OR the class of Mac users that laugh about Windows backwards compatibility but quietly forget the OS9 to OSX compatibility fiasco.
What compatibility fiasco?
OS X contained an MacOS 9 "VM" up until 10.5 that ran most old apps remarkably well. That's something like 6 years of supported compatibility after OS 9 was completely discontinued as a standalone OS product.
You need to look no further than 10.3 to 10.4 to see the same kind of breakage you do with Windows Vista to Windows 7... Not to mention 10.1 to 10.2 and 10.2 to 10.3 (particularly bad.. 95 to XP bad). 10.4 to 10.5 was much smoother, but OS X has matured a lot over the years.
You're kidding, right? I hung onto OS X 10.3 for the longest of time, afraid that it would break all my ancient (10.2 (and earlier)-era) apps. I'm struggling to remember if there was ANYTHING that broke when I upgraded to 10.4. Even that hideous 10.1-era MS Office v.X worked fine in OS X 10.4.
Actually, I have avoided Leopard (10.5), because I have heard more stories about app-breakage going from 10.4 to 10.5
I get about 49% usage of BOTH CPUs (evenly distributed, curiously enough) on my 1.8GHz G5 Dualie with a not-so-fast GEForce FX 5200 with a whopping 64MB of RAM.
But the animation is smooth. Not bad for a system that probably isn't the target of serious optimization at this point.
I signed up for Netflix partially to enjoy streamed content, only to find out that, since they use Silverlight to ensure their DRM, my PowerPC Mac is platforma non grata.
It's not like my 1.8GHz G5 Dualie lacks the power, nor my 15Mbps internet service lacks the bandwidth, either. The lazy fucks at Macroshaft simply don't want to compile Silverlight for PPC.
So, no. I'm not impressed.
And I agree that Netflix's streamed catalog is but a faint shadow of their physical DVD offerings.
Says who? Why is it wrong to keep configuration files, which are changed very infrequently, in with the program? And if you feel that strongly, why not actually stop me writing there instead of mapping it somewhere else without telling me? At the moment, if I alter a file for (say) a service, I get no warning and no indication of anything other than a successful write to the file, but whichever account the service runs as sees something different. Unacceptable behaviour.
Um, isn't that exactly what happens in OS X with Preferences?
In OS X (and *NIX???), USER preferences are stored in the USER's "Home" directory. That way, permissions to write the "Applications" directory can be more tightly controlled, AND the USER can be granted permission to write in a relatively safe place (safe "system-wise", that is).
Far be it for me to laud anything MacroSuck does; but, to me, this "symlink" just appears to be MS's attempt to provide a modicum of security for system and application files, while not breaking backward compatibility for every-single-bullshit-written-app that required Admin privileges just because the DEVELOPER was TOO LAZY to put USER settings in the PER USER "Documents and Settings" Directory(ies), and instead wanted to spray files all over the SYSTEM and APPLICATION directories (which are NOT USER-SPECIFIC, of course). And before you cite the meme that "Windows Vista7 doesn't care about backward compatibility.", keep in mind just HOW stupid and suicidal such a move would be for MS if it were TRULY the case...
With OS X's Package approach, you get the best of both worlds: Dependencies are grouped together for easy maintenance, copying, and REMOVAL; but things like Preferences are not only PER USER, but they are in a place that can be written WITHOUT FEAR OF SYSTEM COMPROMISE!!!
Where did you hear that he had a Whipple? Citation?
And, even if he did, people live with dramatically abbreviated GI tracts for decades. Most are even able to work and live (basically) "normal" lives.
IANAD, but I would assume that Mssr. Jobs can afford the best gastroenterologists and endocrinologists available; so they would be able to stay on top of any nutritional issues caused malabsorption secondary to the loss of his duodenum. He would undoubtedly be receiving regular PET scans to catch any recurrence of cancer. Considering that PET scans can see "cancers" so small (down to something like SIX cells, IIRC) that they are literally TOO "sensitive", I think that Jobs will be able to keep Mr. Death away from his personal IP address for quite some time...
Considering that what is now known as Quicken started out as an Apple ][ (and IBM PC) "checkbook" app (written in Pascal, no less!), and wildly popular on the Apple ][, Intuit has completely dissed the Mac for some time now. In fact, a few years ago, Intuit had announced that they wouldn't be updating Quicken and/or QuickBooks for the Mac AT ALL! Several of the Intuit developers talked them out of that decision, fortunately (I think).
So, now that they're all rich an famous and stuff, Intuit has conveniently forgotten more than half of the loyal customers who got them there.
I'm just amazed that after all this time, that no one else has stepped up to the plate, er, platter...
Apple pulled the tech note because it was OUTDATED, not because they wanted to "censor" it.
The "real" question is "Why was this a 'story' in the first place?" I believe it was 'planted' by Microsoft, to attempt to derail serious holiday Mac purchasing, by sowing the seeds of FUD.
Show me even ONE true worm-type virus for OS X, and I will entertain the idea that there is something "there".
Until then, it's just disingenuous FUD. (Which I think is the only kind of FUD available)...
How frickin' disingenuous. It's not the "deal they had to make to get NBC back", but rather the "deal" they had to make to allow HDCP output.
And if you read/., you should already know that.
This is NOTHING like the all-pervasive DRM that infests Visturd(TM) at every turn.
And if they DIDN'T allow HDCP-"protected" content to be played, the people would whine about "Where's the Hi-Def"?
So, please tell me, just how does Apple keep up with (icky) "modern" video standards, and NOT do what it takes to keep from being sued to death by the MAFIAA?
You'll note that, unlike similar apps in Vista, there don't seem to be widespread reports about Final Cut (or even 3rd party apps like Premiere) not being able to read/edit/write HD content.
So, as I said, this seems to be confined to as little of QuickTime and OS X as possible.
Nope. Woz rolled his own standard. MUCH faster and MUCH more reliable than the Kansas City standard.
In fact, of all the cassette interfaces of the day, including some REALLY elaborate S-100 ones developed by Don Tarbell, the Apple 1 (and Apple ][) cassette interface stands alone in reliability and "forgiveness" to things like playback level and tape quality. That is because Woz depended SOLELY on the timing of ZERO CROSSINGS of the signal, which, unless the tape speed is enormously out of whack, or enormously unstable millisecond-to-millisecond, have ZERO (pun intended) effect.
I have some original engineering notes by Woz regarding his development and testing of the cassette interface, where he describes his own amazement at how reliable his cassette interface is. He describes hunting down the cheeziest recorders, and the most horrible cassettes, to try it on, and it works like a charm. It just also happened to be either the fastest, or the second fastest (and easily the most reliable!) of anything available. Before or since.
Re:6502 assembly - now there's a blast from the pa
on
1200-Baud Archeology
·
· Score: 1
Let's see how my memory serves:
$E000 - BASIC Coldstart
$E003 - Wait for a key (wait for bit 7 "set" of address $D011), then Load Accumulator with the ASCII keycode (from location $D010), and Return.
$E00C - (Do Uppercase conversion on ASCII, I think), and Jump to the CharOut routine ($E3C9).
$E018 - Looks like the "scroll" routine. That #$8D is a Carriage Return char (Apple 1 and ][ 'ASCII' always had bit 7 SET). The Apple 1 had a "TV Typewriter"-style interface (with apologies to Don Lancaster), that used some "odd" Fairchild shift-registers for the "screen memory". There was no such thing on the Apple 1 as "VTAB()" or "HTAB", or the "BASECALC" routines in the Apple ][ monitor. In fact, there was no random access to the screen position at all. That's why the scroll routine looks like it is simply re-writing stuff to CharOut. It is...
As an interesting aside, my copy of Apple 1 BASIC, which is from May, 1976, nonetheless does NOT give a "SYNTAX ERR" when given the following Apple ][ Integer BASIC verbs: "COLOR=", "PLOT", and "HLIN" (but not "VLIN", which returns an error). This says to me that Woz was already heavily into developing the Apple ][ even when the Apple 1 was barely on the market, so to speak. It would be interesting to find out if other owner's versions of Apple 1 BASIC respond to more, or less, Apple ][ BASIC commands...
Actually, I ran across some pix I shot of my Apple 1 a few weeks ago on an old PowerMac 8500 that I still turn on occasionally. If I can figure out where to post them, I will.
I also have a copy of the original Apple 1 Cassette Interface (it was a OPTION!) literature, with the oh-so-cool "Newton's Apple" logo on it. I may or may not have taken a pic or scanned that yet. I still have it, though. Along with the "replacement" Apple 1 owner's manual (has a tan cover, with an at that time "modern" Apple logo on it) sent to me personally by Woz himself (sorry, no autograph, dammit!).
And for the piece-of-resistance, I have this HUGE collection of Woz's notes on developing the Apple 1 and ][, and the cassette interface (with an in-depth description of the theory of operation of the cassette hw and sw) (which is 1800 baud, btw, not 1200), as well as some of his notes when he was developing Integer BASIC and the Floating Point package and the Sweet 16 pseudo-processor in the Apple ][ (but not in the ][+ or beyond). This collection of notes used to be called "The Woz Pak". Mine was actually mailed to me (at the same time as the Apple 1 manual, above) by Woz himself. Again, no autograph. Boy, was *I* stupid, or what?!?
The Woz Pak is about 250 pages of pure geek heaven. Now I'll have to dig it out and read it again!
Wonder how much IT'S worth? Kinda like having a copy of da Vinci's notes...
I own an Apple 1....And a copy of Apple 1 BASIC on cassette, and Woz's Mini-Assembler that is "origin-ed" for the Apple 1. (This is the same Mini-Assembler that was in the Apple ][ ROMs, at $F666). And a few other Apple 1 goodies.
Do you realize that the cassette interface for the Apple 1 and the Apple ][ are identical?
Yep, you can read an Apple 1 audio cassette with any old, easy-to-find Apple ][. And from there, you can use any one of a million methods to get the data out of memory and onto another medium.
Also, you can simply use the Apple ][ to create a NEW cassette for your Apple 1 (if you happen to be lucky enough to have one).
BTW, I think mine is "serial number" 0064. At least that's what I think the "0064 that is written in Sharpie on the PC board means...
The wording of this sentence PROVES this was NOT written by a "real"/. poster, but rather as a PSYOPS piece:
"Files are protected using PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy, a virtually unbreakable form of encryption software that is also used by intelligence agencies around the world"
Now, WHO on/. has to be edumecated about what the acronym PGP stands for, or what it IS???
Stupid MOFOs don't even know how to write a decent FAKE/. post!
There has been one exploit of the setuid permission in ARDAgent (and its minion, osascript), but THREE/. articles (including this one) that try and make it sound like there's a new exploit every single day in OS X.
Oh, and of course, neither TFA nor the/. summary points out that the vulnerability is easy rendered ineffective by disabling the setuid bit (sticky bit) in ARDAAgent, by typing the following into a Terminal session:
That will do until Apple addresses this vulnerability, and will NOT affect normal operation of Apple Remote Desktop. Caution: Do not "Repair Permissions" until Apple fixes this "officially", or at least do the "chmod" thing, above, immediately AFTER you Repair Permissions.
Slashdot Mirror
OR the class of Mac users that laugh about Windows backwards compatibility but quietly forget the OS9 to OSX compatibility fiasco.
What compatibility fiasco?
OS X contained an MacOS 9 "VM" up until 10.5 that ran most old apps remarkably well. That's something like 6 years of supported compatibility after OS 9 was completely discontinued as a standalone OS product.
You need to look no further than 10.3 to 10.4 to see the same kind of breakage you do with Windows Vista to Windows 7... Not to mention 10.1 to 10.2 and 10.2 to 10.3 (particularly bad.. 95 to XP bad). 10.4 to 10.5 was much smoother, but OS X has matured a lot over the years.
You're kidding, right? I hung onto OS X 10.3 for the longest of time, afraid that it would break all my ancient (10.2 (and earlier)-era) apps. I'm struggling to remember if there was ANYTHING that broke when I upgraded to 10.4. Even that hideous 10.1-era MS Office v.X worked fine in OS X 10.4 .
Actually, I have avoided Leopard (10.5), because I have heard more stories about app-breakage going from 10.4 to 10.5
Bottom line: YMMV.
I get about 49% usage of BOTH CPUs (evenly distributed, curiously enough) on my 1.8GHz G5 Dualie with a not-so-fast GEForce FX 5200 with a whopping 64MB of RAM.
But the animation is smooth. Not bad for a system that probably isn't the target of serious optimization at this point.
I signed up for Netflix partially to enjoy streamed content, only to find out that, since they use Silverlight to ensure their DRM, my PowerPC Mac is platforma non grata.
It's not like my 1.8GHz G5 Dualie lacks the power, nor my 15Mbps internet service lacks the bandwidth, either. The lazy fucks at Macroshaft simply don't want to compile Silverlight for PPC.
So, no. I'm not impressed.
And I agree that Netflix's streamed catalog is but a faint shadow of their physical DVD offerings.
Sure, NOBODY wants iPhone apps afterall. Sure.
I guess that's why Ballmer is wailing and moaning for Apple to 'open' the iPhone platform?
"There's no good reason for writing there,"
Says who? Why is it wrong to keep configuration files, which are changed very infrequently, in with the program? And if you feel that strongly, why not actually stop me writing there instead of mapping it somewhere else without telling me? At the moment, if I alter a file for (say) a service, I get no warning and no indication of anything other than a successful write to the file, but whichever account the service runs as sees something different. Unacceptable behaviour.
Um, isn't that exactly what happens in OS X with Preferences?
In OS X (and *NIX???), USER preferences are stored in the USER's "Home" directory. That way, permissions to write the "Applications" directory can be more tightly controlled, AND the USER can be granted permission to write in a relatively safe place (safe "system-wise", that is).
Far be it for me to laud anything MacroSuck does; but, to me, this "symlink" just appears to be MS's attempt to provide a modicum of security for system and application files, while not breaking backward compatibility for every-single-bullshit-written-app that required Admin privileges just because the DEVELOPER was TOO LAZY to put USER settings in the PER USER "Documents and Settings" Directory(ies), and instead wanted to spray files all over the SYSTEM and APPLICATION directories (which are NOT USER-SPECIFIC, of course). And before you cite the meme that "Windows Vista7 doesn't care about backward compatibility.", keep in mind just HOW stupid and suicidal such a move would be for MS if it were TRULY the case...
With OS X's Package approach, you get the best of both worlds: Dependencies are grouped together for easy maintenance, copying, and REMOVAL; but things like Preferences are not only PER USER, but they are in a place that can be written WITHOUT FEAR OF SYSTEM COMPROMISE!!!
Sheesh! Is it REALLY so hard???
You mean like this?
Where did you hear that he had a Whipple? Citation?
And, even if he did, people live with dramatically abbreviated GI tracts for decades. Most are even able to work and live (basically) "normal" lives.
IANAD, but I would assume that Mssr. Jobs can afford the best gastroenterologists and endocrinologists available; so they would be able to stay on top of any nutritional issues caused malabsorption secondary to the loss of his duodenum. He would undoubtedly be receiving regular PET scans to catch any recurrence of cancer. Considering that PET scans can see "cancers" so small (down to something like SIX cells, IIRC) that they are literally TOO "sensitive", I think that Jobs will be able to keep Mr. Death away from his personal IP address for quite some time...
I was doing some research on this rumor, and came across this.
This is outrageous! Jobs will have this person's hide for leaking the prototype!
Considering that what is now known as Quicken started out as an Apple ][ (and IBM PC) "checkbook" app (written in Pascal, no less!), and wildly popular on the Apple ][, Intuit has completely dissed the Mac for some time now. In fact, a few years ago, Intuit had announced that they wouldn't be updating Quicken and/or QuickBooks for the Mac AT ALL! Several of the Intuit developers talked them out of that decision, fortunately (I think).
So, now that they're all rich an famous and stuff, Intuit has conveniently forgotten more than half of the loyal customers who got them there.
I'm just amazed that after all this time, that no one else has stepped up to the plate, er, platter...
If I understand my Unix jargon correctly, An "Admin" account on OS X is simply one that is on the "sudoers" list.
An OS X "Admin" account ("User can Administer This Computer") != root.
You've got to specifically enable root login capability. And in 9 years of using OS X on a daily basis, I have never come across a need to do that.
Ipso facto, barring "social engineering", there is absolutely NO way for a self-propagating piece of code to be developed for OS X.
And if it ain't self-propagating, it ain't goin' nowhere... fast!
Does ANYONE RTFA?
Oh, I forgot! This is Slashdot.
Apple pulled the tech note because it was OUTDATED, not because they wanted to "censor" it.
The "real" question is "Why was this a 'story' in the first place?" I believe it was 'planted' by Microsoft, to attempt to derail serious holiday Mac purchasing, by sowing the seeds of FUD.
Show me even ONE true worm-type virus for OS X, and I will entertain the idea that there is something "there".
Until then, it's just disingenuous FUD. (Which I think is the only kind of FUD available)...
How frickin' disingenuous. It's not the "deal they had to make to get NBC back", but rather the "deal" they had to make to allow HDCP output.
/., you should already know that.
And if you read
This is NOTHING like the all-pervasive DRM that infests Visturd(TM) at every turn.
And if they DIDN'T allow HDCP-"protected" content to be played, the people would whine about "Where's the Hi-Def"?
So, please tell me, just how does Apple keep up with (icky) "modern" video standards, and NOT do what it takes to keep from being sued to death by the MAFIAA?
You'll note that, unlike similar apps in Vista, there don't seem to be widespread reports about Final Cut (or even 3rd party apps like Premiere) not being able to read/edit/write HD content.
So, as I said, this seems to be confined to as little of QuickTime and OS X as possible.
Um, I don't think that FileMaker Corp. has been owned by Apple for many years now.
That is EXACTLY what I was thinking.
M$, perhaps?
Wow! A Beelzebubba reference! Thanx for making my day.
This sounds like Take Deux on the famous WIndows Shatter Attack(TM).
I remember that display, too.
Yes, it was definitely 6502 assembly. Even scrolling by that fast I caught some of the code.
I keep referring to it as "My nest egg", LOL!
Yeah, posting pix of it and the other stuff has been on my long To Do list for a long, long time.
Maybe this will be the year...
Nope. Woz rolled his own standard. MUCH faster and MUCH more reliable than the Kansas City standard.
In fact, of all the cassette interfaces of the day, including some REALLY elaborate S-100 ones developed by Don Tarbell, the Apple 1 (and Apple ][) cassette interface stands alone in reliability and "forgiveness" to things like playback level and tape quality. That is because Woz depended SOLELY on the timing of ZERO CROSSINGS of the signal, which, unless the tape speed is enormously out of whack, or enormously unstable millisecond-to-millisecond, have ZERO (pun intended) effect.
I have some original engineering notes by Woz regarding his development and testing of the cassette interface, where he describes his own amazement at how reliable his cassette interface is. He describes hunting down the cheeziest recorders, and the most horrible cassettes, to try it on, and it works like a charm. It just also happened to be either the fastest, or the second fastest (and easily the most reliable!) of anything available. Before or since.
Let's see how my memory serves:
$E000 - BASIC Coldstart
$E003 - Wait for a key (wait for bit 7 "set" of address $D011), then Load Accumulator with the ASCII keycode (from location $D010), and Return.
$E00C - (Do Uppercase conversion on ASCII, I think), and Jump to the CharOut routine ($E3C9).
$E018 - Looks like the "scroll" routine. That #$8D is a Carriage Return char (Apple 1 and ][ 'ASCII' always had bit 7 SET). The Apple 1 had a "TV Typewriter"-style interface (with apologies to Don Lancaster), that used some "odd" Fairchild shift-registers for the "screen memory". There was no such thing on the Apple 1 as "VTAB()" or "HTAB", or the "BASECALC" routines in the Apple ][ monitor. In fact, there was no random access to the screen position at all. That's why the scroll routine looks like it is simply re-writing stuff to CharOut. It is...
As an interesting aside, my copy of Apple 1 BASIC, which is from May, 1976, nonetheless does NOT give a "SYNTAX ERR" when given the following Apple ][ Integer BASIC verbs: "COLOR=", "PLOT", and "HLIN" (but not "VLIN", which returns an error). This says to me that Woz was already heavily into developing the Apple ][ even when the Apple 1 was barely on the market, so to speak. It would be interesting to find out if other owner's versions of Apple 1 BASIC respond to more, or less, Apple ][ BASIC commands...
Actually, I ran across some pix I shot of my Apple 1 a few weeks ago on an old PowerMac 8500 that I still turn on occasionally. If I can figure out where to post them, I will.
I also have a copy of the original Apple 1 Cassette Interface (it was a OPTION!) literature, with the oh-so-cool "Newton's Apple" logo on it. I may or may not have taken a pic or scanned that yet. I still have it, though. Along with the "replacement" Apple 1 owner's manual (has a tan cover, with an at that time "modern" Apple logo on it) sent to me personally by Woz himself (sorry, no autograph, dammit!).
And for the piece-of-resistance, I have this HUGE collection of Woz's notes on developing the Apple 1 and ][, and the cassette interface (with an in-depth description of the theory of operation of the cassette hw and sw) (which is 1800 baud, btw, not 1200), as well as some of his notes when he was developing Integer BASIC and the Floating Point package and the Sweet 16 pseudo-processor in the Apple ][ (but not in the ][+ or beyond). This collection of notes used to be called "The Woz Pak". Mine was actually mailed to me (at the same time as the Apple 1 manual, above) by Woz himself. Again, no autograph. Boy, was *I* stupid, or what?!?
The Woz Pak is about 250 pages of pure geek heaven. Now I'll have to dig it out and read it again!
Wonder how much IT'S worth? Kinda like having a copy of da Vinci's notes...
I own an Apple 1. ...And a copy of Apple 1 BASIC on cassette, and Woz's Mini-Assembler that is "origin-ed" for the Apple 1. (This is the same Mini-Assembler that was in the Apple ][ ROMs, at $F666). And a few other Apple 1 goodies.
Do you realize that the cassette interface for the Apple 1 and the Apple ][ are identical?
Yep, you can read an Apple 1 audio cassette with any old, easy-to-find Apple ][. And from there, you can use any one of a million methods to get the data out of memory and onto another medium.
Also, you can simply use the Apple ][ to create a NEW cassette for your Apple 1 (if you happen to be lucky enough to have one).
BTW, I think mine is "serial number" 0064. At least that's what I think the "0064 that is written in Sharpie on the PC board means...
The wording of this sentence PROVES this was NOT written by a "real" /. poster, but rather as a PSYOPS piece:
"Files are protected using PGP, or Pretty Good Privacy, a virtually unbreakable form of encryption software that is also used by intelligence agencies around the world"
Now, WHO on /. has to be edumecated about what the acronym PGP stands for, or what it IS???
Stupid MOFOs don't even know how to write a decent FAKE /. post!
There has been one exploit of the setuid permission in ARDAgent (and its minion, osascript), but THREE /. articles (including this one) that try and make it sound like there's a new exploit every single day in OS X.
/. summary points out that the vulnerability is easy rendered ineffective by disabling the setuid bit (sticky bit) in ARDAAgent, by typing the following into a Terminal session:
/System/Library/CoreServices/RemoteManagement/ARDAgent.app
Oh, and of course, neither TFA nor the
sudo chmod 550
That will do until Apple addresses this vulnerability, and will NOT affect normal operation of Apple Remote Desktop. Caution: Do not "Repair Permissions" until Apple fixes this "officially", or at least do the "chmod" thing, above, immediately AFTER you Repair Permissions.
That is all.