The funny thing here is that Apple is going to get OS X 10.5 out the door soon after Vista is out. So if Vista will be a "warmed-up version of OS X Tiger," Apple certainly isn't going to let Leopard be the same. This is a great opportunity for MS mockage by Apple marketing.
Actually, there are 3 different kinds of Mac executables.
1. The "package" format you just mentioned, which is a folder structure with a UNIX binary in it, which is what most OS X binaries are
2. A UNIX binary, no package, which a lot of OSS uses
3. A Carbon app, which will also run in OS 9, which no one uses anymore
You can change a plain ol' UNIX binary into a package by creating a certain folder structure and renaming the main folder thingy.
Looks like the trolls have bitten even at the first post.
Aaaaanyways, what I was actually going to say was that it shouldn't really matter that much, speedwise, whether or not there is an OSX86-native binary of Firefox or not, what with all of the good speed tests I've read. Either way, that's a pretty darn good schedule for *any* piece of software - completely up to date with totally new hardware within 2 or so months.
Think about it. One of the reasons Windows can be so annoying is that there are a bazillion different configurations. Apple can keep OS X running smoothly because they know exactly what's inside their machines. Once it gets put on a Dell, some idiot's going to complain about how buggy OS X is because it doesn't run on his own personal cobbled-together POS.
Think again! Much of what you think is "spam" is actually legitimate. Contrary to popular belief, Nigeria really *is* filled with millionaires. Of all of these, the most prominent seems to be Esenam Ayele.
Why are you all so prejudiced against these great offers? I myself have bought many of these products *nudge nudge* and, although I haven't seen any results yet, I have great faith.
You have to ask why? Well, why do people dual-boot Windows and Linux? Simple - productivity and entertainment. OS X may be more pleasant to use (I won't start a flame war), but there are hundreds of useful Windows-only programs and no, that doesn't include games. You argue that you don't need Windows for games because you have an XBox 360, but I argue that the XBox not only costs hundreds of dollars extra, but also doesn't support super-spiffy games such as Half Life 2.
Oh, and I'd put Linux on there too, because there might be something I need to run some time, and after all, why not?
I think that most innovations will come in video and handheld form. Things will get more consolidated very quickly, and the handheld will become even more central than it is now. I hope to see something like an iPod Video that can store movies at screen sizes creater than 320x240 just so they can be hooked up to TVs and played back anywhere.
Also, the outcome of Apple Intel machines should be interesting - one place for OS X, Windows, and Linux to all run at the same time.
Magazines have content. They sell ad space to support themselves. When I buy the magazine, I cannot have ads physically removed automatically, so I have to live with the mix of content and advertisement. Fortunately, most ads in magazines aren't overly disracting, and can be dismissed with a simple page turn.
Television also has this same mix of content. However, people tend to fast-forward through commercials on prerecorded shows. We only want to see the meat of it. Commercials are distracting, and when viewed live, cannot be skipped. This causes many people to simply not watch TV, and only watch movies.
I block *all* ads with Adblock and filterset.g because I can. It takes very little effort for me to have all the distractions removed automatically with little to no performance hit and lets me get right to the meat of the content. In fact, this saves processor time and often bandwidth (not sure if Adblock downloads images first or not).
At this point, I'm wondering why someone even bothered to ask this question. The answer seems to me to be obvious.
Something like this won't truly get recognized until it "does it all." A phone-plus-MP3 player is just that, as the article says. It's not a revolution. It's about as much of a revolution as a PDA-plus-MP3 player is.
I don't think that a product will get recognized unless it does everything the user wants. It's gotta be a PDA-plus-phone-plus-MP3 player. Make it as cool-looking as the iPod, and then *everyone* will want it. Maybe throw in movies just for effect.
And now for a collection of movie references:
---
Laugh while you can, OS X-bashing monkey boys!
---
Where are they going?
THE DARPA GRAND CHALLENGE!
When?
REAL SOON!!!
---
Which member is Pecos? Or is Pecos still in Tibet?
---
Maybe it'll get to its destination by traveling *through* the obstacles!
---
I'm sure that at at least one point in the building process, someone said "No no no, don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to!"
---
Does the computer driving the car wear a ninja headband?
I was referring more to the fact that you'd be enabling "unauthorized" computers to run the OS...doing it on a large scale would certainly cause a few sales not to happen, though I guess the rate is really miniscule.
Apologies, looks like I forgot to stick in those darn page breaks. Shoulda used Preview...*slaps self*
Here is line-broken version:
Prevent Linux from being installed on the Xbox, in the same fashion as Apple tried to prevent Linux from being installed on the iPod? All encryption can be cracked.
However, this is a bit different. You're not preventing an OS from being installed on a box, but keeping an OS on a certain box. They're not stopping you from installing other OSes, but they *are* stopping you from installing OS X on another box. This can be easily accomplished with another chip on the motherboard that the OS looks for. Getting past this is much easier than preventing Windows or Linux from installing because if the OS looks for hardware, you have to get your hands on the hardware to install the OS.
Of course, you could always take apart old broken Mactels, take out the chips, and sell them for $50 each - "OS X on a Dell Package." Naturally, you'd be sued within the hour, but still...
As for the IE thing, I think it's great that the so-called "little guy" is forcing the so-called "big guy" to play catch-up. However, I wouldn't necessarily call IE the "big guy" - I'd be willing to bet money that more people and collective time is being spent on the development of Firefox and other assorted browsers than is being spent on IE.
Oh, and the text "sticker shock" reminded me of my single greatest fear about the Apple-Intel merger: *PLEASE* no "Intel Inside" stickers! THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!!!
Prevent Linux from being installed on the Xbox, in the same fashion as Apple tried to prevent Linux from being installed on the iPod? All encryption can be cracked.
However, this is a bit different. You're not preventing an OS from being installed on a box, but keeping an OS on a certain box. They're not stopping you from installing other OSes, but they *are* stopping you from installing OS X on another box. This can be easily accomplished with another chip on the motherboard that the OS looks for. Getting past this is much easier than preventing Windows or Linux from installing because if the OS looks for hardware, you have to get your hands on the hardware to install the OS.
Of course, you could always take apart old broken Mactels, take out the chips, and sell them for $50 each - "OS X on a Dell Package." Naturally, you'd be sued within the hour, but still...
As for the IE thing, I think it's great that the so-called "little guy" is forcing the so-called "big guy" to play catch-up. However, I wouldn't necessarily call IE the "big guy" - I'd be willing to bet money that more people and collective time is being spent on the development of Firefox and other assorted browsers than is being spent on IE.
Oh, and the text "sticker shock" reminded me of my single greatest fear about the Apple-Intel merger: *PLEASE* no "Intel Inside" stickers! THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Is the industry so corrupted that no one can start an honest label/company?
Yeah, today my Firefox crashed because I pressed the number 7 on my keypad.
I'm not kidding.
...obvious bells and whistles like Spotlight and Dashboard...
*ahem*:
Spotlight = Vista file system
Dashboard = Vista sidebar
The funny thing here is that Apple is going to get OS X 10.5 out the door soon after Vista is out. So if Vista will be a "warmed-up version of OS X Tiger," Apple certainly isn't going to let Leopard be the same. This is a great opportunity for MS mockage by Apple marketing.
Actually, there are 3 different kinds of Mac executables.
1. The "package" format you just mentioned, which is a folder structure with a UNIX binary in it, which is what most OS X binaries are 2. A UNIX binary, no package, which a lot of OSS uses 3. A Carbon app, which will also run in OS 9, which no one uses anymore
You can change a plain ol' UNIX binary into a package by creating a certain folder structure and renaming the main folder thingy.
Actually, if you try to open any app for the first time, it asks you first.
Sorry to drag a Fark habit into this, but...
daveschroeder wins the thread.
The latest version of Firefox is 1.5something.
I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords.
If I were you, I'd put up a counter and see what browsers are visiting the site, dropping support for browsers that never visit.
The same principle goes for the rest of everything. Have a peek at the statistics, and if no one uses it, then don't support it. It's that simple.
Alternately, don't support it if it's just too hard/impractical to support it. If a minor change would do, then it wouldn't hurt.
I hadn't thought of that, and it's a very valid point. May your karma be boosted.
Right, but things like this can never go perfectly. There's always *something*.
Looks like the trolls have bitten even at the first post.
Aaaaanyways, what I was actually going to say was that it shouldn't really matter that much, speedwise, whether or not there is an OSX86-native binary of Firefox or not, what with all of the good speed tests I've read. Either way, that's a pretty darn good schedule for *any* piece of software - completely up to date with totally new hardware within 2 or so months.
Congrats to the Firefox team!
Seeing as how I'm on a Mac myself, no, I have not.
Think about it. One of the reasons Windows can be so annoying is that there are a bazillion different configurations. Apple can keep OS X running smoothly because they know exactly what's inside their machines. Once it gets put on a Dell, some idiot's going to complain about how buggy OS X is because it doesn't run on his own personal cobbled-together POS.
Think again! Much of what you think is "spam" is actually legitimate. Contrary to popular belief, Nigeria really *is* filled with millionaires. Of all of these, the most prominent seems to be Esenam Ayele.
Why are you all so prejudiced against these great offers? I myself have bought many of these products *nudge nudge* and, although I haven't seen any results yet, I have great faith.
You have to ask why? Well, why do people dual-boot Windows and Linux? Simple - productivity and entertainment. OS X may be more pleasant to use (I won't start a flame war), but there are hundreds of useful Windows-only programs and no, that doesn't include games. You argue that you don't need Windows for games because you have an XBox 360, but I argue that the XBox not only costs hundreds of dollars extra, but also doesn't support super-spiffy games such as Half Life 2.
Oh, and I'd put Linux on there too, because there might be something I need to run some time, and after all, why not?
I think that most innovations will come in video and handheld form. Things will get more consolidated very quickly, and the handheld will become even more central than it is now. I hope to see something like an iPod Video that can store movies at screen sizes creater than 320x240 just so they can be hooked up to TVs and played back anywhere. Also, the outcome of Apple Intel machines should be interesting - one place for OS X, Windows, and Linux to all run at the same time.
If you're on OS X, you can use Adium (adiumx.org). It's pretty, functional, AND free! Based on GAIM.
I block ads because I can.
Magazines have content. They sell ad space to support themselves. When I buy the magazine, I cannot have ads physically removed automatically, so I have to live with the mix of content and advertisement. Fortunately, most ads in magazines aren't overly disracting, and can be dismissed with a simple page turn.
Television also has this same mix of content. However, people tend to fast-forward through commercials on prerecorded shows. We only want to see the meat of it. Commercials are distracting, and when viewed live, cannot be skipped. This causes many people to simply not watch TV, and only watch movies.
I block *all* ads with Adblock and filterset.g because I can. It takes very little effort for me to have all the distractions removed automatically with little to no performance hit and lets me get right to the meat of the content. In fact, this saves processor time and often bandwidth (not sure if Adblock downloads images first or not).
At this point, I'm wondering why someone even bothered to ask this question. The answer seems to me to be obvious.
Something like this won't truly get recognized until it "does it all." A phone-plus-MP3 player is just that, as the article says. It's not a revolution. It's about as much of a revolution as a PDA-plus-MP3 player is.
I don't think that a product will get recognized unless it does everything the user wants. It's gotta be a PDA-plus-phone-plus-MP3 player. Make it as cool-looking as the iPod, and then *everyone* will want it. Maybe throw in movies just for effect.
And now for a collection of movie references:
---
Laugh while you can, OS X-bashing monkey boys!
---
Where are they going?
THE DARPA GRAND CHALLENGE!
When?
REAL SOON!!!
---
Which member is Pecos? Or is Pecos still in Tibet?
---
Maybe it'll get to its destination by traveling *through* the obstacles!
---
I'm sure that at at least one point in the building process, someone said "No no no, don't tug on that, you never know what it might be attached to!"
---
Does the computer driving the car wear a ninja headband?
Sorry if those were all horrible...I tried.
I was referring more to the fact that you'd be enabling "unauthorized" computers to run the OS...doing it on a large scale would certainly cause a few sales not to happen, though I guess the rate is really miniscule.
It was just a thought, anyways.
Apologies, looks like I forgot to stick in those darn page breaks. Shoulda used Preview...*slaps self*
Here is line-broken version:
Prevent Linux from being installed on the Xbox, in the same fashion as Apple tried to prevent Linux from being installed on the iPod? All encryption can be cracked.
However, this is a bit different. You're not preventing an OS from being installed on a box, but keeping an OS on a certain box. They're not stopping you from installing other OSes, but they *are* stopping you from installing OS X on another box. This can be easily accomplished with another chip on the motherboard that the OS looks for. Getting past this is much easier than preventing Windows or Linux from installing because if the OS looks for hardware, you have to get your hands on the hardware to install the OS.
Of course, you could always take apart old broken Mactels, take out the chips, and sell them for $50 each - "OS X on a Dell Package." Naturally, you'd be sued within the hour, but still...
As for the IE thing, I think it's great that the so-called "little guy" is forcing the so-called "big guy" to play catch-up. However, I wouldn't necessarily call IE the "big guy" - I'd be willing to bet money that more people and collective time is being spent on the development of Firefox and other assorted browsers than is being spent on IE.
Oh, and the text "sticker shock" reminded me of my single greatest fear about the Apple-Intel merger: *PLEASE* no "Intel Inside" stickers! THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!!!
Prevent Linux from being installed on the Xbox, in the same fashion as Apple tried to prevent Linux from being installed on the iPod? All encryption can be cracked. However, this is a bit different. You're not preventing an OS from being installed on a box, but keeping an OS on a certain box. They're not stopping you from installing other OSes, but they *are* stopping you from installing OS X on another box. This can be easily accomplished with another chip on the motherboard that the OS looks for. Getting past this is much easier than preventing Windows or Linux from installing because if the OS looks for hardware, you have to get your hands on the hardware to install the OS. Of course, you could always take apart old broken Mactels, take out the chips, and sell them for $50 each - "OS X on a Dell Package." Naturally, you'd be sued within the hour, but still... As for the IE thing, I think it's great that the so-called "little guy" is forcing the so-called "big guy" to play catch-up. However, I wouldn't necessarily call IE the "big guy" - I'd be willing to bet money that more people and collective time is being spent on the development of Firefox and other assorted browsers than is being spent on IE. Oh, and the text "sticker shock" reminded me of my single greatest fear about the Apple-Intel merger: *PLEASE* no "Intel Inside" stickers! THE APOCALYPSE IS NIGH!!!