Stop blaming the words. If your title has lost it's sheen, then perhaps it's you who's tarnished it.
An while we're at it, IT guys - please stop calling yourselves architects. It's silly.
If the things we value most in an OS are stability, performance and technical advancement, why are those the very things for which we are least willing to pay?
Levenger has a wide range of lap desks. I have both their standard bean shaped one and also a 'scooter'. Both work well, and the scooter, though expensive, is fully adjustable and so sturdy that I use it for my Cintiq 21" tablet.
You're assuming new content for 52 weeks. Season passes for those 10 shows on iTunes might cost you $480/yr. max., or $40/month. There are no subscription costs. So, are you willing to pay $35 extra per month for what cable offers apart from those 10 shows? That's the real question.
Less than $600 billion to build a biomass infrastructure that will reduce the cost of transportation fuel by a third, eliminate net CO2 emissions for autos, strengthen our agricultural sector (putting an end to farming subsidies), and end our dependency on the Middle East. We'll probably spend that much on the Gulf War alone. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
The contract was awarded to Microsoft MES, not Microsoft Automotive. I believe MES is a joint venture with Siemens, the technology partner to Mclaren (The shiny silver cars, for those who don't follow racing. Philistines.). Since McLaren already supplies a good deal of motorsports electronic components, this isn't much of a surprise.
I applaud Microsoft for at least trying, because unlike Google or Apple, they realize that the future is in a database driving relational file system and not stop gap pseudo-solutions like indexing.
Come August, you'll probably regret that statement.
Compare this to a young, single worker in a big city in the the US. Say you pay $500/mo. in rent, and $200/mo. in food = $700, after tax. So about $900 pre-tax per month doubled gives an annual salary of $21,600. Since the poverty line in the US for a single worker is less than $10,000, you could argue that Apple's contractor is paying twice the poverty wage, and so the workers are doing ok. Not great by any means, but ok; and I can imagine these being sought after jobs in their country for unskilled labor. That doesn't mean I think their life is peachy and that I want to trade places; but in their economy, I don't see any proof from these numbers that they're being mistreated.
It isn't fair, but this is how poor economies develop in a capitalist economy. If western wages were required, then there would be no incentive for investment, and their economies would remain rural and undeveloped, and the workers would be much worse off. As it is, the Chinese economy and therefore the workers salaries will slowly develop as increased investment leads to higher skills and more competition for labor. Of course, prices will increase accordingly, but while the proportion of income to expenses will stay the same, the increased salaries will enable workers to use their disposable income to buy iPods made from sweatshops in Africa.
Well, effectively, they did. There was nothing that could be done at that point to save them.
What you say may well be true, since the cockpit I don't think was designed to handle such an impact. However, a 200mph crash is survivable, provided the vehicle, the seat, etc. are designed properly - just watch a season of F1 for proof. I'd be curious to know if the current shuttle cabin has been designed to similar standards.
You're right. But every Mac salesman who tells you that Macs are immune from viruses is matched by 100 pc salesmen who will tell you that what they're pushing is immune as well, since they're loaded with the latest XP and VP software. They're salesmen, and you can't fault them for a good pitch.
So yeah, there's a lot of Macs out there without VP software. But as another poster mentioned, there isn't a lot for VP software to do right now. Mac's ship with all the dangerous stuff turned off, firewall on, require a password for most everything, and Apple does a decent job of not building in vulnerable features and keeping on top of security issues as they're discovered. There really isn't much else to do. Sure, you can add a VP program and feel even more smug, but since the VP program can only watch for suspicious activity, there's really no guarantee, or even a good chance, that it will catch whatever it is that it's looking for. In the meantime, it just sits there and causes problems.
We're in a period now of hype escalation, where someone says, quite truthfully, that Macs are less vulnerable to viruses, so the MS fanboys yell foul and the self-rightous geeks begin their lectures on security, so then the mac fans feel hurt and start to exagerate the original claim as 'God's Truth as spoken by Jobs', so then the VP companies jump on the issue to drum up some sales, which brings the pundits into the row, which gets a post or two on Slashdot, etc., etc.
I have no doubt that there will be a virus for the Mac. But since the Mac market share isn't going to boom overnight, and since most Macs are pretty well protected for the reasons listed above, the virus will likely spread slowly enough to give us all time to react. And once that happens, Mac users will be more aware and will start installing VP software, which will then actually have something to look for.
Aperture's feature set is different from Photoshop's, yes, but where they overlap is significant from a photographer's point of view. I'd say that 95% of what I do to photos is now covered by Aperture. I'll still need PS, but as of today it's been relegated to secondary importance, and will be much more easily replaced if something simpler/cheaper/better comes along. For people like graphic designers and digital artists, Aperture may only be a nice accompaniment to PS, but for photographers, this is huge. It's actually quite perfect.
I don't have one yet, so discount this as necessary - but I suspect that the mouse does use touch sensitivity, just not as we expect. I'm guessing that there is only one mechanical clicking bit in the mouse, but that the computer senses which finger is pushing harder via the touch pads and translates the click as left of right accordingly.
Also, apple doesn't say that the mouse has a speaker, they just say that it provides subtle aural feedback.
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
Sure, cloning MS's API's would be difficult, but there have been rumors of just such a skunkworks project since the days of Rhapsody. If those rumors were true, then Apple's has a good head start on getting the job done. Could MS screw with the API's? Sure, but not without screwing their own customers. Adobe et al. would have a lot to gain from having a single set of API's to write to, and wouldn't take kindly to arbitrary changes. Finally, Apple could probably do a good job of making Windows apps look and act like OS X apps. Sure, there would be UI inconsistencies, but then OS X isn't all that consistent itself, is it?
The open sourcing of Cocoa is, I think the most important bit of an Intel strategy. After all, what's to keep developers from just writing Windows apps, and dropping their OS X products all together? Even if those apps ran fine on OS X, there would still be a perception of being the second class OS - something Steve would never put up with. Cocoa on Intel allows them to keep a dog in the hunt, and provides an attractive alternative for developers as well - especially if they could pick and choose among the API's and not be tied to only one. And why open source? For one, Apple promised to license Cocoa before, and then slowly backed away, saying they'd license it for a fee, and then not at all. So the only way they'll gain developer confidence in that respect is to set Cocoa free. Plus, they've gained great respect through Darwin, and Cocoa on Linux wouldn't hurt in gaining widespread acceptance.
The last point is equally important. Steve Jobs sheepishly announcing a shift to Intel is like him saying he's lost a battle. I can't see that ever happening. He's got to make an Intel shift seem like the smartest, coolest, biggest, boldest thing to ever happen in computers. I think he will. He'll have every industry giant he can find up there on stage talking about how developers can now write once, and run anywhere, and how Cocoa is better than mother's milk, etc., etc.
Here goes:
1. Yes, they switch, and yes, OS X will still be closed to Apple machines.
2. Apple will provide hooks for all published MS API's, allowing 90% of Windows programs to run natively within OS X on Intel.
3. Apple will open source the Cocoa API's. They will provide the API's for Windows, leaving others to port them to Linux, etc.
4. Steve will claim to have saved the world by freeing the world from Windows.
As pointed out by others, Apple could/would still make the machines proprietary.
This isn't about cost, or speed, or supply, etc. This is about Steve Jobs wanting the other 95% of the market.
Apple writes a nice tidy version of Virtual PC that lets users seamlessly run any windows app out there, right in OS X, just as fast as it would on a regular pc.
Get a top notch OS, cool hardware, and the ability to run all your existing apps. Who *wouldn't* buy this?
Seems to me like Apple's implementation of this feature is similar to Longhorn's. I wonder if a truly new file system is planned for the next release, ala BFS and WinFS.
Well, Microsoft also has a lot more resources than Apple.
The advancements we're seeing on OS X are a direct result of the decisions made and the work done early on to make the OS easy to develop. Jobs has always understood the value of this. The early Mac toolbox, the NextStep API's/ Cocoa, WebObjects, now the Core functionalities - all these are designed to make it easier to develop for the platform. This has been a must for getting new developers to build apps for a niche market. With OS X, the same principle is applied to the OS itself, making it easier to pull out one component and make improvements without messing with everything else. It allows a small team to quickly and efficiently add improvements and increase performance.
My own opinion is that the development of OS X is just now ramping up. Now that the Core components are complete, the groundwork for future funtionality has been laid, a lot of resources are now freed up to work on that functionality.
I have to ask exactly what is this button supposed to be for?
"Help! My stocks are in the toilet!"
"I'm at the toll both, and I don't have exact change!"
"I'm being mugged, and I have no cash!"
"Help! I'm poor!"
Slashdot Mirror
Stop blaming the words. If your title has lost it's sheen, then perhaps it's you who's tarnished it. An while we're at it, IT guys - please stop calling yourselves architects. It's silly.
If the things we value most in an OS are stability, performance and technical advancement, why are those the very things for which we are least willing to pay?
Levenger has a wide range of lap desks. I have both their standard bean shaped one and also a 'scooter'. Both work well, and the scooter, though expensive, is fully adjustable and so sturdy that I use it for my Cintiq 21" tablet.
This and related emails were part of the DOJ's case against MS.
http://biz.yahoo.com/msft/p29.html
You're assuming new content for 52 weeks. Season passes for those 10 shows on iTunes might cost you $480/yr. max., or $40/month. There are no subscription costs. So, are you willing to pay $35 extra per month for what cable offers apart from those 10 shows? That's the real question.
Less than $600 billion to build a biomass infrastructure that will reduce the cost of transportation fuel by a third, eliminate net CO2 emissions for autos, strengthen our agricultural sector (putting an end to farming subsidies), and end our dependency on the Middle East. We'll probably spend that much on the Gulf War alone. Sounds like a no brainer to me.
The contract was awarded to Microsoft MES, not Microsoft Automotive. I believe MES is a joint venture with Siemens, the technology partner to Mclaren (The shiny silver cars, for those who don't follow racing. Philistines.). Since McLaren already supplies a good deal of motorsports electronic components, this isn't much of a surprise.
Compare this to a young, single worker in a big city in the the US. Say you pay $500/mo. in rent, and $200/mo. in food = $700, after tax. So about $900 pre-tax per month doubled gives an annual salary of $21,600. Since the poverty line in the US for a single worker is less than $10,000, you could argue that Apple's contractor is paying twice the poverty wage, and so the workers are doing ok. Not great by any means, but ok; and I can imagine these being sought after jobs in their country for unskilled labor. That doesn't mean I think their life is peachy and that I want to trade places; but in their economy, I don't see any proof from these numbers that they're being mistreated. It isn't fair, but this is how poor economies develop in a capitalist economy. If western wages were required, then there would be no incentive for investment, and their economies would remain rural and undeveloped, and the workers would be much worse off. As it is, the Chinese economy and therefore the workers salaries will slowly develop as increased investment leads to higher skills and more competition for labor. Of course, prices will increase accordingly, but while the proportion of income to expenses will stay the same, the increased salaries will enable workers to use their disposable income to buy iPods made from sweatshops in Africa.
Well, effectively, they did. There was nothing that could be done at that point to save them.
What you say may well be true, since the cockpit I don't think was designed to handle such an impact. However, a 200mph crash is survivable, provided the vehicle, the seat, etc. are designed properly - just watch a season of F1 for proof. I'd be curious to know if the current shuttle cabin has been designed to similar standards.
You're right. But every Mac salesman who tells you that Macs are immune from viruses is matched by 100 pc salesmen who will tell you that what they're pushing is immune as well, since they're loaded with the latest XP and VP software. They're salesmen, and you can't fault them for a good pitch.
So yeah, there's a lot of Macs out there without VP software. But as another poster mentioned, there isn't a lot for VP software to do right now. Mac's ship with all the dangerous stuff turned off, firewall on, require a password for most everything, and Apple does a decent job of not building in vulnerable features and keeping on top of security issues as they're discovered. There really isn't much else to do. Sure, you can add a VP program and feel even more smug, but since the VP program can only watch for suspicious activity, there's really no guarantee, or even a good chance, that it will catch whatever it is that it's looking for. In the meantime, it just sits there and causes problems.
We're in a period now of hype escalation, where someone says, quite truthfully, that Macs are less vulnerable to viruses, so the MS fanboys yell foul and the self-rightous geeks begin their lectures on security, so then the mac fans feel hurt and start to exagerate the original claim as 'God's Truth as spoken by Jobs', so then the VP companies jump on the issue to drum up some sales, which brings the pundits into the row, which gets a post or two on Slashdot, etc., etc.
I have no doubt that there will be a virus for the Mac. But since the Mac market share isn't going to boom overnight, and since most Macs are pretty well protected for the reasons listed above, the virus will likely spread slowly enough to give us all time to react. And once that happens, Mac users will be more aware and will start installing VP software, which will then actually have something to look for.
Aperture's feature set is different from Photoshop's, yes, but where they overlap is significant from a photographer's point of view. I'd say that 95% of what I do to photos is now covered by Aperture. I'll still need PS, but as of today it's been relegated to secondary importance, and will be much more easily replaced if something simpler/cheaper/better comes along. For people like graphic designers and digital artists, Aperture may only be a nice accompaniment to PS, but for photographers, this is huge. It's actually quite perfect.
I don't have one yet, so discount this as necessary - but I suspect that the mouse does use touch sensitivity, just not as we expect. I'm guessing that there is only one mechanical clicking bit in the mouse, but that the computer senses which finger is pushing harder via the touch pads and translates the click as left of right accordingly. Also, apple doesn't say that the mouse has a speaker, they just say that it provides subtle aural feedback.
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
But impossible? No. Improbable? Not really.
Sure, cloning MS's API's would be difficult, but there have been rumors of just such a skunkworks project since the days of Rhapsody. If those rumors were true, then Apple's has a good head start on getting the job done. Could MS screw with the API's? Sure, but not without screwing their own customers. Adobe et al. would have a lot to gain from having a single set of API's to write to, and wouldn't take kindly to arbitrary changes. Finally, Apple could probably do a good job of making Windows apps look and act like OS X apps. Sure, there would be UI inconsistencies, but then OS X isn't all that consistent itself, is it?
The open sourcing of Cocoa is, I think the most important bit of an Intel strategy. After all, what's to keep developers from just writing Windows apps, and dropping their OS X products all together? Even if those apps ran fine on OS X, there would still be a perception of being the second class OS - something Steve would never put up with. Cocoa on Intel allows them to keep a dog in the hunt, and provides an attractive alternative for developers as well - especially if they could pick and choose among the API's and not be tied to only one. And why open source? For one, Apple promised to license Cocoa before, and then slowly backed away, saying they'd license it for a fee, and then not at all. So the only way they'll gain developer confidence in that respect is to set Cocoa free. Plus, they've gained great respect through Darwin, and Cocoa on Linux wouldn't hurt in gaining widespread acceptance.
The last point is equally important. Steve Jobs sheepishly announcing a shift to Intel is like him saying he's lost a battle. I can't see that ever happening. He's got to make an Intel shift seem like the smartest, coolest, biggest, boldest thing to ever happen in computers. I think he will. He'll have every industry giant he can find up there on stage talking about how developers can now write once, and run anywhere, and how Cocoa is better than mother's milk, etc., etc.
Here goes: 1. Yes, they switch, and yes, OS X will still be closed to Apple machines. 2. Apple will provide hooks for all published MS API's, allowing 90% of Windows programs to run natively within OS X on Intel. 3. Apple will open source the Cocoa API's. They will provide the API's for Windows, leaving others to port them to Linux, etc. 4. Steve will claim to have saved the world by freeing the world from Windows.
As pointed out by others, Apple could/would still make the machines proprietary. This isn't about cost, or speed, or supply, etc. This is about Steve Jobs wanting the other 95% of the market. Apple writes a nice tidy version of Virtual PC that lets users seamlessly run any windows app out there, right in OS X, just as fast as it would on a regular pc. Get a top notch OS, cool hardware, and the ability to run all your existing apps. Who *wouldn't* buy this?
Seems to me like Apple's implementation of this feature is similar to Longhorn's. I wonder if a truly new file system is planned for the next release, ala BFS and WinFS.
A hearing was set for next week. So much for playing the spoiler.
Another in-depth review, focusing more on features and less on the OS's underbelly is over at MacInTouch... http://www.macintouch.com/tigerreview/index.shtml
Well, Microsoft also has a lot more resources than Apple. The advancements we're seeing on OS X are a direct result of the decisions made and the work done early on to make the OS easy to develop. Jobs has always understood the value of this. The early Mac toolbox, the NextStep API's/ Cocoa, WebObjects, now the Core functionalities - all these are designed to make it easier to develop for the platform. This has been a must for getting new developers to build apps for a niche market. With OS X, the same principle is applied to the OS itself, making it easier to pull out one component and make improvements without messing with everything else. It allows a small team to quickly and efficiently add improvements and increase performance. My own opinion is that the development of OS X is just now ramping up. Now that the Core components are complete, the groundwork for future funtionality has been laid, a lot of resources are now freed up to work on that functionality.
I have to ask exactly what is this button supposed to be for? "Help! My stocks are in the toilet!" "I'm at the toll both, and I don't have exact change!" "I'm being mugged, and I have no cash!" "Help! I'm poor!"