The economic definition of a recession is: two consecutive quarters of declining output.
How, pray tell, is a recession supposed to post superior "growth"? Ah that's right--people have come to continue to call our "jobless recovery" a recession, by dint of that fact alone!
That's all right however; we understand that Friedman is your handmaiden.
Originally, it only ran on BeOS. After Palm pulled the rug out from under them, the Final Scratch people had to scramble to port the whole damn thing to another OS.
Valid concerns, certainly. But my recollection was that Adobe flat-out refused to license DPS for anything like a reasonable rate to Apple.
Think of how much sooner OS X would've been out the door if Apple could've avoided the need to build Quartz. Certainly Quartz's performance has shown the hallmarks of being "new development", considering the egregious hack that Quartz Extreme is...
I think what the original poster's problem was is that the spatial Finder view is not the default and thus your average Macoid will not realize he can change it a view similar to OS 9. However...
I personally feel a few really innovative things were dropped from the OS X Finder or munged which were accessions to OS 9 users. I too, didn't understand why "we have to start with the Home Folder"; why "disks don't appear on the desktop"; and why "I can't tell which dock icons are running" and "why isn't there an Apps menu", when I first saw OS X in its Beta phase. But since then I've come to understand method to the madness: with a proper VM, who cares which programs are in memory; with the size of a modern hard-drive, we need to move AWAY from the "Physical Media=Access Point/Hierarchy" mode of file navigation. Specifically, file access needs to be abstracted away from the "physical location of files".
Your avg. user doesn't care where on a HD a file is, as long as he can get at it. That our file-systems STILL insist we navigate directory->file hierarchically is a massive failure in UI design, IMHO. In an era of 120GB+ HDs, what do we care? Filesystems are themselves an abstraction of the physical contents of the drive anyway; it's not like X.gif really LIES at Documents/Pictures/Vacation; it's a mnemonic, but the metaphor was invented for a period when your avg. file-storage device was 360K!!!
Personally, my view of the future of storage device navigation is multiple levels of discrete itemization; e.g. something similar to the "Home" folder philosophy in OS X right now, but one that automatically categorizes files correctly, without the need to physically manipulate those files into postions on the FS. Of course this is the roughest of sketches and many details would need to be worked out, but this is a move above the "spatial Finder" which, although at one point a useful metaphor, has its problem as being anchored to the FS concept.
For your flame to have been remotely on base the original poster would have had to compared his new PowerBook to his 386/16 laptop. The kind of laptop you're comparing his statement to, for Apple, would've been top-of-the-line... oh, around the time that Linus was first looking for help with this new kernel he had produced on his own time at Uni.
DPS was not removed because Apple desired to do so (if anything it complicated the eventual OS X roll-out extremely by necessitating the creation of Quartz)... basically, Adobe was happy to license PS for the use of a small-market product like NeXT, but for Apple, the thought of all that lost PS printer revenue was too much for poor Adobe to bear. So, they yanked the license, and Apple was pushed into its post-DPS model of the PDF-based Quartz.
Incidentally, this should help people who see Apple as always being the heavy in these sorts of affairs in a new light...
Hm... good point there. It'd been so long I'd forgotten!
Apple's response at the time, of course was the System 7.5 release, which was also the first time they charged $99 for an OS release. For a release which was essentially 7.1 plus shareware plus unwanted extras (QuickDraw GX anyone?).
As an aside, Apple never charged for their system software until 7.1 came out, and that was only $35. Previous to that, each update was free.
I dunno, maybe it's because I've lived most of my life in the Big Metropolis, but the only persons I've known to virulently hate them have been... Red Sox fans.
Even the cross-town rivalry with the Mets pales in those terms; e.g. most Mets fans don't actually hate the Yankees.
So my question to you is: why do you support the Yankees? If you're from St. Louis, you should be a Cards fan, I would presume. But really you're kind of just proving my point: exactly how many teams in baseball have people whom have never lived near them, never gone to a game in their stadium, yet support them?
Answer: just one. (And no Dominicans who support the Red Sox or the Cubs don't count!;)
Moan, gripe, complain...
Look. How do you think Apple was able to provide all of this music in the first place? Easy--if it plays ball.
The DRM is not there because of Apple, but because of the recording companies.
Any fool can get around it (if they so choose) by burning songs to CD, then ripping freely. And if Joe Six-Pack can't do that, well, that is precisely what DRM was meant to do--keep it from being simple.
Oh and FYI--home-taping was seen as a Bad Thing, once upon a time, as well. IIRC all tapes have a "pirate tax" on them, thanks to the recording industry. IOW, it is not legal to make any copy of your music. That it is done, and accepted, commonly says a lot about those efforts to squelch it from days of yore...
I'll bet somebody decided they could "be a designer", "cos it's easy".
Why couldn't they have just done it in the style of the main homepage--at least it's sleek. This page makes Firebird look like Spyware advertised via Spam.
AGP, PCI-X, USB, etc., are all Intel-platform standards.
Many moons ago Apple had a fully proprietary architecture. Today the only thing which really sets them apart from an x86 box are the processor and the OS. And yes I do realise this is a simplification. However, it is wise to keep in mind that once upon a time, PCs had ISA and PS/2 whereas Macs had NuBus and ADB.
Apple has done a brilliant job of adopting "commodity" (e.g. Intel) innovations while maintaining a distinct hardware and OS identity, by cherry-picking the good while not having to contend with the legacy problems of the Intel architecture...
Hindsight: ALWAYS 20/20.
Sure, Apple could have allowed Macintosh clones. However you have to keep in mind that IBM never intended their architecture to be open. It was Compaq who cracked-open the clone debate, thanks to IBM having a 3rd-Party OS, and losing a case against reverse-engineering their BIOS.
Keep in mind that that Apple II clone marker went kaput as soon as Apple litigated it away. No manufacturer had ever intended to create an open architecture. Accidents of fate created that open architecture.
Just out of curiosity (i.e. this is not a flame), what are these requirements that force you into such an arcane corner of the computing world that even most Linux distros fail to measure up?
Apple doesn't support OS X 10.0 on new G5s because that doesn't make any sense--of what possible benefit is that to a user? Moreover, this has always been the case with Macintosh hardware--they support the current system+, never earlier versions.
Furthermore, why would you want to run Windows 98 on a current Dell box?
Your argument is a bit of a straw-man.
And although I shouldn't bother replying, I can't help myself; when are you going to realise that possibly--just possibly--Macintosh users hace a reason for preferring their environment?
You MAC zealots are the biggest morons. Back in the MacOS 9 days you thought MacOS was better than Windows. NT based windows sytems have been reliable for nearly a decade,
BFD, and not 100% accurate. The comparison was as a general use OS; NT wasn't prime-time until NT 4 SP3, and that's c. 1998. Many businesses were still using 3.1 up to that poin, if not 95/98. Until 95, NT was moot for anything but limited purposes (pre-Win32).
whereas MAcOS X has only been out for a a few years, and anything before that was shit.
Except that OS X is the direct descendant of NeXTSTEP, and has been around since before NT. Not to mention, being as the underpinnings are BSD/Mach, you can add a few more years to OS X's "age".
I have no problems with windows, solaris, or linux systems. They all work great.
Troll.
You mac clowns can push your single vendor hardware all you want, but the majority of people realize it's a rip-off.
Yes, Apple profits heavily off of its monopoly; however, the loyalty of most of their customer base has been earned, not stolen.
Wow, talk about grasping at logical straws...
"Don't buy a Mac--you'll not use the tower space!"
Seems to me one could get creative with that space. Isn't that what Mac users are reknowned for, anyway--creativity?:)
Yeah, was a chicken/egg issue--they need Jaguar and I have 10.1.5, and I was hoping to "borrow" Jaguar until Panther's release!
So, I'll not know until I've plonked down on Panther...;)
Slashdot Mirror
The economic definition of a recession is: two consecutive quarters of declining output.
How, pray tell, is a recession supposed to post superior "growth"? Ah that's right--people have come to continue to call our "jobless recovery" a recession, by dint of that fact alone!
That's all right however; we understand that Friedman is your handmaiden.
originally it ONLY ran on linux
Originally, it only ran on BeOS. After Palm pulled the rug out from under them, the Final Scratch people had to scramble to port the whole damn thing to another OS.
Enter: Linux.
Valid concerns, certainly. But my recollection was that Adobe flat-out refused to license DPS for anything like a reasonable rate to Apple.
Think of how much sooner OS X would've been out the door if Apple could've avoided the need to build Quartz. Certainly Quartz's performance has shown the hallmarks of being "new development", considering the egregious hack that Quartz Extreme is...
I think what the original poster's problem was is that the spatial Finder view is not the default and thus your average Macoid will not realize he can change it a view similar to OS 9. However...
I personally feel a few really innovative things were dropped from the OS X Finder or munged which were accessions to OS 9 users. I too, didn't understand why "we have to start with the Home Folder"; why "disks don't appear on the desktop"; and why "I can't tell which dock icons are running" and "why isn't there an Apps menu", when I first saw OS X in its Beta phase. But since then I've come to understand method to the madness: with a proper VM, who cares which programs are in memory; with the size of a modern hard-drive, we need to move AWAY from the "Physical Media=Access Point/Hierarchy" mode of file navigation. Specifically, file access needs to be abstracted away from the "physical location of files".
Your avg. user doesn't care where on a HD a file is, as long as he can get at it. That our file-systems STILL insist we navigate directory->file hierarchically is a massive failure in UI design, IMHO. In an era of 120GB+ HDs, what do we care? Filesystems are themselves an abstraction of the physical contents of the drive anyway; it's not like X.gif really LIES at Documents/Pictures/Vacation; it's a mnemonic, but the metaphor was invented for a period when your avg. file-storage device was 360K!!!
Personally, my view of the future of storage device navigation is multiple levels of discrete itemization; e.g. something similar to the "Home" folder philosophy in OS X right now, but one that automatically categorizes files correctly, without the need to physically manipulate those files into postions on the FS. Of course this is the roughest of sketches and many details would need to be worked out, but this is a move above the "spatial Finder" which, although at one point a useful metaphor, has its problem as being anchored to the FS concept.
Oh c'mon, Troll on, friend...
For your flame to have been remotely on base the original poster would have had to compared his new PowerBook to his 386/16 laptop. The kind of laptop you're comparing his statement to, for Apple, would've been top-of-the-line... oh, around the time that Linus was first looking for help with this new kernel he had produced on his own time at Uni.
This is a really old story.
DPS was not removed because Apple desired to do so (if anything it complicated the eventual OS X roll-out extremely by necessitating the creation of Quartz)... basically, Adobe was happy to license PS for the use of a small-market product like NeXT, but for Apple, the thought of all that lost PS printer revenue was too much for poor Adobe to bear. So, they yanked the license, and Apple was pushed into its post-DPS model of the PDF-based Quartz.
Incidentally, this should help people who see Apple as always being the heavy in these sorts of affairs in a new light...
Hm... good point there. It'd been so long I'd forgotten!
Apple's response at the time, of course was the System 7.5 release, which was also the first time they charged $99 for an OS release. For a release which was essentially 7.1 plus shareware plus unwanted extras (QuickDraw GX anyone?).
As an aside, Apple never charged for their system software until 7.1 came out, and that was only $35. Previous to that, each update was free.
Leave alone the fact that it came across as very much a "rough draft" but I am cetain I know what inspired this piece:
That hideous Firebird 0.7 site!
Really, "MozFound", what were you thinking?!?
I dunno, maybe it's because I've lived most of my life in the Big Metropolis, but the only persons I've known to virulently hate them have been... Red Sox fans.
;)
Even the cross-town rivalry with the Mets pales in those terms; e.g. most Mets fans don't actually hate the Yankees.
So my question to you is: why do you support the Yankees? If you're from St. Louis, you should be a Cards fan, I would presume. But really you're kind of just proving my point: exactly how many teams in baseball have people whom have never lived near them, never gone to a game in their stadium, yet support them?
Answer: just one. (And no Dominicans who support the Red Sox or the Cubs don't count!
Moan, gripe, complain... Look. How do you think Apple was able to provide all of this music in the first place? Easy--if it plays ball. The DRM is not there because of Apple, but because of the recording companies. Any fool can get around it (if they so choose) by burning songs to CD, then ripping freely. And if Joe Six-Pack can't do that, well, that is precisely what DRM was meant to do--keep it from being simple. Oh and FYI--home-taping was seen as a Bad Thing, once upon a time, as well. IIRC all tapes have a "pirate tax" on them, thanks to the recording industry. IOW, it is not legal to make any copy of your music. That it is done, and accepted, commonly says a lot about those efforts to squelch it from days of yore...
Oooh. Only about a 50% success rate since the 1994 players' strike.
I think that's the kind of failure rate a lot of teams could live with.
The few? Do you have any idea how stupid that statement sounds?
What, are the Yankees some ill-supported franchise that has had a star-crossed history? C'mon Man, I've met native Texans who were Yankees fans.
If you had said that you were a Mets fan that statement would only begin to make a slight bit of sense.
MMM, yes....
...I had the same response.
I'll bet somebody decided they could "be a designer", "cos it's easy".
Why couldn't they have just done it in the style of the main homepage--at least it's sleek. This page makes Firebird look like Spyware advertised via Spam.
Erm... but this is what they have done.
AGP, PCI-X, USB, etc., are all Intel-platform standards. Many moons ago Apple had a fully proprietary architecture. Today the only thing which really sets them apart from an x86 box are the processor and the OS. And yes I do realise this is a simplification. However, it is wise to keep in mind that once upon a time, PCs had ISA and PS/2 whereas Macs had NuBus and ADB.
Apple has done a brilliant job of adopting "commodity" (e.g. Intel) innovations while maintaining a distinct hardware and OS identity, by cherry-picking the good while not having to contend with the legacy problems of the Intel architecture...
I call bulls***.
Hindsight: ALWAYS 20/20. Sure, Apple could have allowed Macintosh clones. However you have to keep in mind that IBM never intended their architecture to be open. It was Compaq who cracked-open the clone debate, thanks to IBM having a 3rd-Party OS, and losing a case against reverse-engineering their BIOS. Keep in mind that that Apple II clone marker went kaput as soon as Apple litigated it away. No manufacturer had ever intended to create an open architecture. Accidents of fate created that open architecture.
Just out of curiosity (i.e. this is not a flame), what are these requirements that force you into such an arcane corner of the computing world that even most Linux distros fail to measure up?
It actually was shipped.
Hm. Sounds like OpenStep. I wonder what ever became of that... ?
Apple doesn't support OS X 10.0 on new G5s because that doesn't make any sense--of what possible benefit is that to a user? Moreover, this has always been the case with Macintosh hardware--they support the current system+, never earlier versions. Furthermore, why would you want to run Windows 98 on a current Dell box? Your argument is a bit of a straw-man.
It's "Porsche".
And although I shouldn't bother replying, I can't help myself; when are you going to realise that possibly--just possibly--Macintosh users hace a reason for preferring their environment?
You MAC zealots are the biggest morons. Back in the MacOS 9 days you thought MacOS was better than Windows. NT based windows sytems have been reliable for nearly a decade, BFD, and not 100% accurate. The comparison was as a general use OS; NT wasn't prime-time until NT 4 SP3, and that's c. 1998. Many businesses were still using 3.1 up to that poin, if not 95/98. Until 95, NT was moot for anything but limited purposes (pre-Win32). whereas MAcOS X has only been out for a a few years, and anything before that was shit. Except that OS X is the direct descendant of NeXTSTEP, and has been around since before NT. Not to mention, being as the underpinnings are BSD/Mach, you can add a few more years to OS X's "age". I have no problems with windows, solaris, or linux systems. They all work great. Troll. You mac clowns can push your single vendor hardware all you want, but the majority of people realize it's a rip-off. Yes, Apple profits heavily off of its monopoly; however, the loyalty of most of their customer base has been earned, not stolen.
Wow, talk about grasping at logical straws... "Don't buy a Mac--you'll not use the tower space!" Seems to me one could get creative with that space. Isn't that what Mac users are reknowned for, anyway--creativity? :)
It's "Mac", not "MAC"! Mac is not an acronym, it's a contraction!
Yeah, was a chicken/egg issue--they need Jaguar and I have 10.1.5, and I was hoping to "borrow" Jaguar until Panther's release! So, I'll not know until I've plonked down on Panther... ;)