JRoberts

Apple

117 posts in this topic

Two new things!!!!

Wow. I'm still in love with my G4, that G5 is great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two new things!!!!

Praise the high and holy Apple :lol:.

The new iPod (nope, not the Nano!):

Simply incredible. The sort of device I wish I had a use for. :P

And the new iMac G5:

Praise Jove for Apple :D.

Lovely design, but pardon my naivete: I did not see a mention of a disk drive. Where is it and how big is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lovely design, but pardon my naivete: I did not see a mention of a disk drive. Where is it and how big is it?

If you mean a floppy disk, Macs haven't come with them for a long time. If you really need one (and I can't imagine why you would these days), you can purchase a USB one. They do come equipped with CD-RW drives, which are a small slit in the side of the monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lovely design, but pardon my naivete: I did not see a mention of a disk drive. Where is it and how big is it?

It is right below the picture of the computer at the top of the page marked Tech Specs, it comes with 160GB or 250 GB depending on the model you choose. You are actually looking at the whole computer there, it is in the monitor, leaving you with a three piece set (monitor/computer, mouse, keyboard). Also, see the slit on the side of the monitor near the top? That is your Slot-loading 8x SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW). The whole thing is in that little monitor.

Pretty sweet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lovely design, but pardon my naivete: I did not see a mention of a disk drive. Where is it and how big is it?

It is right below the picture of the computer at the top of the page marked Tech Specs, it comes with 160GB or 250 GB depending on the model you choose.

Thanks. I missed that. Time for me to go to sleep. It really is quite a wonderful design. Does it also run Windows Media Center XP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't find there to be "minimal" software written for it. There is a lot to choose from in all areas. The only drawback is that my Mac came with so much software (integrated software), I really have nothing to go out and buy, or even download. It came not only with almost everything I have needed to use in a PC, but with stuff that I have never used before like Garageband.

Part of the problem is that I am an avid gamer, particular of older games that have trouble running even on Windows XP. Mac games are still few and far between and macs in general are not geared towards gamers in terms of hardware, etc.

In general though I have never seen something that was really cool but then realized "Oh, it is only for Mac." But if I had a Mac all the time you would see things that are only for the PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Part of the problem is that I am an avid gamer, particular of older games that have trouble running even on Windows XP."

I'm right there with you; I would give a kidney to the man who could make the old Windows game, Jetpack, run on Mac OSX:

http://www.adeptsoftware.com/jetpack/

For those that never played it, Jetpack was both one of the simplest and greatest games to ever exist, with virtually infinite replay value thanks to an ingenious level creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Part of the problem is that I am an avid gamer, particular of older games that have trouble running even on Windows XP."

I'm right there with you; I would give a kidney to the man who could make the old Windows game, Jetpack, run on Mac OSX:

http://www.adeptsoftware.com/jetpack/

For those that never played it, Jetpack was both one of the simplest and greatest games to ever exist, with virtually infinite replay value thanks to an ingenious level creator.

I never heard of Jetpack before, I will have to check it out.

I am not even that old (23) and even now I can look back on the games I played when I was 11 or 12 with nostalgia. I think in the race to make more realistic, better graphics and slicker games a lot has been lost in the gaming industry. A lot of the early games had pretty mediocre graphics by today's standard but were really fun and made up for it in terms of level design, story, etc.

Part of that might just have been how new the medium was at the time though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it also run Windows Media Center XP?

Not to my knowledge. They have Quicktime, which works very well, as well as iLife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the problem is that I am an avid gamer, particular of older games that have trouble running even on Windows XP.  Mac games are still few and far between and macs in general are not geared towards gamers in terms of hardware, etc.

That is, sadly, a problem. Of the games I play, only 2 are Windows only. However, I rarely have the time to play...and since my favorite game is offered on Mac, my next desktop will be a Mac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it also run Windows Media Center XP?

Not to my knowledge. They have Quicktime, which works very well, as well as iLife.

I meant to put a smilie after my question, but failed to do so. Media Center edition allows you to tune in TV directly and record on your PC, storing the shows on a hard drive and copying to DVD if you wish. You set up the programming and it changes channels and records automatically, like a VCR but going directly to disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In general though I have never seen something that was really cool but then realized "Oh, it is only for Mac."  But if I had a Mac all the time you would see things that are only for the PC.

This problem should go away sometime next year. Apple is shifting to intel-based processors. As such, they will not only run OS X, but also Win XP (though, at least currently, OSX will still not run on non-Apple computers). In other words, sometime next year people will be able to have the best of both worlds on one system. Of course, to do so, you will have to buy your new computer from Apple. :lol:

Smart guys! I can tell you, theirs intel system will be the next computer I buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This problem should go away sometime next year.  Apple is shifting to intel-based processors.  As such, they will not only run OS X, but also Win XP (though, at least currently, OSX will still not run on non-Apple computers).  In other words, sometime next year people will be able to have the best of both worlds on one system.  Of course, to do so, you will have to buy your new computer from Apple. :lol:

Smart guys!  I can tell you, theirs intel system will be the next computer I buy.

What exactly would this mean? I'd imagine that a program written for the Windows operating system would still only work on Windows and so forth. Would there be a greater programming ease with both Windows and Apple running on Intel systems?

I might not know enough about computers technically to see what the advantage would be to an Apple user. Although I can envision cheaper prices for Apples given that Intel processors must be cheaper than whatever it that Apple uses now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly would this mean? I'd imagine that a program written for the Windows operating system would still only work on Windows and so forth. Would there be a greater programming ease with both Windows and Apple running on Intel systems?
It means you don't have to buy two different computers to be able to run both operating systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means you don't have to buy two different computers to be able to run both operating systems.

If they are replacing the chip that runs the current operating system, will they now simulate that OS by code written for the new chip? If so, I wonder how efficient that will be. Will the system boot into one OS or the other, or will it run Windows and Apple OS programs simultaneously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are replacing the chip that runs the current operating system, will they now simulate that OS by code written for the new chip? If so, I wonder how efficient that will be. Will the system boot into one OS or the other, or will it run Windows and Apple OS programs simultaneously?

My understanding is the OS is being written for chip. As to booting, it is supposed to act like any other dual boot system. It will run one OS at a time and, as far as I know, each will still have its own native app software only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are replacing the chip that runs the current operating system, will they now simulate that OS by code written for the new chip? If so, I wonder how efficient that will be. Will the system boot into one OS or the other, or will it run Windows and Apple OS programs simultaneously?

From what I've read, the OS will run natively. Apple has been set to run on Intel processors for a long time but Steve Jobs killed earlier efforts, wanting to maintain the exclusivity of the hardware. The real issue will be running older programs compiled for the PowerPC architecture. As I understand it there's a partial emulator for the PowerPC instruction set in the Intel-based OS, but it won't support G4/Altivec specific instructions and it will not run anything else particularly quickly. Basically, to get real, or any, performance, people will have to get versions of their software compiled for the Intel CPU.

Apple will still sell the new hardware at a price premium, and arbitrarily restrict their new OS from running on "plain" PC hardware - you won't be able to just buy the OS and run it on an existing Intel PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apple will still sell the new hardware at a price premium, and arbitrarily restrict their new OS from running on "plain" PC hardware - you won't be able to just buy the OS and run it on an existing Intel PC.
Do you really consider the Apple decision to limit their OS to their own hardware to be 'arbitrary'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is the OS is being written for chip.

Wow. That is quite a task.

As to booting, it is supposed to act like any other dual boot system.  It will run one OS at a time and, as far as I know, each will still have its own native app software only.

I once looked into a system that ran Linux and Windows simultaneously. Such a feature would seem to be a natural for an Intel system running the Apple OS and Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are replacing the chip that runs the current operating system, will they now simulate that OS by code written for the new chip? If so, I wonder how efficient that will be. Will the system boot into one OS or the other, or will it run Windows and Apple OS programs simultaneously?

I don't know the details of these operating systems, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of the code in Apple's OS is not hardware-dependent. So if the OS designers did a good job of keeping the hardware-dependent piece isolated, there would not be that much code that had to be rewritten in order to move to different hardware.

That was the case with Windows NT when it was written. That operating system was written so that it would run on the Intel chips, or MIPS hardware, and also for a while the DEC Alpha processor. To make it run on one kind of hardware or another, my understanding is that all that needed to be changed was a relatively small piece of code called the hardware abstraction layer (HAL). (I don't know if the Microsoft operating systems still have this flexibility though. One could argue that it isn't really needed, because the Intel chips are so dominant. But building an OS this way is a good discipline to follow.)

As for running two operating systems at the same time, that's an interesting problem. Back maybe 30 years ago, IBM did that on their 370 computers. There were two operating systems, called "OS" and "DOS", I think. It was desirable for a customer to be able to run both at once, on the same computer. But, how do you do this? (An operating system thinks it has a whole machine to itself.) What they did was to create a lower level of software - VM370 (for "Virtual Machine") that emulated a 370 while running on a 370. In other words, VM370 would be running on the bare hardware, "pretending" that it was really 2 or more 370's. The actual operating systems, DOS and OS would then be running on top of VM370, and each would think it had a whole machine: not even being aware of the other operating system. This product was quite successful.

I don't know how much demand there would be for something like this today, since computer hardware is just so darned cheap - might as well give each of the operating systems its own real processor, rather than have a layer underneath that presented a virtual machine to each one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for running two operating systems at the same time, that's an interesting problem.  Back maybe 30 years ago, IBM did that on their 370 computers....

Interesting history. I did a quick search and found a site that has the slides from the original marketing presentation of the VM370 system. If you are interested, you can view them here. (The site seems slow, at least right now.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really consider the Apple decision to limit their OS to their own hardware to be 'arbitrary'?

Yes, in the sense that it takes *extra work* to limit the OS to only run on their own hardware. So, rather than having an absolutely mind boggling number of PC makers have a choice of which OS to install on their systems, potentially opening up a vast new revenue stream for Apple, Steve Jobs would rather have his hardware margin. This is a recurring theme for him - some years back, when he was away from Apple, they were beginning to license other companies to make "clone" Apple hardware. I had one of those boxes, a tower system that was more practical than anything Apple itself made. After Jobs returned he promptly killed those efforts, shafting the companies that had made the investment to produce those systems and putting them out of business.

Bill Gates is probably relieved that Jobs is still making those kinds of decisions - when you focus on moving bits and not atoms (a favorite phrase of mine, now), your profit margins and ability to expand are radically larger, as Microsoft's size vs. Apple can attest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the details of these operating systems, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of the code in Apple's OS is not hardware-dependent.

It isn't. First, Mac OS X is thoroughly based on a variant of Unix, which was itself designed to be extremely portable. Secondly, Apple itself has considered the Intel platform for a long time, so they've written their own code to be readily portable, as I've heard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Jobs returned he promptly killed those efforts, shafting the companies that had made the investment to produce those systems and putting them out of business.

Amen. I think I'm the only person here who agrees with Jobs decision to keep Mac OSX exclusive to Apple computers. The thought of Window's running on an Apple honestly makes me sick. One of the reason that Apple computers work so well is because of their full integration and comp/OS union. Allowing Window's on an Apple computer allows a buggy, faulty, and bloated OS to run on a fine machine. In effect, you are tearing out the soul of Apple and keeping its body, in some way hoping that the "body" will work just as well as it did when it was whole.

Even if Microsoft was able to make a decent OS, the matter turns into one of Principle. Thankfully, Steve Jobs has a long time to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amen.  I think I'm the only person here who agrees with Jobs decision to keep Mac OSX exclusive to Apple computers.  The thought of Window's running on an Apple honestly makes me sick.

I'm afraid you're missing the point entirely, then. It's not that *Windows* won't run on the new "Macs" - they will be Intel based and presumably capable of running Windows just fine. It's that *OS X* won't run on non-Apple-signature Intel hardware.

While some consider the cute plastic boxes with their sensuous curves to be what Apple computers are about, the only thing that now really differentiates them is their software - the OS, especially given the transition to Intel platforms. It's software that could easily run on hundreds of millions of existing PC boxes, turning them for all practical purposes into "Apple systems".

Personally I like OS X, which was far too long in coming (by 10 years). But it will have the same marginal (far less than 10%) market share - even lower than Linux! - as long as Apple insists on bundling it with their hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites