I aggree, I feel no compelling reason to use any intell hardware. Nothing on that side of the market whould justify the problems I would have to endure.
And that is the way it should be. All that bagage keeps you from moving forward with true progress.
Re:Microsoft is going to become Apple?
on
Phoenix's BIOS Roadmap
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Microsoft should (IMHO) take over the bios market. Now, before you go and flame me I should tell you that I have no love of MS (Mac fan here - o the shame of it all). But the one thing that I love about Apple is that they take change and make changes to the hardware to insure the BIOS (we call it "Open Firmware" is up to date and actually functional, unlike PCs. You have no true leader, only many highly influential players all struggling to defeat each other with competing "standards" (and I use that term loosely). I have very little respect for a computer that can not network at the BIOS level or manage anything other than a 20 meg (I forget the real number) hard drive or a floppy with out resulting to extensions (hacks). Your BIOS needs to be trashed and updated and who better than the industry leader. You don't want small insignificant players mucking around with this layer of code, it can only serve to fragment an already hopelessly fragmented market. If they can come out with an open product like Apple's Open Firmware than good for them (so long as they don't prevent anyone from installing a real os).
Remember kids, having an industry leader does not always mean tyranny. Sometimes having an industry leader simply means less anarchy. Hopefully you have a chance for a decent solution. So be careful of assuming that MS "leading" the industry in a particular direction is bad. You PC people desperately need a new BIOS and someone has to write it and get everyone to agree.
But as a side note: if you insist on buying PC's with all their problems, why do you get complain when you end up with an Piece of Crap. If you want true freedom from MS, buy SG, Sun, Apple, or anything else that does not run windows (or not designed in 1980) otherwise you are nothing more than a hopelessly entrapped user. I don't want to start a flame, I just don't understand why any would willfully buy a computer which has advanced very little since it was originally designed and I see BIOS as a prime example of outdated technology that PC people just can't seem to overcome like users of other vendors have.
I agree. Greedo shooting first is just wrong. Having Han shoot first adds a lot of credibility to him beeing a smuggler. Someone should setup a petition on the web (if already not done).
I just tried your idea. I right clicked on the taskbar and selected one of the options you told us about. It moved AND resised all my windows. This is not the same as Expose. Expose shrinks and arranges the windows so I can pick the one I want, then it returns all the windows to where they were before the option was run. Very different, but that's just my opinion I guess.
Yes. iTunes started it's life as an mp3 player. You can inport, manage and play all your mp3 files from the app. You can also download.m4p files (aac) from the iTunes Music store which are the only files that are specific to iTunes.
Remember, individual cases, power supplies, and the like become way overkill in such a large computer, and it would probably be cheaper to convert electricity once for a large section of the computer, supplying 12v, 5v, and 3.3v without each computer converting itself.
This is an interesting point I hadn't considered. Feeding 110v into each of 1,100 individual power supplies can't be as energy or heat efficient as what you describe. However, it's possible that they will actually be doing this - I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere.
I have. Distributed power supplies means than one failure does not bring down the entire computer. I really don't think that at any given time all 100% of these computers will be up and running. A percentage will be down for one reason or another (bad fiber, power supply, harddrive, upgrading). Given the mean fail rate of all hardware, you need 1100 just to make sure 1095 (?) are up and running.
Why can't you just do a control click? That's what Apple does for you when you click the right mouse button. If this does not work, then prohaps you should complain to Qt.
1) No one on/. (or with RSI) should care how many buttons the mouse has as any real computer user would use the keyboard. Why use a right mouse click when a key command (or shell command) can do it faster. I only use the mouse when I can't tab to what I want (point and click). Besides, one mouse button is easy for newbies who's minds are two small for such things. Also, my 12 inch PB looks much nicer with only one button. PC laptops always look like crap with to me but that's just my opinion.
2) That's becouse you spend too much time posting on/. (wait, I'm posting too. Doh!)
3) Why does this matter, MPG (what QT uses) is open, what else do you need? Find a nice and Free (beer) media player and your set. That's what x is for right?
4) Try using http://www.google.com. It's a really nice site that helps you find things on the net (try "Ogg Vorbis Macintosh", I got a free app on the first link)
5) I can.
6) Your funny.
7) I aggree this is a plus. Down with CISC! (Yes I know all about how intel is RISC inside (bla bla bla))
Apple ATTEMPTED to utilize the "Screw the customer" attitude, but failed. Which means they don't have the heart to screw the customer. They tried but then gave up. Apple is a big (ish) company. Just becouse one department wants to screw you does not mean the whole company wants to do so, unlike Microsoft who would see you in hell before they caved in.
You get what you pay for. Just becouse the processor is 3 Ghz does not mean the rest of the computer is. Nor does it mean that good parts are used in it's construction. Apple would love to be able to sell a mac for less, but Apple is not willing to put cheap (crapy) parts in the computer, so, you get what you pay for.
When did IBM take Microsoft to court in concert with Apple?
In the 80's after IBM and Microsoft stopped working on OS/2 but it was not cordinated with Apple's suit.
As for the last statment, I don't quite understand your language but I will try to answer it. It was prohaps a bit off topic, more of me tring to explain that everyone using the same os is not the best way to do things IMHO. The computer industry would be better served with many different products allowing users to pick which one best suits there needs, which is not what we have today. Today, Micrsoft is becoming the only real choice with everyone else being told that they should conform or get lost. On top of this, people feel the need to run around forums and speed FUD about OS's that they don't like. There is no reason to paint Apple under the light as being totaly wrong under every condition for wanting to defend there product image in the court. I'm sure they had there reasons and since they have less than 5% of the market anyways what difference does it make. If you don't like Macintosh's, fine, but stop with the FUD.
No, Microsoft was invited to work close with Apple back in the day so they could write apps for the mac. Microsoft was allowed to see the os code for reasons only known to Apple (the manager who allowed this must have been really gulable). Microsoft used this access to write windows. They also use access IBM gave them to view the code for OS/2. Windows is a combination (at least in some parts of the os) of Mac and OS/2. This is why both apple and ibm took microsoft to court. Microsoft is dominate today, not becouse of technical merit, but becouse they hire much better lawers (and Marketing teams) than any other tech company.
But I suppose you beleve the entire world is much better now that "90%" of the computer market is controled by one company. Becouse conformity has always inspired the best results throughout human history.
No, Microsoft was invited to work close with Apple back in the day so they could write apps for the mac. Microsoft was allowed to see the os code for reasons only known to Apple (the manager who allowed this must have been really gulable). Microsoft used this access to write windows. They also use access IBM gave them to view the code for OS/2. Windows is a combination (at least in some parts of the os) of Mac and OS/2. This is why both apple and ibm took microsoft to court. Microsoft is dominate today, not becouse of technical merit, but becouse they hire much better lawers (and Marketing teams) than any other tech company.
But I suppose you beleve the entire world is much better now that "90%" of the computer market is controled by one company. Becouse conformity has always inspired the best results throughout human history.
Um, no. If you follow the API (which apple does not even do all the time) then there is no reason why your app should not work. There are plenty of apps that ran on MacOS 6 (I did not say usefull apps) that will still work under classic on MacOS X but only the ones that followed the rules. (Mac Paint is one, but I have not tried it under X yet). Developers get into trouble when they use api calls to things that they sholud not. The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple is willing to remove or change depricated and non public functions and objects where as Microsoft keeps just about everything (16bit api comes to mind) regardless of how many gigs the os takes up. I imagin many of these developers of broken apps poked around in MacsBug (or some dev site/book) and found some really cool function that would do what they wanted but did not RTFM to see that it was unsupported. One day, Apple desided to change what they thought was a private function and blam, 3rd party app died. Who's fault is this I ask you?
Now if you are really worried about apple changing the api under your feet, you could always use a 3rd party api like QT or Java, just don't use the functions taged as "DEPRICATED" (or the like).
Slashdot Mirror
I aggree, I feel no compelling reason to use any intell hardware. Nothing on that side of the market whould justify the problems I would have to endure.
And that is the way it should be. All that bagage keeps you from moving forward with true progress.
Microsoft should (IMHO) take over the bios market. Now, before you go and flame me I should tell you that I have no love of MS (Mac fan here - o the shame of it all). But the one thing that I love about Apple is that they take change and make changes to the hardware to insure the BIOS (we call it "Open Firmware" is up to date and actually functional, unlike PCs. You have no true leader, only many highly influential players all struggling to defeat each other with competing "standards" (and I use that term loosely). I have very little respect for a computer that can not network at the BIOS level or manage anything other than a 20 meg (I forget the real number) hard drive or a floppy with out resulting to extensions (hacks). Your BIOS needs to be trashed and updated and who better than the industry leader. You don't want small insignificant players mucking around with this layer of code, it can only serve to fragment an already hopelessly fragmented market. If they can come out with an open product like Apple's Open Firmware than good for them (so long as they don't prevent anyone from installing a real os).
Remember kids, having an industry leader does not always mean tyranny. Sometimes having an industry leader simply means less anarchy. Hopefully you have a chance for a decent solution. So be careful of assuming that MS "leading" the industry in a particular direction is bad. You PC people desperately need a new BIOS and someone has to write it and get everyone to agree.
But as a side note: if you insist on buying PC's with all their problems, why do you get complain when you end up with an Piece of Crap. If you want true freedom from MS, buy SG, Sun, Apple, or anything else that does not run windows (or not designed in 1980) otherwise you are nothing more than a hopelessly entrapped user. I don't want to start a flame, I just don't understand why any would willfully buy a computer which has advanced very little since it was originally designed and I see BIOS as a prime example of outdated technology that PC people just can't seem to overcome like users of other vendors have.
I agree. Greedo shooting first is just wrong. Having Han shoot first adds a lot of credibility to him beeing a smuggler. Someone should setup a petition on the web (if already not done).
I just tried your idea. I right clicked on the taskbar and selected one of the options you told us about. It moved AND resised all my windows. This is not the same as Expose. Expose shrinks and arranges the windows so I can pick the one I want, then it returns all the windows to where they were before the option was run. Very different, but that's just my opinion I guess.
Yes. iTunes started it's life as an mp3 player. You can inport, manage and play all your mp3 files from the app. You can also download .m4p files (aac) from the iTunes Music store which are the only files that are specific to iTunes.
Don't forget iTunes which also works with iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD.
They keep using quality parts, which tends to keep the price up.
Very well writen. I total agree.
Floating point operations.
Why is it that no one is willing to give Apple an inch of credit?
Remember, individual cases, power supplies, and the like become way overkill in such a large computer, and it would probably be cheaper to convert electricity once for a large section of the computer, supplying 12v, 5v, and 3.3v without each computer converting itself. This is an interesting point I hadn't considered. Feeding 110v into each of 1,100 individual power supplies can't be as energy or heat efficient as what you describe. However, it's possible that they will actually be doing this - I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere.
I have. Distributed power supplies means than one failure does not bring down the entire computer. I really don't think that at any given time all 100% of these computers will be up and running. A percentage will be down for one reason or another (bad fiber, power supply, harddrive, upgrading). Given the mean fail rate of all hardware, you need 1100 just to make sure 1095 (?) are up and running.
These people will never give apple a break. They want apple to give more but they are not willing to pay for it.
Why can't you just do a control click? That's what Apple does for you when you click the right mouse button. If this does not work, then prohaps you should complain to Qt.
1) No one on /. (or with RSI) should care how many buttons the mouse has as any real computer user would use the keyboard. Why use a right mouse click when a key command (or shell command) can do it faster. I only use the mouse when I can't tab to what I want (point and click). Besides, one mouse button is easy for newbies who's minds are two small for such things. Also, my 12 inch PB looks much nicer with only one button. PC laptops always look like crap with to me but that's just my opinion.
2) That's becouse you spend too much time posting on /. (wait, I'm posting too. Doh!)
3) Why does this matter, MPG (what QT uses) is open, what else do you need? Find a nice and Free (beer) media player and your set. That's what x is for right?
4) Try using http://www.google.com. It's a really nice site that helps you find things on the net (try "Ogg Vorbis Macintosh", I got a free app on the first link)
5) I can.
6) Your funny.
7) I aggree this is a plus. Down with CISC! (Yes I know all about how intel is RISC inside (bla bla bla))
Apple ATTEMPTED to utilize the "Screw the customer" attitude, but failed. Which means they don't have the heart to screw the customer. They tried but then gave up. Apple is a big (ish) company. Just becouse one department wants to screw you does not mean the whole company wants to do so, unlike Microsoft who would see you in hell before they caved in.
You get what you pay for. Just becouse the processor is 3 Ghz does not mean the rest of the computer is. Nor does it mean that good parts are used in it's construction. Apple would love to be able to sell a mac for less, but Apple is not willing to put cheap (crapy) parts in the computer, so, you get what you pay for.
When did IBM take Microsoft to court in concert with Apple?
In the 80's after IBM and Microsoft stopped working on OS/2 but it was not cordinated with Apple's suit.
As for the last statment, I don't quite understand your language but I will try to answer it. It was prohaps a bit off topic, more of me tring to explain that everyone using the same os is not the best way to do things IMHO. The computer industry would be better served with many different products allowing users to pick which one best suits there needs, which is not what we have today. Today, Micrsoft is becoming the only real choice with everyone else being told that they should conform or get lost. On top of this, people feel the need to run around forums and speed FUD about OS's that they don't like. There is no reason to paint Apple under the light as being totaly wrong under every condition for wanting to defend there product image in the court. I'm sure they had there reasons and since they have less than 5% of the market anyways what difference does it make. If you don't like Macintosh's, fine, but stop with the FUD.
Sorry for the double post. User Error.
No, Microsoft was invited to work close with Apple back in the day so they could write apps for the mac. Microsoft was allowed to see the os code for reasons only known to Apple (the manager who allowed this must have been really gulable). Microsoft used this access to write windows. They also use access IBM gave them to view the code for OS/2. Windows is a combination (at least in some parts of the os) of Mac and OS/2. This is why both apple and ibm took microsoft to court. Microsoft is dominate today, not becouse of technical merit, but becouse they hire much better lawers (and Marketing teams) than any other tech company. But I suppose you beleve the entire world is much better now that "90%" of the computer market is controled by one company. Becouse conformity has always inspired the best results throughout human history.
No, Microsoft was invited to work close with Apple back in the day so they could write apps for the mac. Microsoft was allowed to see the os code for reasons only known to Apple (the manager who allowed this must have been really gulable). Microsoft used this access to write windows. They also use access IBM gave them to view the code for OS/2. Windows is a combination (at least in some parts of the os) of Mac and OS/2. This is why both apple and ibm took microsoft to court. Microsoft is dominate today, not becouse of technical merit, but becouse they hire much better lawers (and Marketing teams) than any other tech company.
But I suppose you beleve the entire world is much better now that "90%" of the computer market is controled by one company. Becouse conformity has always inspired the best results throughout human history.
Um, no. If you follow the API (which apple does not even do all the time) then there is no reason why your app should not work. There are plenty of apps that ran on MacOS 6 (I did not say usefull apps) that will still work under classic on MacOS X but only the ones that followed the rules. (Mac Paint is one, but I have not tried it under X yet). Developers get into trouble when they use api calls to things that they sholud not. The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Apple is willing to remove or change depricated and non public functions and objects where as Microsoft keeps just about everything (16bit api comes to mind) regardless of how many gigs the os takes up. I imagin many of these developers of broken apps poked around in MacsBug (or some dev site/book) and found some really cool function that would do what they wanted but did not RTFM to see that it was unsupported. One day, Apple desided to change what they thought was a private function and blam, 3rd party app died. Who's fault is this I ask you?
Now if you are really worried about apple changing the api under your feet, you could always use a 3rd party api like QT or Java, just don't use the functions taged as "DEPRICATED" (or the like).
What? Your post makes little since. Please use correct English.
You mean Apple Works? They also own FileMaker Pro.
What? Every developer I know worth their salt doesn't even write comments.
So you only know unemployed developers who can't function in a group?
I second that.