November the 18th

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    [quote]Originally posted by MacJedai:

    <strong>





    Wow!! Very nice shots. I'd be interested in knowing more about your setup as well. Particularly for the night stuff. </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Thanks. I use a Sony DSC series cybershot, with a Sony underwater housing. (

    <a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=uRMGmrBF9ZEG042dRMAMkf9K1GnQcqkNvPI=?Cat alogCategoryID=9CkrgA1D6RoAAADw2dpH0FSi&ProductID= gYwKC0%2eN%2ex0AAADxqW3S7XZM&Dept=dcc" target="_blank">housing info </a> ) The housing is $250 bucks and fits multiple models. It is not a truly professional system, because you can not connect a strobe flash to it. There are some workarounds, but this is for the recreational diver.



    The flash is important for color, and the one on the camera is pretty weak. Thats why you will see a lot of color in the closeups, and more of blue tint in the wide shots. I also did a lot of color correction in Photoshop on them. If you want some tips, email me and I will get back to you after my vacation.
  • Reply 22 of 52
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by fridgemagnet:

    <strong>



    To say the iPod is evolving into a PDA is a bit of an over statement, kind of like saying my sausage and mash is evolving into soup because I poured gravy on it!



    The iPod was designed as an easy to use music player, the fact that you can partially accomplish certain other tasks with it does not mean it is 'evolving' into a device to carry out those tasks, Apple have simply added 'gravy' to make the meal more attractive.



    If Apple want a PDA they will design a PDA.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree compleatly. A PDA is more than just a calendar and contact list, and what has made the Palm a success was 3rd party developers. A PDA allows you to actually have programs available on the road. I have run Pocket Quicken on my palm to keep my checkbook up to date, and that has saved me the cost of the PDA in bounced checks over the years. I also have a DataBase program for it, and there is now a Filemaker version, which is the DB that we use at work for art management. For the iPod to reach make an impact in even a limited way in the PDA market Apple will need to open their "OS" up to 3rd party developers, as well as come out with more solutions than an address book.
  • Reply 23 of 52
    My take on 11/18? I think that due to evidence of rumors of AMD announcement of Apple-related relationship at COMDEX, that AMD will produce x86 processors for new Apple hardware due in January. This will be the nail that closes the door on OS9 booting and abysmal Motorola performance.
  • Reply 24 of 52
    [quote]Originally posted by Mark Jaffe:

    <strong>My take on 11/18? I think that due to evidence of rumors of AMD announcement of Apple-related relationship at COMDEX, that AMD will produce x86 processors for new Apple hardware due in January. This will be the nail that closes the door on OS9 booting and abysmal Motorola performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I simply can't believe that would happen, surely it would open up a whole Pandora's box of software woes and considering not all major applications even work in X yet I think it would be a suicidal move.
  • Reply 25 of 52
    NV30 is out:



    <a href="http://www.nvidia.com"; target="_blank">www.nvidia.com</a>



    But...GeForce FX??? What the heck are they gonna call the MX cards? GeForce FX MX? LOL
  • Reply 26 of 52
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by TigerWoods99:

    <strong>NV30 is out:



    <a href="http://www.nvidia.com"; target="_blank">www.nvidia.com</a>



    But...GeForce FX??? What the heck are they gonna call the MX cards? GeForce FX MX? LOL</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes they are out, but not avalaible until february 2003. We don't even know at what clockspeed they will be released. Some rumors said it will be between 400 and 500 mhz for the chip. The memory will be 500 mhz DDR 2 but on a 128 bits memory controller, contrary to the radeon 9700 wich is a 256 bit one (quad channel 64 bit controller to be more precise).

    The radeon 9700 will be the ultimate video card for four more month.
  • Reply 27 of 52
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mark Jaffe:

    <strong>



    . . . AMD will produce x86 processors for new Apple hardware due in January. This will be the nail that closes the door on OS9 booting and abysmal Motorola performance.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It would close the door on Classic operating at all, not just OS 9 booting. Apple will not switch from the PPC for a long time, if ever. They certainly would not switch when they are on the verge of performance advantage with the IBM 970, with duals and quad in top end Macs and singles in consumer Macs. This does not rule out an x86 Mac as a separate product, a trial baloon. If it flys, okay, if it doesn't, no great loss.
  • Reply 28 of 52
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    Well I don't know about that. First of all we do not know the exact performance of the 970 nor do we know the price. Losing 0S9 would not be as bad as many people think. Although classic works, it is not elegant or seemless, and really isn't something Apple wants the comsumer to use. OS 9 is dead for new products.The big question for me is whether carbon apps can run on X86 onmodified? If they can, then I see no reason why their can't be an Opteron based Powermac this January.



    At the very least I think there is a possibility of an X86 Xserve. Classic is not needed on these machines.



    The only problem I see with Apple on x86 is the possibility of it being able to run on generic hardware. Apple would probably make some sort of boot rom/firmware thing, but people are pretty resourcefull, and I do not know how many Macs Apple would sell if a person could install OSX on a generic $500 pc.
  • Reply 29 of 52
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Powerdoc:

    <strong>The radeon 9700 will be the ultimate video card for four more month.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I wonder if ATI will die-shrink the 9700 or simply up the clock come february. It might be that due to a lack of game that actually can use the FX, ATI might lower the price by 40$ and still sell the 9700 nicely.
  • Reply 30 of 52
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member
    [quote]Originally posted by jdbon:

    <strong>



    Well I don't know about that. First of all we do not know the exact performance of the 970 nor do we know the price. . .



    . . . The big question for me is whether carbon apps can run on X86 onmodified?



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Regarding price, I believe the 970 is slightly larger than a G4, so yields might be even better than a G4 seeing how this is IBM, not Motorola. Also, if Apple used at least duals in PowerMacs and singles in the eMac, iMac and Powerbooks, the purchase quantities would be larger too, which reduces price. (At 1.2 GHz, the power is 19 Watts, and it would likely run even slower if necessary for Powerbooks.)



    The performance specs are good, and with duals and quads it should be spectacular. Regarding Carbon, I don't believe it will work on an x86 OS X Mac, from what I remember the experts saying.
  • Reply 31 of 52
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    [quote]Originally posted by snoopy:

    <strong>Regarding Carbon, I don't believe it will work on an x86 OS X Mac, from what I remember the experts saying.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well...



    Lets think about this for a second...



    If we are to believe Marklar is real (I do) and that Marklar is OS X (not just darwin) running on Intel/AMD based CPUs (I do) then carbon based Apps would have to work...



    Why?



    Look no further then the finder itself... OS X needs the finder or you couldn't really call it OS X now could you?



    Now if all of the above is true then one of two things must also be true.



    1 - Carbon based Apps DO run under Marklar

    2 - Apple has re-written the finder to be a cocoa app and instead of giving it to us they are holding it back...

    3 - Apple has re-written the finder AGAIN as a native x86 app..



    I don't think #2 or #3 fits too well (neither would make any sense - why hold back a cocoa finder and why re-write it as an x86 only app) so we are left with #1



    Dave
  • Reply 32 of 52
    (Heavy sigh)



    When in the hell is this OS X on Intel/AMD crap gonna die? People, people, people give it up!!



    The value of any Mac is based on the total user experience. Apple's entire branding message, all the iApps, the Switch campaign and the retail store initiative are all based on it. Yes, a lot of people are blind to this message and get hung up on raw numbers, but we already have a name for these people: Windows users.



    Like it or not, this entire strategy requires a closed hardware platform that Apple can utterly control. The last few years have sucked processor wise due to Moto's staggering ineptitude, but in my estimation even that has been a very small price to pay. OS X is the way it is because of Apple's monopoly of the PowerPC platform in the consumer and retail spaces. If you move it to x86, the control goes out the window, the user experience goes out the window and it isn't OS X anymore. And don't even get me started on the disaster that awaits us when some 15 year old in Sweden hacks the Apple ROM to let OS X run on generic beige boxes.



    The 970 will be Apple's high end saviour. When it shows up in a year the pro machines will kick ass, the consumer machines will finally be free to use the fastest and most power efficient G4s Moto can produce and all will be well. In the meantime, Power Mac sales will continue to suck and Apple will get by on the rest of its product line which is actually quite strong right now.



    Sorry for the rant, but I just couldn't take it anymore.
  • Reply 33 of 52
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>And don't even get me started on the disaster that awaits us when some 15 year old in Sweden hacks the Apple ROM to let OS X run on generic beige boxes.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's not really relevent. It would probably take the same amount of effort to run X native on generic beige PowerPCC boxes, and even if that occured (inevitable? I hope so ) it wouldn't be a "disaster".



    Barto
  • Reply 34 of 52
    strobestrobe Posts: 369member
    If Apple is going to spring a x86-based Mac on us developers, they will have to wait a VERY LONG TIME before 3rd party software and hardware is ported.



    First I would have to buy new Apple x86 hardware. Then I would have to port my crap which isn't going to be easy. Then I'm going to deal with more hardware configurations customers may be using...



    What is this going to take? Three months after Apple x86 is on the market? Longer?



    If Apple was planning on making AMD-based Macs they would have to announce it months before the hardware was sold. If they didn't, I would be pissed. We're not talking dropped mac.com email pissed, we're talking WindowsXP doesn't look that bad pissed. I wouldn't be alone either.
  • Reply 35 of 52
    [quote]Originally posted by Barto:

    <strong>



    That's not really relevent. It would probably take the same amount of effort to run X native on generic beige PowerPCC boxes, and even if that occured (inevitable? I hope so ) it wouldn't be a "disaster".



    Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A common defense of the OS X on x86 camp is Apple using Intel/AMD chips while protecting their proprietary hardware designs via a firmware or ROM hack. I'm trying to point out the risk in that strategy, for if anyone were able to defeat the hack then Apple overnight becomes an OS vendor with no control over the hardware. I can guarantee you this is Steve's worst nightmare.
  • Reply 36 of 52
    quaremquarem Posts: 254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>



    A common defense of the OS X on x86 camp is Apple using Intel/AMD chips while protecting their proprietary hardware designs via a firmware or ROM hack. I'm trying to point out the risk in that strategy, for if anyone were able to defeat the hack then Apple overnight becomes an OS vendor with no control over the hardware. I can guarantee you this is Steve's worst nightmare.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Even if this were to happen, only a minority of buyers would ever have a hacked Apple x86 box. Mainstream suppliers will not be able to sell hacked Apple ROMs to customers, so that means that guys like Dell, Gateway, etc won't be selling x86 machines with OS X even if the ROM is hacked.



    People that build there own systems will be the ones who benefit. And really that's a small market, not enough for Apple or Steve to have nightmares over if they were to release x86 hardware.



    If I had my choice right now, I would way rather have Apple running x86. Then Apple could compete based solely on what makes a Mac a Mac, its ease of use.
  • Reply 37 of 52
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ensign Pulver:

    <strong>(Heavy sigh)



    When in the hell is this OS X on Intel/AMD crap gonna die? People, people, people give it up!!

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    It'll die between the day of the Apple buyout by Disney and the day MS acts humbly.
  • Reply 38 of 52
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    Well the 970 may be great, but it is still a year away. I know in the big scheme of things this isn't that long, but still, it isn't tomorrow. The 970 may be very competitive at its introduction, but will it scale? I know I know, IBM made the point that it will scale very well, but lets look at the g4's history. When it was introduced it was very competitive. I think the Athlon was at 600mhz and the P3 at 600mhz. Even after the speed dump, a 450mhz G4 was still faster than the x86 competition. I realize that part of the G4's inability to scale is its design, but Motorola's business model/market also came in to play (this is a theory). Apple is the only company using the G4 as a desktop chip in a highend workstation. Aside from Apple, the G4 is used in various embedded conditions. Motorola's vision/market is not the same as Apple's.



    What's my point? IBM may be more like Apple in the sense that it wants to use these chips in high end workstations (good). They claim scalability. But how can its future be guaranteed? In three years what if IBM's linux workstations are a flop and they decide to suspend the 970s/future PPC chips. The PPC's future is not as certain as chips made by AMD and Intel.





    Intel and AMD and the pc market in general may evolve into a different platform (away from x86), but because of their nearly ubiquitous acceptance, there will be faster chips from Intel and/or AMD designed for desktops.



    In regard to the X86 is garbage/I don't want a pc chip argument, I think this is purely psychological. Looking back at the last 7 years of Apple's history, adopting PC standards has only helped them: PCI, IDE/ATA,AGP,USB etc. Utilizing a standard only makes Apple's life easier.





    x86 may not be as elgant or efficient as PPC, but that does not mean it is not fast or reliable.

    A linux box running on an X86 chip can be just as stable as OS X.





    We are not "giving in to" the evil empire that is Microsoft and Intel. USB,PCI,AGP are standards created by Intel. All Macs use them. Could Apple have desigined better interfaces/IOs" Perhaps, but would it be worth it? These standards remove the hardware barrier and just make the compatibility a software issue. Apple cannot develop complete hardware and software standards themselves. PPC may not be only for Apple, but there aren't any other consumer/Pro desktop machines that utilize these chips, at least on the same scale as Apple.



    In terms of the worries that Mac OS X could be run on generic hardware, I share this concern as well. However we can't install PPC OS X on other PPC boards. And still even if it were hacked how many people would actually go this route? Do you think Joe consumer would like to hack through openfirware code and bios settings? The kind of people interested in doing this would be Linux geeks who would not have bought a Mac anyway. I think it's better that they are using/supporting OS X even if they are not customers of Apple. Our (Apple/Computer Geeks) perception of the situation is biased. We do makeup the entire Mac population.For example we have figured out how to hack PC video cards to work in Macs, However it is not as simple as an Apple video card. This simplicity and desingn is part of Apple. An iMac reagardless of price still has better industrial design and is ensured to be completely compatible with Mac OSX. Most people do not want to deal with flashing cards, and using the CLI etc. etc. They want to buy a computer and have it work. Apple can provide this, on both the PPC and x86 platform. They will support hardware and write drivers for their own hardware, not all x86 hardware. Hacking it though perhaps possible would probably be a pain in the a$$. Most people won't try this, and those who do will actually be helping Apple.



    I really dont care what chips are inside my Mac. If it makes my Mac faster,cheaper, and is just as reliable, why the hell not?
  • Reply 39 of 52
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    Everyone slow the heck down! Only yesterday all the rumors were about the 970, and now we are hearing all this AMD stuff. So what is it AMD or IBM? I think we have far more proof that IBM will be the next chip maker for apple than we do with AMD. We can't have both. Apple can't use both x86 and a PPC chips. It's one or the other! Ummm... lets think about this. Gosh what are you guys smoking? I promise if apple announces that it will be using x86 AMD chips within the next year I will officially eat my pants.
  • Reply 40 of 52
    [quote]Originally posted by jdbon:

    I really dont care what chips are inside my Mac. If it makes my Mac faster,cheaper, and is just as reliable, why the hell not?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>



    Because (for the 8 millionth time) Apple has spent the last four years begging, pleading and prodding the Mac developer community into supporting the PowerPC platform and the OS X transition. This increasingly common belief that Apple can port OS X, every important app and the whole Mac user experience to x86 whenever it wants is hogwash. Hell, we don't even have Quark on OS X yet and you want the whole platform to switch to a fundamentally different chip architecture? Yeah, that'll speed up third party OS X development. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    IF Marklar is real, it is in a glass case marked "Break Only In Event Of Impending Bankruptcy".



    Repeat after me. Kick ass consumer products and the now rejuvenated PowerBook line will get Apple through the next year until the 970 shows up. It's not a perfect scenario, but it will work just fine.
Sign In or Register to comment.