okay, it seems this hamrick is reading these boards, and - as you know if you read my posts - he already got into trouble coz of nda's. and he probably knows what apple does with people telling secrets. so if he really got a g5 he would do only one thing: remove the info as quickly as possible to avoid getting in trouble with apple. as he doesn't do this it can only mean four things:
1. he's damn studip
2. he's got no g5 and it's all fake
3. he has access to g5 but doesn't have to fear to get in trouble with apple as this is not restricted by any nda - seems very dangerous to me
4. he wants to get into trouble with apple
anyway, i think he'll DEFINATELY GET INTO TROUBLE - not matter if it's real or fake. apple probably won't support this guy anymore in future, no matter what the truth is
Disabling a program on the G5 is quite easy even if you do know nothing about that chip and do not have access to SDKs for them.
MacOS has something called Gestalt, a function that tells a program about features of the machine. Known CPUS are listed as constants:
gestaltCPU68000\t\t\t\t= 0;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{ Various 68k CPUs... }
\tgestaltCPU68010\t\t\t\t= 1;
\tgestaltCPU68020\t\t\t\t= 2;
\tgestaltCPU68030\t\t\t\t= 3;
\tgestaltCPU68040\t\t\t\t= 4;
\tgestaltCPU601\t\t\t\t= $0101;\t\t\t\t\t\t{ IBM 601 }
\tgestaltCPU603\t\t\t\t= $0103;
\tgestaltCPU604\t\t\t\t= $0104;
\tgestaltCPU603e\t\t\t\t= $0106;
\tgestaltCPU603ev\t\t\t\t= $0107;
\tgestaltCPU750\t\t\t\t= $0108;\t\t\t\t\t\t{ Also 740 - "G3" }
\tgestaltCPU604e\t\t\t\t= $0109;
\tgestaltCPU604ev\t\t\t\t= $010A;\t\t\t\t\t\t{ Mach 5, 250Mhz and up }
\tgestaltCPUG4\t\t\t\t= $010C;\t
Basically all you need to do is test whether Gestalt returns anything larger than 0x010c. If this is the case you know you run on a newer CPU (of course this could be something like a G4ev).
However he uses code that is much more sophisticated and uses a more modern (if somewhat clumsy) API provided by Apple for Usage with PCI, PCCard adaptors.
Obviously this still could just be a hoax _but_ given the fact that it is not unlikely a revised CPU and chipset would completely break Vuescan and it is currently the only working scan app running natively on X, this could just be true.
I sincerely doubt he has ever seen a G5, but that does not mean Apple could not have contacted him.
[QB]okay, it seems this hamrick is reading these boards, and - as you know if you read my posts - he already got into trouble coz of nda's. and he probably knows what apple does with people telling secrets. so if he really got a g5 he would do only one thing: remove the info as quickly as possible to avoid getting in trouble with apple. as he doesn't do this it can only mean four things:
1. he's damn studip
2. he's got no g5 and it's all fake
3. he has access to g5 but doesn't have to fear to get in trouble with apple as this is not restricted by any nda - seems very dangerous to me
4. he wants to get into trouble with apple
5. Has access to G5 for testing, doesn't give a shit about about getting into trouble with Apple, but isn't looking to stir up shit either.
As are millions of other people / companies writing drivers.
Honestly, he most certainly does not have, and never had access to a G5 unit, 'cos if he really had, he'd sure as hell not risk all that by putting this stupid slogan on his webpage.
Besides, given the G5 is supposed to be binary-compatible with current processors, why wouldn't this scanner driver work there?
as far as i know the g5 is *mostly* compatible with previous ppc cpus. the 100% compatibility is only given with apps running in the "standard" mode of the cpu, but not necessary in higher (os) modes. this means that probably operating systems have to be rewritten for the g5 (at least recompiled) as some instructions/cpu modes behave a bit different from current powerpc processors. maybe this scanning software (which could be very hardware-close) uses some of these instructions, although this is at least very unlikely for macos-x as unix doesn't allow tasks to access instructions that can only be used in higher cpu modes.
In a message dated 12/17/2001 3:12:52 PM EST, sdw2001@mac.com writes:
(yet another message to mr. Hamrock)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't this get old, sending him a message every five minutes trying to make him say "yes I have a G5 here"?
[quote]<strong>I'm convinced now. Even if this guy is screwing with us. The G5 is coming. There is just too much evidence in support. That's why the keynote got moved. It is going to be ****ing great. All naysayers can believe what they want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Where have you guys been that you think that VueScan is just another piddly software program? Vuescan is great and has very wide use in what market? Oh yeah, the graphics market, where Apple is also big. Chances are small that he has a prototype G5 (assuming they exist). Chances are nearly 100% that some testing his software does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't mean to belittle VueScan, but still, it's a one-man-shareware-show, and I kinda doubt he play in the same league Adobe et al. do.
Besides, what use would it be to prominently feature the fact that VueScan won't run on G5 hardware on his front page? I mean, what could it possibly be worth to whom? Won't help potential G5 beta testers, 'cos it won't run anyway. WOn't help anybody else, 'cos they don't have G5s anyway in the first place. *Will* help Mr. VueScan to get ample publicity across all major Mac news sites.
<strong>apple probably won't support this guy anymore in future, no matter what the truth is</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm not sure how Apple would be supporting him right now? Writing a scanner driver probably is more an issue of getting support from the scanner manufacturers than from Apple.
<strong>maybe this scanning software (which could be very hardware-close) uses some of these instructions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty unlikely IMO.
The part that's real close to hardware in this scanner driver is probably code related to accessing the scanners themselves, which probably happens via SCSI, FW or USB, or maybe even PCI, and the Mac OS provides abstract interfaces for generic access to those. As such, I can't imagine what part of the driver would possibly be tied so closely to the Mac hardware that it would break on a G5.
Okay, I'm back with my feet on the floor . Your right RazzFazz . He's just in need of publicity . I can put it in my shareware, just for the simple reason that I haven't got the chance for testing it on a newer processor...like the G5 . So let's say he put the code in just for safety reasons *lol*
So guys, buy Vuescan and when the G5 come's out there's no risk losing date ...
Well whatever. I still think that there is a lot of "evidence" of a G5 release. The rumors, the specific info, the coincidence with the keynote announcement happening exactly when the rumored first production run was taking place, the fact that Apple and MOT have not denied rumors which are so widespread they MUST be eating into sales of G4's, etc.
I know there is a lot of skepticism and some people just refuse to believe it. But I am convinced it is going to happen...if not at MWSF then at Seybold. But I think MWSF. I may be proven wrong, but I'm on board:
G5 is Jan!!!!
P.S. I posted the messages because I thought you guys would like to see what the guy really wrote. I don't think he would admit anything at all.....I figured that out pretty damn fast.
I know this sounds pompous but I have been very close on a lot of stuff in the past. I don't have real insider info but I draw conclusions based on everything I can find and my gut instinct. I still say G5 in Jan.....
Comments
1. he's damn studip
2. he's got no g5 and it's all fake
3. he has access to g5 but doesn't have to fear to get in trouble with apple as this is not restricted by any nda - seems very dangerous to me
4. he wants to get into trouble with apple
anyway, i think he'll DEFINATELY GET INTO TROUBLE - not matter if it's real or fake. apple probably won't support this guy anymore in future, no matter what the truth is
MacOS has something called Gestalt, a function that tells a program about features of the machine. Known CPUS are listed as constants:
gestaltCPU68000\t\t\t\t= 0;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{ Various 68k CPUs... }
\tgestaltCPU68010\t\t\t\t= 1;
\tgestaltCPU68020\t\t\t\t= 2;
\tgestaltCPU68030\t\t\t\t= 3;
\tgestaltCPU68040\t\t\t\t= 4;
\tgestaltCPU601\t\t\t\t= $0101;\t\t\t\t\t\t{ IBM 601 }
\tgestaltCPU603\t\t\t\t= $0103;
\tgestaltCPU604\t\t\t\t= $0104;
\tgestaltCPU603e\t\t\t\t= $0106;
\tgestaltCPU603ev\t\t\t\t= $0107;
\tgestaltCPU750\t\t\t\t= $0108;\t\t\t\t\t\t{ Also 740 - "G3" }
\tgestaltCPU604e\t\t\t\t= $0109;
\tgestaltCPU604ev\t\t\t\t= $010A;\t\t\t\t\t\t{ Mach 5, 250Mhz and up }
\tgestaltCPUG4\t\t\t\t= $010C;\t
Basically all you need to do is test whether Gestalt returns anything larger than 0x010c. If this is the case you know you run on a newer CPU (of course this could be something like a G4ev).
However he uses code that is much more sophisticated and uses a more modern (if somewhat clumsy) API provided by Apple for Usage with PCI, PCCard adaptors.
Obviously this still could just be a hoax _but_ given the fact that it is not unlikely a revised CPU and chipset would completely break Vuescan and it is currently the only working scan app running natively on X, this could just be true.
I sincerely doubt he has ever seen a G5, but that does not mean Apple could not have contacted him.
[QB]okay, it seems this hamrick is reading these boards, and - as you know if you read my posts - he already got into trouble coz of nda's. and he probably knows what apple does with people telling secrets. so if he really got a g5 he would do only one thing: remove the info as quickly as possible to avoid getting in trouble with apple. as he doesn't do this it can only mean four things:
1. he's damn studip
2. he's got no g5 and it's all fake
3. he has access to g5 but doesn't have to fear to get in trouble with apple as this is not restricted by any nda - seems very dangerous to me
4. he wants to get into trouble with apple
5. Has access to G5 for testing, doesn't give a shit about about getting into trouble with Apple, but isn't looking to stir up shit either.
-just another option
<strong>his program seems to be important enough to be listed at apple.com:
<a href="http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/drivers/vuescan.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/drivers/vuescan.html</a></strong>[/QUOTE ]
As are millions of other people / companies writing drivers.
Honestly, he most certainly does not have, and never had access to a G5 unit, 'cos if he really had, he'd sure as hell not risk all that by putting this stupid slogan on his webpage.
Besides, given the G5 is supposed to be binary-compatible with current processors, why wouldn't this scanner driver work there?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>From: EdHamrick@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 17, 2001 03:22:37 PM US/Eastern
To: sdw2001@mac.com
Subject: Re: PowerPC G5 disabling?
In a message dated 12/17/2001 3:12:52 PM EST, sdw2001@mac.com writes:
(yet another message to mr. Hamrock)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't this get old, sending him a message every five minutes trying to make him say "yes I have a G5 here"?
[quote]<strong>I'm convinced now. Even if this guy is screwing with us. The G5 is coming. There is just too much evidence in support. That's why the keynote got moved. It is going to be ****ing great. All naysayers can believe what they want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*Evidence*?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>Where have you guys been that you think that VueScan is just another piddly software program? Vuescan is great and has very wide use in what market? Oh yeah, the graphics market, where Apple is also big. Chances are small that he has a prototype G5 (assuming they exist). Chances are nearly 100% that some testing his software does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't mean to belittle VueScan, but still, it's a one-man-shareware-show, and I kinda doubt he play in the same league Adobe et al. do.
Besides, what use would it be to prominently feature the fact that VueScan won't run on G5 hardware on his front page? I mean, what could it possibly be worth to whom? Won't help potential G5 beta testers, 'cos it won't run anyway. WOn't help anybody else, 'cos they don't have G5s anyway in the first place. *Will* help Mr. VueScan to get ample publicity across all major Mac news sites.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>apple probably won't support this guy anymore in future, no matter what the truth is</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm not sure how Apple would be supporting him right now? Writing a scanner driver probably is more an issue of getting support from the scanner manufacturers than from Apple.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>5. Has access to G5 for testing, doesn't give a shit about about getting into trouble with Apple, but isn't looking to stir up shit either.
-just another option</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but guess where those hypothetical pre-production G5 units come from?
Guess who you'd better not get into trouble with in order to keep the privilege of having access to them?
See?
Bye,
RazzFazz
you can tell its BS from his responses and the fact that he hasn't taken the notice down and that he is using it as an advertisement now.
what a loser
<strong>maybe this scanning software (which could be very hardware-close) uses some of these instructions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty unlikely IMO.
The part that's real close to hardware in this scanner driver is probably code related to accessing the scanners themselves, which probably happens via SCSI, FW or USB, or maybe even PCI, and the Mac OS provides abstract interfaces for generic access to those. As such, I can't imagine what part of the driver would possibly be tied so closely to the Mac hardware that it would break on a G5.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: RazzFazz ]</p>
So guys, buy Vuescan and when the G5 come's out there's no risk losing date ...
That a Quality Assurance procedure *lol*
I know there is a lot of skepticism and some people just refuse to believe it. But I am convinced it is going to happen...if not at MWSF then at Seybold. But I think MWSF. I may be proven wrong, but I'm on board:
G5 is Jan!!!!
P.S. I posted the messages because I thought you guys would like to see what the guy really wrote. I don't think he would admit anything at all.....I figured that out pretty damn fast.
I know this sounds pompous but I have been very close on a lot of stuff in the past. I don't have real insider info but I draw conclusions based on everything I can find and my gut instinct. I still say G5 in Jan.....
But that doesn't mean there will not be a G5 at MWSF.
<strong>This guy is just pulling chains.
But that doesn't mean there will not be a G5 at MWSF.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He may not be. WTF knows.