I'm not at all terribly into the DVR aspects of the new Mac mini. It's nice, but there are plenty of other things to get more excited about.
First... An Intel Mac mini means a sub-$500 computer that runs OS X and Windows. Steve Jobs quipped during the launch of the first Mac mini that they wanted to price it so that "people who are, you know, thinking of switching, will have no more excuses". With this they won't even need to keep their own PC - assuming the storage is plentiful and drivers available, they can transfer over all old files from their PC and keep their old environment truckin' in addition to working in OS X.
Speaking of storage. Think Secret's report notices that a 3.5" HD might be in the cards (instead of the current 2.5") which would, even after adding bulk to the relatively small machine, be a good move as it would allow for more storage and cheaper drives. The most spacious 2.5" drives Apple offer today are 120GB for the Powerbook and only 100GB on the mini - the smallest 3.5" Apple will let you get away with on the iMac is a 160GB drive.
While we're dreaming, I hope Apple will make Superdrive (DVD+-RW and Dual Layer) standard, and add Gigabit Ethernet, an extra USB port or two and certainly an extra RAM slot.
Firefox is about taking away stuff that has nothing to do with browsing, and enhance browsing. Opera's better compared to the now-discontinued Mozilla Suite. Opera right now does a ton of things that Firefox doesn't, and as long as these things aren't central to browsing (like rendering engine or network layer improvements) I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be implemented just because they're in Opera. I even think "Live Bookmarks" is pushing it by a mile. (Note that I'm not talking about extensions. I'm talking about the core browser.)
Depending on what aspect of Bittorrent you're pushing, your example may be a flawed example. For example, if you maintain a web site, you can go in your web folder via FTP and upload a file or two and rearrange some folders, and access the same set up via HTTP. There is such a thing as an FTP server and an HTTP server, but there's no such thing as a Bittorrent server that's completely parallell to them. There are Bittorrent trackers, but they are accessible either via for example HTTP (when you're checking what's on offer) and via a Bittorrent client (when you're downloading or seeding).
I agree that maybe it would be nice if the Download manager could open up torrent files automatically and start downloading and seeding and doing the usual jig when it comes to being a Bittorrent client, but generally downloading something over Bittorrent is more complex than simply downloading a file over FTP or HTTP, so I doubt it could be done as nicely while keeping control of the transfer parameters you would want to change. Furthermore, you can download a folder over Bittorrent, which could open the door for misunderstandings when it comes to setting permissions and other problems like it. In the same vein, maybe it'd be nice if Firefox decompressed/expanded your zips, gzs, bz2s, tars, sits, rars, mounted your iso/bin+cue/dmgs... I think this would open the flood gates for these other things if it was done internally in Firefox, but it'd make a nice extension if done right.
Open source does not need to "involve the community" because everyone has a different opinion of what that means - from simply accepting patches or advice to letting people submit new code which you'll audit to letting some 'outsiders' help maintain and build the code. If a project whose forks "involve the community", but which itself does not, is that project Open Source?
I hold open source (spelled Open Source or not) to *only* be about releasing the code under a license that enables people to modify or fork the code under reasonable conditions, and even redistribute it - not to define a development model. If we're going to go by public definitions as the one and only, not even the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition defines a development model beyond barring discrimination of people, products or technologies *in the license*. (Even by these terms, it wouldn't be discrimination to just develop an open source product yourself and not allow other people in on it - they have full access to the code and can fork it at will, and I think you agree that given this, demanding control or influence of the original copy is a bit ridiculous.)
Maybe it's possible that we're simply misunderstanding each other about how we define the term Open Source. I've laid out my definition above, and I also disagree with your notion of it being impossible to create Open Source software which is non-Free - just because you're not required by the license to redistribute your modifications under it doesn't mean you can't distribute them anyway. (I release as much of my code as possible under the (revised) BSD license.) But that's just it, because I hold it to be a small set of rules and a general spirit rather than a set of licenses or a development model.
Finally, of course this whole subject is very personal, both in the sense of it being something you decide on yourself and in the sense of being something that can offend some people easily. I don't mean to offend anyone with my ideas, and I also don't mean to force my ideas on anyone else. I'm just stating what I think.
Re:GCC is NOT open source
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
All political discussion aside, isn't being Open Source a prerequisite of being Free Software (and to avoid stepping on toes: no, that does not mean that I think Open Source came before Free Software)? I think GCC is both Open Source and Free Software, simply because it needs to be Open Source if it's going to be Free Software; releasing your code and allowing others to fork it are key parts of both Open Source and Free Software. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's not *just* Open Source (which would imply not being Free Software), but it is by definition *also* Open Source.
The iPod database (which is actually a set of different databases, but that's an implementation detail) keeps track of a lot of metadata, including both ID3-ish data like song, artist, album, genre but also personal data like star rating, and keywords. Most filesystem-based players maintain a similar internal database, like you say, but they only maintain ID3-ish data. This is just a cache, and info will be reloaded from the files as necessary. (Either as you enter the directory if the player's UI structure is also filesystem-based, or by an indexing process that can become lengthy if you have a lot of tracks.) This is what I mean by a filesystem-based player.
The iPod's DB is not a cache - it's the real deal. (Performance-wise, it makes sense. If you're going to maintain a database and not add tracks out of nowhere, you might as well have the computer, which is several times more powerful, generate this data instead of the iPod itself.) Keeping a wider database like the iPod does allows for: a) personal data and b) deeper structures. Any of those are pains in the ass to maintain by hand in a file system. There is no doubt in my mind that Apple wants you to use iTunes to manage your iPod, but the reliance of a DB in the first place is a design decision they've chosen to make it easier to keep more personal data on each track and organizing them.
It sounds to me that claiming for example, "by keeping an internal database, Apple forces you to use their own proprietary app to add tracks onto their iPod" is no different from claiming "by restricting usage to file managers, Acme forces you to waive your preferred organization of your tracks when using the Acme Music Device". They're both real problems, there's no denying that, but they're pessimistic ways of looking at either situation because you'd obviously be happier with the opposite solution. Some people have suggested loading extra apps onto an iPod (if you're *nix-only, you could probably get by on one of those Perl/Python/shell/Ruby scripts doing the same thing) and running that every time you add stuff, but it sounds like the kind of Frankenstein solution hassle you're not willing to go through. At the end of the day, I think I'll stay happier with my iPod, and you'll stay happier with whatever filesystem-based player you have.
For most people, simplicity is the argument here. Your average file manager doesn't do ripping of songs to audio files, so you're going to have to use an auxiliary app anyway (proprietary or not) - just using iTunes (or for that matter Windows Media Player or any other half-decent media player) makes it simpler by keeping the number set at 1.
Both database-based and filesystem-based players are about copying from the hard drive to the device. FS-based players are great because you're not being locked down to one computer, or a class of apps that can write to the database. DB-based players are great because of faster indexing (it's being indexed piece-by-piece as you copy tracks over) and because of a better mold when it comes to abstractions. The necessity for an auxiliary app is to make more features available (things like Smart Playlists or even keeping a track in multiple playlists at once) without resorting to messy abstractions. (I have no idea how to replicate Smart Playlists with *just* the file system, but I do know that symlinks would do it for keeping one thing in multiple places.)
In the end, it's all about choosing what's right for you. If you are set on wanting to keep it all in the file system, or if you simply just want a flat list or simple folder hierarchy, or if you simply want to avoid hokey database-updating apps (I can't tell from your comment if your beef is with non-open-and-documented DBs or with an auxiliary app needed to maintain it in the first place), well, then you don't need the extra features and the extra hassle with a DB-based player. Good on ya. But that's no reason for blowing off the other approaches. I use Smart Playlists heavily (could you tell?;)), and so I'm happier with a DB-based player, but that doesn't mean that I'm in front of the rally to destroy FS-based players forever. There's no perfect solution, and both clearly need to be around for the foreseeable future.
There's an official Google Maps API which I believe this is using. However, if Risk is actively protected to the extent that he's being sent nastygrams, he'll probably have to pull it or Google will have to retract his API key (I don't think the license allows for that kind of usage).
I think the whole point of the Intel move is precisely because Apple doesn't want to develop hardware like they've done in the past (onboard SCSI, proprietary connections like ADB), so they'll just let the biggest player handle the work and Apple will fit the OS to the fastest available hardware.
Apple's last proprietary connection went the way of the dodo with the ADC ("Apple Display Connector") when the new Cinema Displays used DVI in 2004, and even that was just mapping a USB connector and a DVI connector to one ADC connector. Apple has been phasing out proprietary connections since the original iMac in 1998 - this is not something that's new for the Intel switch, but that has nothing to do with making their own system chips and so on.
However, I do think that even if Apple didn't influence the development of the PowerPC, they did make for example the Power Mac G5 much faster by building a kick-ass architecture behind it with a very fast front side bus, fast memory and storage, and custom-made system and I/O controllers. The CPU is only one piece of this puzzle, and I'm hoping that this can be re-applied to the new Intel CPUs with some changes, because I don't see Apple *not* making their own architecture for things like this. (If the new Intel PowerBook was to be built with off-the-shelf chipsets, how many laptop of them come with gigabit ethernet, Firewire 400+800, dual-link DVI and optical audio?)
Any such mentions are just speculation, but the reasoning is sound. Mac Mini, iBook and PowerBook are the 'biggest bleeders' with the current architecture - Xserve, PowerMac G5 and iMac are all doing fine being on the G5. Don't take my word for it; according to Apple's own product pages, CPU-wise, the new top PowerMac G5 model got around 80%+ of added performance over the previous model - the PowerBook didn't get any CPU-related performance improvements *at all*.
I bet that PowerBook and Mac Mini will be the first ones over, and that they'll be launched just before or during WWDC 2006. (Said Jobs of WWDC 2006 at WWDC 2005: "...we plan to have them in the marketplace", "...there'll be Intel-based Macs entering the market".)
I could live with an Intel PowerBook that's at least 2X the speed of my old PowerBook and they may indeed be the first to come out, especially since the last releases had such minimal upgrades. On the other hand, I like the idea of getting a nice G5 as it's faster, been thoroughly sorted-out by now, my existing software will run, they'll still be supported, etc.
Here's the thing: the PowerBooks of today probably are not 2X faster than the PowerBook of three years ago - mainly because the front side bus is really, really cramped at just 167MHz. Even if the Intel PowerBooks only had an improved front side bus and otherwise equal performance, it'd blow this roof to Neptune and back. But I'm personally still unsure if it'll be anywhere near the increase needed for good performance for things like encoding. (I just spent literally most of today's working hours waiting for iDVD to encode 1:10 total in video before burning, and I had 1.5GB RAM and next to no other apps open.)
My final piece of advice is basically that if you promise not to beat the hell out of me when the Intel PowerBooks arrive, I say go for the G5. And if by any chance you don't "drop $3k tonight", then let me have some. Consulting ain't free, you know...:)
If you do have work to get done in the seven months we have to wait and you could easily afford one, I say just get a G5. Your stipulated G5 wouldn't die the exact moment Steve presents the Intel Macs on stage - it won't be cutting edge anymore, but that'll be as true if you were to buy an Intel Mac seven months before its next generation as well.
If the encoding time is really cut down (which looks like a gimme), you'll make it up in no time. If it's really about productivity, you're comparing the last release of an architecture that's been out for several years now (even the G5 is around 30 months old now) to the first round of machines of a new architecture *ever* - there's no way they'll be as reliable as the G5. Major kinks are worked out (except for the 2xSATA drive limit) and apps have had time to be optimized for them.
Also consider this: We don't even know which Macs will be Intelized first! We do know that the Intel switch is all about speeding up the cramped PowerBook, so they will probably come first. There's a chance (although not big) they'll have you waiting until this time next year for an Intel PowerMac, and it's not even sure the performance will match!
I think this "let's hold our horses for a year or so" attitude is getting a bit out of hand. If you were to buy a PowerBook, then maybe I could understand you, but the G5-based Macs are definitely the highlights of today's lineup, and there's no way in hell that the first revision Intel PowerMacs will be a better buy than they are based on what little you've said.
Even with multi-tasking, there can only be one active application at any given time. Chances are that if I'm not in an app and I want to pick a menu choice, I want to switch to it anyway. Click-through for menus (like Windows has) is very convenient if you *constantly* pick menu choices from other applications by clicking the menu title - it saves you one click. Maybe that adds up for some people, I don't know. Myself, I'm saving time by never having to worry about where the menus are. It's all good.:)
As long as we're discussing 'failures', the one button mouse *does* suck for most people who's smart enough to go to Slashdot. But. It doesn't suck for a whole lot of people, and programming so that everything is available *from* that one button keeps my program easy both for those people and for others. You might think it's a failure that the one button mouse is still in use, and I'm torn on that myself, but there's no question that there's less ground for confusion for users that aren't as well-adjusted with computers as you and me not because there's just one button on the mouse that ships, but because the programs are easier because of it.
Exactly how would printing an edition of Wikipedia turn the original Wikipedia into a paper encyclopedia? They could even have someone else entirely print it (if they confirm with the license, which is what allows it) and that wouldn't change the goals set forth by Wikimedia at all.
Which leads me to a question that probably seems lame to iTunes users (can't afford it myself): what's to prevent an Aussie from using iTunes, even if there's no Australian iTunes server? Does the software check packet routing or something?
The fact that you need a credit card with a billing address in a participating country (like the US, Canada, France or Sweden, for example) or a form of alternative payment (like PayPal accounts linked to a credit card with a US address in the US store and Click & Buy in european stores) to buy songs or videos from it in the first place. If you have access to those ways of payment, you can still buy even if you don't live in a country with its own store.
(I take for granted that you by iTunes meant iTunes Music Store - the iTunes software is a "jukebox" that hosts the Music Store and was able to play, for example, normal MP3s for three major versions before the Music Store part, so there's certainly no cost in just using the software outside of the store.)
Re:Great! When will it be out of beta?
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 1
Er, you need to give them a cell phone number because that's how they're sending you the SMS. SMS is text messaging for cell phones...
Well, duh - No reason given for using cell phone numbers *over other ways*, like one's current email address (which admittedly could turn ridiculous if you haven't got an email address before), one's home/work phone number, or not requiring anything at all in the first place.
Re:Great! When will it be out of beta?
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 1
Not everybody outside the geek community can afford $960 for a two-year commitment to mobile phone service.
That's true. Where in my comment did I claim the opposite, or even that Google's approach is a good way to construct a sign up mechanism? My comment said that sign-up is available outside of 'invitations', and speculated on why Google wants a cell phone number specifically - I'm not defending a practice just because I mention its existence.
Re:Great! When will it be out of beta?
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, US Google users can sign up by providing a (US) cell phone number, to which a link will be sent via SMS text messaging; i.e. signing up without being invited. No reason is given to why you must provide a cell phone number, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just wanted to throttle HD harvesting.
(I don't personally see the link, but I'm also in Sweden and get the Swedish localization.)
Maybe at the end of this particular road is a better name for people who 'illegally' downloads music, and a 'fessing up (if indirect) from **AA that what they were so annoyed with all the time isn't us ripping the artists off, but them missing a chance to rip their artists off themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not at all terribly into the DVR aspects of the new Mac mini. It's nice, but there are plenty of other things to get more excited about.
First... An Intel Mac mini means a sub-$500 computer that runs OS X and Windows. Steve Jobs quipped during the launch of the first Mac mini that they wanted to price it so that "people who are, you know, thinking of switching, will have no more excuses". With this they won't even need to keep their own PC - assuming the storage is plentiful and drivers available, they can transfer over all old files from their PC and keep their old environment truckin' in addition to working in OS X.
Speaking of storage. Think Secret's report notices that a 3.5" HD might be in the cards (instead of the current 2.5") which would, even after adding bulk to the relatively small machine, be a good move as it would allow for more storage and cheaper drives. The most spacious 2.5" drives Apple offer today are 120GB for the Powerbook and only 100GB on the mini - the smallest 3.5" Apple will let you get away with on the iMac is a 160GB drive.
While we're dreaming, I hope Apple will make Superdrive (DVD+-RW and Dual Layer) standard, and add Gigabit Ethernet, an extra USB port or two and certainly an extra RAM slot.
Firefox is about taking away stuff that has nothing to do with browsing, and enhance browsing. Opera's better compared to the now-discontinued Mozilla Suite. Opera right now does a ton of things that Firefox doesn't, and as long as these things aren't central to browsing (like rendering engine or network layer improvements) I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't be implemented just because they're in Opera. I even think "Live Bookmarks" is pushing it by a mile. (Note that I'm not talking about extensions. I'm talking about the core browser.)
Depending on what aspect of Bittorrent you're pushing, your example may be a flawed example. For example, if you maintain a web site, you can go in your web folder via FTP and upload a file or two and rearrange some folders, and access the same set up via HTTP. There is such a thing as an FTP server and an HTTP server, but there's no such thing as a Bittorrent server that's completely parallell to them. There are Bittorrent trackers, but they are accessible either via for example HTTP (when you're checking what's on offer) and via a Bittorrent client (when you're downloading or seeding).
I agree that maybe it would be nice if the Download manager could open up torrent files automatically and start downloading and seeding and doing the usual jig when it comes to being a Bittorrent client, but generally downloading something over Bittorrent is more complex than simply downloading a file over FTP or HTTP, so I doubt it could be done as nicely while keeping control of the transfer parameters you would want to change. Furthermore, you can download a folder over Bittorrent, which could open the door for misunderstandings when it comes to setting permissions and other problems like it. In the same vein, maybe it'd be nice if Firefox decompressed/expanded your zips, gzs, bz2s, tars, sits, rars, mounted your iso/bin+cue/dmgs... I think this would open the flood gates for these other things if it was done internally in Firefox, but it'd make a nice extension if done right.
Well, no. It's a browser. If you want a Bittorrent client, download one.
Open source does not need to "involve the community" because everyone has a different opinion of what that means - from simply accepting patches or advice to letting people submit new code which you'll audit to letting some 'outsiders' help maintain and build the code. If a project whose forks "involve the community", but which itself does not, is that project Open Source?
I hold open source (spelled Open Source or not) to *only* be about releasing the code under a license that enables people to modify or fork the code under reasonable conditions, and even redistribute it - not to define a development model. If we're going to go by public definitions as the one and only, not even the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition defines a development model beyond barring discrimination of people, products or technologies *in the license*. (Even by these terms, it wouldn't be discrimination to just develop an open source product yourself and not allow other people in on it - they have full access to the code and can fork it at will, and I think you agree that given this, demanding control or influence of the original copy is a bit ridiculous.)
Maybe it's possible that we're simply misunderstanding each other about how we define the term Open Source. I've laid out my definition above, and I also disagree with your notion of it being impossible to create Open Source software which is non-Free - just because you're not required by the license to redistribute your modifications under it doesn't mean you can't distribute them anyway. (I release as much of my code as possible under the (revised) BSD license.) But that's just it, because I hold it to be a small set of rules and a general spirit rather than a set of licenses or a development model.
Finally, of course this whole subject is very personal, both in the sense of it being something you decide on yourself and in the sense of being something that can offend some people easily. I don't mean to offend anyone with my ideas, and I also don't mean to force my ideas on anyone else. I'm just stating what I think.
All political discussion aside, isn't being Open Source a prerequisite of being Free Software (and to avoid stepping on toes: no, that does not mean that I think Open Source came before Free Software)? I think GCC is both Open Source and Free Software, simply because it needs to be Open Source if it's going to be Free Software; releasing your code and allowing others to fork it are key parts of both Open Source and Free Software. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's not *just* Open Source (which would imply not being Free Software), but it is by definition *also* Open Source.
Can you hear me now? Are we there yet? Can you hear me now? Are we there yet? etc.
;)
I'm not looking forward to this
Well, yes, it's not like you can pop in your existing CDs and rip them to MP3s automatically.
The iPod database (which is actually a set of different databases, but that's an implementation detail) keeps track of a lot of metadata, including both ID3-ish data like song, artist, album, genre but also personal data like star rating, and keywords. Most filesystem-based players maintain a similar internal database, like you say, but they only maintain ID3-ish data. This is just a cache, and info will be reloaded from the files as necessary. (Either as you enter the directory if the player's UI structure is also filesystem-based, or by an indexing process that can become lengthy if you have a lot of tracks.) This is what I mean by a filesystem-based player.
The iPod's DB is not a cache - it's the real deal. (Performance-wise, it makes sense. If you're going to maintain a database and not add tracks out of nowhere, you might as well have the computer, which is several times more powerful, generate this data instead of the iPod itself.) Keeping a wider database like the iPod does allows for: a) personal data and b) deeper structures. Any of those are pains in the ass to maintain by hand in a file system. There is no doubt in my mind that Apple wants you to use iTunes to manage your iPod, but the reliance of a DB in the first place is a design decision they've chosen to make it easier to keep more personal data on each track and organizing them.
It sounds to me that claiming for example, "by keeping an internal database, Apple forces you to use their own proprietary app to add tracks onto their iPod" is no different from claiming "by restricting usage to file managers, Acme forces you to waive your preferred organization of your tracks when using the Acme Music Device". They're both real problems, there's no denying that, but they're pessimistic ways of looking at either situation because you'd obviously be happier with the opposite solution. Some people have suggested loading extra apps onto an iPod (if you're *nix-only, you could probably get by on one of those Perl/Python/shell/Ruby scripts doing the same thing) and running that every time you add stuff, but it sounds like the kind of Frankenstein solution hassle you're not willing to go through. At the end of the day, I think I'll stay happier with my iPod, and you'll stay happier with whatever filesystem-based player you have.
For most people, simplicity is the argument here. Your average file manager doesn't do ripping of songs to audio files, so you're going to have to use an auxiliary app anyway (proprietary or not) - just using iTunes (or for that matter Windows Media Player or any other half-decent media player) makes it simpler by keeping the number set at 1.
;)), and so I'm happier with a DB-based player, but that doesn't mean that I'm in front of the rally to destroy FS-based players forever. There's no perfect solution, and both clearly need to be around for the foreseeable future.
Both database-based and filesystem-based players are about copying from the hard drive to the device. FS-based players are great because you're not being locked down to one computer, or a class of apps that can write to the database. DB-based players are great because of faster indexing (it's being indexed piece-by-piece as you copy tracks over) and because of a better mold when it comes to abstractions. The necessity for an auxiliary app is to make more features available (things like Smart Playlists or even keeping a track in multiple playlists at once) without resorting to messy abstractions. (I have no idea how to replicate Smart Playlists with *just* the file system, but I do know that symlinks would do it for keeping one thing in multiple places.)
In the end, it's all about choosing what's right for you. If you are set on wanting to keep it all in the file system, or if you simply just want a flat list or simple folder hierarchy, or if you simply want to avoid hokey database-updating apps (I can't tell from your comment if your beef is with non-open-and-documented DBs or with an auxiliary app needed to maintain it in the first place), well, then you don't need the extra features and the extra hassle with a DB-based player. Good on ya. But that's no reason for blowing off the other approaches. I use Smart Playlists heavily (could you tell?
Because they didn't know the specific architecture of the Xbox 360 when they made the original Xbox games?
Sony doesn't sell their music via iTunes, they offer their own music store to compete.
Sony does sell their music via iTunes, but not in every iTunes country (like Australia).
There's an official Google Maps API which I believe this is using. However, if Risk is actively protected to the extent that he's being sent nastygrams, he'll probably have to pull it or Google will have to retract his API key (I don't think the license allows for that kind of usage).
I think the whole point of the Intel move is precisely because Apple doesn't want to develop hardware like they've done in the past (onboard SCSI, proprietary connections like ADB), so they'll just let the biggest player handle the work and Apple will fit the OS to the fastest available hardware.
Apple's last proprietary connection went the way of the dodo with the ADC ("Apple Display Connector") when the new Cinema Displays used DVI in 2004, and even that was just mapping a USB connector and a DVI connector to one ADC connector. Apple has been phasing out proprietary connections since the original iMac in 1998 - this is not something that's new for the Intel switch, but that has nothing to do with making their own system chips and so on.
However, I do think that even if Apple didn't influence the development of the PowerPC, they did make for example the Power Mac G5 much faster by building a kick-ass architecture behind it with a very fast front side bus, fast memory and storage, and custom-made system and I/O controllers. The CPU is only one piece of this puzzle, and I'm hoping that this can be re-applied to the new Intel CPUs with some changes, because I don't see Apple *not* making their own architecture for things like this. (If the new Intel PowerBook was to be built with off-the-shelf chipsets, how many laptop of them come with gigabit ethernet, Firewire 400+800, dual-link DVI and optical audio?)
It's true. They feed on pure karma... which might be why my PowerBook has been a bit sluggish lately.
At least they won't be able to anally rape my mother while pouring sugar down my gas tank.
Any such mentions are just speculation, but the reasoning is sound. Mac Mini, iBook and PowerBook are the 'biggest bleeders' with the current architecture - Xserve, PowerMac G5 and iMac are all doing fine being on the G5. Don't take my word for it; according to Apple's own product pages, CPU-wise, the new top PowerMac G5 model got around 80%+ of added performance over the previous model - the PowerBook didn't get any CPU-related performance improvements *at all*.
I bet that PowerBook and Mac Mini will be the first ones over, and that they'll be launched just before or during WWDC 2006. (Said Jobs of WWDC 2006 at WWDC 2005: "...we plan to have them in the marketplace", "...there'll be Intel-based Macs entering the market".)
I could live with an Intel PowerBook that's at least 2X the speed of my old PowerBook and they may indeed be the first to come out, especially since the last releases had such minimal upgrades. On the other hand, I like the idea of getting a nice G5 as it's faster, been thoroughly sorted-out by now, my existing software will run, they'll still be supported, etc.
Here's the thing: the PowerBooks of today probably are not 2X faster than the PowerBook of three years ago - mainly because the front side bus is really, really cramped at just 167MHz. Even if the Intel PowerBooks only had an improved front side bus and otherwise equal performance, it'd blow this roof to Neptune and back. But I'm personally still unsure if it'll be anywhere near the increase needed for good performance for things like encoding. (I just spent literally most of today's working hours waiting for iDVD to encode 1:10 total in video before burning, and I had 1.5GB RAM and next to no other apps open.)
My final piece of advice is basically that if you promise not to beat the hell out of me when the Intel PowerBooks arrive, I say go for the G5. And if by any chance you don't "drop $3k tonight", then let me have some. Consulting ain't free, you know... :)
If you do have work to get done in the seven months we have to wait and you could easily afford one, I say just get a G5. Your stipulated G5 wouldn't die the exact moment Steve presents the Intel Macs on stage - it won't be cutting edge anymore, but that'll be as true if you were to buy an Intel Mac seven months before its next generation as well.
If the encoding time is really cut down (which looks like a gimme), you'll make it up in no time. If it's really about productivity, you're comparing the last release of an architecture that's been out for several years now (even the G5 is around 30 months old now) to the first round of machines of a new architecture *ever* - there's no way they'll be as reliable as the G5. Major kinks are worked out (except for the 2xSATA drive limit) and apps have had time to be optimized for them.
Also consider this: We don't even know which Macs will be Intelized first! We do know that the Intel switch is all about speeding up the cramped PowerBook, so they will probably come first. There's a chance (although not big) they'll have you waiting until this time next year for an Intel PowerMac, and it's not even sure the performance will match!
I think this "let's hold our horses for a year or so" attitude is getting a bit out of hand. If you were to buy a PowerBook, then maybe I could understand you, but the G5-based Macs are definitely the highlights of today's lineup, and there's no way in hell that the first revision Intel PowerMacs will be a better buy than they are based on what little you've said.
Even with multi-tasking, there can only be one active application at any given time. Chances are that if I'm not in an app and I want to pick a menu choice, I want to switch to it anyway. Click-through for menus (like Windows has) is very convenient if you *constantly* pick menu choices from other applications by clicking the menu title - it saves you one click. Maybe that adds up for some people, I don't know. Myself, I'm saving time by never having to worry about where the menus are. It's all good. :)
As long as we're discussing 'failures', the one button mouse *does* suck for most people who's smart enough to go to Slashdot. But. It doesn't suck for a whole lot of people, and programming so that everything is available *from* that one button keeps my program easy both for those people and for others. You might think it's a failure that the one button mouse is still in use, and I'm torn on that myself, but there's no question that there's less ground for confusion for users that aren't as well-adjusted with computers as you and me not because there's just one button on the mouse that ships, but because the programs are easier because of it.
Exactly how would printing an edition of Wikipedia turn the original Wikipedia into a paper encyclopedia? They could even have someone else entirely print it (if they confirm with the license, which is what allows it) and that wouldn't change the goals set forth by Wikimedia at all.
Which leads me to a question that probably seems lame to iTunes users (can't afford it myself): what's to prevent an Aussie from using iTunes, even if there's no Australian iTunes server? Does the software check packet routing or something?
The fact that you need a credit card with a billing address in a participating country (like the US, Canada, France or Sweden, for example) or a form of alternative payment (like PayPal accounts linked to a credit card with a US address in the US store and Click & Buy in european stores) to buy songs or videos from it in the first place. If you have access to those ways of payment, you can still buy even if you don't live in a country with its own store.
(I take for granted that you by iTunes meant iTunes Music Store - the iTunes software is a "jukebox" that hosts the Music Store and was able to play, for example, normal MP3s for three major versions before the Music Store part, so there's certainly no cost in just using the software outside of the store.)
Er, you need to give them a cell phone number because that's how they're sending you the SMS. SMS is text messaging for cell phones...
Well, duh - No reason given for using cell phone numbers *over other ways*, like one's current email address (which admittedly could turn ridiculous if you haven't got an email address before), one's home/work phone number, or not requiring anything at all in the first place.
Not everybody outside the geek community can afford $960 for a two-year commitment to mobile phone service.
That's true. Where in my comment did I claim the opposite, or even that Google's approach is a good way to construct a sign up mechanism? My comment said that sign-up is available outside of 'invitations', and speculated on why Google wants a cell phone number specifically - I'm not defending a practice just because I mention its existence.
Apparently, US Google users can sign up by providing a (US) cell phone number, to which a link will be sent via SMS text messaging; i.e. signing up without being invited. No reason is given to why you must provide a cell phone number, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just wanted to throttle HD harvesting.
(I don't personally see the link, but I'm also in Sweden and get the Swedish localization.)
Awesome.
Maybe at the end of this particular road is a better name for people who 'illegally' downloads music, and a 'fessing up (if indirect) from **AA that what they were so annoyed with all the time isn't us ripping the artists off, but them missing a chance to rip their artists off themselves.