their market share is much, much higher than 3 percent.
I don't see this as a big issue. If you really, really wanted to run OS X, you'll buy an apple branded computer. You'll have more OS choice because you'll still be able to run windows.
But it really is ridiculous to ask Apple to commit what amounts to corporate suicide by letting just any old pc run OS X. They need the hardware revenue to continue improving the OS. Maybe some day they could open it up to other pcs, but that won't happen unless their market share is much, much higher.
Sure just letting OS X run on any old pc would raise their marketshare... but they're running a business. They need to do it in a way that they continue to be profitable.
I'm not saying I agree with the article. But I think you missed the piece's point.
Apple is the ONLY PC maker that owns its own OS. If Intel wants to compete with Microsoft in that space, they need an Operating System. Linux is hardly a threat in the desktop OS space. It's simply not polished enough.
Having said that, I think the article is a stretch. But interesting all the same.
Well, your assumption about the cost of the OS being equal would be an incorrect one.
A single-user full version of Windows costs $299.
A single-user full version of Mac OS X cast $129.
Using your assumption that everything else was equal, I think many would use the Mac.
Plus, Apple will allow you to run Windows on their Intel Macs. You won't be able to run Mac OS on a Dell.
If Apple comes even close in price to the other pc makers, they'll be no reason not to go with Apple. You'd simply have more OS choices with Apple hardware.
My understanding is that the genes in question would be those responsible for causing Tay-Sachs disease.
The problem here of course is that Tay-Sachs is also known to be a disease of Amish people too.
More information
I don't recall there being a lot of Amish chess champs.
Actually, Apple considered using PowerPC NT as the basis for its next generation OS before they ultimately switched to NextStep. But of course, that was years and years ago.
This was revealed in a news.com story.
The quote was on the second page of that link:
>>
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
The news is actually better than dual boot though. With Virtual PC, you will be able to run XP in an application window on Mac OS. You won't need to reboot. And, because it's running on an X86 chip already, the performance should be as good as Windows running on a dedicated PC.
>>Run Windows On A Mac: I seriously doubt it, unless the only thing preventing Windows from running on - say - a G5 is the CPU. Apple isn't going to submit a Mac for Windows certification, isn't going to sign one of those #@$!% OEM deals with MS, and the only effort at making a port work at Redmond will be on someone's lunch hour.
Well, you'll be able to run Windows via Virtual PC. Since you won't have the overhead of emulating the x86 processor, you'll have real world Windows performance. This will be better than a dual boot system since you'll be able to run windows inside a Mac application.
Microsoft has already said they will continue supporting Mac OS X -- even with the move to Intel.
Well, since you decided to be a grammar nazi, I should point out that Apple is not a plural entity. Apple is a single entity. Therefore, you should have written IT is not multiple...
>>Apple is a single company. They are not multiple entities, and therefor call for a singular agreement.
This of course also means that if Windows users really love the iMac or Mac mini, they could buy the hardware and install Windows on it.
Apple makes its money from hardware, I'm sure they could care less if users decide to run Windows or linux on it. Just as long as they make their money from it.
It just occurred to me that there's another upside of Apple switching to Intel.
Currently, if you want to switch from Windows to the Mac you have to buy a powerpc-based machine that runs only OS X (and linux). If you switch and decide it was a mistake and you really would rather have a Windows PC, you are pretty much stuck.
I assume that there would be no reason that an Intel-based Mac could not also run Windows.
If that is the case, you've just made switching to Apple hardware a much more compelling option. You get the chance to try out the Mac, without the risk that you may regret it later.
If you don't like OS X, you can just install XP.
I don't see why this is modded as funny.
Actually, I think most of what the original poster wrote is quite plausible.
1) Chip supply. IBM and Motorola have had repeated problems supplying Apple with the number of chips that Apple needs. Intel will not have this problem.
IBM is now something like two years behind on its promised 3 Ghz chips.
2) Laptops. Apple needs a low-heat G-5 chip for it's laptops. From all accounts, it may be as long as two years before IBM or Motorola will be able to provide these chips.
3) Cost. Apple, according to today's NY Times, in its latest renegotiations with IBM wanted a discount on the price of the PowerPC chips. IBM essentally said forget about it.
4) There's no way Apple will NOT have a way for users to run their old applications on the new Intel/Macs. There will be some form of emulation available -- count on it.
Well, one application which would see a HUGE performace increase is virtual pc.
I wonder what would happen if Apple decided to license virtual pc and include it within their own OS?
Before the lunatics start attacking me, just consider this: Before going with NextStep as their next generation OS, Apple had discussions with Microsoft to consider licensing NT on PowerPC as the basis for the basis for their next generation OS.
On the other hand, maybe Apple will bring back the Yellowbox. This was a NextStep technology that developers could program to that would allow your applications to run on both NextStep and Windows. Essentially, when you installed a Yellowbox application on windows, you installed an invisible Nextstep layer on Windows. In other words, the OS was included within the application.
>>>If Apple were ever serious about this, they wouldve done it when first migrating to OSX. That would've been the perfect time, since OSX needed completely new application support and Motorola had hit a wall with the PPC. But come 5 years later, Apple now has more developers and users then ever before
Well, I can assure you that someone who started developing for the Mac with OS X did not develop Carbon applications. (based on the old os 9 technology).
These applications would be Cocoa-based applications and they would be very easily ported to Intel OS X.
However, if the source for the story IS Intel, then it is most likely true.
My guess is this story, however much some folks don't want to hear it, is true.
MacRumors.com previously reported that Apple may have quietly invested in a company back in 2001 that makes a product that would allow binaries on one platform to run on another without a huge performance hit. Click on the above link for that story.
>>In 2001, Transitive Technologies demonstrated a technology called "Dynamite" which allowed code written for one CPU to be run efficiently on another CPU. This "translator" was said to dynamically translate and accelerate binaries -- claiming to provide substantial performance over traditional "emulators". Recent numbers claim 80% performance matching.
Some more details came in 2003 at which time a "major" customer was reported. While speculation pointed towards Apple, no reliable reports emerged.
Transitive once again made headlines in September 2004 when they announced a derivative product called QuickTransit. They have since announced having a number of customers including Silicon Graphics Incorporated.
QuickTransit allows software compiled for one processor/operating system to be run on another processor/operating system.
According to an unconfirmed report, there is evidence that Apple has had special internal seeds of Tiger which support this technology for the x86 platform. Beyond allowing Tiger to run on x86, perhaps more significantly is the potential to also allow existing Mac OS X applications to be run on the x86 (PC) platform without recompilation. Otherwise, requiring developers to recompile all current Mac OS X applications has been seen as a major hurdle in providing Mac OS X on the PC.
Actually, your first point would depend on where it happened and if the person shooting the criminal was possessed the gun legally.
If you walk into my house and are trying to kill someone with a gun, knife, etc. I have a legally justified right to stop you, even if it means shooting you.
Finally, the reason the police can't do what you describe is a little issue with something called "due process."
The police officer has to go through the courts to do anything like what you describe.
Yes, they go after phishers. But they do it with search warrants, etc. If the site is hosted outside of their jurisdiction, there's little they can do, other than request help from law enforcement in that locality.