ifjake
Nov 29, 12:25 AM
here's my 2� without reading the rest of the thread:
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
maybe if they set aside the funds for cultivating new, compellingly good music from upandcoming artists. kinda like how the big movie studios own independent-esque branches. something nice. something a little more risky than your usual cookie-cutter pop-hit. i dunno maybe that's already there sort of. maybe.
.JPG "This Tom Ford Sunglasses Tom")
j_maddison
Jul 20, 11:53 AM
How fast do you want mail to go?
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
gnasher729
Aug 17, 03:57 AM
[QUOTE=jicon]Lots of stuff on Anandtech about the poor memory performance on the Intel chipset./QUOTE]
FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.
FB Dimms are not designed to give maximum bandwidth to one chip, they are designed to give maximum bandwidth to _four_ cores. Instead of having _one_ program running to test memory bandwidth, they should have started four copies of it and see what happens. That is what you have doubled front side bus, buffered memory and two separate memory units for. The biggest criticism in the past against Intel multi-CPU systems was that the memory bandwidth didn't scale; in the Mac Pro, it does.
Dagless
Aug 18, 05:36 AM
Sweet Mary and the orphans if that thing gets near to my entertainment centre I'll kill it.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 01:51 PM
Yes, with the possibility of a Mac Pro with 8 core on the horizon, it makes sense to skip the 4 core altogether. Or, start with lower end of 4 cores (say 2GHz) and then, if necessary and possible, upgrade it to 8 cores. I wonder if waiting for 8 cores is going to be a common sentiment. In that case, it would make sense for Apple to offer an upgrade path to it.There may be unknown variables supporting 8 cores from 4 such that I would not want to take that path. I would rather have 8 cores on a new motherboard with faster ram etc supported to get the most out of all of them at newer faster speeds.
bazaarsoft
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
At least, that's what the Fandroids wanted us to believe when Android fragmentation started being tossed around as a problem. Where are those guys now that Google is actually acknowledging that it's a problem? :eek:
Full of Win
Apr 25, 04:37 PM
Nike+iPod must be an even more serious privacy violation. After all, it knows how fast I'm going and my calories burned. And it sends the data to nikeplus.com! :eek:
Yeah, both iPhone/iPod and Nike+iPod store the information only on my device and sync it only to my other devices, sending it elsewhere only if I want. But if I can make money by suing about it then I'll ignore those inconvenient facts!
You are skating around the issue of user permission. If you use this app to track your location - its YOUR CHOICE. However, the issue here is that Apple is collecting the data without the option of user choice. Even turning off location services does not stop the collection and submittal to Apple of this information.
That is what is the heart of the matter - do we, as users, have the right to opt to to the collection and submittal of location data to Apple ? With your example, you do, as you can turn off the app at will. However, the same ability does not apply to what Apple is doing. BIG DIFFERENCE
Yeah, both iPhone/iPod and Nike+iPod store the information only on my device and sync it only to my other devices, sending it elsewhere only if I want. But if I can make money by suing about it then I'll ignore those inconvenient facts!
You are skating around the issue of user permission. If you use this app to track your location - its YOUR CHOICE. However, the issue here is that Apple is collecting the data without the option of user choice. Even turning off location services does not stop the collection and submittal to Apple of this information.
That is what is the heart of the matter - do we, as users, have the right to opt to to the collection and submittal of location data to Apple ? With your example, you do, as you can turn off the app at will. However, the same ability does not apply to what Apple is doing. BIG DIFFERENCE
01civicman
Apr 8, 08:21 AM
Hummm... I would think by them throttling the sales, they get people back into the store over and over again trying to get one. So, take their "hot product" and dish a few out everyday to keep the eager hunters coming back in day after day and hope they buy something else in the mean time.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
Also, I can see from the sales incentive standpoint that if you've hit your quota for the day selling 20 ipads in an hour, but have another 40 in stock, hold them for the next day to ensure you have consecutive days of hitting your sales quota making you look better and probably getting other bonuses? I would think they compensate managers based on daily sales and consecutive days of sales above quota.
So... basically, I see BB messing with stock to manipulate their sales and Apple being mad because they are so far behind on keeping up with demand and one of their big partners is holding out and using the iPad as sales bait.
I get your point, but it doesn't work like that. One, selling 20 iPads will not hit budgets (believe me). Two, if there any bonus' to hit, its done quarterly. Again, if you sell 50 iPads in one day, its the exact same as selling 3 over the course of 15 days.
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 03:41 PM
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that isn't the point the guy I quoted was making. He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing. (Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that isn't the point the guy I quoted was making. He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing. (Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
NAG
Mar 31, 03:39 PM
What the heck is this? The "Steve was right" month?
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
Pathetic Dell and HP, desperate Microsoft, Samsung aka Mr. "Smoothbastic", Google inhibiting fragmentation, the very one, which does NOT exist, really...
who is next? Oh, i have got it - Adobe. So come on, resistance is futile.
Adobe showing how the iPad is only for consumption and not worth their time. (http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/03/30/adobe.photoshop.for.ipad.to.get.layers/)
boncellis
Jul 20, 09:06 AM
I wonder just how Apple would react to news that the next processor update is ahead of schedule. Presumably their plans are carefully laid out, and if a PC competitor can jump on Intel updates faster than they can without having to conform to a similar timeline, then Apple might get burned, if only slightly.
That's one aspect of the transition that I've always wondered about. Apple has often marketed new "products" more than "updates" in the past, but with Intel's speed of development, perhaps Apple will now focus more on updates and minimize redesigning/new releases. I don't think it's bad, just something of a departure from what I've grown accustomed to.
That's one aspect of the transition that I've always wondered about. Apple has often marketed new "products" more than "updates" in the past, but with Intel's speed of development, perhaps Apple will now focus more on updates and minimize redesigning/new releases. I don't think it's bad, just something of a departure from what I've grown accustomed to.
awesomebase
Mar 31, 07:08 PM
Google's "openness" reminds me of the days when people got all excited about being able to use different fonts and font sizes... sure it is exciting to see the possibilities and to be able to "customize" your documents, etc., but in the end, you only end up using a hand full of them (despite thousands of them being available), and most of what is being used is STILL what was the default choices back then.
Just like a kid that thinks they're going to be greater and better than those older than them because they know better; well, surprise, surprise... Google has turned out to be worse than IBM or Microsoft or Apple ever was. The deal with them will just keep getting worse and worse until people come up with genuine alternatives to their constant lying and deceptiveness (oh, yes, picking up 10M wi-fi SSIDs was purely accidental...).
I don't blame them for having to switch gears on this... I blame them for not being able to see 5 mins in front of their face on this issue (like so many other things) and insisting that "they're" correct every time it is obvious to everyone outside their company that they're not...
Just like a kid that thinks they're going to be greater and better than those older than them because they know better; well, surprise, surprise... Google has turned out to be worse than IBM or Microsoft or Apple ever was. The deal with them will just keep getting worse and worse until people come up with genuine alternatives to their constant lying and deceptiveness (oh, yes, picking up 10M wi-fi SSIDs was purely accidental...).
I don't blame them for having to switch gears on this... I blame them for not being able to see 5 mins in front of their face on this issue (like so many other things) and insisting that "they're" correct every time it is obvious to everyone outside their company that they're not...
Heilage
Mar 1, 12:01 AM
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
n.
You can condemn me to Hell if you want to, I'm still gonna bump uglies with my girlfriend.
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
n.
You can condemn me to Hell if you want to, I'm still gonna bump uglies with my girlfriend.
On another note, please join us in the 21st century. Why is it so important to you what other people do? Wouldn't it be very crowded in Heaven if everyone did as you said?
maverick18x
Aug 5, 03:43 PM
I heard a rumour somewhere of an all metallic ipod nano, can anyone else tell me if they have heard anything similar.
The rumor that we'd see new nanos at WWDC was first written about by ThinkSecret. They've recently gone back on their claim and suggestted a Setember timeframe.
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event. Plus, Apple is still clearing inventory by giving away nanos to college students who purchase a Mac (ends October 16th). I feel like any new iPods will get their own special event, in the October to November timeframe.
My Predictions for WWDC
Headliners:
- Leopard Preview (VMware Demo?)
- Mac Pro (Quad-core Xenon?)
- Cinema Display Updates (iSight? +30"?)
- "One More Thing..." (Something Unexpected)
Without much fanfare:
- Core 2 Duo Updates (MacBook Pro? iMac?)
- Xserve Updates (Quad-core Xenon?)
The rumor that we'd see new nanos at WWDC was first written about by ThinkSecret. They've recently gone back on their claim and suggestted a Setember timeframe.
Personally, I highly doubt we'll see ANY iPod/iTunes updates here... WWDC is historically a developer/pro event and not a consumer event. Plus, Apple is still clearing inventory by giving away nanos to college students who purchase a Mac (ends October 16th). I feel like any new iPods will get their own special event, in the October to November timeframe.
My Predictions for WWDC
Headliners:
- Leopard Preview (VMware Demo?)
- Mac Pro (Quad-core Xenon?)
- Cinema Display Updates (iSight? +30"?)
- "One More Thing..." (Something Unexpected)
Without much fanfare:
- Core 2 Duo Updates (MacBook Pro? iMac?)
- Xserve Updates (Quad-core Xenon?)
cmaier
Apr 19, 06:16 PM
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this..
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
styles111
Jun 15, 02:07 PM
To follow up to my last post, just got a call from my local Radio Shack and got my PIN.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
Evangelion
Aug 18, 04:44 AM
I have to say, I actually expected the woodcrest results to be better. It really shows that the G5 was years ahead of the competition. :cool:
On some tasks, it was. Overall, it was merely competetive with what was available on the x86-world at the time (Opteron etc.). The difference was that G4 was getting massacred by x86, G5 restored parity.
Yes, G5 whooped ass on some benchmarks. And lost in some other benchmarks. But at least it wasn't getting it's ass whooped all the time and everywhere ;)
On some tasks, it was. Overall, it was merely competetive with what was available on the x86-world at the time (Opteron etc.). The difference was that G4 was getting massacred by x86, G5 restored parity.
Yes, G5 whooped ass on some benchmarks. And lost in some other benchmarks. But at least it wasn't getting it's ass whooped all the time and everywhere ;)
mdriftmeyer
Aug 27, 07:45 PM
Yes, people have every right to complain when they receive faulty products, particularly so when they're paying good money, as they do when buying Apple. But whether Apple's QC has suffered significantly as they try to keep costs down due to the market pressures of increasingly feasible like-with-like comparisons with PCs, as well as meeting an increasing consumer demand, is debatable? Though there certainly seems to be a worrying increase in complaints about the new Intel Macs, I wonder how much of that is down to perception as more people use the internet as a channel to vent their complaints? Regarding the new Intel Macs, the jury here is still very much out (& will remain so for at least another 6 months). Not least because...
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
OEM licensing OS X would not be a panacea. I supported NeXTSTEP/Openstep for NeXT and Apple. We had a nightmare dealing with OEMs who pushed us into the trash heap.
When the merger happened they showed no more interest knowing that we could move the OS to Intel since we had it running on Intel.
Motherboard manufacturers cut corners. OEMs cut all sorts of corners on their I/O cards.
Corralling all necessary OEMs to stick to a specific spec would be a nightmare.
Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS. Five years and counting.
Apple is both a hardware and software company.
The price for their latest Mac Pro shows how price competitive it is with the rest of the industry.
Having built several clone boxes none of them from the case design, integrated motherboard design, controller design, heat transfer requirements, etc comes close to the Mac Pro. It doesn't include Hardware RAID out of the box. Big deal.
When the clone industry can produce cases in general that compete for structural integrity, motherboards with as few cables, easily maintanable cases that are easy to keep dust free then Apple might feel concerned about it's claim to having the most complete experience.
OS X has shortcomings in areas for Engineering (CAD/CAM, FEM, etc. All 3rd party concerns), Games (3rd party concerns, OpenGL 2 concerns that Apple will fix), Vertical Solution concerns (assuming Apple wants to attack the business sectors they will have to address this lack of productivity tools for Finance & Accounting within iWorks) and some other deficiencies.
They are covering their bases and growing their base, quarter by quarter.
When ROME is finally built are we all going to whine that you can save $50 here or there with a clone?
I expect no less.
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
OEM licensing OS X would not be a panacea. I supported NeXTSTEP/Openstep for NeXT and Apple. We had a nightmare dealing with OEMs who pushed us into the trash heap.
When the merger happened they showed no more interest knowing that we could move the OS to Intel since we had it running on Intel.
Motherboard manufacturers cut corners. OEMs cut all sorts of corners on their I/O cards.
Corralling all necessary OEMs to stick to a specific spec would be a nightmare.
Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS. Five years and counting.
Apple is both a hardware and software company.
The price for their latest Mac Pro shows how price competitive it is with the rest of the industry.
Having built several clone boxes none of them from the case design, integrated motherboard design, controller design, heat transfer requirements, etc comes close to the Mac Pro. It doesn't include Hardware RAID out of the box. Big deal.
When the clone industry can produce cases in general that compete for structural integrity, motherboards with as few cables, easily maintanable cases that are easy to keep dust free then Apple might feel concerned about it's claim to having the most complete experience.
OS X has shortcomings in areas for Engineering (CAD/CAM, FEM, etc. All 3rd party concerns), Games (3rd party concerns, OpenGL 2 concerns that Apple will fix), Vertical Solution concerns (assuming Apple wants to attack the business sectors they will have to address this lack of productivity tools for Finance & Accounting within iWorks) and some other deficiencies.
They are covering their bases and growing their base, quarter by quarter.
When ROME is finally built are we all going to whine that you can save $50 here or there with a clone?
I expect no less.
hulugu
Apr 27, 11:19 PM
Can you name ONE person here who suggested its a forgery?
Right, you typically dig through government documents looking for goofy layers (or object) and you're just asking questions about this one document which happens to prove that Obama was born in the United States.
What I find remarkable is you were one of the ones arguing that all Obama has to do is show the long-form document and now that the White House has, you're still arguing about the document. It's a fair question to wonder why there are layers in a document, but you can't honestly say that such a question doesn't lead down a path that would logically come to the conclusion that a document was a forgery.
Am I a liar? I have no idea if you're doing it right, or if you are even using Illustrator, or if the PDF was replaced with a single-layer/object one. Just do a Google search for 'obama birth certificate layers' and you'll see that I'm not the only one who downloaded a file with multiple layers or objects or whatever.
It seems like it changes depending on the settings and edition of Creative Suite you have.
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
Yeah it does. ;)
It'd be fascinating to see how much people cared about 'layers' if the documents in question related to Bush's National Guard deployment or something similar. ;) Haha, no bias here boys!
The difference between me and you is that I'd want an explanation in either account. ;)
Those hypotheticals make for easy arguments. You do have a bias against Obama and you should just admit it. When a document comes around that runs counter to your worldview make sure you ask the same kinds of questions.
Right, you typically dig through government documents looking for goofy layers (or object) and you're just asking questions about this one document which happens to prove that Obama was born in the United States.
What I find remarkable is you were one of the ones arguing that all Obama has to do is show the long-form document and now that the White House has, you're still arguing about the document. It's a fair question to wonder why there are layers in a document, but you can't honestly say that such a question doesn't lead down a path that would logically come to the conclusion that a document was a forgery.
Am I a liar? I have no idea if you're doing it right, or if you are even using Illustrator, or if the PDF was replaced with a single-layer/object one. Just do a Google search for 'obama birth certificate layers' and you'll see that I'm not the only one who downloaded a file with multiple layers or objects or whatever.
It seems like it changes depending on the settings and edition of Creative Suite you have.
I'm quite sure that my rare posts in this forum have little to do with what you and your army think of this forum...besides, my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
Yeah it does. ;)
It'd be fascinating to see how much people cared about 'layers' if the documents in question related to Bush's National Guard deployment or something similar. ;) Haha, no bias here boys!
The difference between me and you is that I'd want an explanation in either account. ;)
Those hypotheticals make for easy arguments. You do have a bias against Obama and you should just admit it. When a document comes around that runs counter to your worldview make sure you ask the same kinds of questions.
JeffreyGreen
Apr 25, 03:09 PM
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don�t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible
Also, there is a case in California, upheld by the 9th Circuit, that says the police do NOT need a warrant to come onto your property and place a GPS tracking device on your car and track you and your car. It might get overturned at the USSC, but today, it is legal. Their legal theory is that you don�t have a right to privacy on PUBLIC roads, and it also isn't unreasonable to think that no one would ever come on your property, uninvited. . salesmen, delivery people, the neighbor, etc. So, unless your yard is fenced, and/or clearly posted NO TRESPASSING, the police can put that GPS on your car.
takao
Dec 7, 06:18 PM
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
haha you should see some of the cornering my bspec driver does in my camaro .. hilarious
regarding two of the same kind: i just won my _third_ VW Lupo as a reward... good grief what a waste
some tipps: if you buy a Lambo for the lambo only race: buy a Gallardo, since there is Gallardo only race in the next set of races
also for some of the early races the ferrari 512bb is really worth it especially some of the oldtimer races early on and with tuning even fast enough for the ferrari only race
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
haha you should see some of the cornering my bspec driver does in my camaro .. hilarious
regarding two of the same kind: i just won my _third_ VW Lupo as a reward... good grief what a waste
some tipps: if you buy a Lambo for the lambo only race: buy a Gallardo, since there is Gallardo only race in the next set of races
also for some of the early races the ferrari 512bb is really worth it especially some of the oldtimer races early on and with tuning even fast enough for the ferrari only race
akac
Mar 26, 09:40 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Although from my understanding from people using this today, the Apple implementation is dramatically faster than the Samba implementation. Just like WebKit started from KHTML and had fewer features than Mozilla, its ended up being the best browser engine out there. Leaner. Meaner. Faster. But it took time. Apple's SMB/CIFS implementation is going the same route. Now I've read elsewhere that it DOES support Active Directory. And elsewhere that it doesn't. The Preview version of Lion was 2 months old by the time devs got it, so its also possible that those reports are all just wrong in as far as what works and what is supposed to work (i.e. it may support AD, but bugs cause it not to work well or at all on some installs).
You will be foolish to wait around unless you want to get buried in the on-slaught of new and improved apps to take advantage of Lion from day one.
Exactly. I know of at least one major app right now that is going to go Lion only...
Windows manages to run legacy apps still. Even if you do have to resort to using the virtual machine they've called 'XP Mode.'
Fortunately, my one and only PPC program does indeed have an intel version that I wasn't aware of, so I'm fine.
You just gave the perfect answer. Using a VM. Run SL in a VM for Rosetta apps :)
It's needed for me.
Look, Rosetta isn't a part of OS X by default. If it is installed, then it is needed by the user, and thus isn't "crap." If the user doesn't need it, it won't be installed. For most users, it will be "cut out." I don't see why having the option there for people who need it stifles progress.
Actually its not a small piece. Its a big piece. EVERY OS X Library has to be provided in PowerPC code as well as x86. So Rosetta itself, by itself is tiny. But all the extra libraries that make up OS X is huge. And that's why its cut out.
In SL, it shipped with all the libraries, but not the Rosetta piece. So it was a simple install of just the Rosetta piece.
MatthewThomas
Apr 10, 11:45 AM
I'll be at the event and plan to give my take on it. I've been using FCP since day one and can attest that little actual functionality has changed over the years. There have been additional features added, but nearly no change to the way that you do your work. And in a post-tape world, this is not good.
Here is a long thread featuring my ideas and predictions over what the FCP platform may become, and how it might affect Apple's other distribution models:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I posted this a few days ago when this rumor first broke, but I think it might be fun to post again. It is a long thread, and some of the most interesting predictions are found buried in the dozen+ pages of posts. I should add that Cinema5D is a forum for digital filmmakers and commercial producers that need to operate on limited budgets, so the comments there reflect some of the best "up and coming" Final Cut Pro users.
Here is a long thread featuring my ideas and predictions over what the FCP platform may become, and how it might affect Apple's other distribution models:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=25464
I posted this a few days ago when this rumor first broke, but I think it might be fun to post again. It is a long thread, and some of the most interesting predictions are found buried in the dozen+ pages of posts. I should add that Cinema5D is a forum for digital filmmakers and commercial producers that need to operate on limited budgets, so the comments there reflect some of the best "up and coming" Final Cut Pro users.
chrono1081
Mar 31, 03:46 PM
Let the Apple fanboys begin patting each other on the back, and taking something and running wild with it.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
Why does everyone start with the "Apple Fanboy!" BS? Its not necessary. You realize this is MacRumors right where if you say something nice about Apple you're a fanboy but you can insult Apple all day and be labeled as giving a fair opinion.
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
Why does everyone start with the "Apple Fanboy!" BS? Its not necessary. You realize this is MacRumors right where if you say something nice about Apple you're a fanboy but you can insult Apple all day and be labeled as giving a fair opinion.
