Uh, what? I'm going to assume that: 1) you deleted files from your iTunes library 2) you set your iPod to sync automatically 3) you connected your iPod, the sync occurred, and the change (deleted files) was reflected.
How is this not what you expected? You already *got* alerts that you were about to delete something.
Maybe you ought to read the piece I quoted and responded to. I'm not responding to Engadget's article, but to: "The worst part may be that Apple is charging people to download these new higher resolution videos even if they've already purchased the original, so people are essentially paying for nothing." , which has little to do with Engadget's article.
...as far as I know, encoding is handled not by Apple, but by the providers. Which, as a matter of fact, explains the discrepancy in the Engadget post: some videos look good at higher-res, whereas others appear to have been upsampled.
Most likely, not Apple is to blame, but the content providers, some of whom were apparently too lazy or stupid or stingy to provide truly higher-res versions.
I did. That's what I quoted from. The notion that Apple ought to provide higher-resolution videos for free to those who bought lower-resolution ones is silly. They could do it as a nice-gesture service, but they have no obligation to whatsoever, and I would have been surprised if they had. Millions bought videos at 320x240, not because they were expecting them to miraculously have four times the resolution somewhere down the road, but because they were perfectly happy with the quality as-is.
The worst part may be that Apple is charging people to download these new higher resolution videos even if they've already purchased the original, so people are essentially paying for nothing.
So true! I can get my laptop updated from a 200 MHz Pentium III to a 2x2.33 GHz Merom for free, my 1983 TV automatically got a new HD-capable tuner, and my MS Office 4.3 license makes me eligible for Office 2007 as well!
Oh wait. Maybe you get what you pay for. Huh, new concept.
You obviously missed the part where I specifically referred to *real-time* playback of *H.264*. The iPod Linux video implementation neither supports MPEG-4 (let alone H.264), nor will it probably ever be efficient enough to support real-time at such complex codecs.
O'Grady is, as always, full of crap. The iPod nano has no video compression/decompression chip as the iPod with video does, and the PortalPlayer chipset it comes with doesn't do real-time decoding of H.264. Supplying such a feature via firmware is impossible.
Good point (and I knew someone was gonna bring it up), but then, does size matter?;-)
Mac OS X's kernel, XNU, is written in C and C++. There is no Objective-C in it, nor Objective-C++. Yet many of Mac OS X's frameworks not only rely on Objective-C (or ObjC++), but also only offer APIs for that.
So, does that make Mac OS X an operating system that doesn't rely on Objective-C?:-)
I think for the most part, Mac OS X focuses on ObjC *almost* as much as NeXT Step did. I say almost because many commercial applications are still evolutionary ports from Mac OS Classic and therefore Carbon. Photoshop, BBEdit, MS Office, you name it. But the bulk of new applications and clearly the bulk of *Apple* applications is Cocoa and ObjC.
Sadly, Cocoa bridges such as RubyCocoa never much mattered.
Umm. Current Macs *have* no such chip, and haven't since about 2002. And even before that, it wasn't used for DRM, it was used for copy protection. And if you consider OpenSSH DRM, then you should check your local therapist.
"Apple uses DRM today to lock OSX to Apple computers."
On PowerPC Macs? Uh. No, they don't. Never did.
Pre-OS X Macs had a ROM chip which contained the core part of the classic Mac OS, which you could consider a hardware dongle, but it wasn't a DRM, and its primary purpose never was copy protection.
Today's Macs have nothing thereof. Intel Macs may have it, but don't exist yet.
"Do I look greedy to you, when I opt out of buying a $15 CD and go for BT instead?"
Greedy? No. Unreasonable? Yes.
If you randomly walk into my house and get some food out of my fridge while I watch you and ask for an explanation, which you respond to with "I'm $400 in debt; would you rather I get myself even more broke by *buying* food?", I wouldn't find that acceptable.
And if the CD is too expensive for you, either 1) it is indeed overpriced and you should boycot it either way to *show* the industry that, or 2) you should think about which luxuries you can afford, and which ones you can't.
I prefer Samsung laptops when it comes to non-Apple products. They're only available in very select regions of the world, however; Western Europe and some parts of Asia. Sleek almost Apple-like design.
As for the upcoming Freescale G4 CPUs: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview. jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG7249 says that the 7448 will continue to use MPX/60x, their name for MaxBus, and will therefore continue to be limited to 200 MHz max for its FSB clock rate.
The 8641 and 8641D, however, will supposedly actually feature RapidIO, which as you can see on that page will bring them up to par with modern CPUs. Knowing Freescale / Motorola in this regard, however, they often over-promise and under-deliver, and they tend to be optimistic when it comes to release dates.
Don't expect any 8641*-based Macintosh before 2006, when Apple will already be starting the transition to x86 anyways. And even if Freescale does manage to pull off the 8641D as promised, note that, being a 8xxx series CPU, it is not designed for desktop/laptop use, but for communication devices in the embedded market. That may not stop Apple from using it, as it is otherwise entirely compatible with the 7448, but Apple has never used anything but 6xx, 7xx/7xxx and 9xx CPUs, all of which are specifically designed for personal computers.
In short, don't count on them. If you want a "good enough" PowerBook with many luxury features from Bluetooth 2.0+EDR to two-finger scrolling, ambient light sensors that illuminate your keyboard and dim your screen at the same time, etc., get it now.
Also check http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ for a list of average product cycles of Macs, and http://forums.applenova.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22 for purchasing advice.
"I've been under a few NDA's, one of them was under a foreign company who never met me face to face."
Ditto.;-)
"Apple though, is so careful that I guess this would not fly with them."
You're probably right on that.
I'm sorry to hear that the US's ignorance is getting to you and your surroundings. We can only hope that this situation will improve over time. Right now, however, it only seems to get worse and worse.:-/
As for >200 MHz front-side bus speeds, the limitation is the MaxBus implementation by Motorola, which wasn't designed for desktops, but embedded systems. Since Motorola/Freescale has little interest in desktop CPUs, this situation is unlikely to change. As for upcoming PowerBook CPUs before the Intel switch, the two likely candidates are the 7448, a slightly better-cached and better-MHzd version of the current 7447B. While the 8641D will be out some time 2006 and comes with two cores, making it interesting, it probably won't have a better front-side bus system either.
IOW, before the Intel switch, chances are this won't be solved in any way. Motorola's project for a new I/O bus, RapidIO, was to my knowledge for all intents and purposes cancelled, and IBM's very high front-side bus performance (resulting in a 1.35 GHz FSB for the 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5) is unlikely to ever come to a PowerBook near you for obvious thermal reasons.
"People use Linux because they are free to copy, redistribute, and modify it."
Nuh-uh. Most people don't give a shit that they can copy it -- if they want to copy Windows to their friendly neighbors, they do. Product activation is not going to stop them.
Most people also don't give a shit that they can modify, since most people *can't* modify it. You know. Skills and all. Even if they did have them, why would they care to change a piece of software? As jwz put it ( http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwz/499651.html?t hread=7249859#t7249859 ) : "Sure, I'll hack the source to my browser. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *snork*. You so funny."
"you don't need to worry about keeping track of licenses when you are deploying it"
Wait a second, we're talking admins now? We were talking end users.
If you mean free as in free beer: that's silly -- they already paid the license for Windows either way, so how is that a compelling reason to switch?
If you mean free as in communist software: I'm sorry, but the majority of people out there couldn't care less about RMS's pipe dreams, and probably don't even know who that is.
People as in end users switch to Linux because it promises to be more stable and reliable. That's why.
" Because that would require re-encrypting it for each person"
Just like adding a fingerprint would require editing the disk image for each person. A proper, hard to discover and even harder to remove finger print takes just as much CPU time to add as encryption, no?
Slashdot Mirror
If by "manual", you mean "manual syncing", then you're wrong; switching to manual doesn't delete anything.
Uh, what? I'm going to assume that:
1) you deleted files from your iTunes library
2) you set your iPod to sync automatically
3) you connected your iPod, the sync occurred, and the change (deleted files) was reflected.
How is this not what you expected? You already *got* alerts that you were about to delete something.
Maybe you ought to read the piece I quoted and responded to. I'm not responding to Engadget's article, but to:
"The worst part may be that Apple is charging people to download these new higher resolution videos even if they've already purchased the original, so people are essentially paying for nothing."
, which has little to do with Engadget's article.
...as far as I know, encoding is handled not by Apple, but by the providers. Which, as a matter of fact, explains the discrepancy in the Engadget post: some videos look good at higher-res, whereas others appear to have been upsampled.
Most likely, not Apple is to blame, but the content providers, some of whom were apparently too lazy or stupid or stingy to provide truly higher-res versions.
I did. That's what I quoted from. The notion that Apple ought to provide higher-resolution videos for free to those who bought lower-resolution ones is silly. They could do it as a nice-gesture service, but they have no obligation to whatsoever, and I would have been surprised if they had. Millions bought videos at 320x240, not because they were expecting them to miraculously have four times the resolution somewhere down the road, but because they were perfectly happy with the quality as-is.
So true! I can get my laptop updated from a 200 MHz Pentium III to a 2x2.33 GHz Merom for free, my 1983 TV automatically got a new HD-capable tuner, and my MS Office 4.3 license makes me eligible for Office 2007 as well!
Oh wait. Maybe you get what you pay for. Huh, new concept.
Parallels does use VT. Almost all Intel Macs have it; only the low-end Mac mini apparently has it turned off.
"Since we already have excellent Linux for PowerPC Macs, the device driver and BIOS issues have already been dealt with."
Um, no.
PowerPC Macs don't use BIOS; they use OpenFirmware. (Which Linux/ppc supports.)
Intel Macs don't use BIOS, nor OpenFirmware. They use EFI.
You obviously missed the part where I specifically referred to *real-time* playback of *H.264*. The iPod Linux video implementation neither supports MPEG-4 (let alone H.264), nor will it probably ever be efficient enough to support real-time at such complex codecs.
As someone else pointed out, the original PowerBook was designed by Sony as well.
O'Grady is, as always, full of crap. The iPod nano has no video compression/decompression chip as the iPod with video does, and the PortalPlayer chipset it comes with doesn't do real-time decoding of H.264. Supplying such a feature via firmware is impossible.
Good point (and I knew someone was gonna bring it up), but then, does size matter? ;-)
:-)
Mac OS X's kernel, XNU, is written in C and C++. There is no Objective-C in it, nor Objective-C++. Yet many of Mac OS X's frameworks not only rely on Objective-C (or ObjC++), but also only offer APIs for that.
So, does that make Mac OS X an operating system that doesn't rely on Objective-C?
I think for the most part, Mac OS X focuses on ObjC *almost* as much as NeXT Step did. I say almost because many commercial applications are still evolutionary ports from Mac OS Classic and therefore Carbon. Photoshop, BBEdit, MS Office, you name it. But the bulk of new applications and clearly the bulk of *Apple* applications is Cocoa and ObjC.
Sadly, Cocoa bridges such as RubyCocoa never much mattered.
Let's go ahead and split hairs! You said "bulk".
;-)
The Safari bundle is 20 MB and is without doubt Objective-C, at least for the most part.
The WebKit bundle, containing WebCore and JavaScriptCore, is only 13.6 MB.
Umm. Current Macs *have* no such chip, and haven't since about 2002. And even before that, it wasn't used for DRM, it was used for copy protection. And if you consider OpenSSH DRM, then you should check your local therapist.
o_O Care to explain to me, then, how Vista Beta 1 runs on my Celeron 1.3 GHz that certainly has nothing TPM-like?
"Apple uses DRM today to lock OSX to Apple computers."
On PowerPC Macs? Uh. No, they don't. Never did.
Pre-OS X Macs had a ROM chip which contained the core part of the classic Mac OS, which you could consider a hardware dongle, but it wasn't a DRM, and its primary purpose never was copy protection.
Today's Macs have nothing thereof. Intel Macs may have it, but don't exist yet.
"Do I look greedy to you, when I opt out of buying a $15 CD and go for BT instead?"
Greedy? No. Unreasonable? Yes.
If you randomly walk into my house and get some food out of my fridge while I watch you and ask for an explanation, which you respond to with "I'm $400 in debt; would you rather I get myself even more broke by *buying* food?", I wouldn't find that acceptable.
And if the CD is too expensive for you, either 1) it is indeed overpriced and you should boycot it either way to *show* the industry that, or 2) you should think about which luxuries you can afford, and which ones you can't.
Sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way life is.
I have desires and wishes to be satisfied.
And here I was, hoping HFS+ would provide the means to fit all my pr0n on it.
I prefer Samsung laptops when it comes to non-Apple products. They're only available in very select regions of the world, however; Western Europe and some parts of Asia. Sleek almost Apple-like design.
. jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG7249 says that the 7448 will continue to use MPX/60x, their name for MaxBus, and will therefore continue to be limited to 200 MHz max for its FSB clock rate.
As for the upcoming Freescale G4 CPUs: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview
The 8641 and 8641D, however, will supposedly actually feature RapidIO, which as you can see on that page will bring them up to par with modern CPUs. Knowing Freescale / Motorola in this regard, however, they often over-promise and under-deliver, and they tend to be optimistic when it comes to release dates.
Don't expect any 8641*-based Macintosh before 2006, when Apple will already be starting the transition to x86 anyways. And even if Freescale does manage to pull off the 8641D as promised, note that, being a 8xxx series CPU, it is not designed for desktop/laptop use, but for communication devices in the embedded market. That may not stop Apple from using it, as it is otherwise entirely compatible with the 7448, but Apple has never used anything but 6xx, 7xx/7xxx and 9xx CPUs, all of which are specifically designed for personal computers.
In short, don't count on them. If you want a "good enough" PowerBook with many luxury features from Bluetooth 2.0+EDR to two-finger scrolling, ambient light sensors that illuminate your keyboard and dim your screen at the same time, etc., get it now.
Also check http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ for a list of average product cycles of Macs, and http://forums.applenova.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22 for purchasing advice.
"I've been under a few NDA's, one of them was under a foreign company who never met me face to face."
;-)
:-/
Ditto.
"Apple though, is so careful that I guess this would not fly with them."
You're probably right on that.
I'm sorry to hear that the US's ignorance is getting to you and your surroundings. We can only hope that this situation will improve over time. Right now, however, it only seems to get worse and worse.
As for >200 MHz front-side bus speeds, the limitation is the MaxBus implementation by Motorola, which wasn't designed for desktops, but embedded systems. Since Motorola/Freescale has little interest in desktop CPUs, this situation is unlikely to change. As for upcoming PowerBook CPUs before the Intel switch, the two likely candidates are the 7448, a slightly better-cached and better-MHzd version of the current 7447B. While the 8641D will be out some time 2006 and comes with two cores, making it interesting, it probably won't have a better front-side bus system either.
IOW, before the Intel switch, chances are this won't be solved in any way. Motorola's project for a new I/O bus, RapidIO, was to my knowledge for all intents and purposes cancelled, and IBM's very high front-side bus performance (resulting in a 1.35 GHz FSB for the 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5) is unlikely to ever come to a PowerBook near you for obvious thermal reasons.
"People use Linux because they are free to copy, redistribute, and modify it."
t hread=7249859#t7249859 ) : "Sure, I'll hack the source to my browser. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. *snork*. You so funny."
Nuh-uh. Most people don't give a shit that they can copy it -- if they want to copy Windows to their friendly neighbors, they do. Product activation is not going to stop them.
Most people also don't give a shit that they can modify, since most people *can't* modify it. You know. Skills and all. Even if they did have them, why would they care to change a piece of software? As jwz put it ( http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwz/499651.html?
"you don't need to worry about keeping track of licenses when you are deploying it"
Wait a second, we're talking admins now? We were talking end users.
"The stability argument is a myth."
Doesn't matter if that's what people believe.
"People switch to Linux because it's Free."
Uh no they don't.
If you mean free as in free beer: that's silly -- they already paid the license for Windows either way, so how is that a compelling reason to switch?
If you mean free as in communist software: I'm sorry, but the majority of people out there couldn't care less about RMS's pipe dreams, and probably don't even know who that is.
People as in end users switch to Linux because it promises to be more stable and reliable. That's why.
"
Because that would require re-encrypting it for each person"
Just like adding a fingerprint would require editing the disk image for each person. A proper, hard to discover and even harder to remove finger print takes just as much CPU time to add as encryption, no?
"Tiger for PC including iLife for $129."
Erm, without iLife. iLife is another $79 (formerly $49). iWork is another $79. But all of that aside:
I love OS X just as much as you do, but I just don't think it's *so* much better for people as to give them incentive to switch.
*shrugs* OS X on any PC? I'd love to see it happen, but I don't think we will.