I watched the Steve Jobs(iGod) do his keynote address and unveil OS-X, and some things struck me as incredibly sad and pathetic.<BR> First of all, I didn't see a single thing in the new interface which was actually something they didn't steal from another OS. Even the crowd got a little grumpy when they first saw the task bar(which is essentially what it is), but then they got all happy when they saw that magnification crap(which is something an experienced user can do with Gnome OR Windows).<BR>Then they got all ga-ga over that bomb ap, which is really nothing more than a kill command that is found in Linux, and has been there since years ago. Oh, and this iFolder garbage? Intel offered the same thing two years ago, and no one wanted it. IBM also tried this. No one wanted it. PC systems have also been shipping with USB for over 6 years. Apple only suceeds at some of these things because their sheepish followers use these things because all mighty Jobs commands them.<BR> With all this talk of thinking different, where is the proof? The company thinks like everyone else to the point of stealing their ideas, and the loyalists think just like Jobs. Where is the different thinking? Oh yeah, here it is, in my ass......
Does CrApple actually invent anything?
- Thread starter Dangus
- Start date
- Status
Apple is able to bolster accepetion of things like this because they can implement big changes such as usb since they have a monopoly over users (Designing the Whole Widget, as Steve Jobs says), and because of their dinky 'monopoly' the users welcome any repreive whatsoever from the stagnation and mediocrity that has been festering on the Apple platform since the early 90's.
Actually the individual elements appear to be nothing new. It's the combination and the execution that appear to be causing the excitement. <P>XWRED is probably closer to calling it. The OS has been stagnant for many years (made obvious by the introduction of Win98). Now that they have finally gotten around to doing something about it, Mac-users are understandably excited about Aqua and the rest. <P>It was pretty cool looking I have to say. In an eye-candy sort of way. The file viewer is an excellent improvement on the original finder. <P>I don't think the attraction has anything to do with something new. It has more to do with refining and combining useful features into the OS. Windows 98 is another excellent example of this. It is very polished and added many convenient features over Win95. This Aqua thing is like that. Polished.
Nope. I find it kind of sad how Apple zealots accuse the Wintel industry of ripping off Apple, when most of the supposed Mac "innovations" were all cleverly stolen from other places. Mouse? Xerox. Blueberry transparent cases? A myriad of pagers. iMac? Commodore PET (not really, but an all in one PC is NOTHING new or innovative).<P>"Think Differently" - as long as it's exactly how Jobs tells you to think.
Aside from the (maybe) unnecessarily provocative title, all good points, basically right on the money, IMO.<P><BR>Ummm polished? OSX is not even in BETA yet, from what I understand.<P><BR>As for the keynote, at least Steve admits what the *best* browser for the platform is, despite his (occasionally unruly) followers agitation over the issue.<BR>hehe.<P>
Well, Netscape nowadays is second banana on every platform, except for Linux, where its unfortunately 1st banana. On Linux, it crashs alot, doesn't support many plugins, such as flash, and is a total resource hog. I've even had it take out X.
To use the word monopoly and Apple in the same sentence just shows the lack of education on the issue.<P>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.<P>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.<P>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.<P>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.<P>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.<P>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.
Laner<P>I think that's what I'm getting at. No single thing in the Apple arsenal is new. Just a new combination. That's what Apple is whole box sort of place. Even the apple II was made from pre-existing processors on a home-made motherboard.<P>I don't don't think there is a single company in the entire industry with something original. Except maybe Xerox, and maybe IBM. We all know where that got them.<P>I can live with Apple being called "innovative" as long as they come up with something that is useful or interesting. It's like hearing about the new innovative brushed chrome look of the next big thing at MS is Desktop video and streaming!<P>Who cares if they swipe stuff from each other? It's a good way to give people a choice of features on the platform they prefer. Do I need to get worked up that people other than Apple and Xerox are using mice too? Forget about it. There is nothing new under the sun.
Atilla:<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who cares if they swipe stuff from each other? It's a good way to give people a choice of features on the platform they prefer. Do I need to get worked up that people other than Apple and Xerox are using mice too? Forget about it. There is nothing new under the sun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If it's OK with you, I'm going to quote this the next time a rabid pro-Mac/anti-MS claims that MS doesn't create anything themselves, and/or only copy from Apple. View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Apple used to be an insane innovator (they still are in some fields - look at AirPort, done with Lucent)... but all that money on R&D nearly destroyed the company.<P>As for OS X, its heavily based on the GUI they pioneered anyway (not invented), and as for the dock that resembles a windows taskbar, let's remember that the taskbar was actually a rip-off of both the apple menu and applications menu....
Blindmouse, M$ and Apple are both evil, but my whole point is that Apple is not innovative, at all. Like the location bar on their windows??!!! ahahahahahahaa, come on, what browser do you think powers that window's ability to surf the web? Yes kids, that's the same one that powers Windows98, none other than IE. The same evils that infest so many PCs are now moving onto the mac, but you still can only resize a window from the corner. And Quicktime, they sure love that format at Apple, but too bad it's a horrid format with attrocious quality and it's big and slow. Quicktime is a place where Apple has innovated, but it's completely inferior to MPEG in every conceivable way. I simply fail to see the purpose of Apple. They give nothing to the market except a bunch of computers that won't be able to run software that their neighbors want to give them.
Attila, you can't think of one company? That's harsh. What about Intel? I don't like them today, but back in the 70's they invented just about everything any semiconductor company makes today.
Dangus, try actually *learning* or *knowing* something before you make sloppy claims and blanket statements. Here's just a few:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>PC systems have also been shipping with USB for over 6 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Utter BS. 6 years ago (1994) would be firmly in the Win 3.1 days, and I seriously doubt USB was even a wet dream at Intel. Considering that a USB-enabled OS (Win95 SR2.5) for PC's didn't arrive until 1997, I don't think so.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And Quicktime, they sure love that format at Apple, but too bad it's a horrid format with attrocious quality and it's big and slow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Wrong again. Talk to anyone who actually knows something about video compression and you will hear some actual fact. The Sorensen codec, which Apple owns the rights to and Quicktime uses, is one of the best out there as far as size/quality is concerned. See next comment.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Quicktime is a place where Apple has innovated, but it's completely inferior to MPEG in every conceivable way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ummm... no. The Quicktime 4 format is actually the basis for the upcoming MPEG 4 standard. I assume you meant MPEG 2 when you said that it was superior. MPEG 2 is good, but why would IEEE (I think they do the MPEG stuff but I really don't know) change the standard unless MPEG 2 was lacking in some area. These are smart people, they just don't make up standards for the hell of it, or to please Apple. They know a lot about it and see merit in the Quicktime format, maybe you could take a cue from them?<P>Jonah
oh yeah, forgot to say something about this:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>iMac? Commodore PET (not really, but an all in one PC is NOTHING new or innovative).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nobody said it was. The innovation is in the look and feel, the hardware itself (USB-only) and the overall presentation (friendly and easy-to-use). Ummm, all Macs were AIO for five year, back in the '80's. In fact, all computers used to be AIO. It's nothing new.<P>Jonah
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To use the word monopoly and Apple in the same sentence just shows the lack of education on the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, if you go by the DOJ finding of fact, Apple has to be a monopoly. According to the FOF, Apple does not compete with MS. Since Apple does not compete with MS, they theoretically only have one direct competitor... Linux. Up until recently, Be could have been considered a direct competitor, but Apple used some arguably anti- competitive tactics (according to the FOF) to keep them out of the running. So, it all depends on which definition of Monopoly you are using.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Apple used to be an insane innovator (they still are in some fields - look at AirPort, done with Lucent)... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>AirPort wasn't incredibly innovative, just a polished version of some already established technology, seeing how we've had wireless at the engineering department of my college for roughly 2 years. Granted the AirPort is a bit faster, but then again... it's newer.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>let's remember that the taskbar was actually a rip-off of both the apple menu and applications menu....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I don't see how a visual representation of running programs is an idea that can be ripped off. Form can be copied, like the Dock form was copied from the Wharf form, but saying that a task manager idea can be ripped off is ludicrous.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ummm... no. The Quicktime 4 format is actually the basis for the upcoming MPEG 4 standard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>God help us ALL if that's true!! Quicktime 4 sucks almost as bad as Quicktime 3. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I assume you meant MPEG 2 when you said that it was superior. MPEG 2 is good, but why would IEEE (I think they do the MPEG stuff but I really don't know) change the standard unless MPEG 2 was lacking in some area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dangus, I'm with you. Quicktime files are huge for the picture quality you get. I can (and have) watched several full-length MPEG movies sitting at my PC (god bless those VCDs!). If VCDs here made in Quicktime format they would either: take up 15 CDs for full screen version OR have a picture half the size of a stamp on 1 disc. <P>Jonah: Define "basis", as in "actually the basis for the upcoming MPEG 4 standard". Base code? To be hacked severely (I hope) before being approved?<P>Just my .02 (.67 Canadian)<P>Rex <BR> <P>[This message has been edited by Rex Fenestrarum (edited January 07, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Utter BS. 6 years ago (1994) would be firmly in the Win 3.1 days, and I seriously doubt USB was even a wet dream at Intel. Considering that a USB-enabled OS (Win95 SR2.5) for PC's didn't arrive until 1997, I don't think so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>USB was introduced to the PC world in 1995/1996. An O/S that would support it wasn't around until late 1996/1997 (Windows 95 OSR2). Even then, USB was never fully supported until Win98 came out (and when Apple finally adopted the technology). <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wrong again. Talk to anyone who actually knows something about video compression and you will hear some actual fact. The Sorensen codec, which Apple owns the rights to and Quicktime uses, is one of the best out there as far as size/quality is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is actually debatable. The Quicktime codec is actually pretty crappy (I talk to people who do nothing but deal with video and audio codecs). Sure, QT is easy to manage, but it's ONLY supported under main-stream O/S's (Windows and MacOS). So, it fails miserably everywhere else. MPEG on the other hand is supported under every O/S out there (along with AVI). Oh, you should talk to one of your video friends about M$'s own .asf format. Better than MPEG II in every concievable(sp?) way. Too bad it only runs under Windows (even though the encoders/decoders exist for *nix platforms). <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ummm... no. The Quicktime 4 format is actually the basis for the upcoming MPEG 4 standard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Um, where are you getting this information from? I'd like to hear more about it (I will also talk to my video and audio friends to see if they know about it). But I personally seriously doubt this, since Apple is very protective about their codecs (and the MPEG standard is open-source, so they'd have to open-source their codec).
Dangus, <P>I wish I could transport you to Happy Magic Land. Where everybody contributes the the development of hardware and software. Where a combination of usability, power, ease of use, open sourcing, and a dedication to smooth interaction with machines takes precidence.<P>But, since you're an idiot. You won't get past the front gate.<P>Hegor<BR>
Ah, Dangus Dangus Dangus.<P>How sad that in a site dedicated to celebrating the PC you feel it necessary to post garbage flaming a small minority of PC users and their OS of choice.<P>Tell me, oh trollish one, what OS has ever (EVER) had the capability to display translucent windows over other windows -- with the other windows continuing to update in the background? What OS has had the ability to do vector transforms of the sort that the windows did in the demo as they "warped" to the dock. . . while the movie in the window continued to play? What other OS has had such a powerful PDF-based graphics layer which does the type of alpha-blending, transformations and effects that were demonstrated -- and those were inbuilt capabilities of the OS, not a special program! What other OS other than NeXT/OpenStep has had a Miller Column Browser? What other OS has had 128x128 32bit icons with dynamic realtime resizing?<P>None.<P>That bomb app was stated to be a (purposely) badly written application that tried to mess with memory and do "all sorts of heinous things" (Jobs). It was run as a demonstration of the protected memory of OS X. That sort of app would crash a Mac OS computer.<P>You do know what this means, oh ye trollish ones? It's got the buzzwords -- you can't slam it for that anymore! Seeya!<P>"PC systems have also been shipping with USB for over 6 years."<P>6 years ago? Odd, I don't remember any USB peripherials around in '94. Perhaps you mean '96? With full OS support coming in 98? With large numbers of peripherials only coming in 98 -- at which point both Macs and PCs had USB?<P>"Mouse? Xerox." Actually, Mouse? Englebert. Try learning a thing or two. Englebert invented the mouse, pioneered the theory of the GUI. Without him, our world of computers would be far less interesting, far more mundane. One of his grad students, Jeff Raskin (I think that's the name) was among those at Apple who invented the Mac -- largely independently from Xerox, although they did use a lot of ideas from Xerox's implementation.<P>"Like the location bar on their windows??!!!" Did you even watch the demonstration? Or do you have some form of aphasia in which you emit streams of random words, completely unaware that you are spewing nonsense?<P>I mean, good grief man! If Microsoft implemented what Apple has, you'd be drowning in your own drool. As would I. As am I. Are you so lacking in life fulfillment that you must scrape a tiny iota of enjoyment from mindless flaming of Apple?<P>This is a Good Thing(tm), whether or not you own a Mac or not, whether you plan to buy one or not. It raises the achievment bar for GUIs and graphics techologies, and encourages other OS companies and groups to try and meet -- or surpass -- what Apple has done. In the end, everyone will benefit, just as everyone benefitted from the GUI, from the Internet, from the myriads of innovations created by the hundreds of companies that have created this amazing world of technology.<P>And in answer to your question: Yes. "Crapple" invents plenty. What have you done with your life?
You guys are failing to realize that Quicktime is more than a codec. Yes there's a Quicktime protocal but the full Quicktime application is really just a framework that can hold many different Codecs and protocols. So to say Quicktime sucks is totally missing the point. MPEG2 is great for playback but again you're missing the point, Quicktime allows editing of frames(as well as Motion JPEG) with MPEG2 you have good quality of playback but it's not a good format for Frame Accurate editing so they really aren't competitors as some of you think. <P>I think there are too many people posting at Ars Technica that really are more interested in being combative and obnoxious rather than engaging in meaningful debate.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To use the word monopoly and Apple in the same sentence just shows the lack of education on the issue.<BR>Proprietary products are _not_ monopolistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well that's great! Thanks for that.<P>I'll just tell the DoJ to drop the case against MS. MS make proprietary software -- and apparently that can't be monopolistic.<BR>
>Tell me, oh trollish one, what OS has ever (EVER) had the capability to >display translucent windows over other windows -- with the other windows >continuing to update in the background? What OS has had the ability to do >vector transforms of the sort that the windows did in the demo as >they "warped" to the dock. . . while the movie in the window continued to >play?<P>Wow, you know I can do ALL of these things with WindowBlinds and Windows95/98 and Windows NT. And I can turn on the feature without a 3rd party in Windows2000 by a very simple reg. tweak, or I can just get TweakUI (not the MS one) and do it without editing anything.<P>> What other OS has had such a powerful PDF-based graphics layer <BR>>which does the type of alpha-blending, transformations and effects that >were demonstrated -- and those were inbuilt capabilities of the OS, not a >special program! What other OS other than NeXT/OpenStep has had a Miller >Column Browser? What other OS has had 128x128 32bit icons with dynamic >realtime resizing?<P>NeXT gave these ALL to Apple, Apple did not invent them, they took them via a buy out. And LiteStep and AfterStep both avaialable for Windows 95/85/NT can do all of the same.<BR>None.<P>>That bomb app was stated to be a (purposely) badly written application >that tried to mess with memory and do "all sorts of heinous things" <BR>>(Jobs). It was run as a demonstration of the protected memory of OS X. >That sort of app would crash a Mac OS computer.<P>You mean like the MacOS X version of Quake III did? Boom, brought the whole OS down... <P>>You do know what this means, oh ye trollish ones? It's got the buzzwords ->- you can't slam it for that anymore! Seeya!<P>It also means you little MacTrolls have to give up on saying PMT, SMP and Protected memory mean nothing...<P>>6 years ago? Odd, I don't remember any USB peripherials around in '94. >Perhaps you mean '96? With full OS support coming in 98? With large ?>numbers of peripherials only coming in 98 -- at which point both Macs and >PCs had USB?<P>Your point? USB WAS in PC's since the release of the HX chipset for regular old Pentiums. Can you name one other place other than the Mac that ADB ports have gone?<P>>I mean, good grief man! If Microsoft implemented what Apple has, you'd be >drowning in your own drool. As would I. As am I. Are you so lacking in >life fulfillment that you must scrape a tiny iota of enjoyment from ?>mindless flaming of Apple?<P>Um, hate to say it to you, but we have had ALL of these features except some of the advanced PDF stuff and SOME of the graphic special effects since August of 1995...<P>>This is a Good Thing(tm), whether or not you own a Mac or not, whether >you plan to buy one or not. It raises the achievment bar for GUIs and >graphics techologies, and encourages other OS companies and groups to try >and meet -- or surpass -- what Apple has done.<P>That remains to be seen if it even succeeds. How good can an OS be if it is only used on 3-4% of the computer market? Sorry, but Windows NT , RIGHT NOW can do FAR more than MacOS X Client, and Windows 2000 which IS completed, which is being released to the GP in Feburary, is already there, and offering much more for the average user than MacOS X Client.<P>>And in answer to your question: Yes. "Crapple" invents plenty. What have >you done with your life?<P>Since when?<P>FireWire was patented in 1993.<P>USB? Intel<BR>IDE devices? Intel<BR>PCI? Intel<BR>AGP? Intel<P>In other words, a good 60% of all the stuff in your blessed new Mac's did not even come from Apple. All Apple did was take a bunch of stuff and make a rather tacky case (in the iMac's case) for it. Nothing special there other than MARKETING.<P>
Jonah, I have several 486 systems with USB in them, they are from late 1994. The whole concept of USB has been in the works since 1990. As for who does MPEG? To my understanding Xing invented it and made it an open IEEE standard. I still stand firmly behind the idea the Quicktime sucks ass hardcore. It's the shittiest of all the video formats that I have access to. It's big, it's low quality, and it's horridly proprietary.
Here's an old article about MPEG-4 and Apple for those who are interested: http://www.internetwk.com/news/news0211-15.htm <P>Here's some in-depth info on it (as well as other forms of MPEG: http://drogo.cselt.stet.it/mpeg/ <BR>
Merlin said:<P>"USB? Intel<BR>IDE devices? Intel<BR>PCI? Intel<BR>AGP? Intel"<P>Actually, IIRC IDE was invented by Western Digital, who quickly realized that they need the rest of the HD industry to make it a standard. Also, IIRC, Intel was brought in to make sure that the host chipsets would support it.<P>Apple's reaction to IDE was to dis it in favor of SCSI and then to quietly introduce it on Macs a few years later.
Anyone that goes to that link and reads it carefully will notice that they are adopting the Quicktime system, NOT the .mov, or .qt format. Thank God for that. From what I understand in this, it means they are going to make it function with all the compatibilities of Quicktime and use the same codec. The Quicktime codec renders MPEG-2 just fine, but it's own format sucks complete ass, and that's my whole point. Anyone with marginal programming skills can write an MPEG decoder, but it takes real talent to make a whole new format. Which, as my whole point states, Apple failed to do. Nonetheless, despite all it's compatibilities, I will not install Quicktime on my system because it installs plug ins to my browser and it does not ask me before doing so, and it doesn't give me the option not to have it do so. Quicktime also crashes A LOT.<BR> I am not sure at which point some people here decided to turn this into a personal insult contest, but I have no interest in going that route, so I will not respond to any of it beyond what I am saying right now. If you have facts, if you have opinions, or anything else relevant to the subject at hand, then by all means post away, otherwise, go away.
Heh, an "Apple doesn't innovate" thread, how nice. Anyone who makes that claim doesn't know much about computer industry history (or thinks that "innovation" means "invented everything imaginable from first principles"). Silly argument, silly thread.
ABG<P>Please feel free to quote me. I think a novel recombination of existing technoliges in one box is sufficient reason to find promise in this new Apple hardware. I'm especially pleased with their adoption of standards pioneered at Intel.<P>Agathos<P>I think the folks at Fairchild and Nationl Semiconductor might have something to say about Intel's originality. Intel was formed from Fairchild refugees.<P>Intel should be given credit for assembling all the existing technologies in a marketable form. Along the way, like Apple, Intel had to come up with some minor stuff that perhaps didn't exist before.<P>I admire both these companies. I just think the idea of invention and innovation is overplayed. All these companies are doing all they can to provide people what they want. The OS overhaul Apple is engaged in is something I think I will want. Something I think will be valuable to me. Apple's riff on traditional UI is always interesting to watch.<P>Presumably MS is taking detailed notes and will adapt their OS to incorporate any thing they deem of value to their user base.
All you guys with those fancy phones go screw yerselves. Nothing innovative there. With my hand crank (which actually sets up the circuit; I prefer being a power user and being able to vary the speed of my crank), mouthpiece and earpiece, me and Sarah down at the switchboard have more total control over my phone than all you guys. So who's the *real* innovator, huh? Cases in point:<P>No busy signals like you guys: Sarah just pulls the plug.<BR>Party lines. Need I say more?<BR>Separate mouthpiece: I can talk to my family in private without jamming my hand by my chin.<BR>Separate earpiece: Can you hold your phone to your ear with one finger? I thought not.<BR>Bells on top: Good reliable hardware. And depending on the size and character of clapper (I can choose from literally hundreds of vendors), I can adjust the tone of the ring to anything I want.<BR>The housing: Again, good reliable hardware. And I can choose the case I want, whether it be good solid oak, or even bakelite.<BR>Don't forget Sarah. She knows my schedule, what calls I want to take (keep your caller ID!) and sometimes brings by rutabaga pie.<P>So take yer fancy schmancy phones somewhere else. I can do what you do better, with more customization, and thousands of choices. Go back to your caves you phone zealots with your "call distortion field." You don't know true power.
Evil_Merlin:<P>>Wow, you know I can do ALL of these things with WindowBlinds and Windows95/98 and Windows NT. And I can turn on the feature without a 3rd party in Windows2000 by a very simple reg. tweak, or I can just get TweakUI (not the MS one) and do it without editing anything.<P>Can you? Ok, maybe you can, but I certainly have never seen it done. Does these shells even support vector rendering/transform? After all, that *is* the main point of Quartz.<P>>You mean like the MacOS X version of Quake III did? Boom, brought the whole OS down... <P>That is an assumption. We never saw it take down the OS, what we saw was that the app refused to run (and someone commented elsewhere that this special bug is known and particular to an outdated beta). Alas, I agree it was kind of funny anyway. <P>>Can you name one other place other than the Mac that ADB ports have gone?<P>I think SGI and some other *high-end* platform used them but I can´t remember right now. If you press me on this one I could dig it up though.<P>>USB? Intel<P>Sure, but what is USB? It looks a whole lot like a rip-off of your hated ADB, with some Firewire innovations thrown in the mix. <P>And, Dangus et.al:<P>>I still stand firmly behind the idea the Quicktime sucks ass hardcore. It's the shittiest of all the video formats that I have access to. It's big, it's low quality, and it's horridly proprietary.<P>I do not mean to be offensive, but get it in your heads: Quicktime is *not* a format. In a general sense it is a "technology". In a direct sense it is both an API and a Media Layer. Talking about a "Quicktime format" is nonsensical, since Quicktime-distributed media content can contain several media sub-layers & tracks, intertwined and mixed pretty freely (which is a great asset when you develop with it). Quicktime supports all industry-strength codecs and then some. <BR>I mean, you could very well download a "x.mov" file which contained only a mp3 track. Would that imply that mp3 sucks?<BR>Why do you think almost everyone that does serious media content creation for CD-ROMs etc use QT? Because they love the way it "sucks ass hardcore"? Well, yeah, that´s an idea, we know they´re all masochists anyway, don´t we?<BR>Actually, when you dig into the API it´s so nice I can understand why old MS got real nervous about it and tried to shove it (refer to the DOJ findings).<P>This thread is kinda amusing, especially when you consider that a while ago Microsoft bought/licensed a *couple of thousands* of patents that was held by Apple (was it the taligent op or am I just raving?). <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jonah, I have several 486 systems with USB in them, they are from late 1994. The whole concept of USB has been in the works since 1990. As for who does MPEG? To my understanding Xing invented it and made it an open IEEE standard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have a hard time believing this. Why would any intelligent computer manufacturer install a port that absolutely NO ONE COULD USE? USB ports are cheap, but still... You couldn't do anything with USB until Win95 SR2.5, circa 1997. So what is this claim supposed to illustrate? Regardless of when the ports themselves actually showed up (which really wasn't till '96/'97) you still couldn't *DO* anything with it. So where did those USB ports get you in 1994? Nowhere. You had to wait another 4 years for usable support from your OS.<P>Jonah
Jonah, I am not arguing that M$ is good, in fact I despise them, they should have had USB support in 1995, but they didn't cause they are assholes. My whole point is, Apple acts like they invented them, they didn't. Apple acts like it invented the internet. AT LEAST 99% of the internet backbone is not run by Macs, or PCs for that matter, neither Intel or Apple has any claim to it, yet both think they do. My whole point here, is that Apple is not really breaking very new ground. If anything they have made their interface more like Windows, which is ironic considering most Mac fanatics hate the Windows interface, but once Jobs endorses it, it's all good. This is my whole point too about the users. Steve Jobs announces a complete fucking rip-off, his followers want to have sex with him for it. When Bill Gates announces some rip-off, PC people give him crap for it, and go to the alternatives, because they do have them. I just think it's pathetic that Apple had a GUI much longer than M$, but when M$ finally did their own, it was incredibly better than Mac OS in terms of interface, and 98 is a resource hog, but it has further increased the coolness of the interface. Now, years later, Apple finally decides to get a better GUI, and what do they do? They make it more like Windows, but in my opinion, you can add all the graphical flair you want, but it still doesn't look all that much better in terms of functionality. That's a big thing that was missing from Jobs' keynote, and has always been missing from his keynotes. He goes totally after image, and style, but rarely really goes into the functionality beyond, "We improved this, and we feel it's better than any of our competitors"<BR>He even bragged that their total communist control of the platform has made it easier for them to integrate their own aps without fear of third party issues. Funny thing is, even though Windows is pretty closed, it still allows enough third part stuff that I can make windows look virtually identical to the Mac OS-X that Jobs showed off. But then again, I don't really want to. Why waste more resources prettying up the GUI? PDF? Quartz? All this crap just adds extra stuff for the processor to have to deal with, and when you run a game, or an ap, it will just take up more of the resources that those could be using. Frankly if I could get rid of the GUI in Windows, I would do that before launching a game. Look at Linux. I can run it on a 486 DX with 4 megs of ram, and it runs great, but if I launch X, it runs like shit, and that's why NT is not very scalable, you have to have the higher end crap to run it, as where Linux runs good on slow hardware, and spectacular on fast hardware. It does this because of low memory overhead, plain and simple. Mac OS-X does not have this, nor does Windows. So the great irony is that they are not innovating, and they are bogging down their hardware with unnecessary features. Great stuff Steve Jobs, I think I'll stick with my PCs that I built myself.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I just think it's pathetic that Apple had a GUI much longer than M$, but when M$ finally did their own, it was incredibly better than Mac OS in terms of interface, and 98 is a resource hog, but it has further increased the coolness of the interface. Now, years later, Apple finally decides to get a better GUI, and what do they do? They make it more like Windows,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Pardon me? I'm sorry, but where the hell do you come up with this stuff? You think that the Win9x interface is "incredibly better" than the MacOS one? Huh? Yes, you can do almost everything on either platform, but what would make you think that the Win9x interface is so good? You really like it that much? I tolerate Win9x, but nothing in the world would make me say I like it. Also, you are ignoring the fact that almost all of the Windows interface was shamelessly ripped from either Apple or NeXT. How can something be better if it is a cheap copy Look at those OpenStep screenies that someone posted, then look at Apple's System 7.x, then tell me that Win95 doesn't look like a chincy derivative of the two.<P>And that last part... Whoa there. How is Apple making their GUI more like Windows? The Windows GUI hasn't changed significantly in 5 years. Why would Apple want to emulate this? Take a long look at the OS X screenshot that someone posted here, then at Win98, and tell me where Apple has become more like Windows. And don't tell me the Dock/taskbar, because that was NeXT's long before it was MS's.<P>Jonah
I think understand the gist of this thread.<P>1. Apple didn't invent anything - whomever the person who came up with the concept or technology did. Since "Apple" is not a "person" Therefore their actions can be parsed down to an individual whether or not that person was working for "Apple" at the time or not.<P>2. Apples "proprietary" designs such as ADB do not count as inventions because intel did not use them. The reverse - such as intels "proprietary" AGP (PDS?) is not held to the same level.<P>3. When Apple does adopt a "standard" such as AGP - this is seen as a failure of Apple to jam it's own "proprietary" standards down the industrys throat. Stratigic decisions based on industry trends apparently do not count in the minds of these people.<P>4. Even though every single component outside of the Motherboard is industry standard Apple is still a "proprietary" company that holds a "4%" marketshare "Monopoly" over their products. Once again other companies that produce similar products (Sun, HP, IBM) are not held to this same standard.<P>5. Blanket statements regarding the future of the computing market can be easily extrapolated from a 320 x 120 view of a product demo across a 33.6 modem. <P>Did I miss anything?
You forgot:<P>6. Pretty GUIs are an unnecessary frill and steal computing resources that could be put to better use when running games.
Ignoranz,<P>>Can you? Ok, maybe you can, but I certainly have never seen it done. Does >these shells even support vector rendering/transform? After all, that >*is* the main point of Quartz.<P>It is easy http://www.litestep.com (I think), and http://www.windowblinds.net <P>As for vector rendering/transform, um can anyone tell me WHY? or who is going to use this?<P>>That is an assumption. We never saw it take down the OS, what we saw was >that the app refused to run (and someone commented elsewhere that this >special bug is known and particular to an outdated beta). Alas, I agree >it was kind of funny anyway.<P>Hmm... lemme see, he tries to start Quake III, the system freezes and he goes and does something else... If it was just Quake III kill the task and retry. <P>>I think SGI and some other *high-end* platform used them but I can´t >remember right now. If you press me on this one I could dig it up though.<P>By all means dig it up.<P>>Sure, but what is USB? It looks a whole lot like a rip-off of your hated >ADB, with some Firewire innovations thrown in the mix. <P>Dave Every? Is that you? Please... USB is FAR better than ADB, and was out before FireWire.<BR>
What particularily freaks me out with this thread and others like it (concerning Os X) is that (PC) people doesn´t seem to get the distinction between Aqua (the actual interface) and Quartz (the 2D rendering engine). Admittedly, Aqua is a lot of eye-candy, but then, who cares? It is *not* Aqua that is important, it is Quartz. Does ANY other OS have a core engine that does realtime vector rendering at OS-level? If there is, congratulations, because this *is* a big deal, at least to developers. When the 3d-party folks came on stage and praised OS X I believe that emotion to stem from the fact that these people realized what Quartz was capable of, not so much the snazzy fx demonstrated.
Evil_Merlin:<P>>As for vector rendering/transform, um can anyone tell me WHY? or who is going to use this?<P>Well, duh, we´ve got two 2d metaformats: bitmap and vector. To create an environment that embraces both is by definition a leap forward. There is just so much graphics stuff that is more suited to render in vectors. Instead of doing a lot of conversion and translating here and there and everywhere, you, well, just have it right there in the OS. I guess Adobe et.al are drooling right now.<P>>Hmm... lemme see, he tries to start Quake III, the system freezes and he goes and does something else... If it was just Quake III kill the task and retry. <P>I agree. It is quite possible, even likely, that it got the OS. My point was just that we don´t know what happened, we don´t know what went on in that individuals brain etc. And I said I thought it was kind of funny.<P>>By all means dig it up. [regarding ADB]<P>I will, but I hope it´s ok if it takes a while cuz I´m not at my own computer and need some bookmarks to trace it. Until then, disregard the whole matter.<P>>Dave Every? Is that you? Please... USB is FAR better than ADB, and was out before FireWire.<P>By firewire I meant USB 2 so ok, sorry. I don´t know what DKE has got to do with anything but I hardly believe that even he would propose that ADB is better than USB. Of course it´s not. Who ever said that? Certainly not Apple, so where is your point? It is not a question of what is best but of who inspired who, ok? This *was* about innovation after all.<P>I still sincerely doubt that LiteStep or WB could do a lot of what OS X seems to be capable of (mainly because of the vector thing again) but ok. I´ve seen them both and they are nice. I didn´t even know that Litestep supports alpha channels. But hey, that´s just me Ignoramus Maximus.<BR>
- Status