Spork Boards

Bahoot? Kersplat!

bahamut's Avatar Picture bahamut – December 09, 2007 10:56PM Reply Quote
Well, it's about time.

Bruce Robertson – January 17, 2008 03:58PM Reply Quote
Looks like something - the Quicktime update I believe - has hosed font appearance.

Mighty Mouse – January 17, 2008 04:07PM Reply Quote
Whatchu talking about, willis?

Bruce Robertson – January 17, 2008 04:24PM Reply Quote
On my iMac 24, intel, 10.4.11, it appears basically like font smoothing no longer works no matter what the setting.

bahamut – January 18, 2008 12:50AM Reply Quote
Delicious Library is total crap. I gave up, bought Bookpedia.

Check out the user comments here: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/20/delicious-library-2-preview/

Here's an attack on another program, Disco, but also a swipe at DL and the progeny it spawned. http://www.dustinmacdonald.com/blog/2006/11/delicious-generation-hardly.html

Mokers (Moderator) – January 18, 2008 01:47PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
I know Baha has always talked about OS X being on generic Intel hardware. I thought it would never happen, but we do appear to be inching closer every year.

http://www.macedition.com/2008/01/18/mac-os-x-server-virtualization-coming-to-a-computer-near-you

Would allowing server virutalization on HP big iron make sense, for example? It might make it easier for a big place to run a single mac department if they could set up their own file services on hardware the company already owns. You might lose out on the Xserve and the RAID sales, but if it allows 50 people in the art department to use Macs, it could be worth it.

stan adams – January 18, 2008 04:13PM Reply Quote
I think I've read other stuff by Joe Fahs, and in the past he did not seem to be stupid, but to say " Apple can effectively allow OS X to run on generic PC Hardware, but never officially have to support it" is just asinine -- believe me of the real Enterprise places that are driving not just the "mindshare" but the REVENUE of VMWare this would HAVE TO BE officially supported. It WILL NOT HAPPEN with out an official blessing from "the Pope" aka TSO.

Further, unless there is some kind of wicked bad problem with my version of Leopard, the real difference between it and Leopard Server is that Leopard Server allows me to MANAGE OTHER Mac. Contrast this to Windows Vista Home vs Server 2008 (or pretty much any server version of Windows) and you'll see it ain't just an upgrade to manage other machines -- it is a like the non-server versions are downgraded to prevent to HOST apps.

Apple can't really license Leopard "client" any differently than Leopard Server w/o "de-featuring" the product.

Cloudscout – January 18, 2008 04:36PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Stan, I don't know if that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or not, but just to be clear, Joe Fahs is Remy/Mokers.

El Jeffe – January 18, 2008 04:51PM Reply Quote
What a journey.


What a journey.

stan adams – January 18, 2008 04:59PM Reply Quote
tonque -> cheek

I know. I don't dispute that virtualization of Leopard Server is useful, but a) it has to be on Apple HW for Apple to not get burned b) no shop that spends the cash to buy ANY Apple HW is gonna "go along" w/o OFFICIAL support on however they use it.

I don't want Apple to "de-feature" its OS to facilitate licensing hi-jinks, and frankly I don't think Apple would want to either.

The reason that Windows virtualization is desired is because so many Windows 'solutions' are hostile to sharing an OS install (thanks to all the goodness baked into the registry, freaky network stacks, vulnerabilities in legacy memory addressing schemes et cetera). In my experience these things are not really needed in the *nix world, though some shops do use *nix virtualization for the same reasons.

Better reason to use virtualization on *nix include the ability to host multiple OSs, isolate app versions, rapid rollout/contingent resource. I really think that Leopard Server virtuailzation is a good thing, but not a path to generic HW -- look at differences between the approaches of Sun on SPARC and Sun on x86, AIX, HP-UX, and the various Linux distros -- which company/platform is healthiest? Why would Apple want to get into that swamp?

Sure it would be great for me if could slap OS X on some crufty piece of HW, but that would not help Apple and it would not even result in more developers being eager to release sw for OS X.

I'll stop abusing the deceased equine...

Mokers (Moderator) – January 18, 2008 05:10PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
It's completely OK to call it asinine. As I was writing it, I was thinking it is asinine. Just trying to stir up the pot a little. At least I didn't say MacBook Air would be the savior of WiMax....

However, I do say there is a user for a virtualization solution for OS X on other people's big iron. I have worked at a couple of places where I could have had things very easy if I could have run an OS X server in a virtual machine. As nice as Xserves are, it is still easier to say "I can use this with our current cluster/disk array/backup/power/network scheme than it is to buy some extra hardware". Late Edit: As much as I would like to say "The Xserve cost is going to equal about one month of your hardware maintenance cost for the rest" and have that sink in as a good idea. Sometimes it is just stupid.

I do NOT think that the "It works, but Apple doesn't support it" for the client version would work in the enterprise. That would only be for the home hobbyist/bitching person who wants to run OS X on his pieced together hardware. If OS X client ran under VMware in Linux, for example, there is a certain segment who would shut up about OS X on generic PCs. And remember, this ALREADY WORKS under VMware and Parallels, but they have turned the bits off because they don't want to run afoul of Apple's licensing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2008 05:19PM by Mokers.

tliet – January 22, 2008 09:32AM Reply Quote
Fed slashed rates in shock move

I wonder what the effect will be on the dollar...

stan adams – January 22, 2008 10:42AM Reply Quote
This could be fun...

El Jeffe – January 22, 2008 10:48AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
This could be the end. ;)

What a journey.

stan adams – January 22, 2008 11:00AM Reply Quote
Fire or ice?

I think neither...

Mokers (Moderator) – January 22, 2008 12:22PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asOG5m2iWQPE&refer=home

Motorola may have a flop on its hands.

OH REALLY?

I think it's obvious right now that the original RAZR success was almost a complete accident. It's sad because that company used to have a lot of smart engineers but the MRKTNG department seems to be running the company now.

El Jeffe – January 22, 2008 01:38PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I loved Motorola at one time. I was in their internal monthly news paper thingie, too. I lived right across from them in Chicago, err.... Schaumburg. They just can't string together any successes.

What a journey.

stan adams – January 22, 2008 01:58PM Reply Quote
Acident is too strong a word. Moto has always had some solid product designers who really like what they do -- the original flip phone, the StarTac and the Razor all were solutions that answered customers desired features. After Razor there was an over-emphasis on "niche solutions" that came out of Moto setting up a "quasi-hip" design office on North Michigan Ave in Chicago. Pebbl, Krazr, Rokr, were all spawn of this effort. Ugh. I think the Q came out of there too. The sad thing is there is nothing really too wrong with any of the Moto phones, but the offerings from Samsung LG and others were just A LOT cheaper. Especially as the carriers provided big incentives on these puppies. But Moto still sold most of these suckers locked, except in the EU so there is/was a big grety market trade in the units. Double ugh.

They have never really gotten good at direct marketing and they business model they fostered with the carriers is hurting them much worse than Korean rivals who most have bizzarely low overhead...

Doesn't help that their idea of "usability" is "yeah the feature is there, ain't it?, so what if it is three menus down and non-reconfigurable".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2008 02:00PM by stan adams.

Mighty Mouse – January 22, 2008 02:07PM Reply Quote
Quote
Stan Adams
The sad thing is there is nothing really too wrong with any of the Moto phones

I disagree. Their UI blows chunks. Easily the worst of any cell phone manufacturer. I remember back when I had a ROKR to play with for training development (iTunes) and marveled at how absolutely horrible the UI was. And it hasn't changed.

johnny k – January 22, 2008 02:25PM Reply Quote
The original RAZR was a result, partially, of the engineering focus. Moto's core strengths have been engineering and of late, sharp branding. They got the thing as thin as could be done at the time, with the side effect of creating aesthetic touchstones like the etched metal keypad. It's a Jobs-like thing to say, "Get the phone this thin." Problem is, the management never understood that owning Thin, for however long, was not owning the market - owning Change is. As we know with the Nano, Apple redefines what the latest innovation is before someone else can.

Perhaps because of Moto's engineering background, hardware design was given some respect. The studio on Michigan isn't "quasi-hip"... the product designers there are the real deal. Blame management for not respecting software design and an integrated experience as much. I believe most of those phones branded as hot shit are hot shit, but they are positioned as a brand leader, with superior materials and an accompanying price premium -- while Motorola flooded the market with cheaper and cheaper RAZRs which removed the desirability of a brand leader, and besides sat on their hands while multimedia UIs were rising.

How well did the PEBL do? That was an attempt to make Feel the next innovation, and to designers, a successful one. I don't want to believe that it failed on design merits or lack of technical features.

stan adams – January 22, 2008 02:59PM Reply Quote
Johnny --

You probably know as well as anyone that Libertyville makes San Jose seem urban and the only grit on North Michigan Ave is the sparkly make-up that floats off the faces of the over made-up and aging -- that is where my "quasi-hip" reference came from.

The real story of Razr is much closer to this article: http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/31/magazines/fortune/razr_greatteams_fortune/index.htm

They probably should have spent more on improving/revving the UI, but that might have had too many risks for Moto. Unfortunately the marketplace ultimately accepts/rejects products "in toto" -- pricing, SW, HW, positioning ALL has to be very good AND "the planets have to align" too -- think of the original iMacs -- tremendous amounts of their success must be credited with people making a signficant shift from "isolated personal computing" to "connected computing" -- the whole "3 Steps to Get on the Intrenet" marketing was both a slap at Windows (config modem scripts?!?) AND a visible rejection of the "beige" computing model to be replaced by full color web-enabled computing with full color physical computers!

I would posit that if Moto and the cellular carriers had the good sense and braveness to promote not just "Hello Moto" but also "gmap me the close-est sushi carryout" they would have beat Apple & iPhone to the punch. Of course with their weak processors, tiny screens, pokey Java-brew enabled phones and lack of high speed connectivity the promise would have been oversold and under-delivered. (never mind that they still hate the idea of google deriving revenue without taking a slice for their greedy little selves...)

Moto has grave problems to overcome in the fact that now no one wants to pay a premium for a phone w/o a real usable browser/email client. High end phones almost instantly morphed from "jewelry/touchable art/compact-single function" to "connectedness device" with the iPhone. It doesn't help competitors that the iPhone looks good, feels very nice too. The Pebbl benefited from the Thinkpad style outer cover, but that was not enough to overcome its low function screens/menus. When it comes to blending design for design's sake WITH function EVERYONE is still playing catch-up to Apple.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login