Palm Zire 21: $99 new. The front-lit black-and-white screen is much easier to read than an LCD or CRT monitor, so I've got no trouble reading ebooks on it. Between Project Gutenberg and the Baen Free Library, I figure I've more than made back the purchase price in savings on paper books.
You say that like $99 is nothing... and you also say that like I only want to read free books. How about new books? How about a non-pirated version of Harry Potter?
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you that $99 is no big deal... but plenty of people are going to look at that, then look at the size of the Zire's screen, then say "I'm going to spend $5-15 bucks on a paperback this month, and I have no desire to spend $99 to read something different.". Of course, I'm touching on the "no content" argument here, and yea, plenty of those books you're talking about are great, but... I actually might be more likely to read them on my computer, or even print them out, then buy a Zire just for that use. And Harry Potter? I know a group of 10 people who passed around a single copy of that, and everyone else I know who read it got it from a library... but you can't even buy it, because the author/publisher are too freaked out about illegal copies.
Of course, I might use a Zire for other things, too, and it might be a neat thing to have, and I might not mind getting fan-generated or pirated versions of new books and reading a lot of old classics... but my mother-in-law isn't going to think that's a good plan, and neither is the average consumer.
Oh, and how many eBooks did you *buy* last year ? Yeah... I wonder why the publishing industry isn't getting behind ebooks more... maybe it's because they've actually done market research, and people said "why?"... that, and they were already freaked out about photocopiers, then scanners came along, then they watched Napster happen to the music industry, and now... they might be just a little bit gunshy. And as good as the display on a Zire is, I'd rather look at a printed page, really...
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a portable electronic device that does away with the need to cut down trees for paper... but the implementation of the eBook idea has a little way to go yet before it's going to be ready to catch on. A real, inexpensive ePaper display will be the first step. Getting publishers on board ( via cheap price, transferable eBooks, something, likely with DRM that we'll object to ) is going to be the second ( very big ) step. There will have to be niche uses for that technology first... your use of it is a nice proof-of-concept, but do you see all of the non-tech-oriented folks around you doing it some day the same way you are ?
You and pretty much everyone you know drive a lethal weapon that can kill more people, and do more physical damage, than any simple gun could every day. How many people could you run down in a car on a tank of gas? How many could you kill with a hand gun before reloading?
Not just *can*, but statistically, *does*. Cars kill more people in the US than just about any other type of accident ( by *far), and *many* fewer people die as a result of homicide than accidents ( and not all homicides are a result of gunplay ).
No fair on the tank of gas == reloading comparison, though. How much ammo can you carry ? That's a better comparison. The type of weapon makes a big difference, then... your car is easily more dangerous than a handgun ( although... I can see your car coming, there's a big difference )... but a semiautomatic pistol or rifle ? Those might be as dangerous or more dangerous than a car. But the point is... things are dangerous, and always will be, that doesn't matter. There need to be reasonable limits to the regulations we face or we won't have this "freedom" thing that people like to talk about but don't seem to understand.
On the original topic... A better look at the hypocrisy of this proposed law would be to ask the simple question: of people who own guns, how many use images of people as targets? After all, shooting a real gun at a simulated person is just as bad as shooting a video game gun at a video game person, right?
That is very, very much indeed the spirit of the point I was trying to make. How does outlawing a book, movie, or other representation of violence make any sense when you have legal access to everything needed to create that same imagery in real life ( even, for example, using a paper target outline of a person ) ?
Although I think it's a little crazy from a public safety perspective to have everyone in town walking around with a possibly loaded gun at their hips, I don't *fundamentally* think there's anything wrong with letting folks carry around weapons... but to do so and restrict their entertainment options for public safety reasons ? That's just crazy.
Why does repression in one area make respression in another area OK?
Did I say it did ?
Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
That's much closer to the point I was trying to make, actually...
Of course, the reality is that this is just the result of some politician grandstanding with the old "think of the children" bit... the dark side is that they clearly don't care about 1st Amendment freedoms, or public good, or anything else, really, as long as they can create a wedge issue to drive votes their way.
I don't know about today, but I seem to recall a friend of mine from Tennessee telling me that it was all the rage in his hometown to wear a holster with a gun in it... as it was perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded weapon, just so long as you weren't concealing it.
Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head, ask the obvious questions, and try to make the best choice you're allowed to at the ballot box...
Maybe you missed the last financial statement, but Apple is now an MP3-PLAYER COMPANY. The majority of Apple's revenue comes from Ipod sales.
What, you mean Apple's computer sales were kinda flat in the quarter where everyone knew that a few months later there would be machines that will be a minimum of 2x faster than the current machines, and that third-party software support for current machiness, due to major hardware changes, would be in question ?
What's shocking about last quarter for Apple is that anyone at all was still buying PowerPC machines from them. IMHO, last quarter's finanicals for Apple say a lot more about the complete and total dominance of the iPod than anything else.
Lack of content and overreaching DRM. The selection of devices doesn't help either.
Those are my number 3 and number 2 reasons, but the #1 reason I'm not even *thinking* about eBooks is simple : PRICE.
It's great for you that you like your Clie, but I don't own one and am not about to run out and spend, what, over $200, or heck, even $100 to be able to purchase a book. Then... what's the price of an eBook ? Is it more than the price I'd pay to buy that book on eBay, Amazon, or a local book store ? Might I find the book in question at my local library ?
In short, that reader better be damn cheap, or do something more than just be a reader... and the content better be cheaper than a paperback, too.
IMHO, the whole eBook concept is a solution looking for a problem, or rather, a product looking for a market. Without publishers discounting the price of ebooks tremendously, they just don't make sense for the consumer. Can I sell my eBook when I no longer want it ? If not, it has a lot less value to me than a book- that's just the way goods work.
An eBook might make a lot of sense for something that I know I'll only ever look at once - a newspaper, maybe, or something that I'm going to want in electronic format, or won't read sequentially, like a web site ( call it a 'blog' or whatever you want )... but uh, why not use a laptop or computer for that ? Oh, you want your eBook reader to be smaller ? Maybe you want your laptop smaller, too... oh, yea, like a Clie...
So... eBooks haven't taken off because there is no demand for them. Make them more attractive ( i.e. in price, resellability, *something* ), and maybe we'll *think* about buying them... but until you can convincingly explain to your mom and the guy standing at the bus stop the reason why an eBook is better than a paperback... no sale, dude, sorry...
Now Samsung will love you back...
Samsung Means To Come
Just when you thought you'd already seen the most awful use of Flash, something even more annoying comes along. Seriously, is this some sort of viral marketing, or did someone use the "vibrate" feature on their phone a little too often ?
Warning: do not click the parent's link unless you actually want to be annoyed. If you do, enjoy your headache.
How many Apple threads do we need? Seriously... this is getting out of hand.
And this is coming from a guy who's screen name is "AquaOSX"
Are people not submitting anything interesting? What's the deal?
I'm going to have to agree... I don't mind this being on slashdot, but it should be off in the Apple section, not on the front page.
I can only assume people aren't submitting very interesting stuff... although it is important to note that this was posted by Zonk, who does seem to be the most-complained-about editor, not that I've noticed his stories sucking any more than anyone else ( I usually don't notice the editor ) but I have seen a lot of posts complaining about his stories... and really, it seems they're stories that would be fine if relegated to their respective sections, but they always seem to make it to the front page.
So I'm not complaining about Zonk myself I guess, just that he does seem to post stories to the index that should be in the Apple section.
Several paragraphs to lead us to one conclusion: the mac mini recognized the LCD TV, the Media Center PC didn't.
I hate to shine a light on your cynicisim, but... that's a pretty big deal, isn't it ???
I mean, if something is a "Media Center" which is meant to live in your living room and plug into your TV... shouldn't it be able to, I dunno... display an image on a TV ??
I've read a lot of articles on PVRs and Media Center computers, and honestly, this is the first time I've even heard of someone having a hard time getting a TV picture. Is the LCD TV they're using a little strange or something ? Maybe, it sounds like the resolution is a little odd... but all the same, it's a TV, shouldn't a SDTV signal 'just work' ?
I mean, WTF, if Joe and Jane NonTechie pick up a Media Center at the mall, take it home, plug it in and get no picture, guess what? That's a product return right there, folks. This may not be a great article, but it provides three important bits of info:
1) the Apple product displays a picture on their TV while the Microsoft product failed to do even that
2) the Apple product doesn't include a TV tuner, but a third party product works beautifully to fill that need
3) Windows Media Center is not capable of formatting video for the iPod.
Frankly, (2) above isn't news to anyone who's been reading up on this stuff, and (3) may not be *terribily* important unless you're slightly tech challenged ( i.e. won't think to use iTunes or something other than a Microsoft product to re-encode video ) and you own a video-capable iPod... admittedly maybe a small number of people. But (1) is a big deal, it seems, and (2) and (3) mean that (1) isn't the only bit of information in the article... which is by their own admission "part 1", because CNET is nothing if not about breaking up otherwise useful information into as many page views as possible.
On the other hand, you're right, it's not a *great* article... this should maybe be posted to slashdot when all parts are complete or, or maybe there's a better comparison somewhere. Still, it ( sadly ) is better than a lot of other articles that get linked to the front page...
Anything to do with Apple seems to get a disspropotionate amount of coverage on Slashdot these days, and when articles about Levis making a pair or jeans with an iPod pocket , or Apple making a leather case make it on here, I wonder why the fuck I am reading this tech site.
So... is your issue with Apple, or with Slashdot's selection of stories ? Because I'm right there with you on the selection of stories. The real problem with the Levi Jeans article you reference ( which I don't think I'd seen ) is that it's in, what, the Hardware section, why ? Stick it in the Apple section, then it's still a stupid story, but funny and amusing, and even slightly interesting as a sign of how much the iPod has taken over.
On the other hand, there's a frickin' Apple section of the website, so it's weird to complain about there being a lot of Apple stories. If we'd all stop reading them, feeding them our pageviews, you know they'd just go away... but here you are, not just reading the story you're complaining about, but posting on it'd discussion thread and driving even more pageviews to it. Odd.
This article in particular isn't so much about Apple making a leather case ( note, I do think it's important that it's an iPod case, so thus directly related to an actual tech product the company makes ) as much as it is about Apple entering an accessories market that ( until now ) it has for the most part left to third parties. Regardless of how you and I feel about it ( I think the article is stupid, obviously ), this is tangentally related to the business of several tech companies ( as you may well consider Belkin and a lot of the other iPod accessory maker's business to be gadget/tech related ), and thus fits in with other Slashdot articles a lot better than a lot of the crap they post here.
Fact is that as Apple grows, their computer side of their buisness becomes smaller relative to the rest of the company.
So, then they're a music player company... still not a fashion company...
Dell and other companies are not recognised by the general public as being stylish, and are not associated with being a fashon item.
certainly the case for Dell at least!
There is a guy from one of the other departments at my work who has got the standard issue Dell laptop, and put an Apple sticker over the Dell blob. Does that make the styling on his Dell any different? No, but it does make it look like he has a trendy brandname computer - which is probably what he wanted to achieve.
No, it makes him either (a) a seriously lame poser, or (b) an example of someone who just completely misses the point of owning a piece of hardware.
And for your information, I dont think that computers need to be ugly, or hard to use. I also dont believe you need to buy Apple to overcome either of these.
So... is IBM a fashion company because the ThinkPad is a pretty nice lookin' laptop ? Is AlienWare a fashion company because they sell stylish, overpriced hardware ? I'm still trying to get at why you'd claim Apple is a fashion company... and I'm not arguing with any of your statements above.
Stop being so over defensive of everything Apple, when the comment was more about the relevance of some of Slashdots articles, and the attention they recieve.
Who is being defensive here ? I'm smacking you around for posting a hard-to-defend, off-the-cuff remark about a computer manufacturer being more a fashion company than a technology company, and you're defending your remark by complaining about Slashdot's story selection and a loser at your company who uses a Dell but wants people to think it's an Apple... neither of which have much bearing on your remark. I'm a little disappointed, I was hoping for a more insightful conversation about the perception of Apple hardware value versus the reality... I mean, I kind of understand where you're coming from on this topic even, but simply given the fact that they're making a few iPod accessories doesn't make
javaxman: Are you trying to say WindowsXP or Linux is more secure when it comes to privilege escalation attacks than OS X ?
Paradise Pete:
How could you infer that from what I wrote? I never once mentioned any other OS.
Precisely, you never mentioned any other OS with regards to privilege escalation attacks... and you'll notice I was really just _asking_ if you were trying to imply something about another OS, so actually, I didn't infer it as much as I wondered if you meant to infer it.
I have little doubt that XP is less secure, but that's not the issue. Up until a few days ago, no one was claiming to be able to escalate user privileges under OS X. Now someone is claiming that. And if it's true, it's a problem not to be taken lightly. And if it can be done programatically, then it's a very serious issue.
Um. Ok. Here's the thing: just about every form of *nix under the sun has had a history of problems with privilege escalation.
Go to this CERT document and search for "elevated privileges"... as just one example of how widespread and ( fairly ) well-known this type of problem is. While you're there, note that OpenSSH is what OS X uses. I'm sorry that you ( and apparently a lot of other people ) weren't aware of this as a problem, and usually such attacks are fairly difficult and too obscure for most people to do, but... they are a real problem, and always have been.
For what it's worth, I don't run XP. I don't run Linux. I run OS X, and I've done so since it first came out. And I ran Mac OS 9, and 8, and 7, and 6, and even had a original Mac with only a floppy drive. So I'm not looking to bash Macs. In fact, my friends who I drive nuts with my "Mac talk" would laugh at the idea.
Well, consider for a minute then that OS 9 has pretty much *no* such concept as privileged and unprivileged users... it does have some user restrictions, but they never worked terribly well in part because they weren't implemented by much more than the Finder and system services. Would you have given someone an account on your OS 9 machine if you didn't know who they were? I doubt it.
But that still doesn't mean this is a trivial issue. And it doesn't really matter that's it's "less bad" than XP. I take that to be a given.
Yup... definitely not a trivial issue. Definitely an issue that Apple ( and, clearly, developers and system designers in general ) would like to ignore... because it's complicated and restricts what you can do. Apple needs to step up and treat privilege escalation as a more serious threat than it seems they have in the past. Hackers need to step up and do the right thing by reporting these problems when they find them. But most importantly, users like you and I need to remember that there is no such thing as giving someone "safe" access to your machine... if you're going to open up SSH or any other avenue that could be used for attack, do it carefully, check out OpenSSH CERT reports, and remember that you're not invulnerable, no matter what operating system you're using. They have not built an unsinkable ship, nor have they built an operating system that you can give someone "some" ability to directly execute arbitrary code on. You might think OS 9 did that, but it didn't- it made it really, really hard to execute arbitrary code from anything but the console, but once you were a user, it was easy to do whatever you wanted. OS X is an improvement on that, really... even *if* you give anyone who wants one a login account and ask them to own your machine. And it's definitely an improvement on WindowsXP, though I do wonder if OpenBSD or something might be more safe.
It really is like locking somone in the garage or basement and daring them to get into the rest of the house. If you actually *want* to be safe, you'll lock them out at the gate outside your house, and not let them in where they can start to attack through the drywall.
Right now we have only this one supposed demonstration of it. What I'd really appreciate seeing is that *original* test repeated. If we can look at this as if it were an experiment, then when someone publishes a result others try to repeat it under the same conditions. They don't conduct a different test with different conditions in order to disprove the original.
What I'd like to see is that same test repeated for Windows, and maybe even Linux and Solaris... and OpenBSD. Now *that* would be interesting.
Guess what? I'm going to wager that all of those systems are prone to some sort of privilege escalation attack. ( actually, I don't have to guess, just check out CERT on this one. )
Are you trying to say WindowsXP or Linux is more secure when it comes to privilege escalation attacks than OS X ? Somehow, I'm tempted to think all of these systems have issues in that area. I'm not saying it's good, and I definitely won't defend Apple's somewhat lax approach in this area ( especially regarding the holes they've put in their security via LaunchServices and SystemStartup ), but uh... you should be fair, I think. It's not like a WindowsXP box, or even a Linux box, would last much longer if you just *gave* everyone user accounts on them, or ran software of questionable origin. That's just not something safe to do, regardless of what system you're on.
Now, if your intention is simply to point out that Apple's systems aren't any more secure than anyone else's in terms of this kind of attack, then you have a good point, one that Apple and their users both need to listen to and act upon.
Seriously, the closest this article gets to anything technical are the words "multiple cores" and "enterprise servers". That's it.
What new chips? Are they x86 compatible ? 32-bit ? 64-bit ? Do they have a code name ? Are they going to ship some day ? The article is made more pathetic by the fact that one could actually answer all of those questions, but this story contains virtually no real news for nerds whatsoever.
This story is crap, let's face facts. Slashdot should be protecting it's readers from this kind of marketing drivel, not placing it on the front page where we're tempted to waste our time on it. I want those 2 minutes of my life back, please...
Will Apple stories still be posted on Slashdot when they are recognised as a fashon company, rather than a tech company. That seems to be the way they are going to me......
why, because they sell a leather case for an MP3 player? Or because they sell a speaker system ( let's face it, the boom box is not so much a boom box as an amplifier and set of speakers ) for that same player ?
Which of Apple's products has nothing to do with technology ? Granted, their products do place an emphasis on style, which in some usages can be a synonym for fashion. Still, they're about fashionable technology. In this case fashion is an adjective to describe the technology product, not a noun that signifies the type of company it is.
Did HP become a fashion company when they made printable iPod skins? Is Dell a fashion company because they sell... OK, what the hell. Dell sells a "Women in Business Liberator Executive Black Fashion Notebook", maybe Dell is now a fashion company. ( Seriously, they sell what now? I expected to find something silly, but that's a PURSE !! )
In all seriousness, I think you just are looking for a way to dislike Apple, or you're trolling, or both.
Honestly, WTF, Dell sells a friggin' women's handbag, and you're dissing Apple as a fashion company, why exactly? Because people actually like Apple's designs and hold them up as good examples ? You prefer your tech products to be clunky, unesthetic, and hard to use, so only l33t ubergeeks can master them ? You're going to penalize Apple for selling iPod accessories with a high markup ? Perhaps you should explain your thinking, unless it embarasses you to do so.
How many iPod car adapters does Apple make ? How many vinyl cases do they make ? How many... aw, screw it.
Anyone with half a brain knows that two high-end ( to use a nice term ) products don't mark a 'taking over' of the iPod accessory market. Apple looked at a bunch of can't-fail high-markup accessories, and picked the two that had the highest likely return on investment. End of story.
Didn't we just have a discussion over how people leave their wireless AP open for anyone to use? I don't think the SSH agent is on by default, and I think that the firewall blocks it by default, but that doesn't mean this is always the case. Given the reality of modern setups, where cable modems and wireless gives untrusted parties direct acess to the computer, I hardly see this hack as having no practical implications.
While I agree that there are serious implications of OS X client software having privilege escalation vunerabilities, and while people may enable SSH, there are a couple of things we ( hopefully ) don't do which were done here, and, IMHO, greatly reduce the meaningful nature of this event.
1) I don't give untrusted individuals SSH accounts. This guy had set up a form that gave an SSH account to anyone who wants one. Are you ( or your IT guy ) going to set up SSH access for "guest/anonymous" ?
2) when I do enable SSH access, I read up on SSH vunerabilities and enable only encrypted-key access, not password access. This is probably a less-well-exercised bit of caution, but not having SSH access for -everyone- and requiring encrypted key authentication for the others will leave you pretty safe 'in the real world'.
What *is* of real concern and what everyone *should* be talking about is the fact ( revealed by this contest ) that there are privilege escalation attacks known to hackers but ( supposedly ) unknown to Apple and ( ouch ) unknown by your IT staff. That's bad news... and I do want this same contest on a machine *without* SSH accounts given to every luser who wants to break into it, that would *definitely* be more interesting from my point of view. I figure if you have an account on a machine, you'll find a way to get the file you want. My goal in setting up remote access to my machine is to not let you have that account unless I want you to have it...
Well, it was sorta helpful and at least interesting, but by your own admission... all guesswork.
The article is what we know and don't know. While it's unlikely, it's entirely *possible* that Sony could ship a lot earlier ( or a lot later ) than we all think. It's equally possible ( although totally unlikely because it'd be suicide ) that the machine will initially be priced higher than we think... or lower, with Sony taking a big hit to get Blu-ray going or shame MS or whatever other justification they might make for initially taking a big hit. The games could look way better, or way worse, than we think, ( or be all over the map due to differing skills of developers )... we don't know until we see the real thing, and so far, we haven't. Online is a fine question mark, and something that could possibly change with time. As for hard drives, it's entirely possible they'd ship as-cheap-as-possible configurations with no hard drive included, which is what I'd actually bet on ( w/ a high markup on drives, and drives bundled with games that really need/use them, and crappy DRM or connectors to keep you from *really* using the drives or using generic drives- it's still Sony ).
but that's all guesswork. The other stuff, like I said, we know. Our guesses might be good, and could even turn out to be right, but we don't know, or Sony hasn't told us, to be more accurate. Actually, I guess they have said it'd ship this "Spring", so maybe we don't know what we think we know, even...
Really, the article is a bit more like "here's the stuff we really don't know the answer to:"
- when will it ship - what will it cost - will games actually be able to live up to the great graphics and model/AI processing promised by the Cell processor marketing, or will they look pretty much like XBox360 games ? - will there be a halfway decent online component ? - is a hard drive included ? An add-on ? What's the deal ?
All we *really* seem to know is that there's a Cell processor inside, it'll support HD, include a Blu-ray drive, will take some sort of hard drive ( at least as an add-on ), will have built-in networking ( like crazy ), and will have a *ton* of games written for it... seriously, that's a long, long list of games. Oh, and it'll play existing PS2 games, though the article doesn't say that I think it's a well-known given. That and the controller they showed just looks weird.
Sony has a games division full of software engineers who are specialists at developing games for consoles. Sony has other engineering product divisions who have software engineers who are good at writing code to run on consumer hardware devices.
Where does that leave Sony in developing... an application like iTunes ?
I'll tell you where. It leaves Sony flapping in the wind, with a bunch of BMG-style media company guys yanking the chain of the guy in charge of the Walkman product development, who yanks the chain of some ( I'm guessing ) tiny, underfunded, design-challenged software development unit originally concieved to write PC drivers within the Walkman hardware division.
It leaves Sony right *behind* all of the other companies like Napster, Yahoo, and ( err... there has to be another, right ? Who uses WinAmp, that's AOL, right? ) who are in theory software *specialists*... and yet even these software specialists can't seem to write an application that can even approach more than a tiny fraction of the popularity of iTunes.
It's about the software, really, to a very large extent. Apple nailed the hardware, the software, and the marketing. Sony screwed up all three, and was late to the game to boot.
Note: TFA is really about audio, and nothing else, though the slashdot headline says "Media", it's really just "audio" being discussed here... although the chances of Sony getting any video-delivery software right are about as good as them getting the correct ( i.e. completely minimal, if any ) DRM for any video-delivery software right, i.e. zero, so I guess you could extrapolate this to "media". Really, the story is about Sony not being able to deploy a solid Windows program to compete with iTunes, and how that is a real problem for their hardware sales.
Re: Am I going to run OS X 10.4.4 on my Dell ? No.
on
MacBook Pro Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
People who are considering buying a new laptop, but haven't made up their mind about Wintel vs Mactel yet. People who don't have enough experience with modern Macs to gain any insight from benchmarks against other Apple machines. (so it's 2.23751 times faster than a 1.33GHz G4 Powerbook. Is that enough? Is it better than the 2.5GHz Mobile P3 machine I already have?) People who have been burned by Apple's bogus benchmarks and specious "World's Fastest X" claims before and want to know how fast the MacBook is really going to be once it's brought outside the Cupertino reality-distortion field.
While I understand ( I think ) what you are saying, wouldn't the test for the people who "haven't made up their mind about Wintel vs Mactel yet" be the test of MacBook Pro running OS X 10.4.5 vs Dell Inspiron Core Duo running Windows XP Home ?
Or, if you want to know "is it better than the 2.5GHz Mobil P3 machine I already have?", wouldn't you want a benchmark comparing the candidate replacement ( the MacBook Pro, running OS X 10.4.5 ) with the existing machine running the version of Windows you already have ?
I'll answer : yes, you would. The user you're thinking about needs application-specific tests under the OS they're going to use. The purpose of comparing benchmarks on the P4 running OS X 10.4.4 ? Still unexplained, except for "I wanted exactly the same benchmark under as close to the same OS as possible"... in which case running benchmarks under Linux would probably be a better, more accurate test.
My problem with the article is that someone might think it makes the comparison they care about, when in reality it misses the mark completely. Maybe someone is really, really tied to Word, and any comparison that leaves out the Rosetta-interpreted Word performance doing some basic functions ( creating a PDF or something ? ) might be doing them a real disservice. I mean, I really, really like OS X myself, but if someone doesn't care what OS they use and they want to use Word a lot right now... I might advise them to put off a MacBook purchase until Word ships a Universal Binary... unless Rosetta performance is good enough, which it's supposed to be... but this comparision doesn't show that, and IMHO approaches the question from a rather non-technical "let's compare these systems that I've managed to get XBench to run on" perspective. That comparison does yield real information, but is it the information we should care about? No, not really... I could give you similar results by showing a new Dell Core Duo vs. the Dell P4MT with some windows benchmark, and that test would be more meaningful just because you'd be using the OS you're actually going to use. We have no idea what the benchmark difference 10.4.4 vs. 10.4.5 on the same hardware might be, even.
So, for the gamer? Show WoW framerates on the MacBook, the older Dell laptop, and a new Dell Core Duo laptop. With the machines running the OS they'd be using on those machines.
For the office user, show some sort of Word benchmark on all three, noting that the OS X Word time includes Rosetta emulation and will be faster in some newer version of Word some day soon. Again, with the OS the user will use.
For the Linux geek, install Linux on all three machines ( detailing any differences required to get it to run ), and give compile time results for some favorite distros, along with some standard set of memory, disk and CPU benchmarks. If you're trying to test pure hardware muscle, and thus want to normalize and eliminate software differences as much as possible, this is the right way to do your benchmark, so this is the test for the EE or systems engineer, too.
So, those are the tests that those three types of people are going to really want... so, who really wants the hacked OS X on P4HT benchmark? The guy who wants to run that hacked system on his P4, and really... nobody else... I mean, it would be interesting see if either Windows or OS X is a winner at some sort of standard cross-platformizable test ( Ope
Am I going to run OS X 10.4.4 on my Dell ? No...
on
MacBook Pro Reviewed
·
· Score: 1
so while it's an interesting comparison, I'm not sure it's terribly useful to me. Don't get me wrong, it's neat to think about comparing the raw performance about two different machines... but is there really someone out there trying to decide between a MacBook Pro and a P4HT laptop? Are they going to run a hacked OS X 10.4.4 on that P4 laptop ?!? No? So... who is the comparison good for?
More importantly, I have to say I always prefer the most practical benchmarks I can get my hands on. In that regard, why not do some application tests... one set under Linux ( to 'level the playing field' ), one set under OS X on the Mac and Windows XP on the Dell ?
Also importantly... what is really being tested here ? Core Duo vs P4HT ? Is Apple even an important part of this story ? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a P4HT Inspiron against a Core Duo Inspiron ? That comparison should highlight battery life...;-)
I was really pretty shocked when I realized the Inspiron had a P4... I was really expecting this to be a "compare the performance of this Core Duo laptop to the performance of this other Core Duo laptop... the numbers *should* be very similar, perhaps there's something to be learned by any differences". Instead... MacBook Pro Core Duo vs Dell Inspiron P4 ? It's just a weird thing to compare, especially if you're not looking at the power drain of the P4 and asking WTF it's doing in a laptop...
Other than driving page views from sites like slashdot, what is the purpose of the comparison done in this article ? Is anyone going to really buy a Dell P4HT laptop and run a hacked OS X on it because the Dell was 2 seconds faster encoding an MPG for iPod in one test, or buy a MacBook Pro ( rather than a P4HT Dell ) because the P4HT was beaten badly in overall XBench testing ? I sure hope not!
Anyway, it *is* an interesting comparison, but it still bugs me that there's no real reason for it, and the more I think about it, the less interesting it seems. The PowerBook G4 vs MacBook Pro comparison speaks volumes though... clearly Apple went to Intel because, at least in high-performance laptops, they had no other real choice.
Agreed. I already happen to have an HDTV. I know I will one day go to HD so when I got a TV, I made sure it was HD. Lets just hope they dont' come with a new input/output scheme and screw it all up for me.
See, you're already way more early-adopter than I am. I nearly bought a $900 CRT HD display when my last set died, but some relatives gave us a TV as a gift, and I decided to not mind one bit the fact that it's not HD... not having an HD TV will probably save me a bit of money over the next 3 years, I'm pretty sure... and if HD sets aren't down to $400 or so by then, we ( or rather, the makers of HD home electronics equipment ) have a serious problem...
You managed to not ( yet ) get screwed over by DVI/HDMI ? Lucky... most HDTV owners I know are still fuming over that one, sitting there with DVI connectors they're pretty sure are likely to not be very useful...
My PS3 will be less than $200. Of course, I won't be buying it for years, but heck, there are about 900 XBox/Gamecube/PS2 titles that are still new to me.
Dude, you're talking to the king of won't-buy-a-PS2-until-the-price-drops. I would have waited longer 'cept my dear wife thought it'd make a good xmas gift. After that ( and a previous disaster in which she bought a $300 DVD player ), I've finally taught her that just because I'm completely obsessed with technology, it doesn't follow that I want to blow all of my money on it...
As for the PS3, there's absolutely no reason for me to buy one, not for years. I'm never playing a game and thinking "these graphics should be just a little bit better, my 32" standard definition TV shows just how jaggy those lines are!". No, I think "man, there are like 80 games I've picked out that I'd like to play sometime, but I don't even have time to play the 20 I own already... and all the games I want are $20 a pop! I'm going to be playing these things for years!".
Seriously, Sony's PS2 business is likely to be supporting the PS3 business as well as most of Sony for a few more years than it already has...
For us, these HD discs aren't going to do us much good until someone gets HD display prices under control. As much as I watch TV, I'm not about to drop a thousand bucks on one.
To be clear, these aren't being made for us. They're being made for the folks who bought LaserDisc players. Folks who buy BMWs. People with money looking for a place to spend it.
I have not seen one compelling movie in the last 3 or 4 years so
Yup. "Return of the King" sure sucked. It'd really, really suck in HD on a 42" widescreen in my living room. uh-huh...
On the other hand ( um, yea, that was sarcasm up there ), I'll be waiting this out with you. I don't have enough money to waste on this crap. There is a PS3 in my future, but it's not this year, even if Sony does get it out before summer. Right now, this stuff is strictly for people looking for something to do with their extra stacks of money.
Slashdot Mirror
You say that like $99 is nothing... and you also say that like I only want to read free books. How about new books? How about a non-pirated version of Harry Potter?
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you that $99 is no big deal... but plenty of people are going to look at that, then look at the size of the Zire's screen, then say "I'm going to spend $5-15 bucks on a paperback this month, and I have no desire to spend $99 to read something different.". Of course, I'm touching on the "no content" argument here, and yea, plenty of those books you're talking about are great, but... I actually might be more likely to read them on my computer, or even print them out, then buy a Zire just for that use. And Harry Potter? I know a group of 10 people who passed around a single copy of that, and everyone else I know who read it got it from a library... but you can't even buy it, because the author/publisher are too freaked out about illegal copies.
Of course, I might use a Zire for other things, too, and it might be a neat thing to have, and I might not mind getting fan-generated or pirated versions of new books and reading a lot of old classics... but my mother-in-law isn't going to think that's a good plan, and neither is the average consumer.
Oh, and how many eBooks did you *buy* last year ? Yeah... I wonder why the publishing industry isn't getting behind ebooks more... maybe it's because they've actually done market research, and people said "why?"... that, and they were already freaked out about photocopiers, then scanners came along, then they watched Napster happen to the music industry, and now... they might be just a little bit gunshy. And as good as the display on a Zire is, I'd rather look at a printed page, really...
Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a portable electronic device that does away with the need to cut down trees for paper... but the implementation of the eBook idea has a little way to go yet before it's going to be ready to catch on. A real, inexpensive ePaper display will be the first step. Getting publishers on board ( via cheap price, transferable eBooks, something, likely with DRM that we'll object to ) is going to be the second ( very big ) step. There will have to be niche uses for that technology first... your use of it is a nice proof-of-concept, but do you see all of the non-tech-oriented folks around you doing it some day the same way you are ?
Not just *can*, but statistically, *does*. Cars kill more people in the US than just about any other type of accident ( by *far), and *many* fewer people die as a result of homicide than accidents ( and not all homicides are a result of gunplay ).
No fair on the tank of gas == reloading comparison, though. How much ammo can you carry ? That's a better comparison. The type of weapon makes a big difference, then... your car is easily more dangerous than a handgun ( although... I can see your car coming, there's a big difference )... but a semiautomatic pistol or rifle ? Those might be as dangerous or more dangerous than a car. But the point is... things are dangerous, and always will be, that doesn't matter. There need to be reasonable limits to the regulations we face or we won't have this "freedom" thing that people like to talk about but don't seem to understand.
That is very, very much indeed the spirit of the point I was trying to make. How does outlawing a book, movie, or other representation of violence make any sense when you have legal access to everything needed to create that same imagery in real life ( even, for example, using a paper target outline of a person ) ?
Although I think it's a little crazy from a public safety perspective to have everyone in town walking around with a possibly loaded gun at their hips, I don't *fundamentally* think there's anything wrong with letting folks carry around weapons... but to do so and restrict their entertainment options for public safety reasons ? That's just crazy.
Did I say it did ?
Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.
That's much closer to the point I was trying to make, actually...
Of course, the reality is that this is just the result of some politician grandstanding with the old "think of the children" bit... the dark side is that they clearly don't care about 1st Amendment freedoms, or public good, or anything else, really, as long as they can create a wedge issue to drive votes their way.
Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head, ask the obvious questions, and try to make the best choice you're allowed to at the ballot box...
What, you mean Apple's computer sales were kinda flat in the quarter where everyone knew that a few months later there would be machines that will be a minimum of 2x faster than the current machines, and that third-party software support for current machiness, due to major hardware changes, would be in question ?
What's shocking about last quarter for Apple is that anyone at all was still buying PowerPC machines from them. IMHO, last quarter's finanicals for Apple say a lot more about the complete and total dominance of the iPod than anything else.
Those are my number 3 and number 2 reasons, but the #1 reason I'm not even *thinking* about eBooks is simple : PRICE.
It's great for you that you like your Clie, but I don't own one and am not about to run out and spend, what, over $200, or heck, even $100 to be able to purchase a book. Then... what's the price of an eBook ? Is it more than the price I'd pay to buy that book on eBay, Amazon, or a local book store ? Might I find the book in question at my local library ?
In short, that reader better be damn cheap, or do something more than just be a reader... and the content better be cheaper than a paperback, too.
IMHO, the whole eBook concept is a solution looking for a problem, or rather, a product looking for a market. Without publishers discounting the price of ebooks tremendously, they just don't make sense for the consumer. Can I sell my eBook when I no longer want it ? If not, it has a lot less value to me than a book- that's just the way goods work.
An eBook might make a lot of sense for something that I know I'll only ever look at once - a newspaper, maybe, or something that I'm going to want in electronic format, or won't read sequentially, like a web site ( call it a 'blog' or whatever you want )... but uh, why not use a laptop or computer for that ? Oh, you want your eBook reader to be smaller ? Maybe you want your laptop smaller, too... oh, yea, like a Clie...
So... eBooks haven't taken off because there is no demand for them. Make them more attractive ( i.e. in price, resellability, *something* ), and maybe we'll *think* about buying them... but until you can convincingly explain to your mom and the guy standing at the bus stop the reason why an eBook is better than a paperback... no sale, dude, sorry...
Just when you thought you'd already seen the most awful use of Flash, something even more annoying comes along. Seriously, is this some sort of viral marketing, or did someone use the "vibrate" feature on their phone a little too often ?
Warning: do not click the parent's link unless you actually want to be annoyed. If you do, enjoy your headache.
I'm going to have to agree... I don't mind this being on slashdot, but it should be off in the Apple section, not on the front page.
I can only assume people aren't submitting very interesting stuff... although it is important to note that this was posted by Zonk, who does seem to be the most-complained-about editor, not that I've noticed his stories sucking any more than anyone else ( I usually don't notice the editor ) but I have seen a lot of posts complaining about his stories... and really, it seems they're stories that would be fine if relegated to their respective sections, but they always seem to make it to the front page.
So I'm not complaining about Zonk myself I guess, just that he does seem to post stories to the index that should be in the Apple section.
I hate to shine a light on your cynicisim, but... that's a pretty big deal, isn't it ???
I mean, if something is a "Media Center" which is meant to live in your living room and plug into your TV... shouldn't it be able to, I dunno... display an image on a TV ??
I've read a lot of articles on PVRs and Media Center computers, and honestly, this is the first time I've even heard of someone having a hard time getting a TV picture. Is the LCD TV they're using a little strange or something ? Maybe, it sounds like the resolution is a little odd... but all the same, it's a TV, shouldn't a SDTV signal 'just work' ?
I mean, WTF, if Joe and Jane NonTechie pick up a Media Center at the mall, take it home, plug it in and get no picture, guess what? That's a product return right there, folks. This may not be a great article, but it provides three important bits of info:
1) the Apple product displays a picture on their TV while the Microsoft product failed to do even that
2) the Apple product doesn't include a TV tuner, but a third party product works beautifully to fill that need
3) Windows Media Center is not capable of formatting video for the iPod.
Frankly, (2) above isn't news to anyone who's been reading up on this stuff, and (3) may not be *terribily* important unless you're slightly tech challenged ( i.e. won't think to use iTunes or something other than a Microsoft product to re-encode video ) and you own a video-capable iPod... admittedly maybe a small number of people. But (1) is a big deal, it seems, and (2) and (3) mean that (1) isn't the only bit of information in the article... which is by their own admission "part 1", because CNET is nothing if not about breaking up otherwise useful information into as many page views as possible.
On the other hand, you're right, it's not a *great* article... this should maybe be posted to slashdot when all parts are complete or, or maybe there's a better comparison somewhere. Still, it ( sadly ) is better than a lot of other articles that get linked to the front page...
So... is your issue with Apple, or with Slashdot's selection of stories ? Because I'm right there with you on the selection of stories. The real problem with the Levi Jeans article you reference ( which I don't think I'd seen ) is that it's in, what, the Hardware section, why ? Stick it in the Apple section, then it's still a stupid story, but funny and amusing, and even slightly interesting as a sign of how much the iPod has taken over.
On the other hand, there's a frickin' Apple section of the website, so it's weird to complain about there being a lot of Apple stories. If we'd all stop reading them, feeding them our pageviews, you know they'd just go away... but here you are, not just reading the story you're complaining about, but posting on it'd discussion thread and driving even more pageviews to it. Odd.
This article in particular isn't so much about Apple making a leather case ( note, I do think it's important that it's an iPod case, so thus directly related to an actual tech product the company makes ) as much as it is about Apple entering an accessories market that ( until now ) it has for the most part left to third parties. Regardless of how you and I feel about it ( I think the article is stupid, obviously ), this is tangentally related to the business of several tech companies ( as you may well consider Belkin and a lot of the other iPod accessory maker's business to be gadget/tech related ), and thus fits in with other Slashdot articles a lot better than a lot of the crap they post here.
Fact is that as Apple grows, their computer side of their buisness becomes smaller relative to the rest of the company.
So, then they're a music player company... still not a fashion company...
Dell and other companies are not recognised by the general public as being stylish, and are not associated with being a fashon item.
certainly the case for Dell at least!
There is a guy from one of the other departments at my work who has got the standard issue Dell laptop, and put an Apple sticker over the Dell blob. Does that make the styling on his Dell any different? No, but it does make it look like he has a trendy brandname computer - which is probably what he wanted to achieve.
No, it makes him either (a) a seriously lame poser, or (b) an example of someone who just completely misses the point of owning a piece of hardware.
And for your information, I dont think that computers need to be ugly, or hard to use. I also dont believe you need to buy Apple to overcome either of these.
So... is IBM a fashion company because the ThinkPad is a pretty nice lookin' laptop ? Is AlienWare a fashion company because they sell stylish, overpriced hardware ? I'm still trying to get at why you'd claim Apple is a fashion company... and I'm not arguing with any of your statements above.
Stop being so over defensive of everything Apple, when the comment was more about the relevance of some of Slashdots articles, and the attention they recieve.
Who is being defensive here ? I'm smacking you around for posting a hard-to-defend, off-the-cuff remark about a computer manufacturer being more a fashion company than a technology company, and you're defending your remark by complaining about Slashdot's story selection and a loser at your company who uses a Dell but wants people to think it's an Apple... neither of which have much bearing on your remark. I'm a little disappointed, I was hoping for a more insightful conversation about the perception of Apple hardware value versus the reality... I mean, I kind of understand where you're coming from on this topic even, but simply given the fact that they're making a few iPod accessories doesn't make
Paradise Pete: How could you infer that from what I wrote? I never once mentioned any other OS.
Precisely, you never mentioned any other OS with regards to privilege escalation attacks... and you'll notice I was really just _asking_ if you were trying to imply something about another OS, so actually, I didn't infer it as much as I wondered if you meant to infer it.
I have little doubt that XP is less secure, but that's not the issue. Up until a few days ago, no one was claiming to be able to escalate user privileges under OS X. Now someone is claiming that. And if it's true, it's a problem not to be taken lightly. And if it can be done programatically, then it's a very serious issue.
Um. Ok. Here's the thing: just about every form of *nix under the sun has had a history of problems with privilege escalation. Go to this CERT document and search for "elevated privileges"... as just one example of how widespread and ( fairly ) well-known this type of problem is. While you're there, note that OpenSSH is what OS X uses. I'm sorry that you ( and apparently a lot of other people ) weren't aware of this as a problem, and usually such attacks are fairly difficult and too obscure for most people to do, but... they are a real problem, and always have been.
For what it's worth, I don't run XP. I don't run Linux. I run OS X, and I've done so since it first came out. And I ran Mac OS 9, and 8, and 7, and 6, and even had a original Mac with only a floppy drive. So I'm not looking to bash Macs. In fact, my friends who I drive nuts with my "Mac talk" would laugh at the idea.
Well, consider for a minute then that OS 9 has pretty much *no* such concept as privileged and unprivileged users... it does have some user restrictions, but they never worked terribly well in part because they weren't implemented by much more than the Finder and system services. Would you have given someone an account on your OS 9 machine if you didn't know who they were? I doubt it.
But that still doesn't mean this is a trivial issue. And it doesn't really matter that's it's "less bad" than XP. I take that to be a given.
Yup... definitely not a trivial issue. Definitely an issue that Apple ( and, clearly, developers and system designers in general ) would like to ignore... because it's complicated and restricts what you can do. Apple needs to step up and treat privilege escalation as a more serious threat than it seems they have in the past. Hackers need to step up and do the right thing by reporting these problems when they find them. But most importantly, users like you and I need to remember that there is no such thing as giving someone "safe" access to your machine... if you're going to open up SSH or any other avenue that could be used for attack, do it carefully, check out OpenSSH CERT reports, and remember that you're not invulnerable, no matter what operating system you're using. They have not built an unsinkable ship, nor have they built an operating system that you can give someone "some" ability to directly execute arbitrary code on. You might think OS 9 did that, but it didn't- it made it really, really hard to execute arbitrary code from anything but the console, but once you were a user, it was easy to do whatever you wanted. OS X is an improvement on that, really... even *if* you give anyone who wants one a login account and ask them to own your machine. And it's definitely an improvement on WindowsXP, though I do wonder if OpenBSD or something might be more safe.
It really is like locking somone in the garage or basement and daring them to get into the rest of the house. If you actually *want* to be safe, you'll lock them out at the gate outside your house, and not let them in where they can start to attack through the drywall.
What I'd like to see is that same test repeated for Windows, and maybe even Linux and Solaris... and OpenBSD. Now *that* would be interesting.
Guess what? I'm going to wager that all of those systems are prone to some sort of privilege escalation attack. ( actually, I don't have to guess, just check out CERT on this one. )
Are you trying to say WindowsXP or Linux is more secure when it comes to privilege escalation attacks than OS X ? Somehow, I'm tempted to think all of these systems have issues in that area. I'm not saying it's good, and I definitely won't defend Apple's somewhat lax approach in this area ( especially regarding the holes they've put in their security via LaunchServices and SystemStartup ), but uh... you should be fair, I think. It's not like a WindowsXP box, or even a Linux box, would last much longer if you just *gave* everyone user accounts on them, or ran software of questionable origin. That's just not something safe to do, regardless of what system you're on.
Now, if your intention is simply to point out that Apple's systems aren't any more secure than anyone else's in terms of this kind of attack, then you have a good point, one that Apple and their users both need to listen to and act upon.
What new chips? Are they x86 compatible ? 32-bit ? 64-bit ? Do they have a code name ? Are they going to ship some day ? The article is made more pathetic by the fact that one could actually answer all of those questions, but this story contains virtually no real news for nerds whatsoever.
This story is crap, let's face facts. Slashdot should be protecting it's readers from this kind of marketing drivel, not placing it on the front page where we're tempted to waste our time on it. I want those 2 minutes of my life back, please...
why, because they sell a leather case for an MP3 player? Or because they sell a speaker system ( let's face it, the boom box is not so much a boom box as an amplifier and set of speakers ) for that same player ?
Which of Apple's products has nothing to do with technology ? Granted, their products do place an emphasis on style, which in some usages can be a synonym for fashion. Still, they're about fashionable technology. In this case fashion is an adjective to describe the technology product, not a noun that signifies the type of company it is.
Did HP become a fashion company when they made printable iPod skins? Is Dell a fashion company because they sell... OK, what the hell. Dell sells a "Women in Business Liberator Executive Black Fashion Notebook", maybe Dell is now a fashion company. ( Seriously, they sell what now? I expected to find something silly, but that's a PURSE !! )
In all seriousness, I think you just are looking for a way to dislike Apple, or you're trolling, or both.
Honestly, WTF, Dell sells a friggin' women's handbag, and you're dissing Apple as a fashion company, why exactly? Because people actually like Apple's designs and hold them up as good examples ? You prefer your tech products to be clunky, unesthetic, and hard to use, so only l33t ubergeeks can master them ? You're going to penalize Apple for selling iPod accessories with a high markup ? Perhaps you should explain your thinking, unless it embarasses you to do so.
Anyone with half a brain knows that two high-end ( to use a nice term ) products don't mark a 'taking over' of the iPod accessory market. Apple looked at a bunch of can't-fail high-markup accessories, and picked the two that had the highest likely return on investment. End of story.
While I agree that there are serious implications of OS X client software having privilege escalation vunerabilities, and while people may enable SSH, there are a couple of things we ( hopefully ) don't do which were done here, and, IMHO, greatly reduce the meaningful nature of this event.
1) I don't give untrusted individuals SSH accounts. This guy had set up a form that gave an SSH account to anyone who wants one. Are you ( or your IT guy ) going to set up SSH access for "guest/anonymous" ?
2) when I do enable SSH access, I read up on SSH vunerabilities and enable only encrypted-key access, not password access. This is probably a less-well-exercised bit of caution, but not having SSH access for -everyone- and requiring encrypted key authentication for the others will leave you pretty safe 'in the real world'.
What *is* of real concern and what everyone *should* be talking about is the fact ( revealed by this contest ) that there are privilege escalation attacks known to hackers but ( supposedly ) unknown to Apple and ( ouch ) unknown by your IT staff. That's bad news... and I do want this same contest on a machine *without* SSH accounts given to every luser who wants to break into it, that would *definitely* be more interesting from my point of view. I figure if you have an account on a machine, you'll find a way to get the file you want. My goal in setting up remote access to my machine is to not let you have that account unless I want you to have it...
Well, it was sorta helpful and at least interesting, but by your own admission... all guesswork.
The article is what we know and don't know. While it's unlikely, it's entirely *possible* that Sony could ship a lot earlier ( or a lot later ) than we all think. It's equally possible ( although totally unlikely because it'd be suicide ) that the machine will initially be priced higher than we think... or lower, with Sony taking a big hit to get Blu-ray going or shame MS or whatever other justification they might make for initially taking a big hit. The games could look way better, or way worse, than we think, ( or be all over the map due to differing skills of developers )... we don't know until we see the real thing, and so far, we haven't. Online is a fine question mark, and something that could possibly change with time. As for hard drives, it's entirely possible they'd ship as-cheap-as-possible configurations with no hard drive included, which is what I'd actually bet on ( w/ a high markup on drives, and drives bundled with games that really need/use them, and crappy DRM or connectors to keep you from *really* using the drives or using generic drives- it's still Sony ).
but that's all guesswork. The other stuff, like I said, we know. Our guesses might be good, and could even turn out to be right, but we don't know, or Sony hasn't told us, to be more accurate. Actually, I guess they have said it'd ship this "Spring", so maybe we don't know what we think we know, even...
Really, the article is a bit more like "here's the stuff we really don't know the answer to :"
- when will it ship
- what will it cost
- will games actually be able to live up to the great graphics and model/AI processing promised by the Cell processor marketing, or will they look pretty much like XBox360 games ?
- will there be a halfway decent online component ?
- is a hard drive included ? An add-on ? What's the deal ?
All we *really* seem to know is that there's a Cell processor inside, it'll support HD, include a Blu-ray drive, will take some sort of hard drive ( at least as an add-on ), will have built-in networking ( like crazy ), and will have a *ton* of games written for it... seriously, that's a long, long list of games. Oh, and it'll play existing PS2 games, though the article doesn't say that I think it's a well-known given. That and the controller they showed just looks weird.
Where does that leave Sony in developing... an application like iTunes ?
I'll tell you where. It leaves Sony flapping in the wind, with a bunch of BMG-style media company guys yanking the chain of the guy in charge of the Walkman product development, who yanks the chain of some ( I'm guessing ) tiny, underfunded, design-challenged software development unit originally concieved to write PC drivers within the Walkman hardware division.
It leaves Sony right *behind* all of the other companies like Napster, Yahoo, and ( err... there has to be another, right ? Who uses WinAmp, that's AOL, right? ) who are in theory software *specialists*... and yet even these software specialists can't seem to write an application that can even approach more than a tiny fraction of the popularity of iTunes.
It's about the software, really, to a very large extent. Apple nailed the hardware, the software, and the marketing. Sony screwed up all three, and was late to the game to boot.
Note: TFA is really about audio, and nothing else, though the slashdot headline says "Media", it's really just "audio" being discussed here... although the chances of Sony getting any video-delivery software right are about as good as them getting the correct ( i.e. completely minimal, if any ) DRM for any video-delivery software right, i.e. zero, so I guess you could extrapolate this to "media". Really, the story is about Sony not being able to deploy a solid Windows program to compete with iTunes, and how that is a real problem for their hardware sales.
While I understand ( I think ) what you are saying, wouldn't the test for the people who "haven't made up their mind about Wintel vs Mactel yet" be the test of MacBook Pro running OS X 10.4.5 vs Dell Inspiron Core Duo running Windows XP Home ?
Or, if you want to know "is it better than the 2.5GHz Mobil P3 machine I already have?", wouldn't you want a benchmark comparing the candidate replacement ( the MacBook Pro, running OS X 10.4.5 ) with the existing machine running the version of Windows you already have ?
I'll answer : yes, you would. The user you're thinking about needs application-specific tests under the OS they're going to use. The purpose of comparing benchmarks on the P4 running OS X 10.4.4 ? Still unexplained, except for "I wanted exactly the same benchmark under as close to the same OS as possible"... in which case running benchmarks under Linux would probably be a better, more accurate test.
My problem with the article is that someone might think it makes the comparison they care about, when in reality it misses the mark completely. Maybe someone is really, really tied to Word, and any comparison that leaves out the Rosetta-interpreted Word performance doing some basic functions ( creating a PDF or something ? ) might be doing them a real disservice. I mean, I really, really like OS X myself, but if someone doesn't care what OS they use and they want to use Word a lot right now... I might advise them to put off a MacBook purchase until Word ships a Universal Binary... unless Rosetta performance is good enough, which it's supposed to be... but this comparision doesn't show that, and IMHO approaches the question from a rather non-technical "let's compare these systems that I've managed to get XBench to run on" perspective. That comparison does yield real information, but is it the information we should care about? No, not really... I could give you similar results by showing a new Dell Core Duo vs. the Dell P4MT with some windows benchmark, and that test would be more meaningful just because you'd be using the OS you're actually going to use. We have no idea what the benchmark difference 10.4.4 vs. 10.4.5 on the same hardware might be, even.
So, for the gamer? Show WoW framerates on the MacBook, the older Dell laptop, and a new Dell Core Duo laptop. With the machines running the OS they'd be using on those machines.
For the office user, show some sort of Word benchmark on all three, noting that the OS X Word time includes Rosetta emulation and will be faster in some newer version of Word some day soon. Again, with the OS the user will use.
For the Linux geek, install Linux on all three machines ( detailing any differences required to get it to run ), and give compile time results for some favorite distros, along with some standard set of memory, disk and CPU benchmarks. If you're trying to test pure hardware muscle, and thus want to normalize and eliminate software differences as much as possible, this is the right way to do your benchmark, so this is the test for the EE or systems engineer, too.
So, those are the tests that those three types of people are going to really want... so, who really wants the hacked OS X on P4HT benchmark? The guy who wants to run that hacked system on his P4, and really... nobody else... I mean, it would be interesting see if either Windows or OS X is a winner at some sort of standard cross-platformizable test ( Ope
More importantly, I have to say I always prefer the most practical benchmarks I can get my hands on. In that regard, why not do some application tests... one set under Linux ( to 'level the playing field' ), one set under OS X on the Mac and Windows XP on the Dell ?
Also importantly... what is really being tested here ? Core Duo vs P4HT ? Is Apple even an important part of this story ? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a P4HT Inspiron against a Core Duo Inspiron ? That comparison should highlight battery life... ;-)
I was really pretty shocked when I realized the Inspiron had a P4... I was really expecting this to be a "compare the performance of this Core Duo laptop to the performance of this other Core Duo laptop... the numbers *should* be very similar, perhaps there's something to be learned by any differences". Instead... MacBook Pro Core Duo vs Dell Inspiron P4 ? It's just a weird thing to compare, especially if you're not looking at the power drain of the P4 and asking WTF it's doing in a laptop...
Other than driving page views from sites like slashdot, what is the purpose of the comparison done in this article ? Is anyone going to really buy a Dell P4HT laptop and run a hacked OS X on it because the Dell was 2 seconds faster encoding an MPG for iPod in one test, or buy a MacBook Pro ( rather than a P4HT Dell ) because the P4HT was beaten badly in overall XBench testing ? I sure hope not!
Anyway, it *is* an interesting comparison, but it still bugs me that there's no real reason for it, and the more I think about it, the less interesting it seems. The PowerBook G4 vs MacBook Pro comparison speaks volumes though... clearly Apple went to Intel because, at least in high-performance laptops, they had no other real choice.
See, you're already way more early-adopter than I am. I nearly bought a $900 CRT HD display when my last set died, but some relatives gave us a TV as a gift, and I decided to not mind one bit the fact that it's not HD... not having an HD TV will probably save me a bit of money over the next 3 years, I'm pretty sure... and if HD sets aren't down to $400 or so by then, we ( or rather, the makers of HD home electronics equipment ) have a serious problem...
You managed to not ( yet ) get screwed over by DVI/HDMI ? Lucky... most HDTV owners I know are still fuming over that one, sitting there with DVI connectors they're pretty sure are likely to not be very useful...
Dude, you're talking to the king of won't-buy-a-PS2-until-the-price-drops. I would have waited longer 'cept my dear wife thought it'd make a good xmas gift. After that ( and a previous disaster in which she bought a $300 DVD player ), I've finally taught her that just because I'm completely obsessed with technology, it doesn't follow that I want to blow all of my money on it...
As for the PS3, there's absolutely no reason for me to buy one, not for years. I'm never playing a game and thinking "these graphics should be just a little bit better, my 32" standard definition TV shows just how jaggy those lines are!". No, I think "man, there are like 80 games I've picked out that I'd like to play sometime, but I don't even have time to play the 20 I own already... and all the games I want are $20 a pop! I'm going to be playing these things for years!".
Seriously, Sony's PS2 business is likely to be supporting the PS3 business as well as most of Sony for a few more years than it already has...
For us, these HD discs aren't going to do us much good until someone gets HD display prices under control. As much as I watch TV, I'm not about to drop a thousand bucks on one.
To be clear, these aren't being made for us. They're being made for the folks who bought LaserDisc players. Folks who buy BMWs. People with money looking for a place to spend it.
Yup. "Return of the King" sure sucked. It'd really, really suck in HD on a 42" widescreen in my living room. uh-huh...
On the other hand ( um, yea, that was sarcasm up there ), I'll be waiting this out with you. I don't have enough money to waste on this crap. There is a PS3 in my future, but it's not this year, even if Sony does get it out before summer. Right now, this stuff is strictly for people looking for something to do with their extra stacks of money.