why would I want to run the any of the 9x-based Windows? 95 is pretty aweful (compared to what is available now); both 98 and Me have a pretty bloated feel. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to mention any of the new Windows, XP and 2K, which are arguably the best and therefore most desireable.
What the hell have you been smoking?
You've got it completely reversed. Trolling for modpoints?
2k and XP are bloated as hell compared to 95 or 98. ME is a bloated pig, but with 98lite it can be made bearable. But XP and 2k are truly awesome bloatfests, no matter what you do with them.
Windows emulation is for legacy apps, not for keeping up with the MS 'upgrade cycle.' It's a way to get off the treadmill, not to run it even more painfully.
Because the South Korean government has repeatadly propped up a dying company that dumps product onto the market below cost? This is generally considered a bad thing and if we can get rid of the last vestiges of this type of protectionism (all countries are guilty of it to some degree, the Americans subsidize their farmers as do the French, etc) then maybe free trade might eventually become a reality, but as long as one country is proping up some sectors and allowing them to undercut the rest of the market free trade without sanctions is kind of a pipe dream.
You're fundamentally mistaken. Protectionism on their part doesn't justify, necessitate, or in any way indicate the wisdom of protectionism on our part. They're (assuming the allegations are true, and they probably are) shooting themselves in the foot, so therefore we must shoot ourselves in the foot also? How does that work?
If you want free trade, drop your trade barriers. Simple as that. If other countries do not then they will pay for that decision. You don't need to do anything to make that happen, it's just like jumping off a building makes you go splat. If the vietnamese want to lose money selling catfish (and that particular allegation I don't believe for a moment, but assume it's true for sake of argument) then let them! Enjoy the cheap catfish while it lasts. Mothball those catfish farms and do something more productive with your time and capital. When they wise up or run out of money and the price goes back up to where it makes sense to compete again, then jump back in. That's just economics 101.
I'm no Bush supporter, but when our major iron competition gets water, electricity and natural gas for free then dump their products here for less than it took to make even with the top three expenses covered, then I don't think we need to question why there are steel tarrifs.
We have steel tarrifs because steel producers give money to politicians, obviously.
Look, if they produce it cheaper, let them, do something you're better at instead. It's as simple as that. Free market economics in a nutshell.
You're implying, I think, that they only produce cheaper because of subsidies, which isn't true, but even if it was true so what?
If a foreign government is stupid enough to subsidise their steel producers, that doesn't mean we should too! We should say 'hey, thanks for the cheap steel, now we're going to manufacture it into something worthwhile and make a bigger profit!'
If they jump off a cliff we have to also? No. Let them jump, take whatever advantage you can from it, and do what you do best. That's how to make a profit. That's how to develop an economy. If they want to ship us something below cost, whether it's steel or chips or catfish or what have you, well, great. Let them do it till they run out of money, or wise up. And profit from their stupidity!
"And my experience is that in practice the whole systems tend to perform significantly better than you'd expect if you just look at the CPU benchmark"
This is extremely odd, as Macs have an awful memory subsystem (it's DDR but the because of the slow FSB it can't really get it to the processor). Athlons have a DDR 200Mhz FSB (for the new Barton 3200+) and a 166 or 133Mhz DDR (for the rest of the Bartons and thouroghbreds). P4s have a 100, 133 QDR or 200Mhz QDR FSB.
That's true. And the FSB has to be important. So I can't wait to see a Mac with a better FSB.
"AMD with 3 times the clock speed"
I call bullshit. Your PowerBook G4 with the Mobility Radeon 9000 only comes in 867Mhz and 1Ghz versions. That would mean that you have a 2601Mhz or 3000Mhz Athlon XP. The fastest clocked Athlon XP was the Athlon XP 2800+ Thoroughbred-B at 2250 Mhz, 2.6X the clock of your Mac. That's assuming that you have the fastest Atlhon and the 866Mhz Powerbook. What you likely meant is that you have an Athlon XP 2600+, which does not run at 2.6Ghz.
My powerbook is almost a year old, and has a 667mhz G4 - they don't sell them that slow anymore. But you're right, it's not actually a third of the clockspeed of the AMD, it's a third of it's 'rating' so it's a little more than a third of the clockspeed. But still way less than half. If the standard CPU benchmarks are to be believed, it should be around a third to a quarter slower - certainly noticeably so. But using it, it seems comparable, sometimes a little bit better, on the same tasks. Even with the extra load of a far more capable OS and a lot more eye-candy.
I think this has more to do with poor ports than anything else. Photoshop is a Mac app, and it is designed for use with Altivec. When they moved it to the PC, they replaced the fast Altivec routines with slower integer routines. Had the program been written for use with SSE, it would likely be much faster.
Ahh but I don't use photoshop. The only stuff I use that might be altivec optimised is the standard Apple stuff, itunes, imovie... mostly I use mozilla, emacs, and SPSS. And, of course, the games.
Yes, I like the design of Macs. The "system controller" is a goood idea - so good that NVIDIA used the same concept for their NForce chipset. The NForce uses HyperTransport (1.2GBytes per second) to connect the northbridge and southbridge, which is connected to the processor via the 3.2GByte/sec memory interface. The southbridge houses audio, Firewire, and ethernet so you aren't limited by the PCI bus. The idea of a L3 cache is also good, but it doesn't seem to have much of a performance impact (perhaps because it is little faster than main memory).
The whole thing with caching has always been that its affect varies drastically depending on what you're doing. It probably affects typical use negligeably, if any, for me. When I'm crunching DV into mpeg, however, I bet it has a substantial effect.
There are several problems actually. Let me list a few, in approximately reverse order of importance.
First, obviously, it needlessly increases the footprint of the OS - both in terms of storage space and memory required. Memory used even if you have installed another browser and made it default for everything, let me point out.
Second, it has a dramatic negative affect on the stability of the system. It's really quite amazing. I have a '98 box that almost never crashes - because IE isn't constantly loaded into memory.
Third, and for a lot of people this is probably the most important, it's the worlds largest security hole. Most malicious code these days is aimed at IE/Outlook vulnerabilities. Remove it and you've just made your box completely invulnerable to all the popular exploits. Funny how MS works night and day to make that impossible eh?
Which brings me to a fourth reason to remove it. First, ask yourself why MS doesn't want you to remove it. It's all about 'platform evangelism' if you remember a story here yesterday or so? MS wants to perpetuate their control over the market by getting people to write to platforms they control. IE with all it's proprietary APIs and deliberately mangled HTML is a prime example. The reason MS doesn't want it to be removable is so that they can convince people to develop to it. When people develop to it, they produce IE specific crap that isn't accessible to people running other platforms. Some of us don't think that is a good thing, and feel it is a moral obligation to avoid supporting that.
I'm sure there are other reasons too, but that should be more than adequate to get you thinking.
1. This isn't a pump and dump scheme. It is a contingency case. The Boies firm has obviously taken this case on a contingency basis (probably 1/3 or higher of total recovery). They are the generals here looking out for what they believe to be SCOs and their own best interests (wallets).
The contingency case stuff is interesting (speculation?) but completely irrelevant to whether it's a pump and dump scheme. If the executives of SCO unload a bunch of stock before the case is resolved, then their will be good reason to make that charge.
3. IBM's interests do not equate to Linux's interests. The Linux community (and Linus) should be represented in this case. Boies and company are very good lawyers as M$ found out.
Linux and the community should not be represented formally in this case, as they aren't formal parties to it, but it's certainly being watched closely. Calling Boies and co. good lawyers seems laughable though, look at their track record. Has Boies won a single case? He lost the IBM defense. He theoretically won against MS, yes, but it was a sucker deal, the only 'remedies' that have held are actually pro-MS measures, not even slaps on the wrist. For all intents and purposes that was a loss. He lost for Gore. For someone that commands such high fees he sure seems to lose a lot.
Since when is Apple giving away OSX for free? Seems there was a little release called Jaguar that all Mac owners had to pay for if they wanted an upgrade.
That's true. But all the updates since then have been free. All the macs sold since then come with it. And the price was far below what it would have cost if they were actually trying to make money off it. A token fee only.
IANALS (I Am Not A Land Shark) but it's my understanding that
1. IBM could file a cease and desist, if they wanted to, but they probably don't because SCO is really digging themselves a very deep hole with their public statements, and this will be to IBMs advantage later on.
2. Pepsi could say Coke has dog poo in it, sure, and open themselves to a huge libel suit. Analogous to a degree, but where it breaks down is in that situation Coke would have nothing to gain by delaying counteraction - in this case IBM does have something to gain - a huge chain of public statements from SCO that can be used against them in court. When this finally gets to court IBMs lawyers can bring in a collection of all the contradictory nonsense SCO has been spouting in public and have a field day with it.
3. Yes, if SCO executives are indeed engaging in a pump and dump scheme, as seems most likely, that is fraud and would be a criminal offense. But on that one only time will tell for sure.
I'm not that old, but when I went to High School there was no network also. PCs were still kinda new, now granted, I built my first Sinclair when I was 9, but when I was in High School the whole thing still hadn't really taken off. I'm sure there must have been one or two in the school somewhere, but I can't remember where. We had no computer courses... actually I did have one now that I think about it, but it was a 'gifted' summer school class, not a regular course.
Typing class (on actual typewriters, not computers) was the only thing that actually applied to computers in the regular curriculum I think. And it has actually turned out to be a lot more useful than any high school computer course is likely to be.
The local university, however, did have a network I got into occasionally. That was my first exposure to nethack, running on a univac. Ahh the memories;)
Not all "64M Radeons" are equal. Your PC might have a completely different chip than the Mobility Radeon 9000 in your laptop. Perhaps it has a Radeon 7500. I don't know.
Nonetheless, they're comparable, and if all this hype about Macs being so 'underpowered' was true you'd certainly expect the AMD with 3 times the clock speed and a comparable videocard to toast the poor little TiBook. In fact, it doesn't, and that's my point.
OK, MHZ is not an viable measure of performance.
Exactly.
Saying that Macs are underpowered because the clock speeds are lower is just as ignorant as saying that my 3/4 ton Ford pickup is underpowered because the engine red lines at a lower rpm than your Chevette does.
But the PPC isn't any more efficent than a PIII (unless what you are doing is Altivec optimized). At least not according to most benchmarks. So a 1Ghz PPC G4 should perform like a 1.5Ghz P3 (after some Altivec optimization), which is roughly equivilent to a 1.6Ghz Athlon XP, which is roughly equivelent to a Pentium 4 at 2Ghz. Which is fine to run most games.
Actually the 1ghz G4 performs about like a 1.5ghz PIII (which is actually better than a PIV at the same clock speed, remember) on pure integer benchmarks IIRC. That means no Altivec. And my experience is that in practice the whole systems tend to perform significantly better than you'd expect if you just look at the CPU benchmark.
I'm not claiming Apple has anything that will beat the top of the line Intel/AMD stuff on benchmarks, bear in mind. But their best stuff gets a lot closer than people seem to think, and the importance of system design shouldn't be underestimated either.
How can you tell? It's not like there are 3D games for the Mac or anything:D
Yawn.
Return to Wolfenstein. Descent 3. Heretic 2. Hexxen 2. UT 2003. The whole Doom set. Probably everything from ID in fact, and lots more.
Re:Hate Flash too - Re:As much as I hate to say it
on
Platform Evangelism
·
· Score: 1
Using Mozilla with flash on Mac, so I can see what the 'designer' intended on that page. You aren't missing anything. It's really annoying.
Re:Hate Flash too - Re:As much as I hate to say it
on
Platform Evangelism
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
give me a break. you've chosen to use a browser config that's in a very small minority, chosen to not use a plugin that's extremely common, and yet you complain that you can't view certain sites? that's like running your system in 640x480 at 256 colors and complaining that sites are "too big". the problem is not in the links on that site. the problem is that your box is not up to spec.
OK who's the moron that modded this drivel insightful?
This is the web, not.pdf. What he's expecting is exactly the design specs for the web, and thus he has every right to expect it. If your webpage isn't usable at 640x480x256 then it's your fault, and there's no excuse. Assuming your webpage isn't a picture-diary or something, there's no reason he should have to have a screen at all to access it!
You can completely remove IE from older versions of Windows (I should know, I've done it enough;) but it's difficult and quite possibly impossible with the newest versions, unfortunately. See http://www.litepc.com/ - their product is to the best of my knowledge cutting edge on this area, and it isn't usable on 2k, let alone XP. MS was lying through their teeth when they claimed IE as a part of the OS back in '98, but they've been working very hard to make sure that it eventually is true, at any cost, since then.
A high-end mac most certainly will keep up with a mid-range AMD machine. More than keep up. I have a single processor G4-660 laptop and an AMD 1800+ with the same video cards and guess which one handles graphics better? What percentage of CPU cycles on a modern PC in a desktop role are used on graphics? It's really high.
And there's more to 'hardware' than raw performance anyway also. Apple hardware is really nice. Not performance kings, but not nearly as bad as you're making it out - they hold their own. They are more expensive than AMD/Intel designs with comparable raw MIP scores, certainly. But for real world performance they're more than adequate, very nicely built and designed. So many clone makers produce utter garbage these days, everything from devices slapped together that won't get along right to cheap-ass boxes that bend when you open them and never fit together right afterwards. Not to mention more basic design problems, like inadequate airflow. Apple boxes are clearly a cut above on that level.
The reason people buy them, though, has more to do with the software. The software Apple develops using the profits from selling that hardware, and gives away to free to people that have bought that hardware. Really nice software. Keynote, safari, itunes, iphoto, imovie, OSX...
The reason Apple doesn't want competition in the hardware space is right there. They make a nice markup on the hardware that supports their software development. They don't want competition lowering their profit margin on the hardware and thus lessening their ability to spend on the software end.
Personally, I think they should take a slightly more laid back view on it though. I don't think this guy is really going to eat into their sales much - he's working on older slower versions that will likely sell mostly to people that wouldn't buy the new hardware no matter what, for budgetary reasons. And I'm sure Apple still makes a small profit on the replacement parts, if not a large one. As a matter of principle I understand they can't exactly endorse the practice, but as a practical matter they might be well advised to turn a mostly blind eye to it. His buyers are gonna want a brand new shiny Apple instead when they can afford it, certainly if they've been using one of his boxes for a year or two between now and then. And mindshare is important to the future. The same sort of reasons MS turned a blind eye to massive pirating of DOS and Windows, until very recently. It makes good business sense sometimes.
It's real interesting how ignorant posts about Macs get modded up like this.
My little tibook runs Wolfenstein 3d better than my PC with 3 times the mhz rating (both have 64mb Radeons too.) Remember, mghz does not reflect performance when you're comparing two different architectures, the PPC is a lot more efficient. Macs deal with graphics just fine, thanks.
And yes, you can use any USB mouse you like on your Mac, you're not limited to one button. Macs are designed so that you can use a one button and do everything you need to on regular desktop stuff, but they work just as well as anything else when you give them more.
Keeping windows open is really a step backwards, I agree.
Fortunately mldonkey is working on the protocol, so soon Mac users will have a nice modern program that runs as a background process instead of a 'window' and can be run 24/7 without disturbing the GUI environment except when the user wants to check up on its progress.
(*) The vague generalities mentioned have included JFS (Journaling File System), the Linux version of which was ported from OS/2; SMP, which in large part was developed (in Linux) by Alan Cox on hardware donated by Caldera for the purpose, and NUMA, orginally an SGI development. None of these things were in the SysV code that IBM licensed. For SCO to claim that these are non-disclosable "software products" for the purpose of the license, they'd also have to prove that their interpretation of the "derivative work" ownership reversion applies to such technologies that were added to UNIX/AIX by IBM rather than derived from it. Good fscking luck.
This does indeed to be what SCO wants to argue - that all these things that licensees have added to their own unix derivatives are somehow now their property. I think (and I hope) that when this finally gets in front of a judge they'll be disabused of that notion very quickly. This isn't just Linux and AIX they're talking about, it's Sun and HP and SGI and everyone else that's ever added features to a SysV derivative (which is everybody that's ever sold a unix, essentially - SysV isn't exactly a useful system without all the stuff the various vendors have coded themselves.)
I know it sounds like a bad joke, but it really does sound like 'all your IP is belong to us' is what SCO is asserting.
Come on. Compared to California courts Utah courts are notoriously fair.
Depends on your case actually. Cali courts are notoriously unfair for certain cases, Utah ones for others.
I don't know how many of these clowns are part of the old Caldera either. My understanding is that most of the old Caldera staff left.
True that, some did. I suspect most is pushing it.
But making slurs about religion seems a bit much.
Is someone just a bit too touchy here?
I challenge you to point to any slurs in my post. Have we reached the point where simply mentioning that someone belongs to a certain religion is considered a slur? Or to note that people in power sometimes are partial to people of their own religion? Those are not slurs, just observations.
I even went to the extent of phrasing it very carefully to not imply that the reputation was always, or even often, deserved.
The reputation is certainly there, and it is certainly sometimes deserved. I lived over a decade in southern Idaho (aka 'North Utah') and I've seen it in action on multiple occasions.
That's the case under anglo-saxon common law as well, and thus until very recently certainly the case in the US as well. However recent legislation has cast a very big cloud over that formerly well-established doctrine. I understand Germany is about to or possibly has already passed similar legislation under EU direction, and the other EU nations are expected to be all 'harmonised' within a year or two though.
Pretty sure they're a pack of mormons actually. Probably the only thing going for their case actually - if IBM can't get a change of venue they'll be in court in Utah, and mormon judges have a not-always-undeserved reputation for being partial.
If the code exists, SCO may well get a judge to agree with them at this point. Especially if the code is in the core part of Linux.
Linus would have to roll back to a known clean version (2.2-something?) and start merging back in clean patches. This could take years to get the code back up to the level it is in 2.5. The only alternative in the meanwhile would be to buy a SCO System V licence.
I'm sure they'd love to convince a judge of that. Trouble is that most of the 'enterprise' features they're talking about were available in Linux before they were in SCO. The old sysV code is about as relevant in todays world as DOS 3, vendors like Sun had to put in a tremendous amount of their own code, and borrowings from BSD, to make it usable. And the actual SCO branch has always been one of the least advanced Unices around.
With that kind of history, it's damn hard to see how they could have a case. More than likely the shared code, whatever it is, has perfectly legitimate explanations like common borrowing from BSD, obvious implementations of (and cut and paste comments from ) the POSIX specs, and so on. If there's anything left once you weed that kind of stuff out, I'd say it's more likely it came from Linux than the other way around.
However, unlike other prominent lawsuits in the tech world, IBM actually has more than just a money-tree with which to pay lawyers. They actually have the law on their side (assuming that all the indications are correct and SCO's claim is BS, which I would rate at atleast 95% chance).
SCOs claims are, at the very least, mostly bullshit. But think about it. Even if there is some element, somewhere, that's true, what would be their chances of winning against Big Blue? Practically nothing. IBM has the worlds largest collection of patents, and this is for defensive purposes. Even if SCO comes up with a true charge, IBM will just come back with a couple hundred allegations of patent violation. IBM knows how to play the litigation game.
And SCO probably doesn't even have a case to begin with. They're doomed.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell have you been smoking?
You've got it completely reversed. Trolling for modpoints?
2k and XP are bloated as hell compared to 95 or 98. ME is a bloated pig, but with 98lite it can be made bearable. But XP and 2k are truly awesome bloatfests, no matter what you do with them.
Windows emulation is for legacy apps, not for keeping up with the MS 'upgrade cycle.' It's a way to get off the treadmill, not to run it even more painfully.
Oh puhhhlllleeeeaaaase.
You're fundamentally mistaken. Protectionism on their part doesn't justify, necessitate, or in any way indicate the wisdom of protectionism on our part. They're (assuming the allegations are true, and they probably are) shooting themselves in the foot, so therefore we must shoot ourselves in the foot also? How does that work?
If you want free trade, drop your trade barriers. Simple as that. If other countries do not then they will pay for that decision. You don't need to do anything to make that happen, it's just like jumping off a building makes you go splat. If the vietnamese want to lose money selling catfish (and that particular allegation I don't believe for a moment, but assume it's true for sake of argument) then let them! Enjoy the cheap catfish while it lasts. Mothball those catfish farms and do something more productive with your time and capital. When they wise up or run out of money and the price goes back up to where it makes sense to compete again, then jump back in. That's just economics 101.
We have steel tarrifs because steel producers give money to politicians, obviously.
Look, if they produce it cheaper, let them, do something you're better at instead. It's as simple as that. Free market economics in a nutshell.
You're implying, I think, that they only produce cheaper because of subsidies, which isn't true, but even if it was true so what?
If a foreign government is stupid enough to subsidise their steel producers, that doesn't mean we should too! We should say 'hey, thanks for the cheap steel, now we're going to manufacture it into something worthwhile and make a bigger profit!'
If they jump off a cliff we have to also? No. Let them jump, take whatever advantage you can from it, and do what you do best. That's how to make a profit. That's how to develop an economy. If they want to ship us something below cost, whether it's steel or chips or catfish or what have you, well, great. Let them do it till they run out of money, or wise up. And profit from their stupidity!
You want to pay more? Why?
Ahh good an interesting reply.
That's true. And the FSB has to be important. So I can't wait to see a Mac with a better FSB.
My powerbook is almost a year old, and has a 667mhz G4 - they don't sell them that slow anymore. But you're right, it's not actually a third of the clockspeed of the AMD, it's a third of it's 'rating' so it's a little more than a third of the clockspeed. But still way less than half. If the standard CPU benchmarks are to be believed, it should be around a third to a quarter slower - certainly noticeably so. But using it, it seems comparable, sometimes a little bit better, on the same tasks. Even with the extra load of a far more capable OS and a lot more eye-candy.
Ahh but I don't use photoshop. The only stuff I use that might be altivec optimised is the standard Apple stuff, itunes, imovie... mostly I use mozilla, emacs, and SPSS. And, of course, the games.
Yes, I like the design of Macs. The "system controller" is a goood idea - so good that NVIDIA used the same concept for their NForce chipset. The NForce uses HyperTransport (1.2GBytes per second) to connect the northbridge and southbridge, which is connected to the processor via the 3.2GByte/sec memory interface. The southbridge houses audio, Firewire, and ethernet so you aren't limited by the PCI bus. The idea of a L3 cache is also good, but it doesn't seem to have much of a performance impact (perhaps because it is little faster than main memory).
The whole thing with caching has always been that its affect varies drastically depending on what you're doing. It probably affects typical use negligeably, if any, for me. When I'm crunching DV into mpeg, however, I bet it has a substantial effect.
There are several problems actually. Let me list a few, in approximately reverse order of importance.
First, obviously, it needlessly increases the footprint of the OS - both in terms of storage space and memory required. Memory used even if you have installed another browser and made it default for everything, let me point out.
Second, it has a dramatic negative affect on the stability of the system. It's really quite amazing. I have a '98 box that almost never crashes - because IE isn't constantly loaded into memory.
Third, and for a lot of people this is probably the most important, it's the worlds largest security hole. Most malicious code these days is aimed at IE/Outlook vulnerabilities. Remove it and you've just made your box completely invulnerable to all the popular exploits. Funny how MS works night and day to make that impossible eh?
Which brings me to a fourth reason to remove it. First, ask yourself why MS doesn't want you to remove it. It's all about 'platform evangelism' if you remember a story here yesterday or so? MS wants to perpetuate their control over the market by getting people to write to platforms they control. IE with all it's proprietary APIs and deliberately mangled HTML is a prime example. The reason MS doesn't want it to be removable is so that they can convince people to develop to it. When people develop to it, they produce IE specific crap that isn't accessible to people running other platforms. Some of us don't think that is a good thing, and feel it is a moral obligation to avoid supporting that.
I'm sure there are other reasons too, but that should be more than adequate to get you thinking.
The contingency case stuff is interesting (speculation?) but completely irrelevant to whether it's a pump and dump scheme. If the executives of SCO unload a bunch of stock before the case is resolved, then their will be good reason to make that charge.
Linux and the community should not be represented formally in this case, as they aren't formal parties to it, but it's certainly being watched closely. Calling Boies and co. good lawyers seems laughable though, look at their track record. Has Boies won a single case? He lost the IBM defense. He theoretically won against MS, yes, but it was a sucker deal, the only 'remedies' that have held are actually pro-MS measures, not even slaps on the wrist. For all intents and purposes that was a loss. He lost for Gore. For someone that commands such high fees he sure seems to lose a lot.
That's true. But all the updates since then have been free. All the macs sold since then come with it. And the price was far below what it would have cost if they were actually trying to make money off it. A token fee only.
IANALS (I Am Not A Land Shark) but it's my understanding that
1. IBM could file a cease and desist, if they wanted to, but they probably don't because SCO is really digging themselves a very deep hole with their public statements, and this will be to IBMs advantage later on.
2. Pepsi could say Coke has dog poo in it, sure, and open themselves to a huge libel suit. Analogous to a degree, but where it breaks down is in that situation Coke would have nothing to gain by delaying counteraction - in this case IBM does have something to gain - a huge chain of public statements from SCO that can be used against them in court. When this finally gets to court IBMs lawyers can bring in a collection of all the contradictory nonsense SCO has been spouting in public and have a field day with it.
3. Yes, if SCO executives are indeed engaging in a pump and dump scheme, as seems most likely, that is fraud and would be a criminal offense. But on that one only time will tell for sure.
I'm not that old, but when I went to High School there was no network also. PCs were still kinda new, now granted, I built my first Sinclair when I was 9, but when I was in High School the whole thing still hadn't really taken off. I'm sure there must have been one or two in the school somewhere, but I can't remember where. We had no computer courses... actually I did have one now that I think about it, but it was a 'gifted' summer school class, not a regular course.
Typing class (on actual typewriters, not computers) was the only thing that actually applied to computers in the regular curriculum I think. And it has actually turned out to be a lot more useful than any high school computer course is likely to be.
The local university, however, did have a network I got into occasionally. That was my first exposure to nethack, running on a univac. Ahh the memories ;)
Proprietary software one can use to wean yourself off proprietary software. Hmm.
Methadone for your computer eh?
Nonetheless, they're comparable, and if all this hype about Macs being so 'underpowered' was true you'd certainly expect the AMD with 3 times the clock speed and a comparable videocard to toast the poor little TiBook. In fact, it doesn't, and that's my point.
Exactly.
Saying that Macs are underpowered because the clock speeds are lower is just as ignorant as saying that my 3/4 ton Ford pickup is underpowered because the engine red lines at a lower rpm than your Chevette does.
Actually the 1ghz G4 performs about like a 1.5ghz PIII (which is actually better than a PIV at the same clock speed, remember) on pure integer benchmarks IIRC. That means no Altivec. And my experience is that in practice the whole systems tend to perform significantly better than you'd expect if you just look at the CPU benchmark.
I'm not claiming Apple has anything that will beat the top of the line Intel/AMD stuff on benchmarks, bear in mind. But their best stuff gets a lot closer than people seem to think, and the importance of system design shouldn't be underestimated either.
Yawn.
Return to Wolfenstein. Descent 3. Heretic 2. Hexxen 2. UT 2003. The whole Doom set. Probably everything from ID in fact, and lots more.
Using Mozilla with flash on Mac, so I can see what the 'designer' intended on that page. You aren't missing anything. It's really annoying.
OK who's the moron that modded this drivel insightful?
This is the web, not .pdf. What he's expecting is exactly the design specs for the web, and thus he has every right to expect it. If your webpage isn't usable at 640x480x256 then it's your fault, and there's no excuse. Assuming your webpage isn't a picture-diary or something, there's no reason he should have to have a screen at all to access it!
You can completely remove IE from older versions of Windows (I should know, I've done it enough ;) but it's difficult and quite possibly impossible with the newest versions, unfortunately. See http://www.litepc.com/ - their product is to the best of my knowledge cutting edge on this area, and it isn't usable on 2k, let alone XP. MS was lying through their teeth when they claimed IE as a part of the OS back in '98, but they've been working very hard to make sure that it eventually is true, at any cost, since then.
It's still not true though.
A high-end mac most certainly will keep up with a mid-range AMD machine. More than keep up. I have a single processor G4-660 laptop and an AMD 1800+ with the same video cards and guess which one handles graphics better? What percentage of CPU cycles on a modern PC in a desktop role are used on graphics? It's really high.
And there's more to 'hardware' than raw performance anyway also. Apple hardware is really nice. Not performance kings, but not nearly as bad as you're making it out - they hold their own. They are more expensive than AMD/Intel designs with comparable raw MIP scores, certainly. But for real world performance they're more than adequate, very nicely built and designed. So many clone makers produce utter garbage these days, everything from devices slapped together that won't get along right to cheap-ass boxes that bend when you open them and never fit together right afterwards. Not to mention more basic design problems, like inadequate airflow. Apple boxes are clearly a cut above on that level.
The reason people buy them, though, has more to do with the software. The software Apple develops using the profits from selling that hardware, and gives away to free to people that have bought that hardware. Really nice software. Keynote, safari, itunes, iphoto, imovie, OSX...
The reason Apple doesn't want competition in the hardware space is right there. They make a nice markup on the hardware that supports their software development. They don't want competition lowering their profit margin on the hardware and thus lessening their ability to spend on the software end.
Personally, I think they should take a slightly more laid back view on it though. I don't think this guy is really going to eat into their sales much - he's working on older slower versions that will likely sell mostly to people that wouldn't buy the new hardware no matter what, for budgetary reasons. And I'm sure Apple still makes a small profit on the replacement parts, if not a large one. As a matter of principle I understand they can't exactly endorse the practice, but as a practical matter they might be well advised to turn a mostly blind eye to it. His buyers are gonna want a brand new shiny Apple instead when they can afford it, certainly if they've been using one of his boxes for a year or two between now and then. And mindshare is important to the future. The same sort of reasons MS turned a blind eye to massive pirating of DOS and Windows, until very recently. It makes good business sense sometimes.
It's real interesting how ignorant posts about Macs get modded up like this.
My little tibook runs Wolfenstein 3d better than my PC with 3 times the mhz rating (both have 64mb Radeons too.) Remember, mghz does not reflect performance when you're comparing two different architectures, the PPC is a lot more efficient. Macs deal with graphics just fine, thanks.
And yes, you can use any USB mouse you like on your Mac, you're not limited to one button. Macs are designed so that you can use a one button and do everything you need to on regular desktop stuff, but they work just as well as anything else when you give them more.
Keeping windows open is really a step backwards, I agree.
Fortunately mldonkey is working on the protocol, so soon Mac users will have a nice modern program that runs as a background process instead of a 'window' and can be run 24/7 without disturbing the GUI environment except when the user wants to check up on its progress.
This does indeed to be what SCO wants to argue - that all these things that licensees have added to their own unix derivatives are somehow now their property. I think (and I hope) that when this finally gets in front of a judge they'll be disabused of that notion very quickly. This isn't just Linux and AIX they're talking about, it's Sun and HP and SGI and everyone else that's ever added features to a SysV derivative (which is everybody that's ever sold a unix, essentially - SysV isn't exactly a useful system without all the stuff the various vendors have coded themselves.)
I know it sounds like a bad joke, but it really does sound like 'all your IP is belong to us' is what SCO is asserting.
Depends on your case actually. Cali courts are notoriously unfair for certain cases, Utah ones for others.
True that, some did. I suspect most is pushing it.
Is someone just a bit too touchy here?
I challenge you to point to any slurs in my post. Have we reached the point where simply mentioning that someone belongs to a certain religion is considered a slur? Or to note that people in power sometimes are partial to people of their own religion? Those are not slurs, just observations.
I even went to the extent of phrasing it very carefully to not imply that the reputation was always, or even often, deserved.
The reputation is certainly there, and it is certainly sometimes deserved. I lived over a decade in southern Idaho (aka 'North Utah') and I've seen it in action on multiple occasions.
That's the case under anglo-saxon common law as well, and thus until very recently certainly the case in the US as well. However recent legislation has cast a very big cloud over that formerly well-established doctrine. I understand Germany is about to or possibly has already passed similar legislation under EU direction, and the other EU nations are expected to be all 'harmonised' within a year or two though.
Pretty sure they're a pack of mormons actually. Probably the only thing going for their case actually - if IBM can't get a change of venue they'll be in court in Utah, and mormon judges have a not-always-undeserved reputation for being partial.
I'm sure they'd love to convince a judge of that. Trouble is that most of the 'enterprise' features they're talking about were available in Linux before they were in SCO. The old sysV code is about as relevant in todays world as DOS 3, vendors like Sun had to put in a tremendous amount of their own code, and borrowings from BSD, to make it usable. And the actual SCO branch has always been one of the least advanced Unices around.
With that kind of history, it's damn hard to see how they could have a case. More than likely the shared code, whatever it is, has perfectly legitimate explanations like common borrowing from BSD, obvious implementations of (and cut and paste comments from ) the POSIX specs, and so on. If there's anything left once you weed that kind of stuff out, I'd say it's more likely it came from Linux than the other way around.
SCOs claims are, at the very least, mostly bullshit. But think about it. Even if there is some element, somewhere, that's true, what would be their chances of winning against Big Blue? Practically nothing. IBM has the worlds largest collection of patents, and this is for defensive purposes. Even if SCO comes up with a true charge, IBM will just come back with a couple hundred allegations of patent violation. IBM knows how to play the litigation game.
And SCO probably doesn't even have a case to begin with. They're doomed.