Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.
Finally a sensible statement. After reading the first 3 pages, I can't figure out what the hell people are thinking with some of their posts. Nobody is going to use a camera built into a lid of a laptop to sneak pictures of things they shouldn't. That is what camera phones are for.
Do you think OS X and the switch to Intel processors would lure AutoDesk to port their application ?
It's an interesting question, regarding any developers. I would think that Apple MUST be wondering how to encourage something along those lines. Intel themselves are making a chip capable of running 2 OSes (though I'm not sure if that means 1 OS per core).
I would guess Apple has 3 paths (and could do all, some, or none of these)
1) Push an OSX version of WINE. Get windows developers to compile to Apple-WINE or test their applications under both Windows and Apple-Wine.
2) Make a virtual PC of their own (just simulating the PC hardware) so people can install their own Windows. They could also offer virtual Linux via something like that, integrated via X-windows with the OSX interface.
3) Work with Microsoft - get Virtual PC working great, and allow a Windows App to run seamlessly with OSX apps, etc.
MS would probably like to have Windows bundled with every Mac... they could convince developers to write for Windows only, retain control of the API, remove any need to develop Word (etc) for OSX, and make some money. Also, the best place to run a Windows App will always be Windows... I just don't see why developers would write for Mac in those circumstances and it could be bad for Apple (or OSX at least!).
It's an interesting question, regarding any developers. I would think that Apple MUST be wondering how to encourage something along those lines. Intel themselves are making a chip capable of running 2 OSes (though I'm not sure if that means 1 OS per core).
I would guess Apple has 3 paths (and could do all, some, or none of these)
1) Push an OSX version of WINE. Get windows developers to compile to Apple-WINE or test their applications under both Windows and Apple-Wine.
2) Make a virtual PC of their own (just simulating the PC hardware) so people can install their own Windows. They could also offer virtual Linux via something like that, integrated via X-windows with the OSX interface.
3) Work with Microsoft - get Virtual PC working great, and allow a Windows App to run seamlessly with OSX apps, etc.
MS would probably like to have Windows bundled with every Mac... they could convince developers to write for Windows only, retain control of the API, remove any need to develop Word (etc) for OSX, and make some money. Also, the best place to run a Windows App will always be Windows... I just don't see why developers would write for Mac in those circumstances and it could be bad for Apple (or OSX at least!).
The thing is, we don't know if we will need anything at all to run Windows. It might just be an install away. I suspect that. Apple said that they wouldn't prevent anyone from running Windows on a Mactel.
Windows doesn't run on Mac's now. That's why we need VPC. It might run on the Mactel's. That's why Schiller said that.
Finally a sensible statement. After reading the first 3 pages, I can't figure out what the hell people are thinking with some of their posts. Nobody is going to use a camera built into a lid of a laptop to sneak pictures of things they shouldn't. That is what camera phones are for.
Dave
It may not be optimal but some places do not allow guests to bring in any kind of camera. It would be hard for me to make a presentation to a customer if I have to leave my laptop at the security desk.
Apple should definitely not include a camera or at least they should make it BTO.
I carry an iSight with me on all my trips. It takes up almost no space in my bag. I use it mostly to communicate with the family back home from the hotel in the evening.
Separate from that, I'd rather have a thinner laptop than one with a camera in it. Besides, with an iSight I can pick up the camera, point it around the room or out the window. That would be a lot harder with a built in camera.
Off topic somewhat, does anyone know if Madonna was using an iSight in the recent keynote when she communicated with Steve from London?
Does anyone have any solid information on when the MPC8641D (dual core G4 from Freescale) will go into volume production? I've found lots of articles from when it was announced and there were some predictions it would be released about now. Any newer information?
Separate from that, I'd rather have a thinner laptop than one with a camera in it.
Given how thin some camera phones are, I don't think it necessarily makes a difference in how thick the laptop would be.
Quote:
Off topic somewhat, does anyone know if Madonna was using an iSight in the recent keynote when she communicated with Steve from London?
I'd guess it was probably a three CCD camcorder, but that's just an assumption based on the thought that given it is a high profile event, cheaping out on a camera doesn't leave a good impression if it compromises the picture quality.
Does anyone have any solid information on when the MPC8641D (dual core G4 from Freescale) will go into volume production? I've found lots of articles from when it was announced and there were some predictions it would be released about now. Any newer information?
Thanks.
We can't even get the 7448 which was supposed to be out over a month ago, and you're worring about that?
It's been said that Apple won't use that because it's too different from either the G4's or G5's they are using now. With them going to x86, I doubt if they need to expend the effort to design new support chips for the different memory bus these chips use.
no, you don't save money; you have to pay for the windows os and the other apps you want to use.
...
it's hard to understand that many otherwise intelligent people don't take the software costs of using two different oses into account.
Put the "saving" in my example in software, and the example still holds - Windows on Apple hardware lets you use $1500 desktop constantly instead of two $1000 desktops. Again, in laptops there is no alternative.
Quote:
and i think that's a stupid investment except if you neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed that specific app that isn't macos compatible.
The thing is, we don't know if we will need anything at all to run Windows. It might just be an install away. I suspect that. Apple said that they wouldn't prevent anyone from running Windows on a Mactel. Windows doesn't run on Mac's now. That's why we need VPC. It might run on the Mactel's. That's why Schiller said that.
Apparently Windows XP doesn't support the new Intel BIOS but the next Windows will... not sure how that will affect Macs (depends on which BIOS they use).
Anyway, if it does run - that would be dual boot. And you'd have a partitioned hard disk - one for Mac, one for Windows right?
If both OSes run simultaneously using some Intel technology, it'd be full screen for both, with no cut-n-paste etc, and they'd need some way of sharing network cards etc (though I'd guess that Intel would have to be considering that!). Some methods of better interaction would be worth pursuing (in contrast to just install it and run!). Linux should be easy to merge since the actual program can run on Linux, while the interface can run on a different machine (X-windows on OSX).
Anyway, if it does run - that would be dual boot. And you'd have a partitioned hard disk - one for Mac, one for Windows right?
If both OSes run simultaneously using some Intel technology, it'd be full screen for both, with no cut-n-paste etc, and they'd need some way of sharing network cards etc (though I'd guess that Intel would have to be considering that!). Some methods of better interaction would be worth pursuing (in contrast to just install it and run!). Linux should be easy to merge since the actual program can run on Linux, while the interface can run on a different machine (X-windows on OSX).
Greg
That's all provided for via hardware virtualisation, which most of the major CPU manufacturers are including support for in the next 12 months. Even the forthcoming PA Semi embedded PowerPC chip includes it.
Xen is a software virtualisation system that's available now. You can run multiple operating systems at the same time, with the hardware resources (networking, etc) shared transparently between the running systems. Naturally, Xen will make use of hardware virtualisation once it is available in the marketplace.
I believe that a lot of the virtualisation software will support cut-and-paste between running operating systems. I don't know if that is only text, or something like passing MIME64 encoded data via the virtualised clipboard, or something, but text seems possible at the very least.
I'd like a DVD cracking program save directly to a disk image such that an open disk image is automatically recognized by Apple's DVD player. What I do now is use a Windows program to save to ISO. I tried making a disk image from extracted files, but for some reason, making a disk image is slow and DVD Player doesn't want to work with the resulting file.
Just use MacTheRipper.
You'll get a VIDEO_TS folder that DVD Player can open.
It's not the OS, it is the apps. There is still plenty of Windows software that doesn't really have a good OS X equivalent, or the user has Windows software that that they don't want to re-buy.
Then there are the desirable "underground" apps for cracking DRM and such. I'd like a DVD cracking program save directly to a disk image such that an open disk image is automatically recognized by Apple's DVD player. What I do now is use a Windows program to save to ISO. I tried making a disk image from extracted files, but for some reason, making a disk image is slow and DVD Player doesn't want to work with the resulting file.
That's all provided for via hardware virtualisation, which most of the major CPU manufacturers are including support for in the next 12 months. Even the forthcoming PA Semi embedded PowerPC chip includes it.
Xen is a software virtualisation system that's available now. You can run multiple operating systems at the same time, with the hardware resources (networking, etc) shared transparently between the running systems. Naturally, Xen will make use of hardware virtualisation once it is available in the marketplace.
I believe that a lot of the virtualisation software will support cut-and-paste between running operating systems. I don't know if that is only text, or something like passing MIME64 encoded data via the virtualised clipboard, or something, but text seems possible at the very least.
All this "I wonder if a Camera will be included in the powerbook" is kind of funny. Weren't people, just a few weeks ago, speculating that the new iPod Video would sport a miniature click wheel, positioned below a widescreen lcd panel? And weren't people complaining about how strange it would be to have to turn the device sideways to use it? And weren't we all like "oh, that was nothing like the 289 responses on AI about how the new iPod would look" when it was finally unveiled?
Dammit, Apple! Knock off the camera integration, willya? I know this is a rumor, but they stuck one in the iMacs and that's not promising. I work in a classified environment and cameras in the Mac (or the Cinema Display) translates directly to "We don't buy any more Macs. Period."
And I'm not alone. There are thousands, likely tens of thousands, of workplaces that will not tolerate cameras built into an Internet-capable machine. I'd hate to see Apple close the door to all those potential buyers.
I can certainly understand their fears, but with cameras in everything already, any agency or company that is worried about the camera in the bezel is being stupid or lazy about security.
I don't like the idea of a camera in a Powerbook, but in consumer devices it is a GREAT idea. It's what the kids want and consumer devices have the space for them. So iSight in iBook, yeah! iSight in PowerBook, nah.
i'd enjoy ichat av but i'd never actually buy isight.
if its built in, like someone else said it will def open up the new ichat.
Yes.
Of course the big picture here is that ('a la FireWire and dozens of other techs that Apple helped standardize ... and some later dropped ) Mac users become the dominant end-user of the tech (av chatting) even with a smaller platform market and thus give the Mac a chance to secure the standards away from MS even as the tech moves to the broader ecosystem.
With Intel tech, I wonder if Apple will be able to corner some H/W advantage to let iChat move to the Windows world, just like iTunes and create more desire for those iMacs with cameras. It is a positive feedback loop that created the iPod/iTunes/iTMS phenom.
All this "I wonder if a Camera will be included in the powerbook" is kind of funny. Weren't people, just a few weeks ago, speculating that the new iPod Video would sport a miniature click wheel, positioned below a widescreen lcd panel? And weren't people complaining about how strange it would be to have to turn the device sideways to use it? And weren't we all like "oh, that was nothing like the 289 responses on AI about how the new iPod would look" when it was finally unveiled?
Just a thought
Not really, I said that the new iPod would look like this before it came out. My post is somewhere on the site. I'm sure some people remember.
Some things are logical, and some are not.
A camera is possible. But if Apple wants an even thinner lid, it isn't.
And moving the latch to the side the way Sony did it is not the strongest way to make it. Sony's top lid is also at least .375" thick.
Comments
Originally posted by Gustav
Uhm... anyone on the inside who wanted to take pictures would sneak in a tiny digital camera in their pocket. They're not going to aim a PowerBook screen around the office.
There is absolutely *no* increased risk here.
Finally a sensible statement. After reading the first 3 pages, I can't figure out what the hell people are thinking with some of their posts. Nobody is going to use a camera built into a lid of a laptop to sneak pictures of things they shouldn't. That is what camera phones are for.
Dave
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Do you think OS X and the switch to Intel processors would lure AutoDesk to port their application ?
It's an interesting question, regarding any developers. I would think that Apple MUST be wondering how to encourage something along those lines. Intel themselves are making a chip capable of running 2 OSes (though I'm not sure if that means 1 OS per core).
I would guess Apple has 3 paths (and could do all, some, or none of these)
1) Push an OSX version of WINE. Get windows developers to compile to Apple-WINE or test their applications under both Windows and Apple-Wine.
2) Make a virtual PC of their own (just simulating the PC hardware) so people can install their own Windows. They could also offer virtual Linux via something like that, integrated via X-windows with the OSX interface.
3) Work with Microsoft - get Virtual PC working great, and allow a Windows App to run seamlessly with OSX apps, etc.
MS would probably like to have Windows bundled with every Mac... they could convince developers to write for Windows only, retain control of the API, remove any need to develop Word (etc) for OSX, and make some money. Also, the best place to run a Windows App will always be Windows... I just don't see why developers would write for Mac in those circumstances and it could be bad for Apple (or OSX at least!).
Originally posted by GregAlexander
It's an interesting question, regarding any developers. I would think that Apple MUST be wondering how to encourage something along those lines. Intel themselves are making a chip capable of running 2 OSes (though I'm not sure if that means 1 OS per core).
I would guess Apple has 3 paths (and could do all, some, or none of these)
1) Push an OSX version of WINE. Get windows developers to compile to Apple-WINE or test their applications under both Windows and Apple-Wine.
2) Make a virtual PC of their own (just simulating the PC hardware) so people can install their own Windows. They could also offer virtual Linux via something like that, integrated via X-windows with the OSX interface.
3) Work with Microsoft - get Virtual PC working great, and allow a Windows App to run seamlessly with OSX apps, etc.
MS would probably like to have Windows bundled with every Mac... they could convince developers to write for Windows only, retain control of the API, remove any need to develop Word (etc) for OSX, and make some money. Also, the best place to run a Windows App will always be Windows... I just don't see why developers would write for Mac in those circumstances and it could be bad for Apple (or OSX at least!).
The thing is, we don't know if we will need anything at all to run Windows. It might just be an install away. I suspect that. Apple said that they wouldn't prevent anyone from running Windows on a Mactel.
Windows doesn't run on Mac's now. That's why we need VPC. It might run on the Mactel's. That's why Schiller said that.
But I'd rather see a Mac OS version instead.
Originally posted by Dave K.
Finally a sensible statement. After reading the first 3 pages, I can't figure out what the hell people are thinking with some of their posts. Nobody is going to use a camera built into a lid of a laptop to sneak pictures of things they shouldn't. That is what camera phones are for.
Dave
It may not be optimal but some places do not allow guests to bring in any kind of camera. It would be hard for me to make a presentation to a customer if I have to leave my laptop at the security desk.
Apple should definitely not include a camera or at least they should make it BTO.
I carry an iSight with me on all my trips. It takes up almost no space in my bag. I use it mostly to communicate with the family back home from the hotel in the evening.
Separate from that, I'd rather have a thinner laptop than one with a camera in it. Besides, with an iSight I can pick up the camera, point it around the room or out the window. That would be a lot harder with a built in camera.
Off topic somewhat, does anyone know if Madonna was using an iSight in the recent keynote when she communicated with Steve from London?
Thanks.
Originally posted by neutrino23
Separate from that, I'd rather have a thinner laptop than one with a camera in it.
Given how thin some camera phones are, I don't think it necessarily makes a difference in how thick the laptop would be.
Off topic somewhat, does anyone know if Madonna was using an iSight in the recent keynote when she communicated with Steve from London?
I'd guess it was probably a three CCD camcorder, but that's just an assumption based on the thought that given it is a high profile event, cheaping out on a camera doesn't leave a good impression if it compromises the picture quality.
Originally posted by neutrino23
Does anyone have any solid information on when the MPC8641D (dual core G4 from Freescale) will go into volume production? I've found lots of articles from when it was announced and there were some predictions it would be released about now. Any newer information?
Thanks.
We can't even get the 7448 which was supposed to be out over a month ago, and you're worring about that?
It's been said that Apple won't use that because it's too different from either the G4's or G5's they are using now. With them going to x86, I doubt if they need to expend the effort to design new support chips for the different memory bus these chips use.
Whenever they come out.
Originally posted by gar
no, you don't save money; you have to pay for the windows os and the other apps you want to use.
...
it's hard to understand that many otherwise intelligent people don't take the software costs of using two different oses into account.
Put the "saving" in my example in software, and the example still holds - Windows on Apple hardware lets you use $1500 desktop constantly instead of two $1000 desktops. Again, in laptops there is no alternative.
and i think that's a stupid investment except if you neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed that specific app that isn't macos compatible.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Originally posted by melgross
The thing is, we don't know if we will need anything at all to run Windows. It might just be an install away. I suspect that. Apple said that they wouldn't prevent anyone from running Windows on a Mactel. Windows doesn't run on Mac's now. That's why we need VPC. It might run on the Mactel's. That's why Schiller said that.
Apparently Windows XP doesn't support the new Intel BIOS but the next Windows will... not sure how that will affect Macs (depends on which BIOS they use).
Anyway, if it does run - that would be dual boot. And you'd have a partitioned hard disk - one for Mac, one for Windows right?
If both OSes run simultaneously using some Intel technology, it'd be full screen for both, with no cut-n-paste etc, and they'd need some way of sharing network cards etc (though I'd guess that Intel would have to be considering that!). Some methods of better interaction would be worth pursuing (in contrast to just install it and run!). Linux should be easy to merge since the actual program can run on Linux, while the interface can run on a different machine (X-windows on OSX).
Greg
Originally posted by GregAlexander
Anyway, if it does run - that would be dual boot. And you'd have a partitioned hard disk - one for Mac, one for Windows right?
If both OSes run simultaneously using some Intel technology, it'd be full screen for both, with no cut-n-paste etc, and they'd need some way of sharing network cards etc (though I'd guess that Intel would have to be considering that!). Some methods of better interaction would be worth pursuing (in contrast to just install it and run!). Linux should be easy to merge since the actual program can run on Linux, while the interface can run on a different machine (X-windows on OSX).
Greg
That's all provided for via hardware virtualisation, which most of the major CPU manufacturers are including support for in the next 12 months. Even the forthcoming PA Semi embedded PowerPC chip includes it.
Xen is a software virtualisation system that's available now. You can run multiple operating systems at the same time, with the hardware resources (networking, etc) shared transparently between the running systems. Naturally, Xen will make use of hardware virtualisation once it is available in the marketplace.
I believe that a lot of the virtualisation software will support cut-and-paste between running operating systems. I don't know if that is only text, or something like passing MIME64 encoded data via the virtualised clipboard, or something, but text seems possible at the very least.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'd like a DVD cracking program save directly to a disk image such that an open disk image is automatically recognized by Apple's DVD player. What I do now is use a Windows program to save to ISO. I tried making a disk image from extracted files, but for some reason, making a disk image is slow and DVD Player doesn't want to work with the resulting file.
Just use MacTheRipper.
You'll get a VIDEO_TS folder that DVD Player can open.
You can also burn it.
How can it be easier than on a Mac ?
Originally posted by Elixir
whats the point of wide screen? didn't steve say it wasn't needed.
Huh ?
Almost all Apple computers have moved to wide screens.
Originally posted by JeffDM
It's not the OS, it is the apps. There is still plenty of Windows software that doesn't really have a good OS X equivalent, or the user has Windows software that that they don't want to re-buy.
Then there are the desirable "underground" apps for cracking DRM and such. I'd like a DVD cracking program save directly to a disk image such that an open disk image is automatically recognized by Apple's DVD player. What I do now is use a Windows program to save to ISO. I tried making a disk image from extracted files, but for some reason, making a disk image is slow and DVD Player doesn't want to work with the resulting file.
This does what you're asking for:
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/9830
Just change fmt to dvd image.
J
Originally posted by Elixir
whats the point of wide screen? didn't steve say it wasn't needed.
You gotta be shittin' me.
In March, we'll all be saying 'might as well wait for the Intel mac' and sales will drop...
but then 'BANG' out come the new iMacs, iBooks and minis all with Intel chips and sales go through the roof.
8)
Originally posted by Hattig
That's all provided for via hardware virtualisation, which most of the major CPU manufacturers are including support for in the next 12 months. Even the forthcoming PA Semi embedded PowerPC chip includes it.
Xen is a software virtualisation system that's available now. You can run multiple operating systems at the same time, with the hardware resources (networking, etc) shared transparently between the running systems. Naturally, Xen will make use of hardware virtualisation once it is available in the marketplace.
I believe that a lot of the virtualisation software will support cut-and-paste between running operating systems. I don't know if that is only text, or something like passing MIME64 encoded data via the virtualised clipboard, or something, but text seems possible at the very least.
try this link
Analyst's comment
Just a thought
Originally posted by jimhill
Dammit, Apple! Knock off the camera integration, willya? I know this is a rumor, but they stuck one in the iMacs and that's not promising. I work in a classified environment and cameras in the Mac (or the Cinema Display) translates directly to "We don't buy any more Macs. Period."
And I'm not alone. There are thousands, likely tens of thousands, of workplaces that will not tolerate cameras built into an Internet-capable machine. I'd hate to see Apple close the door to all those potential buyers.
I can certainly understand their fears, but with cameras in everything already, any agency or company that is worried about the camera in the bezel is being stupid or lazy about security.
I don't like the idea of a camera in a Powerbook, but in consumer devices it is a GREAT idea. It's what the kids want and consumer devices have the space for them. So iSight in iBook, yeah! iSight in PowerBook, nah.
Originally posted by Elixir
i would like it to be built in.
i'd enjoy ichat av but i'd never actually buy isight.
if its built in, like someone else said it will def open up the new ichat.
Yes.
Of course the big picture here is that ('a la FireWire and dozens of other techs that Apple helped standardize ... and some later dropped
With Intel tech, I wonder if Apple will be able to corner some H/W advantage to let iChat move to the Windows world, just like iTunes and create more desire for those iMacs with cameras. It is a positive feedback loop that created the iPod/iTunes/iTMS phenom.
Originally posted by Bmaier
All this "I wonder if a Camera will be included in the powerbook" is kind of funny. Weren't people, just a few weeks ago, speculating that the new iPod Video would sport a miniature click wheel, positioned below a widescreen lcd panel? And weren't people complaining about how strange it would be to have to turn the device sideways to use it? And weren't we all like "oh, that was nothing like the 289 responses on AI about how the new iPod would look" when it was finally unveiled?
Just a thought
Not really, I said that the new iPod would look like this before it came out. My post is somewhere on the site. I'm sure some people remember.
Some things are logical, and some are not.
A camera is possible. But if Apple wants an even thinner lid, it isn't.
And moving the latch to the side the way Sony did it is not the strongest way to make it. Sony's top lid is also at least .375" thick.