well a few people have already responded, but a few that i can think of from the last couple of years would be: firewire and usb standard (usb was going nowhere under wintel), consumer level video editing, standard and trivially simple wireless networking, an intuitive and consistant user interface, drag-and-drop integrated CD burning, personal DVD authoring, and hey, how about bringing a full-powered UNIX operating system to consumers (something Linux, after all the hype still can't seem to come close to doing).
perhaps they're not the innovations that are important to you but that doesn't make them any less valid. but Apple is consistantly one of the first to bring new technologies (especially those that bring more integration) to the computer industry. meanwhile the PC world is happy to sit back and be painfully backwards compatible, scared of any new standard and eventually implement whatever sticks around the longest. Apple takes a good technology and runs with it.
everybody's saying the PC industry is dying off -- they're seeing a slowdown in growth. why? because the major players are too chickenshit to actually implement anything novel. they sit back and take whatever Microsoft feeds them, and it's in Microsoft's best interests not to change anything. Apple's not always right, but i feel quite frankly that they're doing a hell of a lot more to progress the PC industry than any other group out there, including Linux.
so yes, Apple innovates. and this example of being able to author your own DVDs to play in consumer level DVD players, is an apple innovation. and if it's important to you, you'll pay the "innovation premium."
it's a nice little addition, but i think the best part of all the Aqua changes was that it showed Apple actually listened to the user feedback. that's a very good thing.
some animations of the changes can be found at the recently updated MacOS X Theatre.
my favourite change is that it appears the dock can be moved to the right or left side of the screen! i'm a litle surprised Apple didn't make this available through a option+click+drag, but i guess they want to shield all those newbie users from dramatic changes to the interface:). at any rate, it's nice that it's available as a hack from the terminal. the dock on the right will make it feel more like Windowmaker/NeXTStep and that's good news to me!:)
Now, once you've selected every possible option, and loaded this potentially-yours Apple with all the goodies that make these machines so great, look at the price.
yes, Apple is an innovator. they come out with a lot of "industry firsts," and as a whole system, make a better product for many markets. if you want these features that are only available on Macs today, you pay for it. if you don't mind waiting until PCs eventually catch up, don't pay for it.
i don't see how what you've said is particularly novel. for the people who want/need these features and abilities, they pay for them. it's that simple.
You can do a track by track clone of a DVD and get a perfect copy if you have a DVD player and burner in the same system.
well no, not exactly. by the looks of things, i'm not really sure there is a way to do a track-by-track copy of a DVD. as far as i know there's no "ripping" option to make an image of a DVD, and from what i've seen, there's no "burn from image" option on these new Macs.
while it would be possible to "rip" the video stream and re-encode it to a new DVD, you'd be without the DVD menu, or any of the extras that ship on DVDs these days. not to mention the fact that this would be an extremely long procedure, and not worth it to most people.
i imagine the real "danger" would be from people downloading DiV/Xs from the net, converting them to Quicktime, and then burning them to iDVD. still not ideal, as you only get the "bare movie," but probably good enough for most casual pirates.
still, unless i'm reading all of this wrong, there's no way to make bit-for-bit copies of DVDs using this drive. this could all change in the future however, as it seems that the only thing holding it back is the availability of proper software.
a couple of things: it should be noted that Apple will be selling blank DVD media (that will play in commercial players) for $10/each. that's amazing. secondly, i really hope it's possible to burn region-free DVDs. i don't want region coding infecting the movies i create.
Perhaps they're even faster than Apple's 2:1 claim? Curious.
possibly, but the Apple encoder is highly Altivec enhanced. after you get through all the Marketing hype surrounding Apple products, Altivec is still a very impressive technology (albeit a Motorola technology, not Apple).
remember, the G4 completely wipes the floor with a Pentium 4... when the applications are Altivec enhanced. this is one of those cases where i imagine the G4 really would outperform a top-of-the-line Pentium, as something like encoding MPEG-2 is pretty much what Altivec is designed for.
hah, no kidding. i found this whole thing very humourous. it's like they've said "hey, let's overengineer the hell out of these things so that it's better than a high-end computer workstation!" that's great guys, but in five years, when this format would actually get accepted, suddenly these "enormous" files aren't going to seem so big.
but hey, i'm all for it if it enables fair use: something DVDs really don't allow.
To me OSX is like linux, but not free and tied to one company.
wow, then you're really short-sighted (and paranoid). it is exactly linux, but more stable (on PPC), a better interface, easier to use and configure, runs older MacOS programs, and will have a huge install base (which is more than i can say for the handful of people who use LinuxPPC).
Why develop for OSX?" I mean, if I write software with a GTK interface, I can run it anywhere including OSX and Windows (see the recent slashdot article about GNOME on Win32). If I use Apple's API, I can only run it on OSX. What's the point?
i'd program for Cocoa over Gnome as i'd like to have code that can reach a real marketshare. GTK on Win32 is (currently) a hack, and GTK doesn't currently run on MacOS X. GTK is designed for Linux, not for MacOS & Windows. i see people complain about the quirks in designing Java for "all platforms." i can't believe that designing for GTK will give you satisfactory performance on all platforms. thre are much better solutions if you're that concerned with portability.
of course, if you're dead set on simply marketshare, why not just program for Win32 and be done with it? it would entirely depend on your application. the GTK is not some kind of 'silver bullet' of compatibility.
additionally, how about the fact that the development environment is much nicer to code in? have you tried Project Builder? it's very slick. plus it's much easier to end up with a clean and useful user interface than with any Linux development tools i've seen.
i have no doubts about Linux' potential on the x86 platform, and i believe that it's the best solution for many tasks on that hardware. but running Linux on PowerPC will be difficult to justify once MacOS X is in full production.
If your only want a workstation then run MacOS X.. If you want networking with better performence... Run LinuxPPC
i would argue that running a server would best be served with Darwin. it's an opensource OS with high-performance networking, but it's got Apple's development time and dollars behind it. ultimately that will mean it will be a better fit for the hardware, as the same people making the hardware can advise in the software. as for machines "unsupported" buy Apple, you've got additions from the community (already happening), and you're no worse off than Linux, and maybe better off if you consider the benefit of the hardware vendor supplying the rest of the code.
so again, there's no point in running LinuxPPC in my mind. if you need a workstation, use OS X, if you need a server, use Darwin.
LinuxPPC is a great way to breath life into those old boxes, by turning them into servers.
this is true, but if MacOS X becomes as popular as everybody says it will be, then in the very near future it may actually be more sensible to "breath life those old boxes" by using Darwin instead of LinuxPPC. why use Linux for this? if it's just going to be a server, probably with no X-Windows, why not use the opensource OS that's got the development dollars of Apple behind it?
see here's the thing: this year it'll make the most sense to run MacOS X as your Macintosh desktop OS, and in the near future, it'll also make more sense to run Darwin on your servers (many 3rd party developers have already put support for older machines in the Darwin kernel). where does LinuxPPC fit in this equation? answer: it doesn't. there is very little reason to run LinuxPPC.
if you want to run Linux, get an x86 box: that's what it's designed for first. if you have a Mac, MacOS X & Darwin are the best tools for that hardware.
yeah, the G3 is actually a really nice chip. if you'd like a cost-effective G3, why not pick up a used Blue&White on eBay? (preferably a "Rev 2," since the Rev 1 had some little annoyances) they're a great design, easy to get in and out of, and very upgradeable. by far the nicest computer i've ever owned.
with regards to your comment, this is the only place i can see LinuxPPC working: a situation where you happen to have an extra Mac kicking around, and need a small server set up. still, i would imagine that in the near future it would be best to install Darwin on these machines. it seems considerably more stable, and can compile just about everything application that compiles for LinuxPPC with minimal effort, especially commandline (i.e. server) tools.
at any rate, i'd imagine that only the most stubborn people will be running LinuxPPC a year from now.
well as i've already commented here, i have a lot of trouble finding a good reason to use LinuxPPC over MacOS X
i've used many incarnations of Linux on Apple computers, including LinuxPPC and Yellow Dog. i found that in both cases they were akward and buggy compared to similar Linux installations on my x86 box. i run linux regularly on this x86 machine but after years of trying LinuxPPC, i have given up on it completely except when i absolutely need it.
i found that just about every software program that i use on x86, including relatively "critical" software, like my window managers and GUI (WindowMaker, KDE, Gnome) were completely unusable due to the number of bugs i encountered. Linux PPC was outright useless on my Powerbook G3, as i would experience at a kernel panic every couple of days. and despite getting help from the Usenet, mailing lists and web boards, i just couldn't find a suitible fix for the problem. i've been a linux user since 1994, and i have never had as many problems running linux x86 in all those years as i've had running LinuxPPC in the last two years.
with regards to MacOS X, i've been running it since DP3, and i've been very happy with it. it's been very stable, i'm quite fond of Aqua (though it did take some getting used to) especially with the recent changes in the latest developer builds. it runs all my old MacOS 9 programs, it's got all the command-line utilities i could ever want, and Project Builder is a joy to develop in.
MacOS X isn't perfect of course: it's quite sluggish and requires a lot of RAM, but this is getting better with each new build, and isn't a problem at all if you don't need to run classic (and with any luck, the applications i'll need will be carbonized soon, and i can do away with classic all together). actually the speed of MacOS X without running classic is completely reasonable, even on my old G3.
what it comes down to is that Linux is really meant for x86. all major development is done for Intel first, and porting to PPC is an afterthought at best. this is certainly true for any third-party applications. i can't see using LinuxPPC as a server, as that seems like a job that would be more cost-effective done on an x86 box. and as a desktop machine, MacOS X beats it hands down. i will glady throw away LinuxPPC as soon as a reliable X-Server can be run on MacOS X.
so remind me again why i should be running LinuxPPC? maybe it sounds like i've been drinking the Apple Kool-Aid, but i'm completely sold on MacOS X.
yes, i realize this. i actually work in the semiconductor industry, and i'm very familiar with Motorolla PowerPC from and embedded systems standpoint (Motorollo's primary focus for the PowerPC).
really the only problem with Apple's computers is the fact that Motorolla chips are holding them back. i'm sure they would've gone for IBM long ago, and would have had a plan in place to have near 1Ghz G3s if Altavec wasn't so damned impressive. if it weren't for the Motorolla problem, Apple's computer would be considerably faster and cheaper. it's no reason to go jumping to Intel as some might suggest, but it is a serious problem.
so that's who's buying G4 Cubes. i was wondering which 50 people bought them, as it certainly wasn't anybody i know.
people have been wondering what the target market was for these things: do you think Apple had this in mind all along? i guess this would account for the astronomical pricing;)
yes, the fan quit, and the power supply blew (specifically a capacitor blew, not a transistor). but before the power supply gave out, the spike travelled through the power cord and one of the motherboard chips put a nice nasty black mark just as it was dying. in addtion, the Trident chip on my video card also decided its time was up, and the interal explosion caused the outer plastic to buckle in the point of failure.
so in closing, yes my PC is completely toast, and you, my kind sir, a complete fucking idiot.
ok, let me get this straight: an interview with one of the leading developers of LinuxPPC and not one question that pertained to MacOS X!? did no MacOS X question get asked, or did he just ignore them?
i'd like to know, because i've tried both, and after getting used to MacOS X, i really can't see any reason to run LinuxPPC as a desktop machine. (i may pick up an old mac to run as my firewall, however. my old PC just blew up, literally; smoke and all).
but servers aside, can anybody give me any one good reason why i should use LinuxPPC over MacOS X? because i can't think of one. on my machine (B&W G3) MacOS X has been more stable, it runs my old Mac programs, it's up-to-date and compatible with all Macs, excellent SMP (i'll get a dual processor box next), and to top it all off it's got a more consistant and cleaner interface (no linux GUI i've tried has come close, and i've learned Aqua is very "tweakable").
so apart from my little firewall (that would really best be searved with FreeBSD on an x86 box), remind me again why i would have any good reason to run LinuxPPC? and "because it's GPL" doesn't count as a good reason for me, especially after Apple has "refined" the APSL.
Apple must be in a real funk over this - their business model depends on proprietary hardware yet a move to a different CPU seems inevitable. Are there any alternatives besides Alpha and x86? Mac OS/X is already being ported to x86 - perhaps Apple is transitioning themselves to a pure-software company. Maybe that will mean us x86'ers can run that kewl Aqua GUI on our existing boxes:-)
actually there's no reason why apple can't design computers exactly as they have been now but put an x86 processor in there instead of a PPC (except, of course, we'd kiss 'fanless' goodbye). they then make the MacOS still run on "Apple" hardware, but with the benefit (? i still prefer PPC) of having x86 processors. then they clearly say "MacOS only runs on Apple computers."
of course, you may be able to hack OS X to run on your cheap-taiwanese-generic motherboard (especially with access to the kernel), but it's not guaranteed to work, and Apple doesn't need to take you into account when upgrading the OS.
making Apple a software-only company would be stupid. they make lots of money off of hardware, and also design some really really really nice hardware. if PPC chips weren't stuck at 500Mhz, they'd be the best consumer PCs out there by far.
i actually put that in my comment just incase somebody knew! i've asked on some of the Mac boards, but people have told me it wasn't possible.
still, i check MacOS X hints and didn't find any references in there. i'll look harder tomorrow, but if in the meantime anybody has the URL handy, send it to me!
i always though that Twain quote was "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated," but i guess it's a case of a morphing quote.
this page says that the first instance of this quote was written as: "the report of my death was an exaggeration." doesn't really have the same "ring" to it, does it?
X-Windows running alongside (and inheriting the window widgets of) Aqua in MacOS X is about the only thing keeping me from using MacOS X on a regular basis. i can't wait to compile and install this new patch to see how close i can get to seamlessly using UNIX and Mac applications side by side.
despite how much i hated Aqua and many of the changes of MacOS X at first, it's definitely grown on me as of late, and my "wishlist" is mostly comprised of nit-picky features (but damn how i wish i could put the 'dock' on the right side of the screen like i did in NeXTStep). once i can run X applications in a satisfactory manner, i will have absolutely no need for my Linux box (except, perhaps, as a toy).
i won't be able to install this for at least a week however, as my Mac is too important for "real" work to start installing new patches to a beta OS. but i'm dying to know: does anybody have a screenshot of this particular implementation running on their OSX box? i'd love to see how well it integrates into Aqua.
..and serious "Kudos" to all the people involved in this project. after my current contract is done, perhaps i'll take some time out to help them with the code.
However, there's not a chance in hell it will get implemented.
oh yes, this a know, i'm just putting down the ideal case. quite frankly i don't even give a shit, as i don't own a TV, nor to i plan to buy a TV anytime in the forseeable future. there aren't enough quality shows on TV to justify owning one.
but yeah, this whole content-delivery bullshit is a funny little battle to watch from afar;)
seems like a reasonable idea to me, but what happens if you leave your TV on? or watch some really bad show--can i get my money back?:)
i think ultimately the TV networks (bandwidth permitting) need to move to some sort of TV-on-demand. i think that people have already shown an interest in this with Napster: i think the real drawing point to Napster is that you can have a song anytime you want to hear it. it's that immediate gradification that's important.
first off, i should note that i don't own a TV. i hate TV, i hate most of what's on it, and i hate the way it works (networks feed you the stuff when they want it). however i would watch quite often if there were TV on demand. here's how i figure it would work:
consumers would pay a monthly fee (like they do now for cable) to have access to the "basic" shows (this pays the cable provider mostly). (Movies, Sports and Porn would be more for instance). the real difference, however, is that you get to watch whatever you want whenever you want. if i sit down at the TV and want to watch "Seinfeld" for instance, i chose it from a menu, and the show "streams" to me. note that fast-forwarding would not be possible, so commercials could stay the way they are now.
now ignore the vast bandwidth requirements for just a moment, and follow me:). the ability to watch shows whenever you want completely does away with the idea of "prime time." now of course, shows would have to be "aired" at a certain time (ie, you can't watch it before 8pm on Thursday because the show hasn't been finished/released yet), but any time after that you can watch. getting rid of primetime doesn't matter though. instead of advertisement prices being based on timeslots, they're based on popularity of the shows. the added benefit of TV-on-demand is that the networks will have exact ratings of who watched what and when. not to mention the fact that advertisements can constantly be changed to suit the relative popularity of the show, and the popularity of the episode. i think both networks and advertisers would agree this is the best way to do it.
now appart from this, you'd still need to have a "just whatever's on" type of option, otherwise you'd never really know about new shows and you'd watch only what you had seen before (and eventually get very bored of it). the difference is that the TV set knows what you've watched in the past, so when you just turn on one of the "whatever" channels, it can be better tailored to what you like. everybody will like this: consumers are more likely to see TV shows they'll enjoy, and will watch TV more often (you'll hear "there's nothing on" much less often). networks are happy because people watch more TV, and they get precise ratings. advertisers are happy as they get great market research data, exact ratings and better tailored advertisements.
note that this kind of setup completely eliminates the need for VCRs or Tivo completely! network providers can still charge extra cash for "Pay Per View" events, and "specialty channels" (really just "specialty shows based on a theme") can be added to a base "package."
of course the only thing this does require is amazing amounts of bandwidth to each home. but the day that this much bandwidth is available shouldn't be too far off.
what do you guys think of a setup like this? i'd love it!
i don't think this is nearly as bad as you make it out to be. here's the thing: computers are getting too fast these days. there are very few people who need 1GHz computers. most people just need a pretty average machine, and even an "average" machine these days are pretty quick!
with processor speeds increasing they way they have, i predict that computers will start to sell based on other criteria, rather than just "speed." this is where you're going to see Apple really take off. it'll be similar to why people buy cars: they don't buy just the car with the fastest engine, they buy the one with the features and style they want.
you say the "average consumer" is going to pick the bigger number of Mhz. i say the "average consumer" doesn't even care! have you talked to "normal" people about getting a new computer? this is what they say: "I want to buy a computer." they don't say, "i want to buy a 1GHz Athelon." most computer-illeterate people i've met just equate a computer as a computer. as long as it's not "old" (that is, used), it's just a "computer" the same as a car is a car. they'll go out and buy the one they like the most after "test driving" it in the store.
it's mostly computer-savvy or at least somewhat-computer-intersted people who even look at "specs." it's the people who have a passing interst, but no really solid knowledge in computers that buy based on bigger number of Mhz. when you start selling to people who really don't give a shit as long as the computer does the job they want it to, then pretty Apple computers, with easy Firewire and USB port and the slick interface of Aqua is going to sell.
at any rate, i'm very much looking forward to the future of Apple. i love running Linux, but i still get all my "real work" done on a Mac, and i don't think that's going to change with Mac OS X (except that it may actually cause me to use my linux box considerably less)
Slashdot Mirror
if you get the joke then just smile and nod. it isn't funny if it has to be pointed out to somebody explicitly :)
:)
i like it because there are only a few people here who would actually 'get it.'
- j
well a few people have already responded, but a few that i can think of from the last couple of years would be: firewire and usb standard (usb was going nowhere under wintel), consumer level video editing, standard and trivially simple wireless networking, an intuitive and consistant user interface, drag-and-drop integrated CD burning, personal DVD authoring, and hey, how about bringing a full-powered UNIX operating system to consumers (something Linux, after all the hype still can't seem to come close to doing).
perhaps they're not the innovations that are important to you but that doesn't make them any less valid. but Apple is consistantly one of the first to bring new technologies (especially those that bring more integration) to the computer industry. meanwhile the PC world is happy to sit back and be painfully backwards compatible, scared of any new standard and eventually implement whatever sticks around the longest. Apple takes a good technology and runs with it.
everybody's saying the PC industry is dying off -- they're seeing a slowdown in growth. why? because the major players are too chickenshit to actually implement anything novel. they sit back and take whatever Microsoft feeds them, and it's in Microsoft's best interests not to change anything. Apple's not always right, but i feel quite frankly that they're doing a hell of a lot more to progress the PC industry than any other group out there, including Linux.
so yes, Apple innovates. and this example of being able to author your own DVDs to play in consumer level DVD players, is an apple innovation. and if it's important to you, you'll pay the "innovation premium."
- j
i love this sig. it's so entertaining to see responses from people who think they're being clever, when really they just missed the joke.
- j
it's a nice little addition, but i think the best part of all the Aqua changes was that it showed Apple actually listened to the user feedback. that's a very good thing.
some animations of the changes can be found at the recently updated MacOS X Theatre.
my favourite change is that it appears the dock can be moved to the right or left side of the screen! i'm a litle surprised Apple didn't make this available through a option+click+drag, but i guess they want to shield all those newbie users from dramatic changes to the interface :). at any rate, it's nice that it's available as a hack from the terminal. the dock on the right will make it feel more like Windowmaker/NeXTStep and that's good news to me! :)
- j
Now, once you've selected every possible option, and loaded this potentially-yours Apple with all the goodies that make these machines so great, look at the price.
yes, Apple is an innovator. they come out with a lot of "industry firsts," and as a whole system, make a better product for many markets. if you want these features that are only available on Macs today, you pay for it. if you don't mind waiting until PCs eventually catch up, don't pay for it.
i don't see how what you've said is particularly novel. for the people who want/need these features and abilities, they pay for them. it's that simple.
- j
You can do a track by track clone of a DVD and get a perfect copy if you have a DVD player and burner in the same system.
well no, not exactly. by the looks of things, i'm not really sure there is a way to do a track-by-track copy of a DVD. as far as i know there's no "ripping" option to make an image of a DVD, and from what i've seen, there's no "burn from image" option on these new Macs.
while it would be possible to "rip" the video stream and re-encode it to a new DVD, you'd be without the DVD menu, or any of the extras that ship on DVDs these days. not to mention the fact that this would be an extremely long procedure, and not worth it to most people.
i imagine the real "danger" would be from people downloading DiV/Xs from the net, converting them to Quicktime, and then burning them to iDVD. still not ideal, as you only get the "bare movie," but probably good enough for most casual pirates.
still, unless i'm reading all of this wrong, there's no way to make bit-for-bit copies of DVDs using this drive. this could all change in the future however, as it seems that the only thing holding it back is the availability of proper software.
a couple of things: it should be noted that Apple will be selling blank DVD media (that will play in commercial players) for $10/each. that's amazing. secondly, i really hope it's possible to burn region-free DVDs. i don't want region coding infecting the movies i create.
- j
Perhaps they're even faster than Apple's 2:1 claim? Curious.
possibly, but the Apple encoder is highly Altivec enhanced. after you get through all the Marketing hype surrounding Apple products, Altivec is still a very impressive technology (albeit a Motorola technology, not Apple).
remember, the G4 completely wipes the floor with a Pentium 4 ... when the applications are Altivec enhanced. this is one of those cases where i imagine the G4 really would outperform a top-of-the-line Pentium, as something like encoding MPEG-2 is pretty much what Altivec is designed for.
- j
hah, no kidding. i found this whole thing very humourous. it's like they've said "hey, let's overengineer the hell out of these things so that it's better than a high-end computer workstation!" that's great guys, but in five years, when this format would actually get accepted, suddenly these "enormous" files aren't going to seem so big.
but hey, i'm all for it if it enables fair use: something DVDs really don't allow.
- j
To me OSX is like linux, but not free and tied to one company.
wow, then you're really short-sighted (and paranoid). it is exactly linux, but more stable (on PPC), a better interface, easier to use and configure, runs older MacOS programs, and will have a huge install base (which is more than i can say for the handful of people who use LinuxPPC).
Why develop for OSX?" I mean, if I write software with a GTK interface, I can run it anywhere including OSX and Windows (see the recent slashdot article about GNOME on Win32). If I use Apple's API, I can only run it on OSX. What's the point?
i'd program for Cocoa over Gnome as i'd like to have code that can reach a real marketshare. GTK on Win32 is (currently) a hack, and GTK doesn't currently run on MacOS X. GTK is designed for Linux, not for MacOS & Windows. i see people complain about the quirks in designing Java for "all platforms." i can't believe that designing for GTK will give you satisfactory performance on all platforms. thre are much better solutions if you're that concerned with portability.
of course, if you're dead set on simply marketshare, why not just program for Win32 and be done with it? it would entirely depend on your application. the GTK is not some kind of 'silver bullet' of compatibility.
additionally, how about the fact that the development environment is much nicer to code in? have you tried Project Builder? it's very slick. plus it's much easier to end up with a clean and useful user interface than with any Linux development tools i've seen.
i have no doubts about Linux' potential on the x86 platform, and i believe that it's the best solution for many tasks on that hardware. but running Linux on PowerPC will be difficult to justify once MacOS X is in full production.
- j
If your only want a workstation then run MacOS X.. If you want networking with better performence... Run LinuxPPC
i would argue that running a server would best be served with Darwin. it's an opensource OS with high-performance networking, but it's got Apple's development time and dollars behind it. ultimately that will mean it will be a better fit for the hardware, as the same people making the hardware can advise in the software. as for machines "unsupported" buy Apple, you've got additions from the community (already happening), and you're no worse off than Linux, and maybe better off if you consider the benefit of the hardware vendor supplying the rest of the code.
so again, there's no point in running LinuxPPC in my mind. if you need a workstation, use OS X, if you need a server, use Darwin.
- j
Sounds like a typical rave party to me. :)
yeah, that's the point. see my web page.
- j
LinuxPPC is a great way to breath life into those old boxes, by turning them into servers.
this is true, but if MacOS X becomes as popular as everybody says it will be, then in the very near future it may actually be more sensible to "breath life those old boxes" by using Darwin instead of LinuxPPC. why use Linux for this? if it's just going to be a server, probably with no X-Windows, why not use the opensource OS that's got the development dollars of Apple behind it?
see here's the thing: this year it'll make the most sense to run MacOS X as your Macintosh desktop OS, and in the near future, it'll also make more sense to run Darwin on your servers (many 3rd party developers have already put support for older machines in the Darwin kernel). where does LinuxPPC fit in this equation? answer: it doesn't. there is very little reason to run LinuxPPC.
if you want to run Linux, get an x86 box: that's what it's designed for first. if you have a Mac, MacOS X & Darwin are the best tools for that hardware.
- j
yeah, the G3 is actually a really nice chip. if you'd like a cost-effective G3, why not pick up a used Blue&White on eBay? (preferably a "Rev 2," since the Rev 1 had some little annoyances) they're a great design, easy to get in and out of, and very upgradeable. by far the nicest computer i've ever owned.
with regards to your comment, this is the only place i can see LinuxPPC working: a situation where you happen to have an extra Mac kicking around, and need a small server set up. still, i would imagine that in the near future it would be best to install Darwin on these machines. it seems considerably more stable, and can compile just about everything application that compiles for LinuxPPC with minimal effort, especially commandline (i.e. server) tools.
at any rate, i'd imagine that only the most stubborn people will be running LinuxPPC a year from now.
- j
well as i've already commented here, i have a lot of trouble finding a good reason to use LinuxPPC over MacOS X
i've used many incarnations of Linux on Apple computers, including LinuxPPC and Yellow Dog. i found that in both cases they were akward and buggy compared to similar Linux installations on my x86 box. i run linux regularly on this x86 machine but after years of trying LinuxPPC, i have given up on it completely except when i absolutely need it.
i found that just about every software program that i use on x86, including relatively "critical" software, like my window managers and GUI (WindowMaker, KDE, Gnome) were completely unusable due to the number of bugs i encountered. Linux PPC was outright useless on my Powerbook G3, as i would experience at a kernel panic every couple of days. and despite getting help from the Usenet, mailing lists and web boards, i just couldn't find a suitible fix for the problem. i've been a linux user since 1994, and i have never had as many problems running linux x86 in all those years as i've had running LinuxPPC in the last two years.
with regards to MacOS X, i've been running it since DP3, and i've been very happy with it. it's been very stable, i'm quite fond of Aqua (though it did take some getting used to) especially with the recent changes in the latest developer builds. it runs all my old MacOS 9 programs, it's got all the command-line utilities i could ever want, and Project Builder is a joy to develop in.
MacOS X isn't perfect of course: it's quite sluggish and requires a lot of RAM, but this is getting better with each new build, and isn't a problem at all if you don't need to run classic (and with any luck, the applications i'll need will be carbonized soon, and i can do away with classic all together). actually the speed of MacOS X without running classic is completely reasonable, even on my old G3.
what it comes down to is that Linux is really meant for x86. all major development is done for Intel first, and porting to PPC is an afterthought at best. this is certainly true for any third-party applications. i can't see using LinuxPPC as a server, as that seems like a job that would be more cost-effective done on an x86 box. and as a desktop machine, MacOS X beats it hands down. i will glady throw away LinuxPPC as soon as a reliable X-Server can be run on MacOS X.
so remind me again why i should be running LinuxPPC? maybe it sounds like i've been drinking the Apple Kool-Aid, but i'm completely sold on MacOS X.
- j
yes, i realize this. i actually work in the semiconductor industry, and i'm very familiar with Motorolla PowerPC from and embedded systems standpoint (Motorollo's primary focus for the PowerPC).
really the only problem with Apple's computers is the fact that Motorolla chips are holding them back. i'm sure they would've gone for IBM long ago, and would have had a plan in place to have near 1Ghz G3s if Altavec wasn't so damned impressive. if it weren't for the Motorolla problem, Apple's computer would be considerably faster and cheaper. it's no reason to go jumping to Intel as some might suggest, but it is a serious problem.
- j
so that's who's buying G4 Cubes. i was wondering which 50 people bought them, as it certainly wasn't anybody i know.
people have been wondering what the target market was for these things: do you think Apple had this in mind all along? i guess this would account for the astronomical pricing ;)
- j
hi there, you're a moron.
yes, the fan quit, and the power supply blew (specifically a capacitor blew, not a transistor). but before the power supply gave out, the spike travelled through the power cord and one of the motherboard chips put a nice nasty black mark just as it was dying. in addtion, the Trident chip on my video card also decided its time was up, and the interal explosion caused the outer plastic to buckle in the point of failure.
so in closing, yes my PC is completely toast, and you, my kind sir, a complete fucking idiot.
- j
ok, let me get this straight: an interview with one of the leading developers of LinuxPPC and not one question that pertained to MacOS X!? did no MacOS X question get asked, or did he just ignore them?
i'd like to know, because i've tried both, and after getting used to MacOS X, i really can't see any reason to run LinuxPPC as a desktop machine. (i may pick up an old mac to run as my firewall, however. my old PC just blew up, literally; smoke and all).
but servers aside, can anybody give me any one good reason why i should use LinuxPPC over MacOS X? because i can't think of one. on my machine (B&W G3) MacOS X has been more stable, it runs my old Mac programs, it's up-to-date and compatible with all Macs, excellent SMP (i'll get a dual processor box next), and to top it all off it's got a more consistant and cleaner interface (no linux GUI i've tried has come close, and i've learned Aqua is very "tweakable").
so apart from my little firewall (that would really best be searved with FreeBSD on an x86 box), remind me again why i would have any good reason to run LinuxPPC? and "because it's GPL" doesn't count as a good reason for me, especially after Apple has "refined" the APSL.
- j
Apple must be in a real funk over this - their business model depends on proprietary hardware yet a move to a different CPU seems inevitable. Are there any alternatives besides Alpha and x86? Mac OS/X is already being ported to x86 - perhaps Apple is transitioning themselves to a pure-software company. Maybe that will mean us x86'ers can run that kewl Aqua GUI on our existing boxes :-)
actually there's no reason why apple can't design computers exactly as they have been now but put an x86 processor in there instead of a PPC (except, of course, we'd kiss 'fanless' goodbye). they then make the MacOS still run on "Apple" hardware, but with the benefit (? i still prefer PPC) of having x86 processors. then they clearly say "MacOS only runs on Apple computers."
of course, you may be able to hack OS X to run on your cheap-taiwanese-generic motherboard (especially with access to the kernel), but it's not guaranteed to work, and Apple doesn't need to take you into account when upgrading the OS.
making Apple a software-only company would be stupid. they make lots of money off of hardware, and also design some really really really nice hardware. if PPC chips weren't stuck at 500Mhz, they'd be the best consumer PCs out there by far.
- j
i actually put that in my comment just incase somebody knew! i've asked on some of the Mac boards, but people have told me it wasn't possible.
still, i check MacOS X hints and didn't find any references in there. i'll look harder tomorrow, but if in the meantime anybody has the URL handy, send it to me!
anyhow, thanks for the tip!
- j
i always though that Twain quote was "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated," but i guess it's a case of a morphing quote.
this page says that the first instance of this quote was written as: "the report of my death was an exaggeration." doesn't really have the same "ring" to it, does it?
- j
X-Windows running alongside (and inheriting the window widgets of) Aqua in MacOS X is about the only thing keeping me from using MacOS X on a regular basis. i can't wait to compile and install this new patch to see how close i can get to seamlessly using UNIX and Mac applications side by side.
despite how much i hated Aqua and many of the changes of MacOS X at first, it's definitely grown on me as of late, and my "wishlist" is mostly comprised of nit-picky features (but damn how i wish i could put the 'dock' on the right side of the screen like i did in NeXTStep). once i can run X applications in a satisfactory manner, i will have absolutely no need for my Linux box (except, perhaps, as a toy).
i won't be able to install this for at least a week however, as my Mac is too important for "real" work to start installing new patches to a beta OS. but i'm dying to know: does anybody have a screenshot of this particular implementation running on their OSX box? i'd love to see how well it integrates into Aqua.
..and serious "Kudos" to all the people involved in this project. after my current contract is done, perhaps i'll take some time out to help them with the code.
- j
However, there's not a chance in hell it will get implemented.
oh yes, this a know, i'm just putting down the ideal case. quite frankly i don't even give a shit, as i don't own a TV, nor to i plan to buy a TV anytime in the forseeable future. there aren't enough quality shows on TV to justify owning one.
but yeah, this whole content-delivery bullshit is a funny little battle to watch from afar ;)
- j
seems like a reasonable idea to me, but what happens if you leave your TV on? or watch some really bad show--can i get my money back? :)
i think ultimately the TV networks (bandwidth permitting) need to move to some sort of TV-on-demand. i think that people have already shown an interest in this with Napster: i think the real drawing point to Napster is that you can have a song anytime you want to hear it. it's that immediate gradification that's important.
first off, i should note that i don't own a TV. i hate TV, i hate most of what's on it, and i hate the way it works (networks feed you the stuff when they want it). however i would watch quite often if there were TV on demand. here's how i figure it would work:
consumers would pay a monthly fee (like they do now for cable) to have access to the "basic" shows (this pays the cable provider mostly). (Movies, Sports and Porn would be more for instance). the real difference, however, is that you get to watch whatever you want whenever you want. if i sit down at the TV and want to watch "Seinfeld" for instance, i chose it from a menu, and the show "streams" to me. note that fast-forwarding would not be possible, so commercials could stay the way they are now.
now ignore the vast bandwidth requirements for just a moment, and follow me :). the ability to watch shows whenever you want completely does away with the idea of "prime time." now of course, shows would have to be "aired" at a certain time (ie, you can't watch it before 8pm on Thursday because the show hasn't been finished/released yet), but any time after that you can watch. getting rid of primetime doesn't matter though. instead of advertisement prices being based on timeslots, they're based on popularity of the shows. the added benefit of TV-on-demand is that the networks will have exact ratings of who watched what and when. not to mention the fact that advertisements can constantly be changed to suit the relative popularity of the show, and the popularity of the episode. i think both networks and advertisers would agree this is the best way to do it.
now appart from this, you'd still need to have a "just whatever's on" type of option, otherwise you'd never really know about new shows and you'd watch only what you had seen before (and eventually get very bored of it). the difference is that the TV set knows what you've watched in the past, so when you just turn on one of the "whatever" channels, it can be better tailored to what you like. everybody will like this: consumers are more likely to see TV shows they'll enjoy, and will watch TV more often (you'll hear "there's nothing on" much less often). networks are happy because people watch more TV, and they get precise ratings. advertisers are happy as they get great market research data, exact ratings and better tailored advertisements.
note that this kind of setup completely eliminates the need for VCRs or Tivo completely! network providers can still charge extra cash for "Pay Per View" events, and "specialty channels" (really just "specialty shows based on a theme") can be added to a base "package."
of course the only thing this does require is amazing amounts of bandwidth to each home. but the day that this much bandwidth is available shouldn't be too far off.
what do you guys think of a setup like this? i'd love it!
- j
i don't think this is nearly as bad as you make it out to be. here's the thing: computers are getting too fast these days. there are very few people who need 1GHz computers. most people just need a pretty average machine, and even an "average" machine these days are pretty quick!
with processor speeds increasing they way they have, i predict that computers will start to sell based on other criteria, rather than just "speed." this is where you're going to see Apple really take off. it'll be similar to why people buy cars: they don't buy just the car with the fastest engine, they buy the one with the features and style they want.
you say the "average consumer" is going to pick the bigger number of Mhz. i say the "average consumer" doesn't even care! have you talked to "normal" people about getting a new computer? this is what they say: "I want to buy a computer." they don't say, "i want to buy a 1GHz Athelon." most computer-illeterate people i've met just equate a computer as a computer. as long as it's not "old" (that is, used), it's just a "computer" the same as a car is a car. they'll go out and buy the one they like the most after "test driving" it in the store.
it's mostly computer-savvy or at least somewhat-computer-intersted people who even look at "specs." it's the people who have a passing interst, but no really solid knowledge in computers that buy based on bigger number of Mhz. when you start selling to people who really don't give a shit as long as the computer does the job they want it to, then pretty Apple computers, with easy Firewire and USB port and the slick interface of Aqua is going to sell.
at any rate, i'm very much looking forward to the future of Apple. i love running Linux, but i still get all my "real work" done on a Mac, and i don't think that's going to change with Mac OS X (except that it may actually cause me to use my linux box considerably less)
- j