Up to 5 times faster for many operations, but substatially slower for legacy software & software that relies on altivec.
Well, Apple does say UP TO 5 TIMES FASTER, so they are aren't lying. I would never expect them to say anything negative about their product in any of their marketing material, that's just retarded.
That's like going to a job interview and focusing on all your faults, rather than what you have to offer the company. We all have faults, it doesn't mean we should tout them.
Apple has always been a forward thinker. Legacy support has always come at some performance price. If you want to get angry, get angry at the likes of Adobe, which apparently bet on Apple's Intel switch starting later, rather than sooner. They got caught with their pants down (an Intel Mac version is still OVER A YEAR AWAY).
Either artists are getting virtually nothing for their CD sales (as we've been told on numerous occassions) and make most of their money from concerts -- OR they do get a cut and have been lying to us.
Because I don't trust RIAA as far as I can throw their fat asses, I'm going to believe that the artists are getting screwed on record sales. It is sad, however, that some artists are then taking to screwing their fans as a result. We're not talking about a little more, but a lot more money to see someone sing and perhaps dance.
I actually don't mind paying a little extra for a *significantly* better experience.
The artist is either greedy or desperate. Either way, it does not make them look good.
Each day, as I read more and more about how content providers are trying to control our view habits, I am reminded of the old Max Headroom show where Corporations ruled and Ratings were more important than anything else.
We better prepare to get off the grid!
Blanks Unite!
But how will we know when and where to unite if we're not connected?
Most of the new HDTVs are actually just monitors anyway. They require some sort of external tuner device, or they charge significantly more for a built-in tuner.
So, technically, they've already instituted "pay extra for ability to change channels."
Patents + Software = eternal monopoly
on
Paul Graham on Patents
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are many sides of this issue to take, but I'm going to only focus on one that I think most people don't talk much about.
Software Patents extend for an exorbitant amount of time relative to the industry. 17 years amounts to around 11 generations (assuming 18 month cycles) of software. That's an eternity in the software industry.
It would be the equivalent of saying that a regular patent could exist for 50-75 years. Imagine having a 50-75 year monopoly license on a drug or a way more effeciently generate electricity. Yet, we treat software patents just like that.
There are plenty of existing cases that show this. Look at the generic multimedia patents that still affect software today. The reason most of these patents sound nonsensical when we see them is because we're about 2-3 generations past when they were relevant.
Ultimately, software patents don't spur innovation. Today, they actually stifle innovation. It is getting more and more difficult for the small companies to simply write cool new software. More lawyers are involved today and it slows down the process.
And these software trolls that exist and don't contribute anything to society make a bad situation much worse.
I look at the level of support that I have to provide for my family members using Windows. Installing a network printer, resetting the network connection, etc. They default to using Internet Explorer (although I have tried to push them to Firefox). Even burning backups is a major undertaking for them. They defrag their NTFS drive regularly to "fix things". These folks are not ready to deal with all the variations and options under Linux. They don't want to pick the GUI or deal with apps that run under different GUIs.
Apple markets to the same people Linux companies market to: desktop users, home users, business users, students, scientists.
I'm sorry -- but Linux is not ready to support Home, nor Business, desktop users. I had a friend of mine try to run Linux as a replacement desktop environment and despite his years of experience said it just isn't ready for prime-time. I might buy the students or scientist argument, but you are kidding yourself if you really believe that Linux is ready to target the Home or Business user.
Same advantage they get from running Windows: access to lots more software that doesn't run, or doesn't run well, natively on OS X.
I can see where you might think this if you believe that Linux could be a replacement for the desktop, but I think the reality is that what folks want is to run PC games, Access, Outlook connected to an exchange server, or industry specific software (I can think of a family member has to run a Windows-only app for the specific industry they are in).
Maybe for your PC, but no for my PC
Definitely my PC, but also anyone that is looking to upgrade, was interested in a Mac, but had some need to run Windows that the Mac was not able to solve. These folks didn't want two machines on the desk, so they always opted for a PC. Now they can opt for a Mac.
I have nothing against Linux, but it is definitely not a Desktop OS replacement at this point. I'm sure many hardcore Linux fans will disagree, but I look at the attempts to make it such and the low level of success. That is not to say that one day it won't be, but that day is not today.
The only real potential downside I see is that app writers get one more excuse not to write Mac apps, but to be honest, I don't see a substantial shift in that from today; views are already well entrenched.
As one of those app writers, I will say that once you get over the learning curve of Obj-C/Cocoa -- you will not want to return to the land of ugliness that is associated with the older APIs.
Even with C#, I'm bothered that the Development System just writes a lot of template code for you, rather than having true separation of the visual elements from the code.
Apple markets their products to real users, not ultra-geeks. Ultra geeks have already figured out how to boot into Linux. If you haven't, then you probably shouldn't be running Linux. Apple isn't looking to add support costs to some schmuck that doesn't under Linux.
What advantage to Mac users have by running Linux on their Mac? And is that advantage a real world, mom & dad advantage?
With Boot Camp, Apple is able to truly work as a replacement for your PC.
I'm still holding out for what I think is a much more elegant solution (running Windows Virtually) because I like staying in Mac OS X and visiting Windows only when I have to.
You'd never get me watching anything other than short clips on a portable device.
Portable devices are great for when you are traveling. They also work fairly well connected to a TV, but they are definitely not HD quality. I would not want to build up a video collection with that quality.
I will look at a DVD either when it first comes out (at some retailer that has it priced at $15-$16) or a couple months later (when everyone drops the price to $14.99.
I guess I'm a cheap bastard too!
I don't see myself paying $20 for a downloaded movie that I can only watch on a Windows computer. Why would I pay that much for such a limited use? I might be willing to pay $10 for a movie, but only if I could choose to watch it on my iPod -- otherwise, I'll still to the sale DVDs. IMHO, There are very few movies that would be worth $30.
If I were to buy a downloaded movie, I definitely would want it to play on my iPod, so that other market share is more like 70%+. I definitely would not want to be stuck in front of my computer screen to watch a moview.
Funny how Microsoft has been pushing to try and get Apple to support their DRM on iPods, claiming the need for consumer choice, but when Microsoft gives you zero choice on which OS to use their DRM with (you can choose any OS as long as it is Windows). Once a monopoly, always a monopoly.
Actually, the Best Buy stores I've been in have had very large record sections. Easily 1/4 of the store, more if you include video (to compare it with the likes of Tower Records).
But I'm glad you managed to move away from my POINT which is that Apple Computer is NOT acting like a Record label.
Actually, they are acting more like a Record Store, not a Record Company
iTunes Music Store is like Tower Records or Best Buy.
They are NOT currently fulfilling the role of a record label (which I believe is to leech money from the artists and provide no value to the end customer).
Is Microsoft supposed to completely rewrite all of their already working software?
Not ALL, but at least SOME applications!
Outlook Express was a major rewrite, but apparently is not using.NET. To me, that says that Microsoft is unwilling to eat its own dog food, period. They had an application that was essentially retooled and they chose not use the tools they claim make it faster to develop and more secure. I'm sure there are other examples.
I compare this with Apple, which pushes Cocoa/Obj-C and does use it for many of their applications, including Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, iMovie, iWeb, iDVD, Apple Mail, and Address Book -- just to name a few.
VirtualPC will probably become obsolete since under OS X/Intel it will just be a crappy additional (and somewhat unrequired) layer.
This tells me that you don't understand what Virtual PC does. Even without the emulation part, Virtual PC will be very useful to run that specific Windows app inside of the Mac OS.
And before you go there, dual-booting may be possible, but it isn't practical. It's overly complicated, requires much more configuration and means you have to completely leave the Mac environment. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want that just to run a couple programs.
The VERY LAST THING I want is for IE for the Mac to continue to live.
Web development for sites with Mac visitors is dramatically hindered by this crappy browser. 80% of the hacks required are due to failings in IE 5 for Mac, the other 20% are for IE 6 for Windows.
I would venture that Business' are already taxed plenty on income, appreciating assets and any time a business makes a transaction (sales tax) as well as a variety of other business related taxes.
Truthfully, this sounds like a very greedy entity that wants to make it more expensive to do business in its area of influence (and it does so simply because it can). I don't see any new benefit that is derived from this tax increase, it's just more money that can be funneled to the insiders by the State. Where's the accountability?
State and Federal Governments seem to have this attitude that they are DUE any money they request, with no accountability for what is done with that money. States aren't interested in providing services to their residents, they view those residents as an excellent source of revenue, nothing more.
It is very frightening that the Matrix is such an excellent analogy of the relationship between citizens and their government.
The use of the word "virus" in this context is completely inappropriate
I disagree. The fact that linking in a library effectively converts the entire application into a GPL'd piece of source -- that is viral in nature.
My argument is and has been that LGPL was made out to be the inbetween license, but that is true only under certain circumstances. Dynamically link a 10K library and you are OK, statically link it and you just converted your entire code base to GPL.
Because a subtle change can have such major consequences, it is possible to accidentally trigger it. An employee could accidentally (or purposefully) make the switch w/o realizing the effects.
I'm simply saying that I now realize that GPL/LGPL seems as incompatible with commercial code as folks have said. It means that I'll continue to avoid any GPL'd code. I think most companies should consider BSD-type licensed technologies over any (L)GPL licensed technologies. BSD-type licenses allow open source contributions when tied with commercial software w/o accidentally exposing one's entire code-base to the effects of GPL.
As I also said, GPL is like a religion. You either believe in it 100%, or you don't. It creates two separate worlds that remain incompatible.
"heard" as in previous discussions about using LGPL as an alternative to GPL for closed-sourced programs. This is ONLY TRUE if the LGPL library is dynamically linked in, something that is apparently just implied.
Since I have not needed a LGPL-based library thus far, I didn't need to read the license. However, upon this latest article, I read the license.
Obviously, it is important to read any license before you use a piece of software.
Upon careful reading the LGPL license, I realized just how viral the software was, declaring any program the statically links to a library as a derivative work. This is not really how it is presented when discussed on the cursory level by folks.
Personally, I'm put off by that as the intent seems not to "keep the software free", but rather infect code with the GPL virus. The fact that the license makes a distinction between static and dynamic linking just makes me question the motives of the folks using these licenses.
Ironically, these same folks are making a strong case for Sony in their claim to have the right to control all aspects of how you deal with their copyrighted work.
Actually, I'm not getting code for FREE because I avoid GPL code at all costs. As soon as I see the GPL license, I turn the other way. I had heard that LGPL was a less viral, but apparently not much less. I'm sure I'm not the only one that avoids this code. Any business that doesn't rely solely on GPL code is in danger of infection and would avoid this.
The point is that the code is not FREE by any means as there are serious restrictions applied to it. And that's fine. But I hear the same group of folks proclaiming GPL as the salvation of coding attacking businesses that apply restrictions on their code by "not setting it free." There is definitely a bit of hypocrisy in that.
As I said, you either buy into the religion or you don't. But clearly, this "free" code is not free. The strings attached are no better than those of proprietary license code, just different.
A BSD license, on the other hand, allows me to benefit from other code AND contribute back without sacrificing my entire business model. I don't have to buy into the religion.
Regardless, I'm not going to give Sony a free pass. They broke some serious trust (and likely laws) regarding their relationship with the customer.
On one hand, I'm angry at Sony and its underhanded tactics to infiltrate machines.
On the other hand, I'm angry at LGPL and its slightly underhanded tactics to infiltrate code.
I think all GPL/LGPL code needs to have a big, prevalent, warning sign that says "STAY AWAY UNLESS YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE TOTALLY FREE RELIGION".
I didn't realize how viral LGPL was, but apparently the "LESSER" is not that much "LESSER" after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Up to 5 times faster for many operations, but substatially slower for legacy software & software that relies on altivec.
Well, Apple does say UP TO 5 TIMES FASTER, so they are aren't lying. I would never expect them to say anything negative about their product in any of their marketing material, that's just retarded.
That's like going to a job interview and focusing on all your faults, rather than what you have to offer the company. We all have faults, it doesn't mean we should tout them.
Apple has always been a forward thinker. Legacy support has always come at some performance price. If you want to get angry, get angry at the likes of Adobe, which apparently bet on Apple's Intel switch starting later, rather than sooner. They got caught with their pants down (an Intel Mac version is still OVER A YEAR AWAY).
Either artists are getting virtually nothing for their CD sales (as we've been told on numerous occassions) and make most of their money from concerts -- OR they do get a cut and have been lying to us.
Because I don't trust RIAA as far as I can throw their fat asses, I'm going to believe that the artists are getting screwed on record sales. It is sad, however, that some artists are then taking to screwing their fans as a result. We're not talking about a little more, but a lot more money to see someone sing and perhaps dance.
I actually don't mind paying a little extra for a *significantly* better experience.
The artist is either greedy or desperate. Either way, it does not make them look good.
Each day, as I read more and more about how content providers are trying to control our view habits, I am reminded of the old Max Headroom show where Corporations ruled and Ratings were more important than anything else.
We better prepare to get off the grid!
Blanks Unite!
But how will we know when and where to unite if we're not connected?
Why even bother with TV's anymore.
Most of the new HDTVs are actually just monitors anyway. They require some sort of external tuner device, or they charge significantly more for a built-in tuner.
So, technically, they've already instituted "pay extra for ability to change channels."
There are many sides of this issue to take, but I'm going to only focus on one that I think most people don't talk much about.
Software Patents extend for an exorbitant amount of time relative to the industry. 17 years amounts to around 11 generations (assuming 18 month cycles) of software. That's an eternity in the software industry.
It would be the equivalent of saying that a regular patent could exist for 50-75 years. Imagine having a 50-75 year monopoly license on a drug or a way more effeciently generate electricity. Yet, we treat software patents just like that.
There are plenty of existing cases that show this. Look at the generic multimedia patents that still affect software today. The reason most of these patents sound nonsensical when we see them is because we're about 2-3 generations past when they were relevant.
Ultimately, software patents don't spur innovation. Today, they actually stifle innovation. It is getting more and more difficult for the small companies to simply write cool new software. More lawyers are involved today and it slows down the process.
And these software trolls that exist and don't contribute anything to society make a bad situation much worse.
I'm sorry, but you're bullshitting; there are many home users and many business users that run Linux.
In real life, Linux appears to be on at least as many desktops as OS X.
Now who is in denial?
Lovely elitist attitude you got there.
Not elitist, just realistic.
I look at the level of support that I have to provide for my family members using Windows. Installing a network printer, resetting the network connection, etc. They default to using Internet Explorer (although I have tried to push them to Firefox). Even burning backups is a major undertaking for them. They defrag their NTFS drive regularly to "fix things". These folks are not ready to deal with all the variations and options under Linux. They don't want to pick the GUI or deal with apps that run under different GUIs.
Apple markets to the same people Linux companies market to: desktop users, home users, business users, students, scientists.
I'm sorry -- but Linux is not ready to support Home, nor Business, desktop users. I had a friend of mine try to run Linux as a replacement desktop environment and despite his years of experience said it just isn't ready for prime-time. I might buy the students or scientist argument, but you are kidding yourself if you really believe that Linux is ready to target the Home or Business user.
Same advantage they get from running Windows: access to lots more software that doesn't run, or doesn't run well, natively on OS X.
I can see where you might think this if you believe that Linux could be a replacement for the desktop, but I think the reality is that what folks want is to run PC games, Access, Outlook connected to an exchange server, or industry specific software (I can think of a family member has to run a Windows-only app for the specific industry they are in).
Maybe for your PC, but no for my PC
Definitely my PC, but also anyone that is looking to upgrade, was interested in a Mac, but had some need to run Windows that the Mac was not able to solve. These folks didn't want two machines on the desk, so they always opted for a PC. Now they can opt for a Mac.
I have nothing against Linux, but it is definitely not a Desktop OS replacement at this point. I'm sure many hardcore Linux fans will disagree, but I look at the attempts to make it such and the low level of success. That is not to say that one day it won't be, but that day is not today.
The only real potential downside I see is that app writers get one more excuse not to write Mac apps, but to be honest, I don't see a substantial shift in that from today; views are already well entrenched.
As one of those app writers, I will say that once you get over the learning curve of Obj-C/Cocoa -- you will not want to return to the land of ugliness that is associated with the older APIs.
Even with C#, I'm bothered that the Development System just writes a lot of template code for you, rather than having true separation of the visual elements from the code.
Apple markets their products to real users, not ultra-geeks. Ultra geeks have already figured out how to boot into Linux. If you haven't, then you probably shouldn't be running Linux. Apple isn't looking to add support costs to some schmuck that doesn't under Linux.
What advantage to Mac users have by running Linux on their Mac? And is that advantage a real world, mom & dad advantage?
With Boot Camp, Apple is able to truly work as a replacement for your PC.
I'm still holding out for what I think is a much more elegant solution (running Windows Virtually) because I like staying in Mac OS X and visiting Windows only when I have to.
You'd never get me watching anything other than short clips on a portable device.
Portable devices are great for when you are traveling. They also work fairly well connected to a TV, but they are definitely not HD quality. I would not want to build up a video collection with that quality.
I agree completely. I won't pay $25+ for a DVD.
I will look at a DVD either when it first comes out (at some retailer that has it priced at $15-$16) or a couple months later (when everyone drops the price to $14.99.
I guess I'm a cheap bastard too!
I don't see myself paying $20 for a downloaded movie that I can only watch on a Windows computer. Why would I pay that much for such a limited use? I might be willing to pay $10 for a movie, but only if I could choose to watch it on my iPod -- otherwise, I'll still to the sale DVDs. IMHO, There are very few movies that would be worth $30.
The other 7% surely?
If I were to buy a downloaded movie, I definitely would want it to play on my iPod, so that other market share is more like 70%+. I definitely would not want to be stuck in front of my computer screen to watch a moview.
Funny how Microsoft has been pushing to try and get Apple to support their DRM on iPods, claiming the need for consumer choice, but when Microsoft gives you zero choice on which OS to use their DRM with (you can choose any OS as long as it is Windows). Once a monopoly, always a monopoly.
Actually, the Best Buy stores I've been in have had very large record sections. Easily 1/4 of the store, more if you include video (to compare it with the likes of Tower Records).
But I'm glad you managed to move away from my POINT which is that Apple Computer is NOT acting like a Record label.
and now they are acting like a record label
Actually, they are acting more like a Record Store, not a Record Company
iTunes Music Store is like Tower Records or Best Buy.
They are NOT currently fulfilling the role of a record label (which I believe is to leech money from the artists and provide no value to the end customer).
Is Microsoft supposed to completely rewrite all of their already working software?
Not ALL, but at least SOME applications!
Outlook Express was a major rewrite, but apparently is not using .NET. To me, that says that Microsoft is unwilling to eat its own dog food, period. They had an application that was essentially retooled and they chose not use the tools they claim make it faster to develop and more secure. I'm sure there are other examples.
I compare this with Apple, which pushes Cocoa/Obj-C and does use it for many of their applications, including Pages, Keynote, iPhoto, iMovie, iWeb, iDVD, Apple Mail, and Address Book -- just to name a few.
VirtualPC will probably become obsolete since under OS X/Intel it will just be a crappy additional (and somewhat unrequired) layer.
This tells me that you don't understand what Virtual PC does. Even without the emulation part, Virtual PC will be very useful to run that specific Windows app inside of the Mac OS.
And before you go there, dual-booting may be possible, but it isn't practical. It's overly complicated, requires much more configuration and means you have to completely leave the Mac environment. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want that just to run a couple programs.
The VERY LAST THING I want is for IE for the Mac to continue to live.
Web development for sites with Mac visitors is dramatically hindered by this crappy browser. 80% of the hacks required are due to failings in IE 5 for Mac, the other 20% are for IE 6 for Windows.
I would venture that Business' are already taxed plenty on income, appreciating assets and any time a business makes a transaction (sales tax) as well as a variety of other business related taxes.
Truthfully, this sounds like a very greedy entity that wants to make it more expensive to do business in its area of influence (and it does so simply because it can). I don't see any new benefit that is derived from this tax increase, it's just more money that can be funneled to the insiders by the State. Where's the accountability?
State and Federal Governments seem to have this attitude that they are DUE any money they request, with no accountability for what is done with that money. States aren't interested in providing services to their residents, they view those residents as an excellent source of revenue, nothing more.
It is very frightening that the Matrix is such an excellent analogy of the relationship between citizens and their government.
Better Yet, support CableCARD(s) and beat Microsoft to the punch (their CC ready MC isn't due until late next year)!!
The use of the word "virus" in this context is completely inappropriate
I disagree. The fact that linking in a library effectively converts the entire application into a GPL'd piece of source -- that is viral in nature.
My argument is and has been that LGPL was made out to be the inbetween license, but that is true only under certain circumstances. Dynamically link a 10K library and you are OK, statically link it and you just converted your entire code base to GPL.
Because a subtle change can have such major consequences, it is possible to accidentally trigger it. An employee could accidentally (or purposefully) make the switch w/o realizing the effects.
I'm simply saying that I now realize that GPL/LGPL seems as incompatible with commercial code as folks have said. It means that I'll continue to avoid any GPL'd code. I think most companies should consider BSD-type licensed technologies over any (L)GPL licensed technologies. BSD-type licenses allow open source contributions when tied with commercial software w/o accidentally exposing one's entire code-base to the effects of GPL.
As I also said, GPL is like a religion. You either believe in it 100%, or you don't. It creates two separate worlds that remain incompatible.
"heard" as in previous discussions about using LGPL as an alternative to GPL for closed-sourced programs. This is ONLY TRUE if the LGPL library is dynamically linked in, something that is apparently just implied.
Since I have not needed a LGPL-based library thus far, I didn't need to read the license. However, upon this latest article, I read the license.
Obviously, it is important to read any license before you use a piece of software.
Upon careful reading the LGPL license, I realized just how viral the software was, declaring any program the statically links to a library as a derivative work. This is not really how it is presented when discussed on the cursory level by folks.
Personally, I'm put off by that as the intent seems not to "keep the software free", but rather infect code with the GPL virus. The fact that the license makes a distinction between static and dynamic linking just makes me question the motives of the folks using these licenses.
Ironically, these same folks are making a strong case for Sony in their claim to have the right to control all aspects of how you deal with their copyrighted work.
Actually, I'm not getting code for FREE because I avoid GPL code at all costs. As soon as I see the GPL license, I turn the other way. I had heard that LGPL was a less viral, but apparently not much less. I'm sure I'm not the only one that avoids this code. Any business that doesn't rely solely on GPL code is in danger of infection and would avoid this.
The point is that the code is not FREE by any means as there are serious restrictions applied to it. And that's fine. But I hear the same group of folks proclaiming GPL as the salvation of coding attacking businesses that apply restrictions on their code by "not setting it free." There is definitely a bit of hypocrisy in that.
As I said, you either buy into the religion or you don't. But clearly, this "free" code is not free. The strings attached are no better than those of proprietary license code, just different.
A BSD license, on the other hand, allows me to benefit from other code AND contribute back without sacrificing my entire business model. I don't have to buy into the religion.
Regardless, I'm not going to give Sony a free pass. They broke some serious trust (and likely laws) regarding their relationship with the customer.
On one hand, I'm angry at Sony and its underhanded tactics to infiltrate machines.
On the other hand, I'm angry at LGPL and its slightly underhanded tactics to infiltrate code.
I think all GPL/LGPL code needs to have a big, prevalent, warning sign that says "STAY AWAY UNLESS YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE TOTALLY FREE RELIGION".
I didn't realize how viral LGPL was, but apparently the "LESSER" is not that much "LESSER" after all.