You've missed Mac OS X. Check out the tech specs because it is way beyond a "few interface gains". The applications and key technologies are way beyond "unix" and "mach" confusions. BTW - this is a common misunderstanding for MS and unix users.
What I said was that the few interface gains in X didn't compensate for the losses [in the interface]. I don't particularly care for the dock, and I think there are better alternatives out there. Sheets are nice, but they don't make up for the loss of windowshade. Yes, I know, you can plonk down $10 and get the functionality back, but Jobs shouldn't get to decide how I want to use my computer. If Apple had simply added functionality that would have been fine. They didn't. Expose is cool, I'll give Apple a point for that.
The applications aren't particularly innovative either. A mail app, a browser, a sync program, pdf viewer. All of these are pretty run of the mill things these days. If you like these particular implementations, great, but they don't offer a compelling value to me. Some of the iStuff looks pretty well done, but again we're talking about the OS here, not applications. There's really nothing to prevent those apps from running on an entirely different OS.
Now let's take a look at the OS itself. Applescript, umm nothing new here. Aqua, I already commented on the interface. Bonjour nee Rendezvous aka zeroconf IS interesting but is really a modern version of Appletalk. Here's an excerpt from zeroconf.org:
Quote:
Historically, AppleTalk handled this very well. Back in the 1980s if you took a group of Macs and connected them together with LocalTalk cabling, you had a working AppleTalk network, without any expert intervention, without needing to set up special servers like a DHCP server or a DNS server. In the 1990s the same was true using Ethernet ? if you took a group of Macs and plugged them into an Ethernet hub, you had a working AppleTalk network, using AppleTalk-over-Ethernet. Now that it's common for computers to have IEEE 802.11 ("AirPort") networking built-in, you don't even need cables or a hub.
So, I agree it's a nice technology, and I'll give Apple a point for it, but the concept existed and was in use long before X.
Moving on... CDSA, many of these security features exist on other OS's and even were available before X. Certainly X isn't the only OS to include a firewall and the security audits of OpenBSD really set the gold standard for ordinary user OS's.
Colorsync, quicktime, universal access, and video codecs all existed before X. H.264 is new but inevitable and not limited to X.
Unicode is good. Font handling is better. DisplayPDF, or whatever you want to call it, is OK but probably a resource pig. Inkwell is, ummm, it is. I guess if you can write cursive really really fast, then it's better than typing.
64bit is good for certain applications, but X isn't the first or only OS to handle 64bit.
X windows servers ran on OS9 and lots of other OS's.
Apple does get a point for putting a more friendly interface on lots of unix commands, but I'll deduct a point for Netinfo which still reminds me too much of yp.
Now let's talk about tiger specific features. Automator looks interesting, but it doesn't do anything for me, so again that doesn't change my opinion. Spotlight appears to offer a lot of potential but needs improvement in its boolean features from what I've read. This is potentially the single biggest improvement that Apple has made and actually had me contemplating a return to the fold.
So you can call all of that "way beyond", but with a few notable exceptions most of what makes up X is stuff I've seen implemented elsewhere, oftentimes better. If you love X, fantastic, but the link you provided didn't show me anything I hadn't already seen and certainly didn't convince me that what I posted before was wrong.
What I said was that the few interface gains in X didn't compensate for the losses [in the interface]. I don't particularly care for the dock, and I think there are better alternatives out there. Sheets are nice, but they don't make up for the loss of windowshade. Yes, I know, you can plonk down $10 and get the functionality back, but Jobs shouldn't get to decide how I want to use my computer. If Apple had simply added functionality that would have been fine. They didn't. Expose is cool, I'll give Apple a point for that.
The ability is there. It's called Minimize/Minaturize. Much better. No one wants 800 different ways to do something. If you want to do something weird and silly like minimize windows in place, you best expect to have to use shareware to do it.
Quote:
The applications aren't particularly innovative either. A mail app, a browser, a sync program, pdf viewer. All of these are pretty run of the mill things these days. If you like these particular implementations, great, but they don't offer a compelling value to me. Some of the iStuff looks pretty well done, but again we're talking about the OS here, not applications. There's really nothing to prevent those apps from running on an entirely different OS.
I'm sorry the apps I depend on every day seem run of the mill and boring to you.
Anyway, Mail has some of the best spam filters around, Preview loads in seconds while Acrobat Reader takes forever, and Safari is the fastest and most standards compliant browser out there.
Quote:
Now let's take a look at the OS itself. Applescript, umm nothing new here. Aqua, I already commented on the interface. Bonjour nee Rendezvous aka zeroconf IS interesting but is really a modern version of Appletalk. Here's an excerpt from zeroconf.org:
So, I agree it's a nice technology, and I'll give Apple a point for it, but the concept existed and was in use long before X.
AppleScript was innovative 18 years ago when it started out as HyperTalk. There still isn't anything as easy and pervasive as AppleScript on Windows or Linux.
And because ZeroConf was around first, apparently Apple shouldn't have implemented it?
Quote:
Colorsync, quicktime, universal access, and video codecs all existed before X. H.264 is new but inevitable and not limited to X.
But OS X is the only operating system with anything like ColorSync built-in. And again, it was also hella innovative when Apple introduced it like what, 10 years ago?
Quote:
So you can call all of that "way beyond", but with a few notable exceptions most of what makes up X is stuff I've seen implemented elsewhere, oftentimes better. If you love X, fantastic, but the link you provided didn't show me anything I hadn't already seen and certainly didn't convince me that what I posted before was wrong.
No, most of the stuff you mentioned isn't implemented elsewhere. Of the things that are elsewhere, nothing you've pointed out has been implemented BETTER elsewhere.
OS X has rough spots a plenty, but trying to say that it's not innovative for stuff that still doesn't exist on Windows/Linux is crazy talk
Constructive and convincing. You've already proved your point, so I should just give up now, but where would the fun be in that?
Quote:
The ability is there. It's called Minimize/Minaturize. Much better. No one wants 800 different ways to do something. If you want to do something weird and silly like minimize windows in place, you best expect to have to use shareware to do it.
Umm, yes they do, otherwise you would have one and only one view option in finder. You don't like windowshade. I don't like minimizing and maximizing. Choice is a good thing.
Quote:
I'm sorry the apps I depend on every day seem run of the mill and boring to you.
Anyway, Mail has some of the best spam filters around, Preview loads in seconds while Acrobat Reader takes forever, and Safari is the fastest and most standards compliant browser out there.
I'm sorry you feel that I called your mother a bad name, but the functionality of those apps exist in many other products on many other platforms. You like their particular implementation and that's just peachy, but it doesn't make the OS a clear winner in my mind.
Quote:
AppleScript was innovative 18 years ago when it started out as HyperTalk. There still isn't anything as easy and pervasive as AppleScript on Windows or Linux.
And because ZeroConf was around first, apparently Apple shouldn't have implemented it?
You apparently didn't get my point. Applescript existed BEFORE X. And Appletalk provided the same sort of functionality that zeroconf did BEFORE X. So you can talk about how fantastic X is, but the fact is that many of its "key" technologies essentially existed before it did.
Quote:
But OS X is the only operating system with anything like ColorSync built-in. And again, it was also hella innovative when Apple introduced it like what, 10 years ago?
See above. Again, the previous poster's point was that I had missed X. The fact that many if not most of these features predate it suggests otherwise.
Quote:
No, most of the stuff you mentioned isn't implemented elsewhere. Of the things that are elsewhere, nothing you've pointed out has been implemented BETTER elsewhere.
OS X has rough spots a plenty, but trying to say that it's not innovative for stuff that still doesn't exist on Windows/Linux is crazy talk
You got me there.
My disappointment with Apple is that they seem to be too tired. At least in the computing space they appear to be less and less willing to make innovative decisions and create really compelling technologies for the ordinary user and not just compelling packaging. Maybe it's because Apple has been burned too many times in the past. Maybe it's because Jobs has decided that Apple's future is in the CE space, and it's only a [short] matter of time until computers are the junior partner. \
urp, wtf? i think many of us are wondering why you are being so dismissive of Tiger. what DO you think of spotlight, what would you say 'we'll see' in Tiger that will change your mind?
urp, wtf? i think many of us are wondering why you are being so dismissive of Tiger. what DO you think of spotlight, what would you say 'we'll see' in Tiger that will change your mind?
I haven't played with it yet, so I don't have an opinion. My wife's pbook is half a continent away, so it'll still be a while.
I haven't played with it yet, so I don't have an opinion. My wife's pbook is half a continent away, so it'll still be a while.
So that explains it! You've got way too much time on your hands, so you decided to join a Apple discussion board about future hardware and diss an operating system that you've never used.
It was a pretty accurate and interesting read, up until the point where Mr Murphy decided to throw Sun into the mix. Of course, Sun's own President and COO recently blogged about how Apple should be using Solaris 10 on their Macs.
With just a few exceptions, no one thinks that moving to the cell would have either been easy or useful.
So that explains it! You've got way too much time on your hands, so you decided to join a Apple discussion board about future hardware and diss an operating system that you've never used.
Because tiger changed oh so much in the interface. BTW, I was specifically referring to spotlight. The other changes I've already touched on. Oh, and last time I checked your post count was over 200; mine is below 10. Remind me again who has all that spare time?
Because tiger changed oh so much in the interface. BTW, I was specifically referring to spotlight. The other changes I've already touched on. Oh, and last time I checked your post count was over 200; mine is below 10. Remind me again who has all that spare time?
Considering YOU only registered this month and he/she registered in 2001, methinks you will find if you keep up this average you will be well over 1000 posts in the same time...
Appletalk and ZeroConfig are quite different. Appletalk does not have auto discovery, and is very talky, though it's better than it use to be.
ZeroConf is certainly more advanced, and everyone seems to be pretty happy using ip as the transport layer as opposed to other proprietary solutions, but it also derives its inspiration from Appletalk. Appletalk does have auto discovery, as anyone who used to connect a new mac to a campus Appletalk network can attest. In fact, in a really large campus the discovery could be really annoying when you were trying to find one particular printer in your zone. Perhaps you were thinking of appleshare ip when you said Appletalk doesn't have auto discovery?
As you noted, extending the broadcast interval did quiet down Appletalk. I think it went from 12 seconds to 60, but I don't recall for sure. In the end ZeroConf will also end up being more chatty than previous ip solutions simply because there's no way to avoid multicasting, "I'm here!" to the world to enable Appletalk-like ease-of-use. It should be quieter than Appletalk though as long as there aren't too many devices sending out requests for services.
Appletalk was/is routable as well which was another big advantage over netbios.
ZeroConf is certainly more advanced, and everyone seems to be pretty happy using ip as the transport layer as opposed to other proprietary solutions, but it also derives its inspiration from Appletalk. Appletalk does have auto discovery, as anyone who used to connect a new mac to a campus Appletalk network can attest. In fact, in a really large campus the discovery could be really annoying when you were trying to find one particular printer in your zone. Perhaps you were thinking of appleshare ip when you said Appletalk doesn't have auto discovery?
As you noted, extending the broadcast interval did quiet down Appletalk. I think it went from 12 seconds to 60, but I don't recall for sure. In the end ZeroConf will also end up being more chatty than previous ip solutions simply because there's no way to avoid multicasting, "I'm here!" to the world to enable Appletalk-like ease-of-use. It should be quieter than Appletalk though as long as there aren't too many devices sending out requests for services.
Appletalk was/is routable as well which was another big advantage over netbios.
Connect a printer using Appletalk when Ro-, er Bonjour isn't present.
Connect a printer using Appletalk when Ro-, er Bonjour isn't present.
Not a problem. Here's an old pbook g3 running 8.6 (no X, non Bonjour), an old iBook running 10.3.9 w/ appletalk enabled, and a new pbook g4 running 10.4.1 all connected to a localtalk-enabled hp laserjet 6mp through a 10bT and 10b2 ether hub and an se/30 acting as an ethertalk to localtalk bridge (there's an airport in there acting as another bridge to the hardline, but we can ignore that for now as it works just as well with pure ether). So, this is what we've got:
Not a problem. Here's an old pbook g3 running 8.6 (no X, non Bonjour), an old iBook running 10.3.9 w/ appletalk enabled, and a new pbook g4 running 10.4.1 all connected to a localtalk-enabled hp laserjet 6mp through a 10bT and 10b2 ether hub and an se/30 acting as an ethertalk to localtalk bridge (there's an airport in there acting as another bridge to the hardline, but we can ignore that for now as it works just as well with pure ether). So, this is what we've got:
Comments
Originally posted by jwdawso
You've missed Mac OS X. Check out the tech specs because it is way beyond a "few interface gains". The applications and key technologies are way beyond "unix" and "mach" confusions. BTW - this is a common misunderstanding for MS and unix users.
What I said was that the few interface gains in X didn't compensate for the losses [in the interface]. I don't particularly care for the dock, and I think there are better alternatives out there. Sheets are nice, but they don't make up for the loss of windowshade. Yes, I know, you can plonk down $10 and get the functionality back, but Jobs shouldn't get to decide how I want to use my computer. If Apple had simply added functionality that would have been fine. They didn't. Expose is cool, I'll give Apple a point for that.
The applications aren't particularly innovative either. A mail app, a browser, a sync program, pdf viewer. All of these are pretty run of the mill things these days. If you like these particular implementations, great, but they don't offer a compelling value to me. Some of the iStuff looks pretty well done, but again we're talking about the OS here, not applications. There's really nothing to prevent those apps from running on an entirely different OS.
Now let's take a look at the OS itself. Applescript, umm nothing new here. Aqua, I already commented on the interface. Bonjour nee Rendezvous aka zeroconf IS interesting but is really a modern version of Appletalk. Here's an excerpt from zeroconf.org:
Historically, AppleTalk handled this very well. Back in the 1980s if you took a group of Macs and connected them together with LocalTalk cabling, you had a working AppleTalk network, without any expert intervention, without needing to set up special servers like a DHCP server or a DNS server. In the 1990s the same was true using Ethernet ? if you took a group of Macs and plugged them into an Ethernet hub, you had a working AppleTalk network, using AppleTalk-over-Ethernet. Now that it's common for computers to have IEEE 802.11 ("AirPort") networking built-in, you don't even need cables or a hub.
So, I agree it's a nice technology, and I'll give Apple a point for it, but the concept existed and was in use long before X.
Moving on... CDSA, many of these security features exist on other OS's and even were available before X. Certainly X isn't the only OS to include a firewall and the security audits of OpenBSD really set the gold standard for ordinary user OS's.
Colorsync, quicktime, universal access, and video codecs all existed before X. H.264 is new but inevitable and not limited to X.
Unicode is good. Font handling is better. DisplayPDF, or whatever you want to call it, is OK but probably a resource pig. Inkwell is, ummm, it is. I guess if you can write cursive really really fast, then it's better than typing.
64bit is good for certain applications, but X isn't the first or only OS to handle 64bit.
X windows servers ran on OS9 and lots of other OS's.
Apple does get a point for putting a more friendly interface on lots of unix commands, but I'll deduct a point for Netinfo which still reminds me too much of yp.
Now let's talk about tiger specific features. Automator looks interesting, but it doesn't do anything for me, so again that doesn't change my opinion. Spotlight appears to offer a lot of potential but needs improvement in its boolean features from what I've read. This is potentially the single biggest improvement that Apple has made and actually had me contemplating a return to the fold.
So you can call all of that "way beyond", but with a few notable exceptions most of what makes up X is stuff I've seen implemented elsewhere, oftentimes better. If you love X, fantastic, but the link you provided didn't show me anything I hadn't already seen and certainly didn't convince me that what I posted before was wrong.
Originally posted by urp
What I said was that the few interface gains in X didn't compensate for the losses [in the interface]. I don't particularly care for the dock, and I think there are better alternatives out there. Sheets are nice, but they don't make up for the loss of windowshade. Yes, I know, you can plonk down $10 and get the functionality back, but Jobs shouldn't get to decide how I want to use my computer. If Apple had simply added functionality that would have been fine. They didn't. Expose is cool, I'll give Apple a point for that.
The ability is there. It's called Minimize/Minaturize. Much better. No one wants 800 different ways to do something. If you want to do something weird and silly like minimize windows in place, you best expect to have to use shareware to do it.
The applications aren't particularly innovative either. A mail app, a browser, a sync program, pdf viewer. All of these are pretty run of the mill things these days. If you like these particular implementations, great, but they don't offer a compelling value to me. Some of the iStuff looks pretty well done, but again we're talking about the OS here, not applications. There's really nothing to prevent those apps from running on an entirely different OS.
I'm sorry the apps I depend on every day seem run of the mill and boring to you.
Anyway, Mail has some of the best spam filters around, Preview loads in seconds while Acrobat Reader takes forever, and Safari is the fastest and most standards compliant browser out there.
Now let's take a look at the OS itself. Applescript, umm nothing new here. Aqua, I already commented on the interface. Bonjour nee Rendezvous aka zeroconf IS interesting but is really a modern version of Appletalk. Here's an excerpt from zeroconf.org:
So, I agree it's a nice technology, and I'll give Apple a point for it, but the concept existed and was in use long before X.
AppleScript was innovative 18 years ago when it started out as HyperTalk. There still isn't anything as easy and pervasive as AppleScript on Windows or Linux.
And because ZeroConf was around first, apparently Apple shouldn't have implemented it?
Colorsync, quicktime, universal access, and video codecs all existed before X. H.264 is new but inevitable and not limited to X.
But OS X is the only operating system with anything like ColorSync built-in. And again, it was also hella innovative when Apple introduced it like what, 10 years ago?
So you can call all of that "way beyond", but with a few notable exceptions most of what makes up X is stuff I've seen implemented elsewhere, oftentimes better. If you love X, fantastic, but the link you provided didn't show me anything I hadn't already seen and certainly didn't convince me that what I posted before was wrong.
No, most of the stuff you mentioned isn't implemented elsewhere. Of the things that are elsewhere, nothing you've pointed out has been implemented BETTER elsewhere.
OS X has rough spots a plenty, but trying to say that it's not innovative for stuff that still doesn't exist on Windows/Linux is crazy talk
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
(apologies in advance for rampant troll feeding)
Constructive and convincing. You've already proved your point, so I should just give up now, but where would the fun be in that?
The ability is there. It's called Minimize/Minaturize. Much better. No one wants 800 different ways to do something. If you want to do something weird and silly like minimize windows in place, you best expect to have to use shareware to do it.
Umm, yes they do, otherwise you would have one and only one view option in finder. You don't like windowshade. I don't like minimizing and maximizing. Choice is a good thing.
I'm sorry the apps I depend on every day seem run of the mill and boring to you.
Anyway, Mail has some of the best spam filters around, Preview loads in seconds while Acrobat Reader takes forever, and Safari is the fastest and most standards compliant browser out there.
I'm sorry you feel that I called your mother a bad name, but the functionality of those apps exist in many other products on many other platforms. You like their particular implementation and that's just peachy, but it doesn't make the OS a clear winner in my mind.
AppleScript was innovative 18 years ago when it started out as HyperTalk. There still isn't anything as easy and pervasive as AppleScript on Windows or Linux.
And because ZeroConf was around first, apparently Apple shouldn't have implemented it?
You apparently didn't get my point. Applescript existed BEFORE X. And Appletalk provided the same sort of functionality that zeroconf did BEFORE X. So you can talk about how fantastic X is, but the fact is that many of its "key" technologies essentially existed before it did.
But OS X is the only operating system with anything like ColorSync built-in. And again, it was also hella innovative when Apple introduced it like what, 10 years ago?
See above. Again, the previous poster's point was that I had missed X. The fact that many if not most of these features predate it suggests otherwise.
No, most of the stuff you mentioned isn't implemented elsewhere. Of the things that are elsewhere, nothing you've pointed out has been implemented BETTER elsewhere.
OS X has rough spots a plenty, but trying to say that it's not innovative for stuff that still doesn't exist on Windows/Linux is crazy talk
You got me there.
My disappointment with Apple is that they seem to be too tired. At least in the computing space they appear to be less and less willing to make innovative decisions and create really compelling technologies for the ordinary user and not just compelling packaging. Maybe it's because Apple has been burned too many times in the past. Maybe it's because Jobs has decided that Apple's future is in the CE space, and it's only a [short] matter of time until computers are the junior partner.
Spotlight may change that. We'll see.
Originally posted by sunilraman
urp, wtf? i think many of us are wondering why you are being so dismissive of Tiger. what DO you think of spotlight, what would you say 'we'll see' in Tiger that will change your mind?
I haven't played with it yet, so I don't have an opinion. My wife's pbook is half a continent away, so it'll still be a while.
http://www.inventgeek.com/Projects/p4mac/p4mac.aspx
Originally posted by urp
I haven't played with it yet, so I don't have an opinion. My wife's pbook is half a continent away, so it'll still be a while.
So that explains it! You've got way too much time on your hands, so you decided to join a Apple discussion board about future hardware and diss an operating system that you've never used.
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Wow the all new Apple P4!
http://www.inventgeek.com/Projects/p4mac/p4mac.aspx
Is that a swastica inside that apple ???
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...l_nokia_wimax/
It's about the chipsets, not the chip.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
It was a pretty accurate and interesting read, up until the point where Mr Murphy decided to throw Sun into the mix. Of course, Sun's own President and COO recently blogged about how Apple should be using Solaris 10 on their Macs.
With just a few exceptions, no one thinks that moving to the cell would have either been easy or useful.
Originally posted by urp
And Appletalk provided the same sort of functionality that zeroconf did BEFORE X.
Appletalk and ZeroConfig are quite different. Appletalk does not have auto discovery, and is very talky, though it's better than it used to be.
Originally posted by jwdawso
So that explains it! You've got way too much time on your hands, so you decided to join a Apple discussion board about future hardware and diss an operating system that you've never used.
Because tiger changed oh so much in the interface. BTW, I was specifically referring to spotlight. The other changes I've already touched on. Oh, and last time I checked your post count was over 200; mine is below 10. Remind me again who has all that spare time?
Originally posted by urp
Because tiger changed oh so much in the interface. BTW, I was specifically referring to spotlight. The other changes I've already touched on. Oh, and last time I checked your post count was over 200; mine is below 10. Remind me again who has all that spare time?
Considering YOU only registered this month and he/she registered in 2001, methinks you will find if you keep up this average you will be well over 1000 posts in the same time...
... just an observation
Originally posted by melgross
Appletalk and ZeroConfig are quite different. Appletalk does not have auto discovery, and is very talky, though it's better than it use to be.
ZeroConf is certainly more advanced, and everyone seems to be pretty happy using ip as the transport layer as opposed to other proprietary solutions, but it also derives its inspiration from Appletalk. Appletalk does have auto discovery, as anyone who used to connect a new mac to a campus Appletalk network can attest. In fact, in a really large campus the discovery could be really annoying when you were trying to find one particular printer in your zone. Perhaps you were thinking of appleshare ip when you said Appletalk doesn't have auto discovery?
As you noted, extending the broadcast interval did quiet down Appletalk. I think it went from 12 seconds to 60, but I don't recall for sure. In the end ZeroConf will also end up being more chatty than previous ip solutions simply because there's no way to avoid multicasting, "I'm here!" to the world to enable Appletalk-like ease-of-use. It should be quieter than Appletalk though as long as there aren't too many devices sending out requests for services.
Appletalk was/is routable as well which was another big advantage over netbios.
Originally posted by urp
ZeroConf is certainly more advanced, and everyone seems to be pretty happy using ip as the transport layer as opposed to other proprietary solutions, but it also derives its inspiration from Appletalk. Appletalk does have auto discovery, as anyone who used to connect a new mac to a campus Appletalk network can attest. In fact, in a really large campus the discovery could be really annoying when you were trying to find one particular printer in your zone. Perhaps you were thinking of appleshare ip when you said Appletalk doesn't have auto discovery?
As you noted, extending the broadcast interval did quiet down Appletalk. I think it went from 12 seconds to 60, but I don't recall for sure. In the end ZeroConf will also end up being more chatty than previous ip solutions simply because there's no way to avoid multicasting, "I'm here!" to the world to enable Appletalk-like ease-of-use. It should be quieter than Appletalk though as long as there aren't too many devices sending out requests for services.
Appletalk was/is routable as well which was another big advantage over netbios.
Connect a printer using Appletalk when Ro-, er Bonjour isn't present.
Originally posted by melgross
Connect a printer using Appletalk when Ro-, er Bonjour isn't present.
Not a problem. Here's an old pbook g3 running 8.6 (no X, non Bonjour), an old iBook running 10.3.9 w/ appletalk enabled, and a new pbook g4 running 10.4.1 all connected to a localtalk-enabled hp laserjet 6mp through a 10bT and 10b2 ether hub and an se/30 acting as an ethertalk to localtalk bridge (there's an airport in there acting as another bridge to the hardline, but we can ignore that for now as it works just as well with pure ether). So, this is what we've got:
iBook <--|
pbook g3 <10bT> ether hub <10b2> SE/30 <-localtalk-> hp lasterjet 6mp
pbook g4 <--|
The pbook g3 sees the printer immediately with no configuration required as do the other two machines.
Check out zeroconf.org or here to see the clear inspiration that zeroconf got from Appletalk.
Originally posted by urp
Not a problem. Here's an old pbook g3 running 8.6 (no X, non Bonjour), an old iBook running 10.3.9 w/ appletalk enabled, and a new pbook g4 running 10.4.1 all connected to a localtalk-enabled hp laserjet 6mp through a 10bT and 10b2 ether hub and an se/30 acting as an ethertalk to localtalk bridge (there's an airport in there acting as another bridge to the hardline, but we can ignore that for now as it works just as well with pure ether). So, this is what we've got:
iBook <--|
pbook g3 <10bT> ether hub <10b2> SE/30 <-localtalk-> hp lasterjet 6mp
pbook g4 <--|
The pbook g3 sees the printer immediately with no configuration required as do the other two machines.
Check out zeroconf.org or here to see the clear inspiration that zeroconf got from Appletalk.
Now do that with a XP box.
If you get that done, then that Virginia Tech Supercomputer. I hear they need a deskjet...
Originally posted by aplnub
Now do that with a XP box.
According to microsoft, you can.
If you get that done, then that Virginia Tech Supercomputer. I hear they need a deskjet...
And since System X runs 10.3.7, it already can...
Originally posted by urp
According to microsoft, you can.
And since System X runs 10.3.7, it already can...
I don't care what MS says, you CAN'T do that easily without bonjour. I have been down that road and bought a t-shirt.
The later was a joke.
Originally posted by aplnub
I don't care what MS says, you CAN'T do that easily without bonjour. I have been down that road and bought a t-shirt.
The later was a joke.
I know.