What have you heard?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.

Showing messages 1 through 52 of 52.

• Performance?
  2003-06-24 11:14:48  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  OK. We all know that benchmarking is a black art,
  YMMV, etc. However, I have to ask how seriously to
  take the critique of Apple's performance claims one
  can read at
  
  http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapbox/apple-powermac-G5/
  
  I'm not interested in bashing (WIntel nor Mac), but
  in whether the apparently substantive issues raised
  by the above article are valid. E.g. whether the
  use of a tweaked malloc, non-use of hyperthreading,
  etc. could be legitimately called benchmark biasing.
  
• Performance?
  2003-06-24 12:32:19  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Let me ask you this: Should we take the Dell benchmarks any more seriously (ie: the ones not measured by Apple/Veritest?) Why isn't the author of that article questioning the Dell benchmarks?
  
  The man telleth a one sided story, methinks...
• RE: Performance?
  2003-06-24 12:45:05  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Actually, a bunch of us spent quite a bit of time talking about the benchmarks last night. We all know they're a "grain of salt" kind of thing. But in the end, we were pretty satisfied with the presentation.
  
  It was definitely much better than in the past when all we saw was a Photoshop comparison.
• Performance?
  2003-06-24 12:52:42  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  As far as I know, official SPEC tests have some extensive rules to avoid benchmark cheating. So I guess, that as long as SPEC.org doesn't sue Apple, you could safely say that the benchmarks were done correctly.
• Performance?
  2003-06-24 16:15:56  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  i'm not a programmer of developer and don't know much about SPEC and the difference b/n compilers. but, i've looked through the veritech pdf of Apple's tests and apple wins some tests and loses others. the fact that apple published its wins is not offensive at all. that's called marketing...so in a sense, their claim to be the fastest is partially right. informed people can make their own decisions...
• Performance?
  2003-06-24 22:56:10  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://www.dell.com/us/en/esg/topics/power_ps3q02-khalid.htm
  
  Hint: read the section titled "Testing performance with SPEC CPU2000", it's very very enlightening.
• Performance?
  2003-06-25 07:02:54  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The guy has an axe to grind. He's ported his apps to OSX but got irritated by "unkind" reviews of his apps by "Mac zealots". Not liking zealotry of any kind I felt some sympathy for him. That is until I tried to use Haxial Text Edit. Now I understand the complaints. An App ported to the platform with the minimum of effort, buggy and no attempt at modification to make it behave like other OSX applications. His attempt to portray himself as a "Mac User" is disingenuous. I've no doubt he does test his apps on OSX, but my impression is of someone who thought they could make a quick buck from Mac users rather than somone who is enthusiastic about or committed to the platform.
  
  He makes some valid criticisms of the way Apple has used SPEC, but is extremely one sided. For example, if SPEC gave any advantage to AltiVec performance I could understand his points on SSE2. It doesn't, and he has since admitted he was wrong on Apple disabling SSE2 anyway. Don't take this seriously. Wait until the G5 comes out and look for serious less partisan reviews of performance on applications that you want to use.
• Performance?
  2003-06-25 10:24:59  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I totally agree. While I think the benchmarking was a marketing fiasco on Apple's part. Jobs skewing the numbers again. (when will he realize people will ALWAYS find the truth faster than he can cover up his tricks?)
  
  I ALSO think that those benchmarks, regardless of how skewed they are, are pretty close to useless. The real test is "how fast can you perform the necessary tasks to get your work done".
  
  Wait for some 3rd party benchmarks on specific applications or... just go with what you know. :x
  
  I, for one, think it's funny that anybody would care about the difference, like they were going to switch platforms to get their work done. Heh. If you're experienced with OS9/X or Windows, what are the chances you're gonna switch platforms for a little more speed? Your job will inevitably take longer til you become as comfortable with the new platform as you were with the old.
  
  The only way that's gonna happen is with a personal preference change really. Where you just give up one OS for the other.
  
  Neura
• Performance?
  2003-06-25 08:29:38  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Does anybody understand why the new G5 is only a few percent faster than the 32 bit Dell system?
  The Mac is a 64 bit machine, with a really fast bus and ran applications that were optimized and compiled for the 64 bit processor on a 64 bit operating system.
  Why the hell did it not completely knock down the Dell?
  What happens with the G5 if the first 64 bit Xeon appears? Looks like it will fall behind the intel processors again soon, doesn't it?
• Performance?
  2003-07-02 16:04:11  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  64 bits is more about address space than speed. It lets you use more RAM; it doesn't necessarily make processing any faster, and might even make it slower in some circumstances. There are a number of articles on Ars Technica (http://www.arstechnica.com/) that discuss this issue in more detail, if you're interested.
  Also, remember the Dell had processors with a clock speed 50% higher than the G5.
  The most important point about the benchmarks, whether they're completly accurate or not, is that they show this new generation of Macs has an architecture and processor that can hold its own with the best the Wintel world can put up. That's huge. All that, and they don't cost an arm and a leg, either.
• Performance?
  2003-07-07 06:28:08  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  OK, I understand that.
  
  But 64 bit means also twice the data path and thus the possibility to process twice the data in parallel, doesn't it?
  So I would expect roughly twice the performance of a 32 bit system and not only a few percent more speed.
  
  But we also learned in the meantime that the G5 ran on OS 10.2.7. So there was no 64 bit OS running.
  There is also the bottleneck of slow memory that could not catch up with the speed of the bus.
  Michael

• The Masses
  2003-06-24 11:28:39  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  In your article you wrote
  
  "To be honest, the masses don't have the capability to appreciate the elegance and depth of this platform."
  
  I'm at a loss to fully express how shocked I am that such elitist crap could get posted on the site.
  
  Not only is it utterly offensive but its short-sighted as well.
  
  I hate to inform you of this but the "masses" that you're looking down your nose at are the primary market for computers and electronics and if, as a developer, you want to marginalise yourself then feel free but I'd rather have a more mass-market and larger audience.
  
  And what the heck happened to "the computer for the rest of us"? Or is "the rest of us" now an elite group?
  
• The Masses
  2003-06-24 12:47:38  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh my gosh! You need to cut back on your coffee consumption.
• The Masses
  2003-06-24 14:21:52  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  To say that Derrick was referring only to Win 95/98 users is apologist in the extreme. He was clearly speaking of end users in general. Nevertheless, I sense no elitism in his remarks as he was clearly under the influence of the Steve's R.D.F. Which is not to say that the statement "the Mac isn't a machine for the masses" is one that Apple corporate would endorse.
• The Masses
  2003-06-24 15:12:18  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's funny how something can be interpreted in so many different ways. Quite entertaining.
• The Masses
  2003-06-24 16:10:32  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  hmmm...i thought he meant the Mac masses. i think he's right about that, too...it's a given that the Wintel masses have no clue, but even the Mac masses don't have a clue as to how amazing the infrastructure of OSX is...and that's not a slight on Mac users. it's just that the masses are not programmers and developers. there's no need to take offense.
• The Masses
  2003-06-25 10:34:07  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  There are at least as many Windows users (if not a lot more) than can understand the inner workings of OSX. It's a fine, fine operating platform. That's not to say that I think it's practical.... yet.
  
  To back this up... I'm not even sure what the Windows market share is these days, but we'll just say it's still well over 50%, and Apple has 5%, so at least 10 times the users. Out of those users, how many hardcore developers are there? Compared to Apple developers? I'd venture to say there's a lot more Windows people out there that can really understand the inner workings of OSX and how great it's merits are. That still doesn't change marketshare, income per app developed, etc. MOST developers (commercial, not hobby/shareware) are interested in making money by developing software, it's their profession. When you want to make money, you target the largest audience.
  
  I'm not so sure that the masses can't understand the inner workings enough to see the beauty of OSX. I think it's more like "the masses don't care about the inner beauty of operating system design". They probably care more about buying a practical solution to their needs.
• The Masses
  2003-06-25 15:30:48  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  "masses" usually means a large percentage or a significant majority. of course there are more developers on the wintel side just as a function of their huge market share...but the masses of pc users are not developers. market share is high b/c of all the personal users who love the cheap systems and all those businesses. but for all those users in business, only a small percentage are developers and techs that know what's going on. i'm willing to bet that the average mac user knows more about the underpinnings of the os than does the average pc user...
• The Masses
  2003-06-24 21:17:20  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  The elegance and depth of the platform does detract from the platform's ease of use. If it were not for cost and Windows only applications, the Macintosh would be the platform best platform for the masses.
  
  It's sad to see such elistest crap on ora.con.
  
• RE: Masses crap
  2003-06-24 23:08:13  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I've pretty much stayed out of this fray because my point here has been missed all together. No problem. But I stand by my view that in the overall computing world, most people don't understand the power and elegance of the Mac platform, and most never will.
  
  BTW: definition of "masses" -- "Ordinary people in society, as distinct from political leaders, aristocracy, or educated people" (In this case educated about computer operating systems.)
  
  As for your kind comment:
  "It's sad to see such elistest crap on ora.con."
  
  My response is:
  It's "elitist," not "elistest"
  It's macdevcenter, not ora
  It's .com, not .con
  
  -Derrick
  
  
  
  
• RE: Masses crap
  2003-06-25 15:35:56  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  right on, derrick. i'm probably more knowledgeable than the average mac user...but every time i come to this site and learn a little more about the os, i become even more appreciative about the power of the mac os. i will probably never appreciate it the way you do...but i'm getting there.
• RE: Masses crap
  2003-06-25 16:15:16  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Your last paragraph made me laught out loud. :)
  
  When I see a Harley-Davidson, I think "Eh.. a motorocycle. . " and don't give it another thought. It might as well be a Yamaha, or a Kawasaki, or... whatever.
  
  A Harley-Davidson owner might be a little miffed that I fail to "get" his or her passion for this incredible machine. That doesn't make the Harley-Davidson owner elitist. (Much less elistest.) We simply find our passions in different places. Different strokes for different folks.
  
  A fine and inspiring article, Derrick.
  
  
• but why is the Mac not for the masses?
  2003-06-25 23:23:35  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's one thing to claim that the masses do not understand the power and elegance of the platform. It's yet another thing to say that the platform is not for the masses because the masses do not understand the power and elegance of the platform.
  
  Please address your statement that the Mac platform is not for the masses. Is it because the masses do not understand the power and elegance of the platform?
  
  
  
• RE: Masses crap
  2007-05-01 21:27:39  09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Thank you for demonstrating your superior ability to spell.
  

• About the masses
  2003-06-24 12:01:13  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Regarding the first comment about the author's apparent elitism.
  
  I think you might have taken his comment the wrong way.
  
  I read as tho the author meant that the average computer user can't necessarily appreciate the elegance of a nice GUI interacting well with a UNIX-based operating system that provides rock-solid stability, speed, and efficiency.
  
  The average WindowsXP user can't appreciate the complext inner workings of it as well (all Windows jokes aside.. Win2K & XP >are< stable and it does get the job done...
  
  Basically, I think he just meant that the average user doesn't understand enough about computers to really appreciate what's going on underneath everything. The same way I can't really appreciate what a remarkable device an automobile is because I'm not a mechanic.
  
  In short, ... chill. :)
  
  
• About the masses
  2003-06-24 12:35:28  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Actually, Derrick Story isn't talking about the WinXP users, either.
  
  He's talking about the Win 95/98 users, which are 50% of the Wintel user base. That is one heck of a lot of people who wouldn't appreciate OS X's strengths.
  
• About the masses
  2003-06-24 13:38:06  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  It was clear to me that he was talking about the Win 95/98 users.
  
  Also, it seems this week belongs to Apple. Being in the middle of it all as he is and seing it firsthand, it would be difficult not to sing its praises. No need to be ultra sensitive.
• About the masses
  2003-06-25 10:17:22  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  "Also, it seems this week belongs to Apple."
  
  That's funny. I think I'd rephrase it more like... It seems this week belongs to Apple's skewed benchmarking fiasco. :P
  
  It's also great (not a reply to this comment) that this article tries to take the "Apple can't get enough market share / switch ads aren't working" and turn it into "Apple likes having a 5% market share, it shows they're making computers that the masses aren't ready for". That's a great attitude. :) Just like the benchmarks.... if you can't beat em, change the goal. :D
• About the masses
  2003-06-25 19:33:34  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I do not think that it is accurate to call Apple's benchmarking "skewed", and in no legitimate way could it be called a "fiasco".
  
  I remind you that these benchmarks were conducted by a third party testing facility, not be Apple itself. Did Apple "rig the deck" by using the GCC compiler? I don't know. Perhaps a little. But if you bothered to watch Job's presentation you would have seen that these benchmarks only made up part of the comparison. They also showed the dual G5 running against a dual Xeon in numerous real-world apps.
  
  And no, not just Photoshop. The also did music software, a 3D app, Mathmatica, and a couple of others. In every single instance the dual G5 bested the dual Dell Xeon by anywhere from 2.1 to 2.3 times. This is not a small difference.
  
  Also note that Jobs was very open about the fact that SINGLE chip G5's were NOT necessarily faster than top of the line P4's or Xeon's, although the G5 had better Floating Point numbers even there.
  
  Will these tests hold up once numerous third-party organizations get their hands on it in August? We'll see. I think it's worth noting that company officers of all the software above were present at the WWDC and all stated that they were blown away by the G5. A couple of them in fact said that they had never seen anything like it, and the CEO of Mathmatica said that the only real compeition for the G5 was now high-end Unix boxes which cost twice as much or more.
  
  In no way, shape or form can this objectively be called a "fiasco".
  
  As for market share, this is a horse that has been beaten to death and then some. Listen, no computer maker has more than about 18% market share (give or take), and only Dell and HP are even in double digits. The problem is that no one ever compares Apple to Dell or HP; they compare Apple to the entire Wintel world.
  
  Apple is the fifth (or sixth) largest computer maker in the world. The have over 4 billion dollars in the bank, no real debt, and stock that has risen over 30% in the last three months.
  
  I guarantee you that most PC makers that would give their left one for numbers like that. Do you think that Dell or HP give a hoot about how much share PC's have compared to Apple? Dell cares about one thing: how many computers Dell sales. Likewise, Apple only cares (and only has to care) about how many computers Apple sales.
  
  Apple does not need to dominate the market. Apple does not need to have even 20% of the market. With it's present business model and 5%-10% of the market Apple will remain a very stable, very profitable company long after many "dominant" PC makers take a dirt nap.
  
  As for whether or not the "masses get Apple"; yes statements like this do come off a bit snobish. But they are true nevertheless. Listen, for most people a computer is simply another appliance. The number of people who really care about the nature of that appliance is probably roughly equal to the number of people who really care about high-end audio equipment. Most people just want to listen to the radio.
  
  There's nothing wrong with this. For most people a low-end $500 PC is probably all that they really need, and there's nothing wrong with PC manufacturers meeting that need.
  
  Apple has no interest in this cheap-PC market, and there's also nothing wrong with that. Apple wants to make computers a certain way, with a certain operating system, and a certain type of approach/attitude.
  
  Despite the near constant proclamations of Apple's demise, millions of customers continue to purchase Apple hardware and software all of the time. Apple has the highest (by far) customer loyalty in the market, is arguably the most innovative computer company in the market today, and is making tons of money.
  
  Don't kid yourself...Apple is doing just fine.

• price
  2003-06-24 14:55:53  revdiablo [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh, and next time someone says, "Well, I think Mac OS X is a cool operating system, but I don't really want to pay a premium price for the hardware to run it," pull this out of your back pocket.
  
  You can buy a 2 GHz dual processor G5 that can hold up to 8 GB of memory with a Radeon 9600 Pro graphics card, 4X SuperDrive, high performance I/O, serial ATA hard drives, 133 MHz PCI slots, and full SMP
  
  

  Sorry to break it to you, but despite being cheaper than the (arguably) equivalent x86 box... this hardware still runs for what I would call a premium price. I mean, one may say it's "premium" hardware... but it's still pretty pricey. My beef with Apple hardware is not necessarily with their price-performance ratio, but more with the absolute price. Perhaps OS X really does require extremely beefy hardware, but I cannot find any seemingly affordable machines at Apple.com. And before anyone replies: no, an 800mhz eMac for $800 is not affordable; remember I'm talking absolute dollars here. I wouldn't ever spend more than $500 for a complete system, no matter how powerful.

• price
  2003-06-24 16:39:17  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  So your talking about a low-end consumer machine, I think your in the wrong area. The area for cheap throwaway computers is to your left and down a couple of blocks next to the Pinto over there. Do you see it?
  
  I guess you can buy a $500 dollar PC every year but why not just get a G5 for $46 a month using Apple loan. It is an operating expense and immediately deductable. Mac's average a 5-7 year life and Apple has historically designed their OS's to work with older hardware. I mean the G3 running at 300Mhz can run OS X very well with enough RAM.
  
  If you want to save money, do it smartly.
• price
  2003-06-24 17:55:09  revdiablo [Reply | View]
  
  

  Thank you for your demeaning attitude, but it's entirely unfounded. I buy cheap PC hardware and use it satisfactorily for years. I fail to see why Mac hardware has to be any different -- it is essentially the same stuff (i.e. silicon, aluminum, copper, etc). Maybe I haven't looked hard enough into avenues of obtaining used Mac hardware, but everything they sell on Apple.com is just too much.

  
  
  

  PS: People like you insulting my intelligence and level of computer use is the type of thing that makes me want to investigate Mac hardware even less. I may not require the shiniest new machines out there, but I'd hardly call myself a low-end consumer. Oh well... this is getting pointless.

• price
  2003-06-24 18:24:21  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  People like you insulting my intelligence and level of computer use is the type of thing that makes me want to investigate Mac hardware even less. I may not require the shiniest new machines out there, but I'd hardly call myself a low-end consumer. Oh well... this is getting pointless.
  
  Yes, I agree this is pointless. But here I go.
  
  I have to use your statements. Sorry. It's not meant to be insulting. However, you stated you are not willing to spend more than 500 for a complete system.
  
  Bottom line: you are not a customer Apple wants, if you are not willing to look at bang/buck. Likewise, it would be hard to get a real estate agent to return your calls if you won't go above a 300/mo. mortgage payment.
  
  What does your 500 bring to Apple? Nothing recent. E-Bay may be a good place to start, though.
  
  I want Apple to continue to allow me to get my work done fast (in terms of workflow), and enjoy it when I do work. I am willing to pay a little more (well, apparently over 1000 more than you) to make my work/play more pleasant. I will budget for it, just as I budget for other major purchases, that represent major outlets of my time.
  
  No one was insulting your intelligence. You came to this site with, let's be honest, a ridiculous statement. 500 is bottom of the barrel with any vendor, much less Apple.
  
  OK. My fingers are tired.
• price
  2003-06-25 11:06:19  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree completely. One of the more salient comparisons I've read was that in the industry Apple/OS X is a Porsche while Intel/Windows is any GM make of automobile. Yes, both cars will get you from point A to B but just about everyone knows why a Porsche is better than the Pinto (from the above comment). Same comparison here: $500 oem pieced together everything-on-the-motherboard computer or a well engineered $3000 Apple.
• price
  2003-06-25 18:21:20  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I also agree. $500 is bottom of the barrel, and this is with ANY vendor, PC or otherwise. I recently read an interview with the CEO of Gateway, and he was very bitter about the direction the PC market has taken in the last several years.
  
  He stated that at one time his company (and others) would typically sell a $2000 computer and make $300-$400. Now, they mostly sell $500 computers and struggle to make $40 off each computer.
  
  With hundreds of millions of dollars in ongoing operating costs, Gateway is taking a beating trying to keep things afloat with $40 here and there. It just doesn't work. In fact it has gotten so bad that Gateway is now going to be "expanding" into other household devices. For example their flat-screen TV did so well they are going to come out with several other models, and they're looking into video cameras, MP3 players, etc. (Sound familiar?)
  
  It's difficult to feel sorry for Gateway, since they are one of the companies most responsible for this rush to produce ever cheaper PC's. But that's not the point. The point is that even companies who helped create this business model are leaving it because it is simply not sustainable.
  
  People who complain about Apple charging too much for their computers or demanding too high of a margin are missing the point - Apple is only doing what every other PC maker on the planet wishes they COULD do. The only thing is that NONE of the other PC manufacturers has enough consumer loyalty to pull it off.
  
  Polls have shown time and time again that for the vast majority of PC users, there is very little brand loyalty. And this applies much more to the sub-$1000 market.
  
  Don't kid yourself. The CEO and founder of Gateway has made it clear that he would go for Apple type margins in a New York minute if his company could get away with it, but he knows that he can't. Do you think it's any different at Dell or Acer. No way.
  
  You are not going to see a $400 Mac anytime soon, if ever, because Apple has no interest in trying to cover billion dollar operating budgets with $30 per machine profits. Does this make Apple fundamentally different than other PC makers? Only in the sense that Apple has enough consumer loyalty that they CAN DO THIS.
  
  I have been using Macs since the early 90's. I spend all day on the thing, and I bill out tens of thousands of dollars a year on it. Would I trade the Apple quality and reliability in order to save a few hundreds bucks one time?
  
  Hell no.
• price
  2003-06-24 20:34:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I can understand this person wanting to get into Mac OS X for $500 ... there is nothing wrong with that. To many people that's a month's rent and more users of Mac OS X is good news for everyone. I suggest you try and get your hands on ANY model G4 with 400Mhz or greater on EBay and pick up a used 15 or 17" VGA monitor for $50 to $70. My kids have an old 233Mhz original iMac with 192MB RAM and it runs OS 9 great and can run OS X although a little sluggish.
• Same Stuff???
  2003-06-26 14:19:32  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  revdiablo wrote: " I fail to see why Mac hardware has to be any different -- it is essentially the same stuff (i.e. silicon, aluminum, copper, etc)."
  
  Just like Mac OS X must be equivalent to Windoze because it's all just lines of code? Just like you must be just like me because we're both made of molecules? That's a ridulous statement. I feel for you, we all wish we could have a G5 for $500 but it's simply not realistic (at least, at this time). If that really is your absolute limit, buy used or go down to Costco and get your $500 eMachines. Within a month you will be hating life and going blind from staring at the crappy monitor you added for $50. I have a number of friends who went this route and most now regret it (IOW, no computer is better than a bottom-of-the-barrel cheapo one).
• price
  2003-06-26 16:36:48  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  pointless indeed. I fail to see why Cray, Sun, SGI and now Macintosh hardware has to be any different -- it is essentially the same stuff.
  
  I fail to see why i should drive anything other than what you are driving. After all, a car is a car? Right? Why does anyone want a ferrari? why don't we all drive what i drive? my intelligence dicates this to be so.
  
  I fail to see why people should have a choice in computing platforms. After all, what is good for the market share should be good for everybody.
  
  I fail to see why you don't use a commodore 64 instead of a pee cee, after all it is the same stuff as a....
  
  I do see that you have failed to get *it*
  
  hugs and kisses you intelligent person you....

• "And Steve says that the updated Preview application will be the fastest PDF viewer in the world."
  2003-06-24 18:55:47  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  When, oh when will we see a PDF plugin (or native support) for a browser that isn't by Adobe. This seems like a no brainer.
  
  Adobe's PDF plugin is horible. I don't want to have to look at (online) PDFs in preview, I want to look at them in Safari (and Mozilla sometimes too).
  
  Just an idea.
• RE: PDF Plug-ins
  2003-06-24 19:57:43  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the Acrobat plug-in either. So much so, that I usually download my PDFs then read them in Preview or Acrobat reader.
  
  Speaking of those two apps, on thing that I miss in Preview 2.0 that I hope to see added in the new version (I haven't loaded Panther yet cause I'm still on the road) is the ability to highlight and copy specific text passages in the PDF file. So I still have to use Acrobat Reader more often than I'd prefer.
• RE: PDF Plug-ins
  2003-06-24 22:39:38  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hey Derrick,
  
  Text copying is now supported. :-) See you around the halls.
  
  Robert.
  
• RE: PDF Plug-ins
  2003-06-24 22:50:15  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Yaay! Yaay! :)
• "And Steve says that the updated Preview application will be the fastest PDF viewer in the world."
  2003-06-24 21:20:41  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I thought everyone knew of this one.
  There is a freeware PDF plugin for browsers made by http://www.schubert-it.com/download/
  Its really quite good.
• "And Steve says that the updated Preview application will be the fastest PDF viewer in the world."
  2003-06-25 15:42:26  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  yeah...it's called "pdfplugin" and it works really well...i've been using it for the last two or three versions and it's only getting better. check it out on versiontracker.

• The QuickTime Track at WWDC
  2003-06-24 20:07:42  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Thanks to the QuickTime track firing up today, it became even harder to decide which sessions to attend. I managed to sit in on two QT talks, and they were both terrific.
  
  Personally, I prefer having QT part of WWDC instead as a separate event (QT Live). And having all that additional information on the DVD set is going to be really nice.
  
  Overall, the sessions were really good today.

• Great piece, a calming voice in the storm..
  2003-06-24 22:36:19  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hey Derrick,
  
  Excellent article. I like the whole notion that Macs are not mass market machines. Funny, just yesterday, a coworker remarked after buying his iPod that Macs still "don't have support." After grinding him down, his beef? No games for the Mac.
  
  Big Whoop. Get a $2500 gaming machine that still can't outdo a $250 console. Help yourself. I'll be making DVDs and changing the world.
  
  Take care,
  Jeff Harris
  surferboi@mac.com

• The masses
  2003-06-25 05:41:12  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Derrick is right. If the masses did appreciate just how elegant OS X is, it would be Apple with the 90% market share. But then again, this has been true of almost all iterations of the Mac OS.

• iHeaven
  2003-06-25 08:32:38  JürgenSchweizer [Reply | View]
  
  
  Maybe everybody is noticing it (especially the folks at WWDC). But did anybody make note of it? For many of us knowing that only 5 percent of computer users appreciate the platform we love was painful. Now, Monday we saw how the last piece of the puzzle we were desperately waiting for - the G5 - has materialized. And Mac OS X not only has the potential but delivers in every respect.
  
  I think what Derrick wanted to tell us is that if there ever was a time for us Mac enthusiasts to forget about market share, sit back and enjoy, it is now! No more waiting for the top performing machine to arrive, no more waiting for the maturing and adoption of Mac OS X to actually happen. The time has come. Welcome to iHeaven!
• Re: iHeaven
  2003-06-25 08:41:41  Derrick Story | [Reply | View]
  
  
  Amen!
  
  You've got to give Apple credit for getting it done. I receive flack no matter what I say. If I'm enthusiastic, then "I'm biased." If I criticize, then I'm "being mean to Apple." That's fine. It comes with my line of work.
  
  But the point is, and what's really important, Apple is doing a good job. And if I could report on what's going on in the sessions (NDA), then I could say even more.
• Re: iHeaven
  2003-06-25 15:24:24  JürgenSchweizer [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well, you need not say more! We are pretty exactly in the middle of 2003. A fact cryptically brought to our attention by Jobs in his keynote... To me 2003 seems to be a pivotal year for Apple. Maybe not internally, but considering the significance of what is actually materializing. Thinking of Apple in 2004 it almost feels like a different company.
  
  But again, lets give the anticipation we are so used to a break! Time to celebrate! And then: the PowerMac G5 is such a perfect beauty. Why not letting the inspiration the sole contemplation of this machine provides flow into our own development work...

• SPEC benchmarks - useful ?
  2003-06-25 20:29:31  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  There are three consumer groups of benchmarks - mac users, wintel users, and developers.
  
  Mac users will wait for the new machines to come out, and compare them to what they have, or less expensive G4 models in app performance. SPEC is irrelevant to these people.
  
  Wintel users considering a switch will do so because of integration, user experience, or apps. It will have to be 'fast enough' for whatever they are doing, but box to box comparisons will not play into it. I can see an exception for BLAST users, or comparable limited scope users.
  
  Ahh, now developers, particularly houses that have cross-platform apps, with the mac one being 'the port'. Will they look at SPEC, and say: "Maybe my mac version does not HAVE to be a dog". "Maybe we can leapfrog our wintel only competition by putting some effort into the mac version". I don't know -- only that mucking around with the SPEC fine-tuning would make me as a developer skeptical that the base hardware potential to leapfrog wintel is true.
  
  I think Apple needs to have a marquee of apps, wherein they go to a developer and offer assistance in making that app soar above wintel. Ten apps with the mindshare of Mathematica that do this will change the world.
  
  Apple needs to appeal to the new, unknown developer who has a good idea, and then makes a choice between coding for the dominant platform and fighting inertia from established players, or coding for the G5 so that the good idea, implemented well, matched with the best hardware stands out. Note, this is only true if the base G5 hardware potential is really greater than Intel's..

• higher beta version numbers?
  2003-07-02 22:04:46  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hello --
  
  does anyone know whether WWDC "alums" will have access
  to new beta versions of the software we got as they become
  ready? Also, where are we supposed to submit bug reports
  and feature requests? I kind of missed that information.
  Panther is great, but there are definitely some things that
  need big improvement before the final release comes
  out.
  
  Joe -- josac@mac.com in AVchat