Consider that no one has gotten Mac OS X/86 running on anything but Apple's developer platform (although there've been some rumors). If you try to install the software on a regular PC, it pops up and says, "Nope. Sorry."
Essentially, Mac OS can figure out what kind of machine it's being booted from (ie, a PowerBook G4 made in 2003). Go check out "System Profile" on Mac OS X. It shows the machine's serial number. I assume this is in a ROM chip somewhere on the motherboard.
So once it has that info, I'd imagine it has a table that says, "Okay, I expect to have this kind of drive controller, this kind of USB chip, this kind of ethernet controller, etc.." It then checks to see if those components are there. If they aren't? Then something must be wrong with the machine. Tell the user to take it in for repair.
Your average Intel clone won't have that ROM. Even assuming someone figures that part out and fakes it to say, "Hey, I'm a PowerMac G6i", they'll still have to have the exact same chips as whatever Apple is selling in the mythical PowerMac G6i or the machine will assume something is wrong with it and not boot.
From what I understand from Phil Schiller at Apple, there are no plans to not allow Windows to boot. That said, it doesn't mean that Apple is going to force compatibility (eg, "Oh, we can't use such-and-such technology because then Macs wouldn't be able to run Windows").
For example, from what I understand, the chances are essentially nil that Apple will use whatever PCs use to boot--whatever the PC equivalent to Open Firmware is. Now Apple has pretty much said that they're not going to use Open Firmware on the Intel Macs, but there is some Intel Four-Letter-Acronym that is a leading candidate to be used instead. If that boots Windows, huzzah! If it doesn't, though, I doubt Apple would say, "Gosh. We can't use that because then our users won't be able to boot Windows."
Also, if Apple uses some really cool custom-built chip for doing audio, they will probably not write Windows drivers so that it will work under Windows. Somebody else might--hey, that's cool--and someone could download and install those drivers and everything would work fine. Heck, maybe Microsoft will even include them.
Apple isn't going to go out of their way to support Windows, I agree. But I'm sure some people will figure out a way to run Windows on one.
"But it's been two years now with no significant progress (2.0 GHz-> 2.7 GHz), so yeah, it's pretty long in the tooth now."
Hm.
In two years, we saw a 35% increase in megahertz on the G5 (700MHz / 2GHz). In the same two years, we saw a 26% percent increase in Pentiums (800 MHz / 3GHz). So are you implying that the 3GHz Pentiums are "long in the tooth"?
By the way, the bus in the 2.7 GHz Mac is faster than the one in the 2 GHz (1.35GHz per CPU vs. 1GHz per CPU). So there is some tuning going on.
"Are they plannign to detonate a bomb in the cargo hold via Wifi? Why couldn't they just use a timer or Altemiter to detonate?"
First, as has been mentioned, you'd have to use a radar altimeter which could probably be detected. And Timers mean you have to make a few rash assumptions, such as the time the airplane is going to leave.
"What else, coordinate with other terrorists? Why can't they use radio and code words worked out beforehand. Or simply fly the plane low over a city and use random passanger's cell phones. (Yes they work)"
Needless to say, the answer to almost all your questions is range and traceability.
Suppose I'm planning on having people hijack two airliners and fly one into the Capitol building and one into the White House. Suppose one of the hijackings fails--for whatever reason. It might be worthwhile to be able to communicate with the people on board the aircraft to have them change their target.
And, of course, while I'm doing this, I'd rather not be in the Washington DC area which is where they'll be looking for me. I'd rather be leaching my WiFi signal anonymously from some guy in Florida.:^) Or, more seriously, in the Maldives or some other place with no extradition treaty.
The cell-phone problem comes up in that I would probably like the information to be encrypted. Most commercially available cell-phones don't have encryption. Also, the government has gotten pretty good at tracing cell-phone users. The Internet offers much cheaper anonymity. If you've got access to a bot-network, you could probably keep the feds running around forever with no idea where you are.
The part that makes me laugh is that 'M' rated things have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. 'AO' has content that should only be played by persons 18 and older.
I really don't think that the one year makes a hell of a lot of difference.
I think it would depend on the situation.
Story I heard, don't know if it's true:
New EMT arrives at the site of a nasty automobile accident. He goes to treat one of the victims who is a gory mess. He takes one look, says "Yuck! What a mess!" and proceeds to treat the victim.
The victim was conscious, heard what the EMT said and, after being released from hospital, sued the ambulance company and had the EMT fired.
"[...] it's just the government can't say '400 people are dead' until it has a chance to examine 400 bodies."
Maybe this is different in the UK than here in the USA, but not having accurate information never stopped officials here in the US.
For example, on September 24th, the New York Police Department's official estimate of the number of deaths in the World Trade Center was 6,659. Three months later, the death-toll was 3,011. Today it stands at less than 2,800.
There's some information that only comes with time.
"My parents are starting to develop fairly bad eyesight, and I recently set up a Mac Mini for them. I don't have a lot of Mac experience, and I was surprised that when I looked around for some kind of default, system-wide font size, I couldn't find one."
Next time you're at your folks, have them check out "Universal Access"--primarily zooming.
"[...] a 3,300-foot-high column of steam rising from the Pacific Ocean off the island of Iwo Jima. The vapor was reported Saturday after Japanese troops stationed on the small island observed the massive cloudy plume rise from the sea [...]"
Wait. Didn't we kick them off Iwo Jima? What are they doing back there? Didn't we leave a flag?
Symantec has Mac offerings, at least in the consumer realm. However, Symantec doesn't believe there are such things as Macs in the enterprise, so I doubt it.
I doubt there are any Linux plans. Last I knew, Symantec was tied around Microsoft's little finger. But I left a few years ago, before Microsoft started it's AV thingie. But when I left, they didn't anything beyond a Microsoft world in the corporation. I believe they used to have server security software for Solaris, but dropped it.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
"And the CEV is very similar to the Soyuz so dont go making comparisons."
And here's where I have to ask the question. If the CEV is so similar to the Soyuz, why build it? Why not just buy a couple of Soyuz capsules for half the cost and be done with it?
Because it was Not Invented Here? Because the Soyuz carries 3 and we want to carry 6? Are we spending tons more money to design a system to carry three extra people than we would spend in buying two Soyuz capsules?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not one of these people who's against R&D. I'd just rather not see NASA spending it's few dollars on reinventing the wheel.
"We still had plumbers and electricians and carpenters building civilian housing, not forcibly conscripted into working exclusively on military projects."
Try again.
During World War II, manufacturing various "consumer items" (refrigerators, automobiles) was forbidden. This also included housing materials. I remember watching a documentary about how a model-train company switched to producing war materiel during World War II because they couldn't get any metal for trains or tracks.
Since most of the larger employers had switched to producing war materiel (because they couldn't get the necessary materials), the only jobs--and especially the better paying jobs--were at the war plants. If you had a family to feed, that's where you went.
The big thing that the iPod does is get Apple back in people's minds as a purchasing choice. Even if people aren't in the market for an iPod, they are hearing reports about this new Mac OS X thing. Without the success of the iPod, the press wouldn't be talking too much about Apple.
I like to use Sony as an example. Back in the 1970s, the average consumer had never really heard of Sony--except, perhaps, as a "Oh, they make those VCRs that don't work with anybody else." The product that put Sony on the map was the Sony Walkman. It got people to sit up and take notice and now, when Sony does something, people listen.
Of course, Sony isn't all powerful--if they were, we'd be listening to mini-discs--but the Sony brand gets reporters interested and they will report on things that the company is doing. People have heard good things about Sony and will consider a Sony purchase. Heck, why buy a Sony VAIO when you can buy someone else's PC? But people buy them.
Apple had a similar problem. Even if Apple did something great, most the computer press went "Ho hum, small market-share, won't run Windows, going out of business, nobody cares." The iPod got people to sit up an take notice of Apple's products. So now when Apple announces something like a new version of Mac OS X, it gets reported. I don't remember the press caring that much about Mac OS 9 when it shipped.
"Why buy an iPod when you can get a good player for much less money? Just because it's an iPod? Apple's share of the home computer market is still quite low, and I can see their share of the MP3 player market going in that same direction."
I'll be the first to admit, part of the reason people buy iPods is that they want an iPod--not an iRiver ZQX-379. They hear good things about iPods, so they buy them. This will change at some point in the future, but it won't be for a few years yet. Remember that Apple has sold something like 15 million iPods--and they've sold the most! So the market has plenty of room to grow. Once I see figures like a hundred million MP3 players sold, I'll start getting concerned about it.
Also, by the time that the iPod loses it's crown as the top selling MP3 player, Apple may have something else new and exciting to take up the slack. And the fact that it comes from Apple will actually be a good thing in many consumers minds.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
"Becoming more of a 'do all disposable' similar to the ever reliable Appolo hardware that was quickly adapted to 3 totaly different sets of missions with little effort."
I think you give Apollo a little more credit than it deserves.
Apollo CSM was designed to support three people in space. It was used to go to the moon and into earth orbit. It was used on three different missions to do just that.
The Shuttles, conversely, have been used for a much larger range of tasks. Everything from repairing the Hubble Space Telescope to dragging wires through the upper atmosphere to retrieving satellites from orbit to building a space station.
My main interest in the CEV is a cheaper way to transport people to the space station. I agree with some congressperson's comment that using the Shuttle to transport people to the space station is like using an SUV to drive to the corner grocery store.
But when it comes to "lifeboats", I have to ask: Why not use Soyuz capsules? They're cheap and effective. And before I hear, "But they'll only carry three people," here's a crazy idea: Have two of them.
I can't believe that redesigning the docking area of the Space Station to support two Soyuz capsules would be more expensive than building our own "lifeboat."
Actually, if I remember my ancient history correctly, IBM tried this.
Down there in the code for the BIOS at a certain location was "COPYRIGHT 1981 IBM". IBM software would look for this string and not run unless it was found.
The solution was very simple. Four bytes before it, they inserted "NOT ". Problem solved.
"How is Apple going to cost-justify designing their own chipset?"
They do this now. The reason for the Intel switch has next-to-nothing to do with cutting out motherboard design.
Remember that Apple designs their own machines from the outside in. They decide how they want it to look and then send the specs off to the engineering teams to figure out how to build it.
No, they're not going to make the iMac G5 an inch taller so it will fit a mini-ATX motherboard anymore than they were going to make a Mac mini taller so they could fit 3.5 inch hard-drives.
One big difference between SG-1 and Star Trek is that SG-1 takes place in the present day while Star Trek takes place in the future. Look around SG-1 and you'll see plenty of present day technology. The team uses walkie-talkies to communicate, their weapons are P-90s, Samantha Carter used a PowerBook G3 (even after PowerBook G4s were out), lots of Intel PCs hanging around, "normal" desks, chairs, doors, etc.
Star Trek can't get away with this. They have to build communicators, phasers, information pads, tricorders, etc. Heck, just for laughs, compare Prometheus with Enterprise.
Consider that most of the civilizations encountered by SG-1 are "primitive" and, thus, cheap. It was pretty rare to see The Next Generation, Voyager, or Enterprise encounter a bunch of quonset huts. Usually, that's all you see SG-1 encounter. All the props for the primitive villagers can probably be rented pretty cheap. Advanced civilizations need to have their props built and that costs money.
As an aside, SG-1 mostly encounters Goa'uld technology. Thus, props like staff weapons, Zat-guns, communication devices, etc. can be reused and can be considered an "investment." Enterprise never ran into the Vissians again--all those props became useless.
Also, Enterprise encountered lots of alien races, as did Voyager and TNG. Phloxx, Neelix, and Worf need their make-up done for every episode. On Enterprise, it seems like every other episode had some sort of make-up need. Not so much on SG-1--everybody is pretty human. The only complex make-up job on SG-1 is the Unas, and I'd bet I can count the number of episodes featuring them on one hand.
Also, SG-1 films in Canada. Enterprise films in Los Angeles. I'm sure that makes a difference. As an aside, one reason Richard Dean Anderson is leaving the show is he's sick of commuting from Vancouver to Los Angeles. Yeah, it's cheaper to film in Vancouver, but if you want to keep your biggest star...
Don't get me wrong, I'm still a firm believer that Rick Berman should be shot out of cannon (Profit!). But I do agree that Enterprise is a very expensive show--probably more expensive than Stargate.
Slashdot Mirror
As has been said, that is merely rumor.
Consider that no one has gotten Mac OS X/86 running on anything but Apple's developer platform (although there've been some rumors). If you try to install the software on a regular PC, it pops up and says, "Nope. Sorry."
Essentially, Mac OS can figure out what kind of machine it's being booted from (ie, a PowerBook G4 made in 2003). Go check out "System Profile" on Mac OS X. It shows the machine's serial number. I assume this is in a ROM chip somewhere on the motherboard.
So once it has that info, I'd imagine it has a table that says, "Okay, I expect to have this kind of drive controller, this kind of USB chip, this kind of ethernet controller, etc.." It then checks to see if those components are there. If they aren't? Then something must be wrong with the machine. Tell the user to take it in for repair.
Your average Intel clone won't have that ROM. Even assuming someone figures that part out and fakes it to say, "Hey, I'm a PowerMac G6i", they'll still have to have the exact same chips as whatever Apple is selling in the mythical PowerMac G6i or the machine will assume something is wrong with it and not boot.
See? No DRM chip required.
From what I understand from Phil Schiller at Apple, there are no plans to not allow Windows to boot. That said, it doesn't mean that Apple is going to force compatibility (eg, "Oh, we can't use such-and-such technology because then Macs wouldn't be able to run Windows").
For example, from what I understand, the chances are essentially nil that Apple will use whatever PCs use to boot--whatever the PC equivalent to Open Firmware is. Now Apple has pretty much said that they're not going to use Open Firmware on the Intel Macs, but there is some Intel Four-Letter-Acronym that is a leading candidate to be used instead. If that boots Windows, huzzah! If it doesn't, though, I doubt Apple would say, "Gosh. We can't use that because then our users won't be able to boot Windows."
Also, if Apple uses some really cool custom-built chip for doing audio, they will probably not write Windows drivers so that it will work under Windows. Somebody else might--hey, that's cool--and someone could download and install those drivers and everything would work fine. Heck, maybe Microsoft will even include them.
Apple isn't going to go out of their way to support Windows, I agree. But I'm sure some people will figure out a way to run Windows on one.
"But it's been two years now with no significant progress (2.0 GHz-> 2.7 GHz), so yeah, it's pretty long in the tooth now."
Hm.
In two years, we saw a 35% increase in megahertz on the G5 (700MHz / 2GHz). In the same two years, we saw a 26% percent increase in Pentiums (800 MHz / 3GHz). So are you implying that the 3GHz Pentiums are "long in the tooth"?
By the way, the bus in the 2.7 GHz Mac is faster than the one in the 2 GHz (1.35GHz per CPU vs. 1GHz per CPU). So there is some tuning going on.
Thank you. I giggled the whole time.
Actually, I just use -O0. This way, code reviewers don't find 'em... :^)
"Are they plannign to detonate a bomb in the cargo hold via Wifi? Why couldn't they just use a timer or Altemiter to detonate?"
:^) Or, more seriously, in the Maldives or some other place with no extradition treaty.
First, as has been mentioned, you'd have to use a radar altimeter which could probably be detected. And Timers mean you have to make a few rash assumptions, such as the time the airplane is going to leave.
"What else, coordinate with other terrorists? Why can't they use radio and code words worked out beforehand. Or simply fly the plane low over a city and use random passanger's cell phones. (Yes they work)"
Needless to say, the answer to almost all your questions is range and traceability.
Suppose I'm planning on having people hijack two airliners and fly one into the Capitol building and one into the White House. Suppose one of the hijackings fails--for whatever reason. It might be worthwhile to be able to communicate with the people on board the aircraft to have them change their target.
And, of course, while I'm doing this, I'd rather not be in the Washington DC area which is where they'll be looking for me. I'd rather be leaching my WiFi signal anonymously from some guy in Florida.
The cell-phone problem comes up in that I would probably like the information to be encrypted. Most commercially available cell-phones don't have encryption. Also, the government has gotten pretty good at tracing cell-phone users. The Internet offers much cheaper anonymity. If you've got access to a bot-network, you could probably keep the feds running around forever with no idea where you are.
The part that makes me laugh is that 'M' rated things have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. 'AO' has content that should only be played by persons 18 and older.
I really don't think that the one year makes a hell of a lot of difference.
"Maybe it would be better just to deal with being away from the internet when you're camping..."
What is this "away from the internet" of which you speak?
I think it would depend on the situation. Story I heard, don't know if it's true: New EMT arrives at the site of a nasty automobile accident. He goes to treat one of the victims who is a gory mess. He takes one look, says "Yuck! What a mess!" and proceeds to treat the victim. The victim was conscious, heard what the EMT said and, after being released from hospital, sued the ambulance company and had the EMT fired.
"[...] it's just the government can't say '400 people are dead' until it has a chance to examine 400 bodies."
Maybe this is different in the UK than here in the USA, but not having accurate information never stopped officials here in the US.
For example, on September 24th, the New York Police Department's official estimate of the number of deaths in the World Trade Center was 6,659. Three months later, the death-toll was 3,011. Today it stands at less than 2,800.
There's some information that only comes with time.
If he were a worthless cunt, would that make him Darlene McBride?
"My parents are starting to develop fairly bad eyesight, and I recently set up a Mac Mini for them. I don't have a lot of Mac experience, and I was surprised that when I looked around for some kind of default, system-wide font size, I couldn't find one."
Next time you're at your folks, have them check out "Universal Access"--primarily zooming.
"[...] a 3,300-foot-high column of steam rising from the Pacific Ocean off the island of Iwo Jima. The vapor was reported Saturday after Japanese troops stationed on the small island observed the massive cloudy plume rise from the sea [...]"
Wait. Didn't we kick them off Iwo Jima? What are they doing back there? Didn't we leave a flag?
Those sneaky Japanese...
I think that's just an edited version of this.
Symantec has Mac offerings, at least in the consumer realm. However, Symantec doesn't believe there are such things as Macs in the enterprise, so I doubt it.
I doubt there are any Linux plans. Last I knew, Symantec was tied around Microsoft's little finger. But I left a few years ago, before Microsoft started it's AV thingie. But when I left, they didn't anything beyond a Microsoft world in the corporation. I believe they used to have server security software for Solaris, but dropped it.
"And the CEV is very similar to the Soyuz so dont go making comparisons."
And here's where I have to ask the question. If the CEV is so similar to the Soyuz, why build it? Why not just buy a couple of Soyuz capsules for half the cost and be done with it?
Because it was Not Invented Here? Because the Soyuz carries 3 and we want to carry 6? Are we spending tons more money to design a system to carry three extra people than we would spend in buying two Soyuz capsules?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not one of these people who's against R&D. I'd just rather not see NASA spending it's few dollars on reinventing the wheel.
The United States announced that an unscheduled test of their anti-ballistic missile system succeeded in intercepting a Russian ICBM.
An official Pentagon spokesperson said, "Oops. Sorry about that."
"We still had plumbers and electricians and carpenters building civilian housing, not forcibly conscripted into working exclusively on military projects."
Try again.
During World War II, manufacturing various "consumer items" (refrigerators, automobiles) was forbidden. This also included housing materials. I remember watching a documentary about how a model-train company switched to producing war materiel during World War II because they couldn't get any metal for trains or tracks.
Since most of the larger employers had switched to producing war materiel (because they couldn't get the necessary materials), the only jobs--and especially the better paying jobs--were at the war plants. If you had a family to feed, that's where you went.
"[...] I'm no business expert [...]"
Neither am I. But, hey, it's Slashdot.
The big thing that the iPod does is get Apple back in people's minds as a purchasing choice. Even if people aren't in the market for an iPod, they are hearing reports about this new Mac OS X thing. Without the success of the iPod, the press wouldn't be talking too much about Apple.
I like to use Sony as an example. Back in the 1970s, the average consumer had never really heard of Sony--except, perhaps, as a "Oh, they make those VCRs that don't work with anybody else." The product that put Sony on the map was the Sony Walkman. It got people to sit up and take notice and now, when Sony does something, people listen.
Of course, Sony isn't all powerful--if they were, we'd be listening to mini-discs--but the Sony brand gets reporters interested and they will report on things that the company is doing. People have heard good things about Sony and will consider a Sony purchase. Heck, why buy a Sony VAIO when you can buy someone else's PC? But people buy them.
Apple had a similar problem. Even if Apple did something great, most the computer press went "Ho hum, small market-share, won't run Windows, going out of business, nobody cares." The iPod got people to sit up an take notice of Apple's products. So now when Apple announces something like a new version of Mac OS X, it gets reported. I don't remember the press caring that much about Mac OS 9 when it shipped.
"Why buy an iPod when you can get a good player for much less money? Just because it's an iPod? Apple's share of the home computer market is still quite low, and I can see their share of the MP3 player market going in that same direction."
I'll be the first to admit, part of the reason people buy iPods is that they want an iPod--not an iRiver ZQX-379. They hear good things about iPods, so they buy them. This will change at some point in the future, but it won't be for a few years yet. Remember that Apple has sold something like 15 million iPods--and they've sold the most! So the market has plenty of room to grow. Once I see figures like a hundred million MP3 players sold, I'll start getting concerned about it.
Also, by the time that the iPod loses it's crown as the top selling MP3 player, Apple may have something else new and exciting to take up the slack. And the fact that it comes from Apple will actually be a good thing in many consumers minds.
"Becoming more of a 'do all disposable' similar to the ever reliable Appolo hardware that was quickly adapted to 3 totaly different sets of missions with little effort."
I think you give Apollo a little more credit than it deserves.
Apollo CSM was designed to support three people in space. It was used to go to the moon and into earth orbit. It was used on three different missions to do just that.
The Shuttles, conversely, have been used for a much larger range of tasks. Everything from repairing the Hubble Space Telescope to dragging wires through the upper atmosphere to retrieving satellites from orbit to building a space station.
My main interest in the CEV is a cheaper way to transport people to the space station. I agree with some congressperson's comment that using the Shuttle to transport people to the space station is like using an SUV to drive to the corner grocery store.
But when it comes to "lifeboats", I have to ask: Why not use Soyuz capsules? They're cheap and effective. And before I hear, "But they'll only carry three people," here's a crazy idea: Have two of them.
I can't believe that redesigning the docking area of the Space Station to support two Soyuz capsules would be more expensive than building our own "lifeboat."
Actually, if I remember my ancient history correctly, IBM tried this.
Down there in the code for the BIOS at a certain location was "COPYRIGHT 1981 IBM". IBM software would look for this string and not run unless it was found.
The solution was very simple. Four bytes before it, they inserted "NOT ". Problem solved.
"How is Apple going to cost-justify designing their own chipset?"
They do this now. The reason for the Intel switch has next-to-nothing to do with cutting out motherboard design.
Remember that Apple designs their own machines from the outside in. They decide how they want it to look and then send the specs off to the engineering teams to figure out how to build it.
No, they're not going to make the iMac G5 an inch taller so it will fit a mini-ATX motherboard anymore than they were going to make a Mac mini taller so they could fit 3.5 inch hard-drives.
"Mr President, we must not allow an Open Source gap!"
(sorry. couldn't resist)
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
(Tom Lehrer's Who's Next?)
I disagree with your comparison with SG-1.
One big difference between SG-1 and Star Trek is that SG-1 takes place in the present day while Star Trek takes place in the future. Look around SG-1 and you'll see plenty of present day technology. The team uses walkie-talkies to communicate, their weapons are P-90s, Samantha Carter used a PowerBook G3 (even after PowerBook G4s were out), lots of Intel PCs hanging around, "normal" desks, chairs, doors, etc.
Star Trek can't get away with this. They have to build communicators, phasers, information pads, tricorders, etc. Heck, just for laughs, compare Prometheus with Enterprise.
Consider that most of the civilizations encountered by SG-1 are "primitive" and, thus, cheap. It was pretty rare to see The Next Generation, Voyager, or Enterprise encounter a bunch of quonset huts. Usually, that's all you see SG-1 encounter. All the props for the primitive villagers can probably be rented pretty cheap. Advanced civilizations need to have their props built and that costs money.
As an aside, SG-1 mostly encounters Goa'uld technology. Thus, props like staff weapons, Zat-guns, communication devices, etc. can be reused and can be considered an "investment." Enterprise never ran into the Vissians again--all those props became useless.
Also, Enterprise encountered lots of alien races, as did Voyager and TNG. Phloxx, Neelix, and Worf need their make-up done for every episode. On Enterprise, it seems like every other episode had some sort of make-up need. Not so much on SG-1--everybody is pretty human. The only complex make-up job on SG-1 is the Unas, and I'd bet I can count the number of episodes featuring them on one hand.
Also, SG-1 films in Canada. Enterprise films in Los Angeles. I'm sure that makes a difference. As an aside, one reason Richard Dean Anderson is leaving the show is he's sick of commuting from Vancouver to Los Angeles. Yeah, it's cheaper to film in Vancouver, but if you want to keep your biggest star...
Don't get me wrong, I'm still a firm believer that Rick Berman should be shot out of cannon (Profit!). But I do agree that Enterprise is a very expensive show--probably more expensive than Stargate.