Slashback: OS Xi, Sarge, Statistics 456
It still feels like a strange dream that they're really switching. An anonymous reader writes "With our latest Unix (MacOS-X) vendor's switch to x86, I figured now would be a fine time to revisit an old MIT Graduate Student Beer announcement from 2001."
Also, samchung writes "CoolTechZone has its latest article up that discusses the possibilities of Apple's protection on x86 hardware to prevent users from running the Mac OS X on non-proprietary hardware."More fuel: Reality Master 101 writes "Michael Robertson, CEO of Linspire posted an editorial talking about his disappointment that Apple wasn't embracing generic hardware. But the really interesting part was that he states, "My sources say that Jobs is going to use Intel's cryptographic technology called LaGrande to make sure OS X will only boot on Apple-branded hardware. This is a similar technique to the one that Microsoft used to make sure Linux could not be loaded on Xbox..." I'm still not sure how they'll do this with an open source Kernel." They're clearly part of the Linspire marketing effort, but Robertson's messages, including this one, are usually pithy and worth reading.
Hey, you could always wait for a service pack. An anonymous reader submits "Because of an error in a configuration file, Debian Sarge, released June 6th, does not have security updating enabled by default. ZDNet Australia reports that after several years of testing, the release team's error caused a significant delay in deployment. Steve Langasek, of the release team, says, 'Whoops, don't go pressing those 10,000 copies of [3.1] just yet.' Fortunately, the error may be fixed quite easily, and an update is expected within several days. OSNews also covers the story.
Sticker shock alone could defeat the other drivers. josemunizn writes "Remember the Honda FCX, from a Slashdot article in '03? Well the New York Times has an automotive review of a week-long, unsupervised test drive of the Honda. Choice quote: 'In most important ways, the FCX feels ready for prime-time combat on the world's roads.'"
Carry the one, subtract 5, voila! An anonymous reader writes "WinMX and Limewire are the most popular P2P apps? That's what NPD group claims in its research on iTunes covered on Slashdot yesterday. But as Jon Newton points out on P2Pnet and MP3 Newswire, the entire premise that more people use iTunes over the file sharing networks is 'nonsense.' With sites like Slyck.com reporting eDonkey alone has over 4.5 million concurrent users and P2P research firm BigChampagne saying in the U.S. in May an average of 6,290,327 people were logged onto the p2p networks at any given moment, how can iTunes' 1.7 million downloads over an entire month put them anywhere near the top? Zeropaid has also chimed in on these claims and even CNET is now questioning the results it reported in its original article on the NPD research."
Catching up to the 3rd parties who have caught up with the competition. An anonymous reader writes "For the impatient or those few not ready to adopt Firefox, there is now another option to get tabs. BetaNews reports, 'Users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser will not have to wait until IE7 to experience tabbed browsing. MSN has shipped a new build of its MSN Search Toolbar that adds basic tabbed browsing support to IE6. But the feature is not fully integrated into the browser, instead relying on the toolbar to create tabs.' Here's an article including a screenshot.
OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:5, Insightful)
faster than a Wintel box, but they get close to parity in the real world.
They might get a few more people buying Macs if they can dual boot them,
but will suffer a financial hit when someone gets it running on commodity hardware.
And make no mistake, it WILL happen as the linked article says. If
for no other reason than "because we can". Darwin already runs so if
nothing else someone will just extract the higher level functions from
the CD and drop them in, disabling the copy protection as required.
Removing copy protection is well understood and will pose no real
challenge. Macs aren't X-Boxes, developers who have not signed an NDA
must be able to use one, including the debugger, so hardware lockdown
isn't a real option.
And I'm not even sure this new practice of locking software to one's
own brand of PC is even going to be legal. The console world gets away
with it because a) the consoles sell at a loss so people cut em some
slack and b) nobody has waged a real legal war over it yet. But on the
PC, Compaq v IBM is settled law.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? They're going to take a hit when some bored hobbyist cracks the protection scheme and puts the solution up on some P2P site? You really think that many people who are seriously interested in the simplicity, stability, interface, and power of Apple products are suddenly going to learn how to scrounge through P2P sites and use custom machines to save a couple hundred bucks? Of course some people will, but that'll probably be made up for just as well by people who do it to test OS X and then make their next purchase an Apple PC with it OS X pre-installed.
If Apple does much of anything to restrict OS X to run on specific hardware, that's enough to deter pretty much everyone who isn't some too-poor-anyway college student or a hobbyist who's going to recommend the retail system to all his or her friends. Too many people are way too lazy and honest for what you're predicting.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:3, Insightful)
People "seriously interested in the simplicity, st
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:5, Insightful)
And a lot of people are going to want to see Leopard run on their PC.
But Leopard isn't going to include drivers for anything but Apple hardware, which makes it much less of a casual download for Intel fans.
I think Apple's wisest strategy is to allow people to do the reverse engineering and run it on foreign hardware, but offer no support for that. That way, the curious get to try the system, but the bulk of Apple users will still buy computers designed and tuned for Apple's software. Why? Because we like its style and design, and because we don't like hassle.
The days when I struggled with Linux distributions trying to get readable fonts are over. I have too much money and too little time to make that kind of effort. Now I want a total solution, and Apple's there to sell it to me.
I think the main reason Apple does not want to officially allow their software to run on non-Apple hardware is not vendor lock-in. It's the desire to give users a trouble-free experience. Liberating the MacOS so it would run on non-Apple hardware would create a support nightmare Apple's ill-equipped to handle.
RIght now, the Apple brand stands for a trouble-free computing experience, or as close to that as is possible in this world. Trying to support every generic PC on the planet would be impossible(*), and attempting to do so would cost the company it's hard-earned reputation.
D
(*) Microsoft does it primarily by delegating driver development to vendors. They have the clout to require this, but Apple does not.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I should not have said trouble-free, since computing always has its problems.
But it's a lot closer than Windows. No virii. No spyware. Beautifully designed hardware and software.
It's not a perfect world, no, but it's a better world.
D
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:5, Insightful)
In order "feed the processor jumbo" whatever thats supposed to mean, it would first have to be _running on the system_. Requires either 1. An exploit, or 2. The user to bring the program in and run it. Either of these two things is OS specific. Changing the processor doesn't change anything. You might see a few more exploits from othe UNIX-on-Intel systems that run without modification for OS X, but the Unix world is not exactly rife with viral infections.
Intel assembly code isn't the issue here. It is the little endian big endian processor extentions as well as some basics. Code writen for an intel X86 machine will not runn on a mac g4 processor because of this. Now with wintel it is portable. Virus can be basicaly recycled from one operating system to another.
What is the hell is a "big endian/little endian processor extension". Big Endian/Little Endian refers to the byte order used to store integers in memory - Nothing about it could be considered an "extension". Code written for a Windows machine _still_ won't run on a Mac unless it doesn't use any system calls at all - In which case, it can't do anything useful because in these modern, enlightened post-DOS days we don't let every peice of code on the system do whatever it wants to the hardware. I mention X86 Assembly code because if you're writing to that level of bare metal, you'll probably have to use some.
Could a boot sector virus still infect a Intel based Mac? Maybe. But boot sector viruses went out with warez trading on floppy disks. You have to boot the machine off removable, writable storage (no CD's, unless the virus was placed in the image pre-burn) to get a boot sector virus, and how often do you actually do that? Any installation of a boot sector virus post-boot would require compromise of OS security, and the use of OS specific system calls.
If just being on Intel exposed an OS to crossovers from Windows viruses, Linux, FreeBSD, etc would be having virus problems. Nothing going on there.
By far the most annoying thing about the Mac/Intel switch IMO is the amount of bullshit being spewed by people who obviously know squat about computer architecture. Just putting an Intel processor in it doesn't make it a Windows PC with all the failings thereof anymore than the XBox is going to be a Mac or the Nintendo 64 was an SGI workstation.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:4, Interesting)
A point which everyone in this thread seems to be ignorant of.
Apple will release Mac OS X so that it only works on Mac hardware.
Two weeks later some darwin hackers will report that with their custom kernal, you can install OS X from your DVD onto generic hardware.
People who don't want to buy Macs
Some of these people will report it to slashdot, and some poster in the forums will go "In your face Steve Jobs! HAHAHAHAA!!!!"
And Apple will count the $100 they got from that sale, and put it in the bank without a complaint.
I mean, come on-- what company doesn't want to sell their software? Sure, Apple doesn't want to support an infinite variety of hardware combinations-- and so they will only officially support OS X on their hardware.
Everybody wins. The hackers can run it on commodity hardware, Apple sells more OS, and doesn't ahve to worry about supporting the garbage that most fly by night PC companies put out-- and on better quality hardwware like Dell or HP, all these customers of Dell and HP running Mac OS X only makes it more likely that Dell and HP will come to Apple to license the OS.
Probably Apple will do something to make it difficult to pirate OS X, and that strategy will likely be to make the install too big to distribute via P2P. (Maybe 4G is not too big, but its too big for me, and for anyone but the most dedicated pirate.)
Eventually, some PC manufacturer is going to sign a deal with Apple and sell machines with OS X installed... Apple doesn't have a problem with clones, contrary to popular belief. Apple has a problem with low quality clones, and a BIG problem with subsidizing a clone market. The previous Mac design was such that Apple lost money on every clone sold... the new business model will have Apple making an OS license fee on every clone sold.
OS X on generic hardware is a non-story. Apple won't care-- all they care about is not having to support crap hardware, and making their license fee for selling the software.
The iPod's margins are close the the margin on a mac. The OS Upgrade cost for OS X is probably equal to or better than the margin on selling a macintosh.
Therefore, the Microsoft model will work fine for Apple-- the only difference is that Apple will produce its own hardware. IT will compete with its customers, but it will still have customers signing up, happy with those terms.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:4, Insightful)
One who makes most of their money on hardware.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, so you're the one. Cut it out!
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:3, Insightful)
> Apple's lawyers.
Not really. Once you have the lawyers to make the law work you can enforce the software is SOLD, not LICENSED reality. The only protection OSX has is it's copyright. If a boxed copy of OSX goes into the carton box Apple has zero leg to stand on except to try bankrupting the offending vendor. If Dell were willing to piss Bill off that bad Steve would just have to hold his ankles and take it like a man. But of cour
openfirmware... (Score:2)
I don't think Apple is intentionally preventing its users of doing that. Apple is just not going to support running Mac OS X on your average PC.
I think OpenFirmware is likely to be
Re:openfirmware... (Score:3, Insightful)
Coupled with their own admission that users could theoretically dual boot Windows and OSX, the evidence clearly indicate
Re:openfirmware... (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, the machines boot Windows just fine. No hacking required to install it at all, it seems.
No Openfirmware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently, the machines boot Windows just fine. No hacking required to instal
Re:openfirmware... (Score:2)
Re:openfirmware... (Score:3, Informative)
I actually expect driver code to change quite a bit, if only because vendors will want to keep their Windows and Mac drivers closer together.
You are SO right. Mac is dead (Score:2, Insightful)
And you know what ? I agree it may well be illegal and anti-competitive as well and really there is going to be no way on Earth for Apple to cling on to brand prices on the hope that a few Mactel sheep will buy enough of their boxes. It is just a nonsense.
Mac OS X WILL be on generic PC boxes. Apple have done an amazingly stupid move of killing of their brand when they announced they are going with Intel.
Re:You are SO right. Mac is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the insight? Come on.... you guys have been saying that Apple is dead every other year like clockwork-- every time they make a change we see dozens of posts like this one claiming that Apple is dead.
Its been 20 years that you've been predicting their demise.
Furthermore, your entire premise if flawed. Apple didn't say they were going to take people to court to stop them from running OS X on other hardware-- they just said that they would only support it on their own hardware.
Apple is not a premi
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Not true, except for Microsoft Xbox.
b) nobody has waged a real legal war over it yet.
There have actually been two cases regarding this. There was the Connectix VGS (Virtual Game Station), a Playstation emulator for Mac OS, and Bleem!, another Playstation emulator which existed for PC and Sega Dreamcast. In both cases, courts determined that if you owned a legal copy of a game, it was allowable to use the emulator. Things may have changed wit
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Should have known I'd get called on that simplification though.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:5, Insightful)
They will? Prove it. You are only considering one outcome, that Apple will lose hardware sales to people that buy PCs and load OS X on them.
You are ignoring many other possible outcomes:
- Millions of people with existing PC hardware may plunk down $129 to purchase OS X that would never have bought Apple hardware in the first place. Would this not be practically pure profit for Apple? How much other Apple software will these people then buy? How many more iTunes converts will there be?
- People will buy OS X, install it on their existing PC, and when it comes time to upgrade their hardware, may now consider buying Apple hardware where they would never have done so before.
It is all about mindshare. Before the move to Intel processors, Apple was not in a position to win mindshare from the Windows crowd, because it required an investment in hardware to switch.
Perhaps Steve Jobs is thinking further ahead than you give him credit for. After all, he had them make OS X work on Intel for the past 5 years. Do you really think he has not considered every path in the future?
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
No I'm not.
> Millions of people with existing PC hardware may plunk down $129 to
> purchase OS X that would never have bought Apple hardware in the first
> place.
Except Apple is planning to tell those prospective customers to FOAD. So the only Mac OS on beige box will either be pirated copies or some third party well heeled enough to sell bundles of OSX and a very user friendly install cum crack kit.
> People will buy OS X, install it on their
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:3, Informative)
On Monday, answering questions about x86 Macs, Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller said, "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
So, while there may be some question as to whether that means "We will take technical measures to prevent it from running on non-Apple computers", or just "our license agreements will prohibit it from running on non-Apple computers", it's pretty clear that Apple won'
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Here it is: (Score:2)
HP will build and sell desktops and laptops with Apple's OS X. They might have the Apple logo right along-side the HP logo; but it will definately be branded and marketed by HP.
They already are using HP do build and market iPods. Steve understands HP's distribution chain and likes it. They'll still be lock-in chips, just like the Apple brand, so OS X will still get cracked out of necessity.
This is going to happen. Steve sees this as a
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Exactly wrong. Now the comparisons will be "Mactel" vs Wintel - actually useable, for the first time. One OS will better use the "same" HW (if in fact it's the same, other than the CPU) than the other. Maybe you're right, only in that it won't be merely hype, because it will be possible to make useable comparisons, just as we do with Intel vs AMD under Windows XP or Linux.
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
First, Intel chips wont be replacing the G5's anytime soon. Benches of Tiger running on Pentium 4's with Rhapsody got destroyed by Tiger on a G5. [thinksecret.com] Apple has indicated that the move to Intel will happen with the low-end Macs first: so eMacs, Mac Minis, and iBooks. The Intel chips will be low clock speed and run cool.
The timeline that Jobs mentioned for the Intel chips hews pre
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:3, Informative)
I'd sworn off Intel chips, especially w/ the P4 and Intel's other blundering and bullying. But you gotta have respect for the Pentium M, to so successfully fill an important market niche (lower power/lower heat) wher
Re:OSX on generic Intel HW (Score:2)
Copy Protection.... yawn. (Score:2)
> motherboard?
So? That is copy protection and we have been stripping that off of products in days since the 8bit days. They can't go XBox and full DRM if developers are to use the machine. Same for the other ideas in your post. If Quartz is running in memory it can be assaulted with the debugger and fixed. The only hitch would be if this chip actually performed some useful function, then it would have to be emulated in software an
Tabbing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tabbing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, look at the differences in use and presentation between "tabs" in most browsers today and apps such as spreadsheets, e.g. the multiple "sheets" model in Excel or Gnumeric. Likewise consdier tabs from the SWT toolkit used in Eclipse, Azureus (Java Bitorrent client), etc. These all have quite different uses and interaction models. Your proposal essentially amounts to "all tabs in all apps in all contexts should work just alike, and their visual display should no longer be controlled by the app." Doesn't seem like a very good idea to me...
MSN Toolbar & Tabs (Score:4, Insightful)
The MSN search bar tabs seem interesting, but I wonder if it will establish precedents that might carry into final builds of IE7. The possibility of bugs or issues with this implementation may also help the adoption of firefox, as people who like the concept of tabbed browsing but find this implementation lacking may seek out other browsers, or ask those 'in the know' around them for recommendations.
Re:MSN Toolbar & Tabs (Score:2)
Now, the reason I say that IE7's tabbing won't be lik
Trusted Computing. Great. (Score:3, Insightful)
This may be a reason to stop buying Macs. What this could represent may change the entire spirit of computing from "buy/own" to "borrow/rent". And forget privacy and being able to do whatever you want on your own machine.
Re:Trusted Computing. Great. (Score:2, Insightful)
Until OS X, Apple has always been a locked-up platform. One reason they chose BSD over Linux is because BSD allowed them to release altered versions of the kernel without being required to publicly release the source code. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is. If you want free computing use FreeBSD, Linux, etc. We'll have to wait to see what they do regarding privacy. I doubt it will be any diffe
steved. (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you finally wake up to reality? (Score:5, Funny)
pfft... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're worried that your new Mac will one day be obsolete? Bzzt. That's going to happen anyway. There's nothing you can do about it. Anyway, you're going to be buying a new machine in a couple of years anyway.
Running old programs on new machines is what having source code is for.
Re:steved. (Score:2)
I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to mention that AMD's dual core offerings seem a lot better than Intel's, and with apps on the mac already fairly SMP-aware (due to all the dual-G5 boxes Apple sold) I'd have bet that OS/X on a dual dual-core Opteron 275 would've been a much stronger proposition.
Re:I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:2)
AMD cannot guarantee production levels of their chips PLUS everything is laptops now which (to my knowledge) AMD still doesn't have an answer to the Pentium-M and whatever else Intel has down the pipeline.
Re:I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel has more to offer in terms of lower power chips, important for Apple because their powerbook line is really stagnating. Secondly, Intel is far less likely to have any sort of production rate problems, because they're just plain a much bigger company.
But don't think that Apple won't consider AMD an option somewhere down the line.
Re:I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:2)
You want me to buy a 2nd Pentium 4 just to use their 129 dollar market priced OS? I have a 2.4Ghz with 1GB of 400Mhz DDR which is obviously plenty fast to run OS X.
I want a G5 for the 64-bit AND the OS. If it is cracked to run on typical hardware and I can use an AMD64, biggity bang. But buying another P4 system when I already have one, "No thanks."
Unless they announce that the dev kits are the only P4's Apple is shipping and the actual proc will be Intel's 6
Re:I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:3, Insightful)
secondly, it's been said that shipping systems will not use p4's. Pentium D is the rumor.
Honestly, why do you care about the hardware? Why aren't you caring about the performance, etc? Can you tell a difference between a PC using an intel chip or an amd? no.
Re:I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:2)
Yes, you can. The one using AMD is faster and cheaper and uses less electricity.
Re:I really wonder why Apple didn't go with AMD (Score:4, Informative)
Correct. PowerPC was designed as a 64-bit ISA from the start. The only difference between 64-bit and 32-bit PowerPC chips is the size of the registers, the MMU and some extra instructions for manipulating 64-bit integers natively.
x86-64, in contrast is a 64-bit hack built on top of a 32-bit cludge on top of a 16-bit ISA. As well as being 64-bit, AMD64 adds some extra registers (almost half as many as PowerPC, woohoo), which makes code faster, in spite of the 64-bit penalty (it takes longer to load a 64-bit value than a 32-bit one, and code with 64-bit pointers takes up more cache space).
OSX isn't a 64 bit operating system
OS X Tiger is a 64-bit OS. Because PowerPC64 was designed to be compatible with PowerPC32, it is possible to run 32-bit code on it. One of the most commonly used pieces of 32-bit code is the windowing system. This is 32-bit because graphical applications rarely need more than 4GB of address space[1], and so it makes no sense to slow all of them down for the few that do.
[1] They might, however, need to spawn compute processes which handle more than 4GB of data.
Fired! (Score:2, Funny)
it takes too much vacation.
Which of these will happen first? (Score:5, Funny)
1) First mod-chip to bypass firmware limitations of Apple x86 hardware released
2) Linux distribution boots on new Apple-x86 hardware
3) Mac OS X for Intel boots on generic x86 hardware
4) Windows hacked to boot on new Apple x86 hardware
5) Mac OS X for Intel hacked to run in emulated virtual x86 machine
Tiebreaker question: estimate the date when OS X for x86 runs under Virtual PC on a G5 running the current OS X.
Re:Which of these will happen first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple PCs will run Windows. This has already been confirmed by one of Apple's VPs. They will not be using OpenFirmware. You'll be able to triple boot windows, OSX and Linux.
If I was Kreskin I would say that this is part of the master plan. Let people dual-triple boot and compare the desktops. They're guessing that they'll always go back to the OSX partition and they get to sell premium-priced hardware
Re:Which of these will happen first? (Score:2)
additional question (Score:2)
Re:additional question (Score:2)
Re:Which of these will happen first? (Score:2)
That one will be interesting.
Re:Which of these will happen first? (Score:2)
Re:Which of these will happen first? (Score:2)
There won't be much of a need to "hack" Windows. Just make sure you have drivers available for any custom hardware, and you can boot. Windows XP runs on a huge variety of hardware and CPU combination as-is.
Re:Which of these will happen first? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple x86 copies will happen. So? (Score:4, Interesting)
The same will happen with OS X on Intel. Inevitably, someone will find a way to build their own Intel box that can run OS X. I predict Apple's response will be: (1) You can't publish how to do this on the Internet, or if they are legally unable to stop them: (2) Refuse to support that hardware.
And that will be enough. Some OS X user will call Apple, somewhere along the line, and say that they're running OS X on non-Apple hardware, at which point Apple will decline to help them on the grounds that they don't support BYO hardware.
Sure, people out there will be building their own OS X boxen, but Apple won't help them do it. And if anyone tries to make a business out of selling boxen that are explicitly marked as "OS X compatible", Apple will bring their lawyers in, force them to remove whatever's making them compatible, and that will be the end of that.
Street-ready and $1mil? Uh huh (Score:3, Interesting)
We all need to get through our heads: hydrogen cars are a boondoggle. The hydrogen economy is a code-word for "the biggest subsidies (tax dollar give-aways) the fossil fuel industry has ever dreamed of."
Biodiesel is cost-competitive with plain old oil RIGHT NOW. A barrel of food-grade vegetable oil costs about $50, and unlike a barrel of crude oil, vegetable oil needs only minimal processing to use it.
Electric cars are almost competitive with ICE cars also, and will be more than competitive long before hydrogen fuel cell cars show up in any show rooms. It's simple math. A lithium-battery electric vehicle could have a range of about 300 miles. That's all we need. The battery packs for such a vehicle would cost about $100k right now. That's (obviously) too much, but there's nothing inherently so expensive in lithium battery production, so it should be possible to bring the price down to make it cost-competitive.
Meanwhile, there are no realistic ways of storing more than a dozen pounds of hydrogen in a vehicle, and guess what, fuel cells still rely on metals like palladium, which last time I checked, isn't something that just grows on trees (unlike biodiesel, which does in fact grow on (palm) trees).
Oh and guess where hydrogen comes from, and probably will come from for the forseeable future? It comes from oil, natural gas, or other fossil fuel sources! It just happens to be almost the least energy-efficient way to use those fuels that you can imagine. Yes, it is possible to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water, using solar electricity... but again, the process is so inefficient that it's never going to happen.
Re:Street-ready and $1mil? Uh huh (Score:2)
1) Encourage people to have ONE biodisesl car and one or more electric cars
2) Put overhead wires along the interstates.
3) Build better mass-transit inside of populated areas.
4) Offer a battery-rental-and-exchange service at gas stations. The battery pack is accessible from outside of the car. Your existing pack is removed and
Re:Street-ready and $1mil? Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
You always have to factor in scale in enviornmental issues. Traditional Innuit made clothing out of natural materials -- animal skins. However to clothe hundreds of millions people this way would be an environmental disaster. Petroleum derived polypropylene fleece is much more benign -- and recyclable.
Meanwhile, there are no realistic ways of storing more than a dozen pounds of hydrogen in a vehicle..
Well, sure at present, but there are some short and long term solutions. Ammonia is promising. It's already one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world, many agricultural areas would have very little trouble converting to ammonia because the world uses over a hundred million metric tons of this stuff annually for fertilizer. It's also not hard to imagine worldwide production increasing by an order of magnitude. NH3 undergoes a phase transition to liquid at normal temperatures at 8 bar, so you can pack a lot of hydrogen into a tank this way if it's in the form of ammonia, which would mean it would have a volumetric energy density closer to gasoline.. The hydrogen can be released by a device like a catalytic converter, or in some designs the cracking takes place inside a specially deisgned fuel cell.
I'm not saying that it's going to work, certainly not precisely on anyone's timetable. But you are being unreasonably pessimistic.
Re:EROEI (Score:3, Insightful)
You've given the waggish part of me a bit of irresistable bait here.
Every process takes energy -- energy that is turned into entropy and gone forever. So, if you look at the energy production as a black box into which you put your energy stock, some additional energy, and get energy in some more usable
Unanswered question about AMD mobile chips (Score:2, Insightful)
But my question and which has not been answered anywhere is, "Why can't AMD come out with a competitor to the Pentium M?"
AMD had dual-core before Intel, AMD is likely to have very capable people as well as Intel, AMD has most likely studied Pentium M. So, what is taking AMD so long to come out with a viable competitor?
OS X on a standard PC: a matter of time. So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's transition from PowerPC to Intel is only feasible because of the work that Transitive Technologies has done in creating a dynamic recompiler. But that technology, too, is actually old news. Check out this PC Nintendo 64 emulator [pj64.net], from 2001, for example.
It's pretty clear that, even if Apple didn't make it easier for h4x0rs by moving to Intel chips, we would all eventually be able to emulate OS X in software no matter what. It would be a bit slower, perhaps, but it would be possible.
So what?
Apple is still a hardware company. If they can produce a great looking low-end box, a great looking mid-range box, and a great looking high-end box, where will the attack on their revenue stream come from? The only market segment they would lose by rampant piracy of their OS is the segment of "switchers", and though I don't have hard data, I suspect that group is tiny compared to the group of people who buy new computers year by year.
We all wail menacingly about a future where John Q. Public buys a Dell machine, downloads a cracked copy of OS X with a bunch of open-source driver patches and a dongle emulator, burns it, and wipes his machine with it, thereby completely divesting himself of all warranty service and tech support from either Dell or Apple. How likely is this, really? (If you DON'T factor yourself, as the helpful nerd-on-hand, into the picture?) Is the couple of hundred dollars saved worth the extra trouble, present and future? Just how many end-users, as a percentage, are willing to deal with that?
Does Apple really produce superior hardware, and do people really care enough about superior hardware? In two years we'll find out once and for all.
OSX on generic hardware is only half the story (Score:2)
I'm no hardware guy but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't there be hardware componenets in a Macintosh that might be different from "standard" x86 hardware that keeps MacOS X from booting on it?
Besides, Apple already does a pretty good job of limiting what computers an OS can run on. For example, if you buy a computer and then try to use its disks to install an OS on a different model of Mac, you usually get an error message. Whereas with an OS disk that was bought separately, it will install on all supported machines.
Can't Apple just have its installer check to make sure you are on their hardware before installing?
I'm not saying it will be impossible to fool, but most people won't bother since it won't run on standard x86 hardware anyway. If there were someone out there creating specific "mac clones", I would think Apple would just sue them.
Will go back to having proprietary ROMs in the computer?
jigdo on debian (Score:2)
The Value of the G5 (Score:3)
I'm currently running an older (900mz) G3, and I've been saving up for a new Dual G5 PowerMac. One of the things that I've always liked about the Macs was that they had a great value. Although people say that Apple hardware is expensive, if you price a PC of comperable specs to a PowerMac, the PowerMac isn't much more expensive, and they keep their value for a long time.
The problem is, regardless of whatever promises Apple has made about both x86 and PPC being supported, I don't have faith that, if I buy a new PowerMac now that it will retain the value for as long, because I'm not sure how long it will be until the platform is no longer supported. Sure, XCode may generate binary that runs on both processors, but will Adobe and Quark and Alias support that, if the commercial vendors for software that I use are going to jump ship and support x86 macs exclusively, then the value for a PPC PowerMac now drops significantly.
Would if they could but they cant so they wont (Score:3, Insightful)
Possibly, but the thing is that it will be many years before it's pratical to do so...
And there will be a lot more G4/G5 computers around to test on for a long time, so it will more more the issue of getting smaller apps to do that testing on the Intel boxes than the G4/G5!!
So for many years to come the G4/G5 computers will e
History repeats itself (Score:4, Interesting)
There was a large company, with a powerful staff of lawyers, who tried very, very, hard to keep other companies from running PC OSs on clone systems.
That didn't work out very well for the large company (IBM), whom I believe is/was far more sophisticated/powerful in terms of its legal staff.
There is a difference this time, of course; Apple's EULA. My guess is, however, that there will be some way to challenge the 'Apple branded machine' requirement in court. If there wasn't, I suspect Apple would have sued the emulator designers by now (PowerPC (pearpc) and 68k (basilisk)).
Honestly, I believe this will happen:
1. Intel Macs will be cheap. Not Dell cheap, but maybe midrange HP cheap.
2. Apple will grab marketshare.
3. Apple will license Mac reference designs to other manufacturers, possibly with Microsoft's blessing. How? They'll buy a Microsoft license to something or other.
4. Once a sufficent marketshare is reached, Apple will sell un-tied versions of Mac OS. These will only be OEM, and will have to be supported by OEM PC manufactuers. Apple will only support the 'Apple' experience.
Forget dual-booting - virutalize instead (Score:5, Interesting)
But they are missing a key part of the puzzle - virtualization. [theregister.co.uk]
Imagine VMware, SoftPC, etc but running at the full speed of the native hardware with full isolation between running OSes. In a year, that's the way any serious virtualization will work. The hardware assist that Intel's VT and AMD's Pacifica doohickies provide is what it will take to do it.
So, it will be entirely possible to run both OS-X and Windows and Linux simultaneously on the same cpu with no performance hit. Heck, with multi-cores becoming so popular you'll be able to give each OS it's own processor so they can all run in true parallel if that's what you want.
Sure, Intel and AMD are talking like this virutalization stuff is only for servers - but they always say that about the new toys right up to the point when they start releasing it on the consumer-grade systems too.
MPK?! (Score:3, Funny)
But how many decimeters per troy ounce does it get?
Come on, America. Get off your lazy ass and switch to the metric system. (That goes for you too, the UK -- finish the job you started!)
TCPA /Palladium tech cannot be ignored (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying that it will be impossible to release a cracked version of Leopard that doesn't require a TCPA enabled system, but I don't think anyone can say for certain at this stage how easy it will be to get around. After all it is new tech, a whole new scheme. I realize that it will be considered the ultimate challenge to crack Leopard and there will be lots of people working on it, but it may not be as easy or as automatic as everyone seems to be assuming.
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
I believe your words and many others are a symptom of one thing: a desire to run OS X on your $500 Dell. OS X has been running on Intel for years now, and they are no closer to letting it run on vanilla boxes than they were in 2001.
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
Of course your comment is completely idiotic considering that they are switching to Intel. So of course they are closer - whether they like it not.
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
Oh yeah, ever heard of an iPod?
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
Apple is a Hardware company, the OS is just to help them sell Apple hardware!!
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
I wonder how your plan would work out. Things were different in 1992. They were using BSD (neither Free nor Open) and could not support all the vanilla box out there. The NeXT brochure came with the list of hardware (x86 machines) they supported, and the list was short.
Now in 2006, Darwin is an open source and has a potential to support more hardware. According to this link [opendarwin.org], it seems to support quite a few hard
Re:Michael Roberts is living in fantasyland (Score:2)
Hardware is just a means to an ends. OSX is the ends.
The whole point of the switch is to make the OSX experience better. Nobody cares about hardware except a few assembly language geeks.
Re:Here's version with line breaks (Score:2)
Re:Debian 3.1 Sarge fixed already? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Debian 3.1 Sarge fixed already? (Score:3, Funny)
"
It's right there between the 'goldy' and 'bronzy' keys, of course!
Re:Debian 3.1 Sarge fixed already? (Score:2)
Re:Debian 3.1 Sarge fixed already? (Score:2)
But, then again, just try to get the ISO files for CDs 7 & 8. The links are there, but there's no files! All the other ISOs are there except those two. I wonder if Debian even knows that!
Re: debian3.1"the error may be fixed quite easily" (Score:4, Informative)
Note: 3.1_r0 CD image problem
A bug has been discovered in the 3.1_r0 CD/DVD images: new installs from these images will have a commented-out entry in
If you have already installed a system using a 3.1r0 CD/DVD image, you do not need to reinstall. Instead, simply edit
If you installed other than from a CD or DVD (for example, netboot, or booting from floppy and installing the base system from the network), you are not affected by this bug.
These new 3.1_r0a images correct this flaw. We apologise for the inconvenience.
On another note, I wanted to start downloading the 3.1 ISO set for Sparc, but none of the US mirrors have 3.1 ISO sets, and the root server is giving out 404's. Perhaps they're all still busy updating? At this point, I don't think bit-torrent is propagated well enough to be faster than HTTP/FTP, and jigdo only puts the load on your workstation by opening 9,000 connections on your box to go download little bits of Debian.
Re: debian3.1"the error may be fixed quite easily" (Score:3, Informative)
Please tell me if there are any other problems, this was the first time I heard about these 404s. Btw, saying which links will help even more, in this case I'm guessing at the powerpc isos?
Re: debian3.1"the error may be fixed quite easily" (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise, the "patch" would be to manually add the security.debian.org line in sources.list after installation. Just like it says in the errata in the grandparent to this comment.
Re:Apple's next claim to be proved false... (Score:3, Informative)
At the time the Pentium was a snail.
Just like AMD can claim the P4 is a snail.
But come this time next year, perhaps Intel can claim Athlons are 'snail like'.
Now they don't need to claim the P4 is a snail because they'll be using Intel's latest and greatest. And if AMD is better, well, they always have the option of selling those too.
And... where do you get that Apple claims that OS X never crashes? Can you link? Because I can't find it.
Re:Apple switching to IA-32, not 64? (Score:3, Insightful)
If your Mac Tiger app is 64 bits, you're screwed. Won't even run in the emulator. Say goodbye to "Mac OS X Tiger delivers the power of 64-bit computing to your Mac. Build and run a new generation of 64-bit applications that address massive amounts of memory, without compromising the performance of your existing 32-bit applications."
Re:Apple switching to IA-32, not 64? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hands up everyone with a 64-bit app on Tiger. Not just "I built $thing for 64-bit OS X", but "This app requires 64-bit OS X to work" or "This app's a dog if it's not compiled 64-bit". If there's more than a couple in the world, I'll be very much surprised. If there's even one that won't compile right up on Linux-64 I'll be amazed.
OK, now hands up everyone with a 64-bit app on Windows, same caveat. There may be a few more, because Win32 has more of an addre
Re:Apple switching to IA-32, not 64? (Score:4, Informative)
Two points.
First, there aren't any Mac app's that I know of that _require_ 64-bit CPU's, because they won't run on G3's and G4's, which means most Mac's, all laptops, etc. So app's that take advantage of 64-bit instructions also have a 32-bit version of the code.
Second, while the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines do only talk about the IA-32 instruction set, but it clearly supports 64-bit data types, and MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3, and I'd be stunned if it weren't possible to run 64-bit code on 64-bit x86's. Admittedly the 64-bit picture on Intel is a bit more complicated than on PPC (since the various x86 chip companies had different 64-bit stragies), but Apple's got a year to work it out. And, for what it's worth, rumor has it that Apple got MacOS X to compile on the Alpha at one point, which should have cleared up the dependencies on 32-bit code.
Re:Well that was pretty stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, that is indeed a bit of a problem for the Intel Macs - but not the G5/G5 compuers since developers already have those computers. Again, why did you drop your current Mac?
New developers next year and a few years after will have no choice but
Re:OS X on non-Apple hardware (Score:3, Informative)
One could speculate on why they didn't, but they didn't [apple.com], as the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines document [apple.com] (which anybody who wants to speculate on whether Apple's switching to x86 or, to use a favorite wrong guess of many folk, licensing Intel to make PowerPC chips, or on whether they're using OpenFirmware in the x86 machines, or..., should read before they speculate in public) says.