This guy is CLEARLY an idiot, and has been slipping into idiocy since the late eighties. Why does anyone even bother reading his trite, delusional musings?
I'm quite sure any Internet ready, Java-enabled cell phone could be scripted to send live data. I'm not a Java developer, nor an embedded device developer, but the capability is there. You don't need a server daemon running on your phone to do what you describe.
...of having your cell phone hacked and used to distribute porn, warez, and pirated music, right from the web server they installed in your pocket. Am I the only one that sees this not as a good thing? Why does Nokia want to put a web server in your pocket? The whole point of a consumer electronics device, like a cell phone, is to make it bullet proof to security issues (or at least as bullet proof as possible), and have it work every time you turn it on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for embedded Linux on these things from a business and consumer viewpoint, but come on! The more you open your sensitive personal data up for attack, the greater the risk. This doesn't make any sense to me.
If you buy Windows (especially with a credit card), find out it doesn't work within 30 days, you have recourse to demand a refund from the place you purchased it from. Really, really. Most people don't follow up on this and just take it in the rear, and that's why this has been allowed to go on for so long. You actually do have a 'right' to a refund. There are ways to bring liability to bear, but no one does it! It's staggering!
I can tell you that if enough people actually did follow up and bring the BBB, or the FTC to bear on MS for their absolute excrement they call software, something would be done. No one wants to take the time, that's the problem. Me, I took a different tack. I just stopped buying their crap! And, if I get promoted to a higher level in my organization I'm going to do everything I can to stop them buying their crap too! That's the other way you punish them, through accountability. If they build crap, and they won't fix it, you stop buying it, or you sick the dogs on them. Consumer laziness is the only reason why these vendors are getting away with this. Plain and simple. The system is in place to stop this, no one seems to want to use it.
Ok, as usual there are a lot of people who chimed in on the subject without thinking this through.
If you PAID for a software product to a vendor, the vendor IS liable. The extent of this liability is not necessarily defined by law or formal contract. Some of this liability is inherent in the principles of a market economy, i.e., if I paid for something and it doesn't work I have a legitimate grievance with the seller/producer of the product that I can seek remedy for. That inherent liability is supposedly covered through a customer service mechanism, in the case of computer software this is the tech support department. This group is supposed to act as a feedback mechanism to the software developers for fixing bugs, and to assist the customer in either working around the problem, or otherwise providing a solution. If a solution cannot be found, and the product was purchased, the bug identified in a reasonable amount of time from purchase, then the customer CAN seek remedy of the problem by demanding a refund for the purchased price (maybe minus some handling fees and/or taxes). This happens all the time and there are organizations, like the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and others, that enforce these rights under Federal and State guidelines. Mileage may vary.
Now, if you didn't pay for a product, because it was free or you just plain stole it (pirated it in the case of computer software), then there is no recourse for remedy if the product is defective, nor is there any moral, ethical, or legal stance for liability passing to the creator of said software.
I don't have case law in front of me, but this has to have been tested somewhere by now.
The article has one paragraph on computer security and software liability and a bunch of aimless bullshit about employee theft, the cash register, ATM fraud, and tax fraud; and a nonsensical reference to a liquor store sign, "Your purchase free if you don't get a receipt."
Well, no shit! If I didn't pay for the item it was free and I wouldn't have a receipt either, DUH! I'm sorry, but that has to be the WORST piece of "journalism" I've ever seen!
To address the topic of the article (which had nothing to do with its content), I'd say this. Yes, vendors who are SELLING software for profit, and are supposed to be supplying support resources for said product, should be held liable for bugs. I don't know why he doesn't think that they aren't. If a piece of software is buggy, people will flood their tech support lines, and if not fixed will stop buying it! Duh, again!
As for the impact on OSS software, simple, NONE. You accept the liability of the reliability of the software because you got it for free. I'm sure there's something in the BSD license or GPL to that effect. If not, there certainly should be.
Somebody smack the bottle out of Bruce Schneier's hand (and maybe the bong too) and have him take a journalism class-or maybe just a basic writing class. He sucks!
Wired, if you're listening, I'll be happy to write for you...a ton better than this idiot.
If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.,/i>
You're assuming it's a single criminal collecting from everyone. I don't think that's the case.
There is ZERO incentive for a criminal using this method of attack to actually give up the key. He's going to Federal Pound Me In The Ass prison for this crime (and associated additional charges) if he/she gets caught. Why the Hell would he actually honor the deal if he had the money in his hands, unless his nuts/ovaries were in a vice?
1. Science fiction didn't postulate the concept of a space elevator, Russian scientist Yuri Kondratyuk did in the 1920s
2. Arthur C. Clarke, expanding on the work of Kondratyuk and other scientists, used the concept in his book "Fountains of Paradise" and postulated the use of a diamond-based filament material for use in the anchoring system
3. This guy in Italy comes out of left field denouncing a technology that has not emerged from its infancy (carbon nanotubes), and claims that they will never be strong enough?!?!
Yeah, using today's technology to make them he is probably correct, but technology never stands still and no one said that the anchor system HAD to be made of carbon nanotubes. It has to be made from a material that can withstand ALL of the stresses it will encounter in operation. Today, carbon nanotubes show the greatest promise, but they certainly aren't the end-all, be-all solution for the success of a space elevator. I can't believe Nature would publish this. Pugno is clearly just after publicity and trying to attack something that he just doesn't agree with. If he's going to shoot down carbon nanotubes, the least he could do is postulate a better solution. And how can he definitely say that it won't happen in his lifetime?!?! That's pretty naive and right up there with people saying that Mac OS X based computers couldn't be used for a supercomputing cluster, before 2003 when I helped build one.
But, could somebody tell me how a file format can be 'slow'? I can see the hardware or the application reading it as being slow. I can see where the format may be inefficient at storing data and causing performance issues, but those issues could be overcome through brute force, i.e., better parsing algorithms and faster hardware, a la what MS has done for years to hide badly written software. I think this is CLEARLY a case of the pot calling the kettle black! F**K Microsoft, F**K them right in the ear! Whiny little bitches!
I'm with you. I don't see how they can claim "... Of All Time" for this article; of the last 15 years maybe. And, I could go back way further than the 1950s for techno blunders of all time. Let's look at some of Da Vinci's work, Ptolemy, and then some of the outrageous things that came out of the 17th and 18th century. There were some obvious triumphs during those times, i.e., the reflecting telescope of Newton, the bicycle, etc., but there were far more laughable items to point out. Oh, and if you want to crank the nob on the WABAC machine a bit harder, we can look at the failed pyramid designs predating Zoser and the ziggurats of the Sumarians. Failed irrigation strategies of early Mesopotamian farmers, and the countless attempts at human flight that dot the annals of history.
Myrinet is one option, InfiniBand costs about the same and has similar performance characteristics. Myrinet drivers are more mature though and will give you fewer headaches during config. Moving up the scale, there's InfiniPath, Dolphin, and Quadrics. All are quite fast, sub-10 ms latency in most cases, but are very expensive. This market is certainly not for the "hobbyist" unless you're pulling down over six figures a year, or are a recipient of a large monetary bequest.
I'm going to poke a small hole in your argument/comparison. The ISO9000 specifications are *fixed*, and not a moving target like the W3C web specifications, so shooting for W3C compliance is not like shooting for and coming short of ISO9000 compliance. The short comings of companies going for ISO9000 compliance are almost always purely economic, i.e., they don't have enough capitalization to justify the cost of full compliance for ISO9000. The choice of W3C compliance is a lot more complicated, as far as reasoning goes, than just economics. There are ideological and technical issues that also hinder compliance with W3C web standards, not to mention multiple draft and finalized standards of compliance. Do I comply with HTML 1.0, XHTML 1.0, or XHTML 2.0? Obviously, these reasons can be simplified into financial reasons due to the cost of labor for compliance, but money isn't always the reason.
Ok, are you sure it never comes on, or that it never cranks up to the level it did when you installed the SMC Firmware Update? I ask because the fan in mine is almost always on...it's not generating vectored thrust decibel levels, but it's on most of the time, especially when I'm watching video on it. It's not overheating. I checked. It's well within 'spec'.
Do you miss B&W TV and the slide rule too? Just curious. Probably miss putting RAM into a machine one chip at a time too. Maybe miss crank starting your car. One thing about progress, there will always be a group of people standing in the way waiting for martyrdom.
Who is "they"? I'm the one making the decision about my needs. No one is telling me what size iPod (or other media player) I need. Apple is marketing a product based on available technologies at relatively fixed price points; if you were paying attention. Apple sets prices and slides newer, faster, bigger (in this case) technologies into them once, a.) the supply margins allow, and b.) when the demand is present in the market. Also, what did they win? If you mean they won by making a superior product at a reasonable price that not only plays music, but can be used as a general purpose storage device, then yeah, they've won 80% of the market. Does it fit everybody's wants and needs? No. Should it? Impossible. That's why there is another 20% market alive.
Weren't we talking about the MacBook? Isn't it designed to be an entry level consumer laptop? Was it ever advertised as a gaming laptop? Does Apple even mention games or gaming in their web or other promotional material relating to the MacBook? Ok, one on the Tech Specs page, "Big Bang Board Games", which I'm guessing is not a severely graphics intensive game experience. Other than that, none. Why are people complaining about a product's gaming performance when it's not advertised as a gaming machine? Aren't computers supposed to be tools and not just toys? Seems strange that the crowd that once called the Mac a 'toy computer' is complaining that it can't play games.
You're not nuts, but I wonder how much of a dog the "Capable" machine will be.
A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:
* A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
Also, I don't find the memory requirement to be out of line with Mac OS X 10.4 or the upcoming 10.5 (Leopard). Leopard will most likely have a minimum RAM requirement of 512 MB as well.
I'm going to chime in on this thread. I'm going to assume that when you say 'usage' you mean the target audience of the site? If so, that's really *NOT* an excuse, logical argument, nor valid defense for non-compliance. There is only one excuse for non-compliance and that is a mandated use of Microsoft technologies by management for the development of a website. Notice I did not call that a logical argument, nor a valid defense.
Now, for ROI, I'm sorry, but if *ANY* user with a *FREE* web browser (or media player) can see and use your website, your ROI is going to be higher. Period. There is no logical argument for non-compliance with open standards for CSS and DOM designs; nor for any content being delivered over the web, or application being developed for the web. None, zippo, zero, nada.
I know, this is a debate/discussion that will rage for many years to come; until Microsoft is either brought to its knees on compliance, wiped from the market, or simply supplants the open standards (somehow). But, I develop sites, applications, and full end-to-end solutions. I do it with open standards compliance AND a reasonable amount of diligence paid to the MS IE standards as well for near matching rendered pages. You do it enough times, it's really not that hard to keep doing. The only pain is when you create a new look-and-feel template, and that's once a year at most. I'm also a firm believer in the creation of reusable parts!
See my post it clarifies a little more. He is using 10.4.6, the gcc compilers, and the standard (non-HPC optimized) memory manager for his published tests. Thank you for reinforcing his tests were domain and application specific, not general computing applications. Mileage may vary, see dealer for specific details...yadda, yadda, yadda
Ok, this should not have been modded up to informative. I actually spoke with Dr. Sekhon via email. A lot of his performance issues were due to the memory manager in Mac OS X not being designed for HPC applications (that's what he's testing, *NOT* desktop apps!!!). He has since tried to get a hold of the memory manager Dr. Varadarajan wrote for System X and will be doing his tests again (once he gets a hold of it). These issues (I'm hoping, and will find out at WWDC) should be addressed in Leopard (10.5) based on our (Virginia Tech's) input into Apple's OS development group(s).
Yes, today, out of the box Mac OS X *is* slower than Linux and Windows XP on an Apple Core Duo product for high-performance computing applications tested by Dr. Sekhon. Do not expect that disparity to last for very long. Also, remember, Mac OS X for Intel is really nothing more than a hack in its current form. Leopard will be the real proving ground for the Apple Intel platform.
Ok, I know some people that have the ROKR and other phones that play MP3s. Most of them NEVER use the functionality because they're talking on the phone more than they are using it to play music. Plus, these folks also have iPods that they use in their cars and when they're working out. They rarely take their phone to the gym with them, and if they do they leave it in the car and take their iPod in. I don't see this flying. As for ring tones, I think most of the people I know get one or two a year, if they get any at all because they are ridiculously expensive. I think Microsoft is gonna fall flat on their face with this move and not even put a dent in the digital music market (let alone in the DRM world) currently owned by Apple. IMHO
Slashdot Mirror
This guy is CLEARLY an idiot, and has been slipping into idiocy since the late eighties. Why does anyone even bother reading his trite, delusional musings?
You are a sad, strange little man. Don't get me wrong, the government needs people like you to think these things up. Ever consider working for DARPA?
I'm quite sure any Internet ready, Java-enabled cell phone could be scripted to send live data. I'm not a Java developer, nor an embedded device developer, but the capability is there. You don't need a server daemon running on your phone to do what you describe.
...of having your cell phone hacked and used to distribute porn, warez, and pirated music, right from the web server they installed in your pocket. Am I the only one that sees this not as a good thing? Why does Nokia want to put a web server in your pocket? The whole point of a consumer electronics device, like a cell phone, is to make it bullet proof to security issues (or at least as bullet proof as possible), and have it work every time you turn it on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for embedded Linux on these things from a business and consumer viewpoint, but come on! The more you open your sensitive personal data up for attack, the greater the risk. This doesn't make any sense to me.
If you buy Windows (especially with a credit card), find out it doesn't work within 30 days, you have recourse to demand a refund from the place you purchased it from. Really, really. Most people don't follow up on this and just take it in the rear, and that's why this has been allowed to go on for so long. You actually do have a 'right' to a refund. There are ways to bring liability to bear, but no one does it! It's staggering!
I can tell you that if enough people actually did follow up and bring the BBB, or the FTC to bear on MS for their absolute excrement they call software, something would be done. No one wants to take the time, that's the problem. Me, I took a different tack. I just stopped buying their crap! And, if I get promoted to a higher level in my organization I'm going to do everything I can to stop them buying their crap too! That's the other way you punish them, through accountability. If they build crap, and they won't fix it, you stop buying it, or you sick the dogs on them. Consumer laziness is the only reason why these vendors are getting away with this. Plain and simple. The system is in place to stop this, no one seems to want to use it.
Ok, as usual there are a lot of people who chimed in on the subject without thinking this through.
If you PAID for a software product to a vendor, the vendor IS liable. The extent of this liability is not necessarily defined by law or formal contract. Some of this liability is inherent in the principles of a market economy, i.e., if I paid for something and it doesn't work I have a legitimate grievance with the seller/producer of the product that I can seek remedy for. That inherent liability is supposedly covered through a customer service mechanism, in the case of computer software this is the tech support department. This group is supposed to act as a feedback mechanism to the software developers for fixing bugs, and to assist the customer in either working around the problem, or otherwise providing a solution. If a solution cannot be found, and the product was purchased, the bug identified in a reasonable amount of time from purchase, then the customer CAN seek remedy of the problem by demanding a refund for the purchased price (maybe minus some handling fees and/or taxes). This happens all the time and there are organizations, like the Better Business Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and others, that enforce these rights under Federal and State guidelines. Mileage may vary.
Now, if you didn't pay for a product, because it was free or you just plain stole it (pirated it in the case of computer software), then there is no recourse for remedy if the product is defective, nor is there any moral, ethical, or legal stance for liability passing to the creator of said software.
I don't have case law in front of me, but this has to have been tested somewhere by now.
The article has one paragraph on computer security and software liability and a bunch of aimless bullshit about employee theft, the cash register, ATM fraud, and tax fraud; and a nonsensical reference to a liquor store sign, "Your purchase free if you don't get a receipt."
Well, no shit! If I didn't pay for the item it was free and I wouldn't have a receipt either, DUH! I'm sorry, but that has to be the WORST piece of "journalism" I've ever seen!
To address the topic of the article (which had nothing to do with its content), I'd say this. Yes, vendors who are SELLING software for profit, and are supposed to be supplying support resources for said product, should be held liable for bugs. I don't know why he doesn't think that they aren't. If a piece of software is buggy, people will flood their tech support lines, and if not fixed will stop buying it! Duh, again!
As for the impact on OSS software, simple, NONE. You accept the liability of the reliability of the software because you got it for free. I'm sure there's something in the BSD license or GPL to that effect. If not, there certainly should be.
Somebody smack the bottle out of Bruce Schneier's hand (and maybe the bong too) and have him take a journalism class-or maybe just a basic writing class. He sucks!
Wired, if you're listening, I'll be happy to write for you...a ton better than this idiot.
If you don't give the files back you remove the incentive for other infected users to pay up.,/i>
You're assuming it's a single criminal collecting from everyone. I don't think that's the case.
There is ZERO incentive for a criminal using this method of attack to actually give up the key. He's going to Federal Pound Me In The Ass prison for this crime (and associated additional charges) if he/she gets caught. Why the Hell would he actually honor the deal if he had the money in his hands, unless his nuts/ovaries were in a vice?
1. Science fiction didn't postulate the concept of a space elevator, Russian scientist Yuri Kondratyuk did in the 1920s
2. Arthur C. Clarke, expanding on the work of Kondratyuk and other scientists, used the concept in his book "Fountains of Paradise" and postulated the use of a diamond-based filament material for use in the anchoring system
3. This guy in Italy comes out of left field denouncing a technology that has not emerged from its infancy (carbon nanotubes), and claims that they will never be strong enough?!?!
Yeah, using today's technology to make them he is probably correct, but technology never stands still and no one said that the anchor system HAD to be made of carbon nanotubes. It has to be made from a material that can withstand ALL of the stresses it will encounter in operation. Today, carbon nanotubes show the greatest promise, but they certainly aren't the end-all, be-all solution for the success of a space elevator. I can't believe Nature would publish this. Pugno is clearly just after publicity and trying to attack something that he just doesn't agree with. If he's going to shoot down carbon nanotubes, the least he could do is postulate a better solution. And how can he definitely say that it won't happen in his lifetime?!?! That's pretty naive and right up there with people saying that Mac OS X based computers couldn't be used for a supercomputing cluster, before 2003 when I helped build one.
But, could somebody tell me how a file format can be 'slow'? I can see the hardware or the application reading it as being slow. I can see where the format may be inefficient at storing data and causing performance issues, but those issues could be overcome through brute force, i.e., better parsing algorithms and faster hardware, a la what MS has done for years to hide badly written software. I think this is CLEARLY a case of the pot calling the kettle black! F**K Microsoft, F**K them right in the ear! Whiny little bitches!
Huzzah! Huzzah!
That's all I got.
I'm with you. I don't see how they can claim "... Of All Time" for this article; of the last 15 years maybe. And, I could go back way further than the 1950s for techno blunders of all time. Let's look at some of Da Vinci's work, Ptolemy, and then some of the outrageous things that came out of the 17th and 18th century. There were some obvious triumphs during those times, i.e., the reflecting telescope of Newton, the bicycle, etc., but there were far more laughable items to point out. Oh, and if you want to crank the nob on the WABAC machine a bit harder, we can look at the failed pyramid designs predating Zoser and the ziggurats of the Sumarians. Failed irrigation strategies of early Mesopotamian farmers, and the countless attempts at human flight that dot the annals of history.
Myrinet is one option, InfiniBand costs about the same and has similar performance characteristics. Myrinet drivers are more mature though and will give you fewer headaches during config. Moving up the scale, there's InfiniPath, Dolphin, and Quadrics. All are quite fast, sub-10 ms latency in most cases, but are very expensive. This market is certainly not for the "hobbyist" unless you're pulling down over six figures a year, or are a recipient of a large monetary bequest.
I'm going to poke a small hole in your argument/comparison. The ISO9000 specifications are *fixed*, and not a moving target like the W3C web specifications, so shooting for W3C compliance is not like shooting for and coming short of ISO9000 compliance. The short comings of companies going for ISO9000 compliance are almost always purely economic, i.e., they don't have enough capitalization to justify the cost of full compliance for ISO9000. The choice of W3C compliance is a lot more complicated, as far as reasoning goes, than just economics. There are ideological and technical issues that also hinder compliance with W3C web standards, not to mention multiple draft and finalized standards of compliance. Do I comply with HTML 1.0, XHTML 1.0, or XHTML 2.0? Obviously, these reasons can be simplified into financial reasons due to the cost of labor for compliance, but money isn't always the reason.
I *am* a college professor and administrator. And I'd say you're far from being 'enlightened' along with a vast majority of the /. crowd.
If the PowerBook became the MacBook Pro, what's the Power Mac going to become?
Mac Mac Pro?
The Royale With Cheese.
Mac Pro, most likely.
Ok, are you sure it never comes on, or that it never cranks up to the level it did when you installed the SMC Firmware Update? I ask because the fan in mine is almost always on...it's not generating vectored thrust decibel levels, but it's on most of the time, especially when I'm watching video on it. It's not overheating. I checked. It's well within 'spec'.
Do you miss B&W TV and the slide rule too? Just curious. Probably miss putting RAM into a machine one chip at a time too. Maybe miss crank starting your car. One thing about progress, there will always be a group of people standing in the way waiting for martyrdom.
Who is "they"? I'm the one making the decision about my needs. No one is telling me what size iPod (or other media player) I need. Apple is marketing a product based on available technologies at relatively fixed price points; if you were paying attention. Apple sets prices and slides newer, faster, bigger (in this case) technologies into them once, a.) the supply margins allow, and b.) when the demand is present in the market. Also, what did they win? If you mean they won by making a superior product at a reasonable price that not only plays music, but can be used as a general purpose storage device, then yeah, they've won 80% of the market. Does it fit everybody's wants and needs? No. Should it? Impossible. That's why there is another 20% market alive.
Weren't we talking about the MacBook? Isn't it designed to be an entry level consumer laptop? Was it ever advertised as a gaming laptop? Does Apple even mention games or gaming in their web or other promotional material relating to the MacBook? Ok, one on the Tech Specs page, "Big Bang Board Games", which I'm guessing is not a severely graphics intensive game experience. Other than that, none. Why are people complaining about a product's gaming performance when it's not advertised as a gaming machine? Aren't computers supposed to be tools and not just toys? Seems strange that the crowd that once called the Mac a 'toy computer' is complaining that it can't play games.
You're not nuts, but I wonder how much of a dog the "Capable" machine will be.
A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:
* A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
Also, I don't find the memory requirement to be out of line with Mac OS X 10.4 or the upcoming 10.5 (Leopard). Leopard will most likely have a minimum RAM requirement of 512 MB as well.
Was everyone asleep in the last quarter of 2005?
w ins-the-acid2-race/
Apple's Safari 2.0.2, which was part of the Mac OS X 10.4.3 update (November 2, 2005, or there about) was the *FIRST* ACID2 compliant browser to ship to market.
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/11/02/safari-
There are dozens more sites with the news, just Google it!
I'm going to chime in on this thread. I'm going to assume that when you say 'usage' you mean the target audience of the site? If so, that's really *NOT* an excuse, logical argument, nor valid defense for non-compliance. There is only one excuse for non-compliance and that is a mandated use of Microsoft technologies by management for the development of a website. Notice I did not call that a logical argument, nor a valid defense.
Now, for ROI, I'm sorry, but if *ANY* user with a *FREE* web browser (or media player) can see and use your website, your ROI is going to be higher. Period. There is no logical argument for non-compliance with open standards for CSS and DOM designs; nor for any content being delivered over the web, or application being developed for the web. None, zippo, zero, nada.
I know, this is a debate/discussion that will rage for many years to come; until Microsoft is either brought to its knees on compliance, wiped from the market, or simply supplants the open standards (somehow). But, I develop sites, applications, and full end-to-end solutions. I do it with open standards compliance AND a reasonable amount of diligence paid to the MS IE standards as well for near matching rendered pages. You do it enough times, it's really not that hard to keep doing. The only pain is when you create a new look-and-feel template, and that's once a year at most. I'm also a firm believer in the creation of reusable parts!
See my post it clarifies a little more. He is using 10.4.6, the gcc compilers, and the standard (non-HPC optimized) memory manager for his published tests. Thank you for reinforcing his tests were domain and application specific, not general computing applications. Mileage may vary, see dealer for specific details...yadda, yadda, yadda
Ok, this should not have been modded up to informative. I actually spoke with Dr. Sekhon via email. A lot of his performance issues were due to the memory manager in Mac OS X not being designed for HPC applications (that's what he's testing, *NOT* desktop apps!!!). He has since tried to get a hold of the memory manager Dr. Varadarajan wrote for System X and will be doing his tests again (once he gets a hold of it). These issues (I'm hoping, and will find out at WWDC) should be addressed in Leopard (10.5) based on our (Virginia Tech's) input into Apple's OS development group(s).
Yes, today, out of the box Mac OS X *is* slower than Linux and Windows XP on an Apple Core Duo product for high-performance computing applications tested by Dr. Sekhon. Do not expect that disparity to last for very long. Also, remember, Mac OS X for Intel is really nothing more than a hack in its current form. Leopard will be the real proving ground for the Apple Intel platform.
Ok, I know some people that have the ROKR and other phones that play MP3s. Most of them NEVER use the functionality because they're talking on the phone more than they are using it to play music. Plus, these folks also have iPods that they use in their cars and when they're working out. They rarely take their phone to the gym with them, and if they do they leave it in the car and take their iPod in. I don't see this flying. As for ring tones, I think most of the people I know get one or two a year, if they get any at all because they are ridiculously expensive. I think Microsoft is gonna fall flat on their face with this move and not even put a dent in the digital music market (let alone in the DRM world) currently owned by Apple. IMHO