"If you don't understand the 32/64 bit nature of PowerPC..."
Q.E.D.
PowerPC has been designed for 32- and 64-bit mode right from the start, unlike x86, which doesn't support 64-bit at all. The AMD64/EM64T architecture is, in essence, an entirely new architecture that can run *either* (in sort-of emulation) x86 -- obviously in 32-bit -- , *or* natively in 64-bit.
Only when running in 64-bit does it fully show its potential, but it can't natively run 32-bit processes at the same time, nor can it -- when on a 64-bit kernel -- host 32-bit drivers. This is largely different from the PPC 970, which not only doesn't give a shit whether the kernel is 32-bit or 64-bit (in fact, since you won't find a kernel doing any complex mathematical operations that warrant 64-bit variable types, I frankly don't see the point of having a 64-bit kernel on a dual architecture), nor does it have any trouble with hosting 64-bit applications side-by-side with 32-bit applications, on a 32-bit kernel.
But I understand, it's either to flame Apple and claim they don't have a 64-bit OS. Because we all know that 64-bit is 1) twice as much as 32-bit (2^32*2=2^64, welcome to maths!) 2) always faster than 32-bit (yeah! exactly for, like, word processing! dude, i can type in 64-bit!) 3) a long-needed change especially for desktop computers (i've always wanted to calculate the newest genom information at home... finally I can do it)
"It is hard to even buy a laptop drive that is not at least 5400rpm anymore, and the 7200rpm and upcoming 10000rpm drives equal desktop hard drive performance."
The Mac mini's drive *is* a laptop drive. And 4200 RPM drives in laptops are still fairly common, especially when at a $499 computer price point.
"How is this innovative or cutting edge, when the technology they are shoving at Mac users, and first time Mac buyers that are not technical was top of line 5 years ago?"
The Mac mini is neither meant to be innovative, nor cutting edge. It's a low-cost entry-level model.
"Apple can do SO much better than this, and we need to remind Apple that if they want to be the innovators and 'technology' leaders they can't get away with giving people sub quality performance and outdated technology."
So get an iMac G5, which has up to 400 GB hard drives via BTO.
"Tiger isn't' even a real 64bit OS"
Yes it is, and I am sick and tired of this debate. If you don't understand the 32/64 bit nature of PowerPC, then please, for the love of $DEITY, shut up.
"And this may be slightly offtopic, but considering the speeds we can get nowdays with Firewire 800"
The Mac mini neither has FireWire 800, nor any extension means to add that.
"why go with expensive PATA/SATA"
Huh? PATA drives are the cheapest on the market, and SATA are hardly more expensive.
"perhaps an internal firewire drive"
FireWire drives don't exist, and FireWire isn't designed for internal use either. External FireWire enclosures for internal PATA or SATA drives, on the other hand, exist indeed.
Either way, this is moot, as the Mac mini *does* have both FireWire 400 and USB 2, but *doesn't* have FireWire 800, nor any space for 3.5 inch hard drives, nor any space to extend capabilities. It can only host a 2.5 inch drive inside, and all 2.5 inch drives are slower and more expensive than their 3.5 equivalents.
They are also, however, easier on power, quieter, and cooler. And, of course, smaller.
OS X's kernel, "xnu", is/based/ on Mach 3.0 and obviously shares a few concepts with Mach, but is neither a pure Microkernel, nor are all its components from Mach.
Amit Singh has a well-written page about XNU: http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
True, and I should have pointed that out indeed;-)
However, there still is a subtle difference: if someone wants to build a DRM on top of WMA, they can't. Only Microsoft knows WMA, and only Microsoft provides DRM for it. If someone wants to build a DRM on top of AAC, they are free to (which still doesn't necessarily mean that Apple will allow the iPod to access files with this new DRM, but it's a step in the right direction either way).
Hmm, could it be because 1) iTunes runs on two platforms 2) iTunes uses a standard format, instead of the proprietary WMA 3) iTunes syncs with the highest-market share MP3 player, as well as several other non-computer devices?
Hmm. Nah. I'm sure it's just because everyone loves Apple so much. Yup.
The iTMS uses a XUL/XAML-like XML-based interface language that's essentially a serialized Carbon GUI. It has nothing to do with HTML, although -- it being XML-based -- it looks similar at certain points.
While iTunes could still use WebCore to render this, since WebCore has XML (and, more recently, XSLT) support, it doesn't. Note also that WebCore is usually accessed from Cocoa apps; iTunes is a Carbon app.
Apple's format is based on an open standard, MPEG-4. Microsoft's format is entirely proprietary.
Yahoo! would have been free to use MPEG-4 AAC as Apple does, and create a DRM wrapper as Apple does, then talk to Apple about adding support for this DRM wrapper in the iPod.
Except that Netflix is for motion pictures. The average person watches a movie a few times at most in your entire life.
A song, on the other hand? If you like it (and why else would you buy it, let alone an entire album from that band), you're going to listen to it something like once a month on average, if not several times a day in extreme cases. In other words, owning it pays off. Owning a movie only does for your favorite ones, and even then not to the same degree.
Re:Safari on Windows?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Um.
Because 1) It's easy to port. (It's not. Windows doesn't even have native APIs to support Objective C, let alone Objective C++. Porting this means porting large parts of Cocoa.) 2) Safari is just a little front-end for WebCore. (It's not. Writing a WebCore front-end using WebKit doesn't require, I shit you not, a single line of code. Safari, on the other hand, has many.) 3) Apple would profit tons from this. (They wouldn't. Giving away a browser for free for a foreign operating system without any other benefits is a honorary decision at best, not a business one.)
1) Howso? The iPod supports formats such as WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, all of which are standards, as well as the proprietary Audible and Protected AAC formats.
2) That's a Usability argument. Most experts would argue that less can be more in this regard.
3) I don't see the issue with not opening up GUI applications that Apple makes money off. Does Red Hat open up their commercial RHEL tools?
Check http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ for buying information. PowerBooks are unlikely to be updated before late summer, so if you want them by next semester, you might as well buy them now. If you can hold off until christmas, you should -- there'll almost definitely be a new revision by then.
Yes, new iBooks are coming. Possibly in May, but maybe not. Most likely some time this year. In fact, the same is true of PowerBooks.
Both iBooks and PowerBooks are expected to have slightly faster processors, a newer GPU, improved other features such as the SuperDrive, and OS X Tiger included.
Amazingly enough, both iBooks and PowerBooks are expected to have a new case as well, on or before January 1, 2008. Dual core CPUs are a definite possibility in both PowerBooks and iBooks, although I wouldn't count on them in the next 1,000,000 seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
Check http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Yes, but Apple Centers are just Apple-authorized resellers and dealers.
The AirPort Express WiFi card in the Mac mini uses a Broadcom chipset with unknown specifications. Therefore, Linux drivers do not exist.
We're talking Apple-designed and -staffed stores, cf. http://www.apple.com/retail/
It's the first of those in Canada. The UK have two now, as does Japan, and the US have over a hundred.
What you mean is an independent reseller.
I won't be in Canada until late June. Meh!
"If you don't understand the 32/64 bit nature of PowerPC..."
Q.E.D.
PowerPC has been designed for 32- and 64-bit mode right from the start, unlike x86, which doesn't support 64-bit at all. The AMD64/EM64T architecture is, in essence, an entirely new architecture that can run *either* (in sort-of emulation) x86 -- obviously in 32-bit -- , *or* natively in 64-bit.
Only when running in 64-bit does it fully show its potential, but it can't natively run 32-bit processes at the same time, nor can it -- when on a 64-bit kernel -- host 32-bit drivers. This is largely different from the PPC 970, which not only doesn't give a shit whether the kernel is 32-bit or 64-bit (in fact, since you won't find a kernel doing any complex mathematical operations that warrant 64-bit variable types, I frankly don't see the point of having a 64-bit kernel on a dual architecture), nor does it have any trouble with hosting 64-bit applications side-by-side with 32-bit applications, on a 32-bit kernel.
But I understand, it's either to flame Apple and claim they don't have a 64-bit OS. Because we all know that 64-bit is
1) twice as much as 32-bit (2^32*2=2^64, welcome to maths!)
2) always faster than 32-bit (yeah! exactly for, like, word processing! dude, i can type in 64-bit!)
3) a long-needed change especially for desktop computers (i've always wanted to calculate the newest genom information at home... finally I can do it)
"It is hard to even buy a laptop drive that is not at least 5400rpm anymore, and the 7200rpm and upcoming 10000rpm drives equal desktop hard drive performance."
The Mac mini's drive *is* a laptop drive. And 4200 RPM drives in laptops are still fairly common, especially when at a $499 computer price point.
"How is this innovative or cutting edge, when the technology they are shoving at Mac users, and first time Mac buyers that are not technical was top of line 5 years ago?"
The Mac mini is neither meant to be innovative, nor cutting edge. It's a low-cost entry-level model.
"Apple can do SO much better than this, and we need to remind Apple that if they want to be the innovators and 'technology' leaders they can't get away with giving people sub quality performance and outdated technology."
So get an iMac G5, which has up to 400 GB hard drives via BTO.
"Tiger isn't' even a real 64bit OS"
Yes it is, and I am sick and tired of this debate. If you don't understand the 32/64 bit nature of PowerPC, then please, for the love of $DEITY, shut up.
And that is exactly what I said.
"75% better" means 100% + 75%, which means 175%. Ergo, the math problem is with you.
"And this may be slightly offtopic, but considering the speeds we can get nowdays with Firewire 800"
The Mac mini neither has FireWire 800, nor any extension means to add that.
"why go with expensive PATA/SATA"
Huh? PATA drives are the cheapest on the market, and SATA are hardly more expensive.
"perhaps an internal firewire drive"
FireWire drives don't exist, and FireWire isn't designed for internal use either. External FireWire enclosures for internal PATA or SATA drives, on the other hand, exist indeed.
Either way, this is moot, as the Mac mini *does* have both FireWire 400 and USB 2, but *doesn't* have FireWire 800, nor any space for 3.5 inch hard drives, nor any space to extend capabilities. It can only host a 2.5 inch drive inside, and all 2.5 inch drives are slower and more expensive than their 3.5 equivalents.
They are also, however, easier on power, quieter, and cooler. And, of course, smaller.
XP's kernel is *NOT* a microkernel by any means. Even part of its graphics subsystem lives in the kernel.
Except that about a dozen people *have* pointed it out. Just scroll down a little :-P
I hear he sells songs and music players for some coke company. ;-)
OS X's kernel, "xnu", is /based/ on Mach 3.0 and obviously shares a few concepts with Mach, but is neither a pure Microkernel, nor are all its components from Mach.
Amit Singh has a well-written page about XNU: http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html
True, and I should have pointed that out indeed ;-)
However, there still is a subtle difference: if someone wants to build a DRM on top of WMA, they can't. Only Microsoft knows WMA, and only Microsoft provides DRM for it. If someone wants to build a DRM on top of AAC, they are free to (which still doesn't necessarily mean that Apple will allow the iPod to access files with this new DRM, but it's a step in the right direction either way).
Hmm, could it be because
1) iTunes runs on two platforms
2) iTunes uses a standard format, instead of the proprietary WMA
3) iTunes syncs with the highest-market share MP3 player, as well as several other non-computer devices?
Hmm. Nah. I'm sure it's just because everyone loves Apple so much. Yup.
Woz, is that you?
The iTMS uses a XUL/XAML-like XML-based interface language that's essentially a serialized Carbon GUI. It has nothing to do with HTML, although -- it being XML-based -- it looks similar at certain points.
While iTunes could still use WebCore to render this, since WebCore has XML (and, more recently, XSLT) support, it doesn't. Note also that WebCore is usually accessed from Cocoa apps; iTunes is a Carbon app.
iTunes uses Carbon XML calls to render the iTMS.
Apple's format is based on an open standard, MPEG-4. Microsoft's format is entirely proprietary.
Yahoo! would have been free to use MPEG-4 AAC as Apple does, and create a DRM wrapper as Apple does, then talk to Apple about adding support for this DRM wrapper in the iPod.
Except that Netflix is for motion pictures. The average person watches a movie a few times at most in your entire life.
A song, on the other hand? If you like it (and why else would you buy it, let alone an entire album from that band), you're going to listen to it something like once a month on average, if not several times a day in extreme cases. In other words, owning it pays off. Owning a movie only does for your favorite ones, and even then not to the same degree.
Um.
Because
1) It's easy to port.
(It's not. Windows doesn't even have native APIs to support Objective C, let alone Objective C++. Porting this means porting large parts of Cocoa.)
2) Safari is just a little front-end for WebCore.
(It's not. Writing a WebCore front-end using WebKit doesn't require, I shit you not, a single line of code. Safari, on the other hand, has many.)
3) Apple would profit tons from this.
(They wouldn't. Giving away a browser for free for a foreign operating system without any other benefits is a honorary decision at best, not a business one.)
1) Howso? The iPod supports formats such as WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, all of which are standards, as well as the proprietary Audible and Protected AAC formats.
2) That's a Usability argument. Most experts would argue that less can be more in this regard.
3) I don't see the issue with not opening up GUI applications that Apple makes money off. Does Red Hat open up their commercial RHEL tools?
Check http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ for buying information. PowerBooks are unlikely to be updated before late summer, so if you want them by next semester, you might as well buy them now. If you can hold off until christmas, you should -- there'll almost definitely be a new revision by then.
Yes, new iBooks are coming. Possibly in May, but maybe not. Most likely some time this year. In fact, the same is true of PowerBooks.
Both iBooks and PowerBooks are expected to have slightly faster processors, a newer GPU, improved other features such as the SuperDrive, and OS X Tiger included.
Amazingly enough, both iBooks and PowerBooks are expected to have a new case as well, on or before January 1, 2008. Dual core CPUs are a definite possibility in both PowerBooks and iBooks, although I wouldn't count on them in the next 1,000,000 seconds.
No, but you can get Macs preloaded with YellowDog Linux over at TerraSoft Solutions.