Apple Expo Paris Keynote Clips

[Shaft]

Wohaaaaaaaa

ftp://ftp.ipv6.org/pub/rfc/rfc1924.txt

and http://www.ipv6.org

IP addresses as we know it are 32-bit addresses (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx). We are running out of those addresses fast. IPv6 will alleviate that problem (it does more than that but I digress)
IPv6 will introduce 128-bit addresses which if they were written out in long form would look like (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx). However, since remembering that many digits may prove a bit daunting for people they have come up with a summary scheme that will reduce addresses down to (1080::8:800:200C:417A) incorporating hexadecimal values in place of numbers. While this may still look complicated, it's far easier than the entire #.

Now, we come to Rendezvous. Go here http://www.zeroconf.org/ and learn about the technology Rendezvous is based on. Fascinating stuff, like auto-discovery or devices on local subnets and interoperability of different computers on levels that are mindblowing. Here comes the problem. IP addresses. Since most people have to run NAT on their routers at home (for broadband connections of course) these devices aren't accessible to anything outside. Now, enter IPv6 and all 100 billion IP addresses (rough guess). All of a sudden, every device in your house can have a public IP address (not 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x or 192.168.x.x) and everything is accessible from everywhere. If you put a meatloaf in the oven, your oven can utilize your broadband connection to get specific cooking instructions from the manufacturer's database. If you have tv problems, the manufacturer can get into your tv from their main system and check it out.

This is just a brief summarization of what's possible. I would definitely recommend reading those 3 sites for some absolutely fascinating reading.


quote:Originally posted by irmongoose



? whatcha mean?




irmongoose





**** man...

That sound pretty amazing. But whats about security? Do I need a firewall for my oven Very amazing this technology for the future. I think apple is on the right way...


Go on you fruitty people...


shaft

 

[Rocketman]

Re: My caption

Originally posted by dobbin
Given Apple's ability in the last couple of months to rip me off and pi$$ me off (.mac and 10.2), my caption for the above picture would be "Think Different? Not anymore!"

Apparantly you equate a commercial product offering at a price barely high enough to "make you squirm" as being a "rip off". They could have avoided that "rip off" by simply not offering that functionality to you at all. Imagine if they did that.

Dot-Mac would have had to add new bandwidth limits, OS 10.2 would not exist and a minor bug fix to 10.1.5 would have been released instead.

You would not even know what you are missing.

All these FREE applications Apple is releasing are paid for at the very few points of purchase they DO have: Hardware prices, OS upgrade fees, and online service fees.

From the average person they have no other revenue source.

It seems to me the alternative is to charge $69.95 for iTunes, $39.95 for iCal, another $19.95 for Quicktime - the basic version, and another $99.95 for printer and device support.

But no. Instead they are charging $199 for 5 unit family lisence version of OSX with all of that INCKUDED FOR FREE.

Most Mac users have more than one CPU, many more than two. This lisence offering is respectful of Apples best users.

The client-server model is back. I want my home media server branded as Apple.

Rocketman

 

[sturm375]

Parallelism

WARNING! The following is a HUGE guess.

-No more booting into OS 9 after Jan. 1 2003

-We just had a major update to OS X.

-Hints at new models

AND

-AMD is schedualed to release the Clawhammer (x86-64) processor 1st Quarter 2003.


Me thinks there may be a change in upper end processors in the works?

If, and that is a big if, this happens, my faith in Apple will be at least partially restored.

 

[Thirteenva]

Re: Parallelism

Originally posted by sturm375
WARNING! The following is a HUGE guess.

-No more booting into OS 9 after Jan. 1 2003

-We just had a major update to OS X.

-Hints at new models

AND

-AMD is schedualed to release the Clawhammer (x86-64) processor 1st Quarter 2003.


Me thinks there may be a change in upper end processors in the works?

If, and that is a big if, this happens, my faith in Apple will be at least partially restored.

It seems to me that the no booting into 9 is do to both 1)trying to get developers to move on OS X versions of software. and 2) dual booting takes alot of system resources and having just os X would allow apple to further refine the mobo to work better with os x rather than comprimise performance to suit the needs of both these very very diffrent operating systems.

We just got a major update correct. A major update optimized for use on the power pc architecture. So thats not much of an argument for os X on x86. I just don't see it happening.

Apple will stick with the power pc.

 

[sturm375]

Re: Re: Parallelism

Originally posted by Thirteenva



It seems to me that the no booting into 9 is do to both 1)trying to get developers to move on OS X versions of software. and 2) dual booting takes alot of system resources and having just os X would allow apple to further refine the mobo to work better with os x rather than comprimise performance to suit the needs of both these very very diffrent operating systems.

We just got a major update correct. A major update optimized for use on the power pc architecture. So thats not much of an argument for os X on x86. I just don't see it happening.

Apple will stick with the power pc.

OS X should be much easier to "port" to x86 than OS 9, if it hasn't been ported already. I don't know for sure what all the update (10.2) has in it, I didn't program it. Finally, even though it is called an x86 processor, it is in reality a RISC processor with CISC emulation built in.

I'm sure there is a strong sentiment within, and without of Apple, inc. to stick with PPC, however both of the manufacturers of these chips are not very interested in producing for the consumer level desktop. Moto is very interested in embedded, and IBM is very interested in the server market. Apple is left with very slim possibillities for the PPC.

1) Convince IBM or Moto that Apple's <5% market share is enough volume to increase their production and R&D for consumer CPUs.

2) Buy the technologies from either one, or both, and attempt to produce chips themselves.

3) Begin gradually moving to a major producer of consumer CPU chips.

 

[MacArtist]

Re: still stuck

Originally posted by Arch_mac

Another thing. Apple is selling 10.2 right. How come they have not updated their site to reflect that the powerbooks are shipped pre installed with 10.2. The site says they come with 10.1. That makes me wonder if they are waiting on a new update on the powerbook itself or waiting for 10.2.1.

The only system that has 10.2 pre-installed are the towers because they were announced at about the time when Jaguar went GM. Most of the other system have a flap pack in the box with a copy of 10.2 so you can update your system (but that depends on when them system was boxed up).

 

[vixapphire]

what about...

if someone is unhappy with osx (ie. they're too cheap to buy osx versions of all the software they use, etc. and don't want to use "classic"), what would prevent them from buying, say, a 1GHz TiBook (assuming of course that Apple releases such a machine) that has osx-only from the factory, and wiping the drive and installing OS 9.1 from an older system CD? Is this verboten from an "apple rumors board orthodoxy" perspective only, or are their actual hardware limitations on how the old OS would run on the "faster versions of current machines"? Methinks this wouldn't be a big deal, but then again, anything's possible...

Before some wiseguy flames me for being an idiot (as seems to happen a lot around here when I ask a question), please understand that I am not a tech-guy. I'm just a guy who's been using apples since the II+ (remember "applevision"?) and currently uses one for making music. My day job unfortunately yokes me to a slow and saggy Wintel Dell machine, so I'm obviously not in it for glory.

Thanks for your thoughts on the question.

 

[Thirteenva]

Re: Re: Re: Parallelism

Originally posted by sturm375


OS X should be much easier to "port" to x86 than OS 9, if it hasn't been ported already.

I agree with you, os x would be much easier to port to x86 than os 9(and osx may already be ported as is debated everyday here.). However i think if apple was going to make a processor jump to x86 hardware anytime soon they would have done it before any more major OS releases, not a few months after.

I'm sure there is a strong sentiment within, and without of Apple, inc. to stick with PPC, however both of the manufacturers of these chips are not very interested in producing for the consumer level desktop. Moto is very interested in embedded, and IBM is very interested in the server market. Apple is left with very slim possibillities for the PPC.

1) Convince IBM or Moto that Apple's <5% market share is enough volume to increase their production and R&D for consumer CPUs.

2) Buy the technologies from either one, or both, and attempt to produce chips themselves.

3) Begin gradually moving to a major producer of consumer CPU chips.

very convincing arguements. None the less i still feel otherwise.

I am fully aware of moto dropping R&D for upcoming desktop chips. However with ibm announcing a new power pc chip derived from the power 4 i think there is alot of future in ibm/apple alliance. Whether or not this particular chip will be used is highly debated, but ibm is infact looking to progress the power pc architecture. A power pc chip built for a high end server could be used in desktop models.

ibm and moto were well aware of apple's marketshare when they decided to start this "alliance". ibm has consistently shown enthusiasm for taking the power pc and evolving it. They made the g3 better with every revision and have one's running in excess of what is in the current ibooks.

I feel if these companies had not been interested they would have backed out long ago. Moto may be trying to step out right now with this claim to be dropping major R&D on desktop chips.

It's quite possible that apple will seek out a new chip producer. There are alot of new chips in R&D now that could be of use to apple. I however don't expect to see apple running on a pentium 4 next year, thats really the point i was trying to make.

 

[MacArtist]

Re: what about...

Originally posted by vixapphire
if someone is unhappy with osx (ie. they're too cheap to buy osx versions of all the software they use, etc. and don't want to use "classic"), what would prevent them from buying, say, a 1GHz TiBook (assuming of course that Apple releases such a machine) that has osx-only from the factory, and wiping the drive and installing OS 9.1 from an older system CD? Is this verboten from an "apple rumors board orthodoxy" perspective only, or are their actual hardware limitations on how the old OS would run on the "faster versions of current machines"? Methinks this wouldn't be a big deal, but then again, anything's possible...

Before some wiseguy flames me for being an idiot (as seems to happen a lot around here when I ask a question), please understand that I am not a tech-guy. I'm just a guy who's been using apples since the II+ (remember "applevision"?) and currently uses one for making music. My day job unfortunately yokes me to a slow and saggy Wintel Dell machine, so I'm obviously not in it for glory.

Thanks for your thoughts on the question.

OS 9 requires a new boot rom to be coded so that a specific machine can run it. My 2002 QuickSilver can't run anything lower than 9.2.

 

[cyberfunk]

A bit off topic, but ?

How come there isnt a Sept. 11 thing on Apple's site ? Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, and all the other big people have one.. come on Apple, show the world u have a heart !

 

[cyberfunk]

Oooops

Wait... I lied.. MICROSOFT DOESNT HAVE ONE! Are you like Microsoft, Apple ? A big cold company ? Come on... Check your iCals , whats the date again ? OH YEA.

--DUH

 

[Arcady]

Re: A bit off topic, but ?

Originally posted by cyberfunk
How come there isnt a Sept. 11 thing on Apple's site ? Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, and all the other big people have one.. come on Apple, show the world u have a heart !

Maybe Apple realizes that people know what the date is. They don't need to follow the herd and remind you about something bleedingly obvious. If you were so concerned about commemmorating September 11th, you wouldn't be looking at computer company websites anyway...

 

[TechLarry]

I still say this is a BAD, totally un-necessary idea.

I can't help but think if Microsoft isn't partially behind this.
'
I am a MacOS X user. But I know far too many people who simply cannot run it for one reason or another.

TL

 

[Thirteenva]

Originally posted by TechLarry
I still say this is a BAD, totally un-necessary idea.

I can't help but think if Microsoft isn't partially behind this.
'
I am a MacOS X user. But I know far too many people who simply cannot run it for one reason or another.

TL

Why do you think microsoft is behind this? could you explain that to me, is there something i missed. Why would apple start taking advice from MS. Isn't apple trying to break ties with ms....the rumored office package thats being developed, and the rumors of a apple web browser also being develeped.....

 

[Dave Marsh]

Apple's Direction

I think what Apple is doing is pretty clear. They have told us throughout this year that we need to move quickly to MacOS X. I think the reason for this urgency, vice more slowly making the transition, is that Apple's new high-end Macs in 2003 will be based on a processor that WILL NOT RUN OS 9, firmware changes or not. And yes, Apple is pushing hard to get software vendors to update their software, for likely the same reason. Apple MUST BE extremely anxious about getting out a faster PowerMac (as are we all), and Moto has made clear that they're not up to the task. (And don't forget all those high-end graphics and audio software companies Apple has been buying up, even though it hasn't the hardware to currently take full advantage of their products.) Moto's latest financials seem to suggest that they are retrenching and redirecting their efforts to their core competencies to get back on track, and Apple can no longer wait for them.

That suggests a new, NON-MOTO high-end processsor. We know that IBM is discussing a new Power4-derivative PPC next month that they have speculated might be up to 2GHz by year's end. We have some pretty convincing, albeit NDA-constrained rumors, that the vector processing unit built into the new chip IS Altivec-compatible (plus logic tells us it would be crazy for IBM to have created a new SIMD unit that wasn't, especially since they apparently own patents that permit them to use it, and exactly for whom did they build-in this functionality if not Apple?). We also know that IBM has just built a new fabrication plant to make this new chip, so it must be planning to make a LOT of them.

We also know that Apple has just redesigned a motherboard and improved case cooling that was not required for the current G4 chips (note equivalent Quicksilvers with old motherboard, smaller heat sink and fans). I noted someone last night said that the four holes in the front of the new case are not currently open (covered by a mirror cover in the case), so they're ready to be opened when needed. The new case has an enormous heatsink and fan that the Quicksilver dual gigs didn't require. So, it's pretty clear that Apple has designed these modifications for a faster, hotter chip.

Moto's apparently not ready with anything, except maybe a few minor treaks to their current line (and the delay in getting out the 1.25GHz chips is probably due to just stockpiling the highest quality chips from their current processes that will actually run at the higher rate, vice any technology improvements), and possibly some speed bumps later as they get their 90nm fabrication in gear.

People speculating that Apple's moving to an x86 chip just don't hold up. While Apple DOES maintain a staff of about a dozen software engineers keeping the X86 verison of MacOS X current (I read that online last week), it's unclear why, except as a white-knuckle alternative if the company's going down the tubes. Remember, ALL of Mac's current software is compiled to run on a PPC and many apps are optimized to take advantage of Altivec (a PPC-based vector unit). If Apple announced an X86 Mac next year, there would be NOTHING that would run on it. Apple would have to convince EVERY software vendor to recompile their software, and every hardware vendor to create NEW drivers for their printers, etc. Has ANYONE heard of such rumors anywhere? Neither have I. And why would they? "If you want to run our X86 software on a fast Pentium/AMD chip, use Windows!" NASA FUD PR rumors notwithstanding, I'm pretty much convinced the next PowerMac chip for the high-end will come from IBM.

Here's what I expect. Apple will speed up the consumer laptops (iBooks) with faster IBM G3 chips. Apple will speed up the prosumer laptops (PowerBooks) with faster Moto G4 chips. Apple will speed up the consumer desktops with faster Moto G4 chips. Apple will continue to offer lower-end PowerMacs based on dual Moto G4's. Apple will announce at MWSF new high-end single chip PowerMacs based on the new Power4-based PPC (likely at 2GHz), with a release date in spring 2003. We already know IBM has a number of faster G3 chips that Apple has been loath to use because of the speed perception issue (faster clocked G3's than G4's, although the slower clocked G4's are faster at many things). This new high-end Mac will open the gates to use IBM's faster G3 chips in the lower-end. And, as Moto actually gets the G4's up to 1.6GHz, they will continue to serve the middle of the road PowerMacs.

Nothing else seems to make much sense to me. We all know how SJ loves to spring "one more thing" on us, and I expect this in January. To believe anything else, is to accept that Apple has lost control of their future, and I'm not ready to believe that. What they've been doing makes perfect sense (buying up graphics and audio houses to gain an upper hand with those products), if a new MUCH faster Mac is in the works. Moto's internal troubles seem to belie their being the provider of this technology. Maybe, down the road, but not this, or next year.

For myself, I'm planning to put a Sonnet 1GHz upgrade in my Sawtooth Mac to carry me through the next year (assuming it gets good reviews vis-a-vis the PowerLogix card). Professionals who want a speed bump and need to continue to use OS 9 apps as vendors migrate should probably snap up the current offerings.

The events of the past six months support this entire scenario. It makes too much sense to ignore.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: My caption

Originally posted by jefhatfield
at least mac os does not cost as much as windows which sells for 200 at office depot where i live...i can get is somewhat cheaper at the college bookstore,

OS X is cheaper on edu. discount too

Originally posted by jefhatfield
hopefully, os x is getting better and better fast enough for most mac users...woz mentions os x is not there for him yet and i agree...maybe next release

Yet for other users, like me, we would not have given Apple the time of day under the classic Mac OS. Protected and real virtual memory systems are manditory things IMO. A stupid, errant program being able to bring down the whole OS is still a problem on OS 9 - thus I cannot use it. Pre-emptive multitasking has been around (practicaly) forever too. OS 9 is way behind the times on these simple staples that near every other desktop and server os have.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i keep hearing about wishful thinkers mentioning a simpler os x that is faster and not nearly as ram hungry and that would be nice if it's true (for me, something more streamlined, less fancy on looks, but faster would be just right)

Agreed - Quartz is slower than it seems that it should be. After using NeXTStations with 33Mhz 68040's, I am amazed at how slow my 400Mhz G4 draws things. It has to be the relative infancy of the display PDF engine. NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP's display postscript engine was blindingly fast compared to D-PDF. I do respect the value of the display server though - it allows engineers a lot of flexibility for their app's gui's without requiring much coding.

Originally posted by jefhatfield
every mac user i have spoken with hate the dock and after having used it, i don't like it either

You can never say that again, because I'm speaking with you (kind-of) and I LOVE the dock!


I just wish I could install 10.2 - HP is dragging it's feet on OfficeJet D print/scan software and Virtual PC doesn't work under it yet.

 

[Dephex Twin]

Re: Re: Re: My caption

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

I'm speaking with you (kind-of) and I LOVE the dock!

Just wanted to second that. I love the dock as well. I like knowing at a glance what apps I have running. OS 9 had the Application Switcher, but the dock is much more refined, and has more features. I even like that the trash is in the dock. I also like how the dock icons can be useful (eg mail.app shows the number of new messages, iCal has the current date, etc.).

I just wish I could install 10.2 - HP is dragging it's feet on OfficeJet D print/scan software and Virtual PC doesn't work under it yet.

Virtual PC doesn't work? I was running it just the other day under 10.2. It was running dog slow, but I don't use it very often, and whenever I do, it always seems slower than I remembered. Anyway, the point is, it did seem to work. Any specific thing that doesn't work that you know about?

 

[sturm375]

Re: Apple's Direction

Originally posted by Dave Marsh
People speculating that Apple's moving to an x86 chip just don't hold up. While Apple DOES maintain a staff of about a dozen software engineers keeping the X86 verison of MacOS X current (I read that online last week), it's unclear why, except as a white-knuckle alternative if the company's going down the tubes. Remember, ALL of Mac's current software is compiled to run on a PPC and many apps are optimized to take advantage of Altivec (a PPC-based vector unit). If Apple announced an X86 Mac next year, there would be NOTHING that would run on it. Apple would have to convince EVERY software vendor to recompile their software, and every hardware vendor to create NEW drivers for their printers, etc. Has ANYONE heard of such rumors anywhere? Neither have I. And why would they? "If you want to run our X86 software on a fast Pentium/AMD chip, use Windows!" NASA FUD PR rumors notwithstanding, I'm pretty much convinced the next PowerMac chip for the high-end will come from IBM.

1)Many apps use the Altivec? Try a very few.

2)If software publishers are programming directly to the hardware, they are soo stupid they deserve to die. As an application designer, you write to the OS, or to APIs like OpenGL. It is then the OS designer to make the calls to the hardware. If this were not the case, how could I run the same program on both a Pentium, and AMD machine. 2 Different CPUs, 2 Different chip-sets, 2 Different Video cards, etc..... I would venture to guess that even the very few apps that take advantage of the Altivec make their calls to the OS, which then sends data to/through the Altivec.

In the good old days of WinTel (DOSTel) every app had to write its own print drivers for example. In these days of advanced OSs, app designers don't need to worry about that.

 

[shadowfax0]

...I'm still waiting for that caption, I really want to know, for real!!

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Re: Re: My caption

Originally posted by Dephex Twin
Virtual PC doesn't work? I was running it just the other day under 10.2. It was running dog slow, but I don't use it very often, and whenever I do, it always seems slower than I remembered. Anyway, the point is, it did seem to work. Any specific thing that doesn't work that you know about?

My mistake - I just upgraded from version 3 to 5 last night and thought that I had read that 10.2 was not supported. I re-read their site and it appears that I made that up! One less hurdle for me!

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: Apple's Direction

Originally posted by sturm375
1)Many apps use the Altivec? Try a very few.

A better way to put it would be, "Many important app's use Altivec."

Important == money making: Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, iMovie, iDVD and OS X

All of these mean $$ in Apple's pocket - whether through the cost of the software (FCP = $1000) or the hardware to be able to run them. (or both, in many cases)

Apple shows a list of some of them at: http://www.apple.com/powermac/processor.html

 

[Hawthorne]

Re: Re: Re: Apple's Direction

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw

A better way to put it would be, "Many important app's use Altivec."

Important == money making: Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, iMovie, iDVD and OS X

And it's iDVD that's the killer app for consumer DVD burning, and consumer DVD burning is the area where Macs are leading the pack. Altivec is here to stay, in one form or another.

 

[RMWallen]

Originally posted by rugby
ftp://ftp.ipv6.org/pub/rfc/rfc1924.txt

and http://www.ipv6.org

IP addresses as we know it are 32-bit addresses (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx). We are running out of those addresses fast. IPv6 will alleviate that problem (it does more than that but I digress)
IPv6 will introduce 128-bit addresses which if they were written out in long form would look like (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx). However, since remembering that many digits may prove a bit daunting for people they have come up with a summary scheme that will reduce addresses down to (1080::8:800:200C:417A) incorporating hexadecimal values in place of numbers. While this may still look complicated, it's far easier than the entire #.

Now, we come to Rendezvous. Go here http://www.zeroconf.org/ and learn about the technology Rendezvous is based on. Fascinating stuff, like auto-discovery or devices on local subnets and interoperability of different computers on levels that are mindblowing. Here comes the problem. IP addresses. Since most people have to run NAT on their routers at home (for broadband connections of course) these devices aren't accessible to anything outside. Now, enter IPv6 and all 100 billion IP addresses (rough guess). All of a sudden, every device in your house can have a public IP address (not 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x or 192.168.x.x) and everything is accessible from everywhere. If you put a meatloaf in the oven, your oven can utilize your broadband connection to get specific cooking instructions from the manufacturer's database. If you have tv problems, the manufacturer can get into your tv from their main system and check it out.

This is just a brief summarization of what's possible. I would definitely recommend reading those 3 sites for some absolutely fascinating reading.

2 to the 128 power is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
which is how many ip addresses you get with IPv6.

 

[Gelfin]

Originally posted by iwantanewmac


oh yeah that would be great.......I want to let my refrigerator communicate with my PM and say .......hey buddy yer flat out of milk
yeah that would be neat uh

So what about if your refrigerator can tell your Mac you're out of milk and your Mac adds that to a shopping list that's automatically sent to your local Safeway once a week for a regular grocery delivery. All you do is receive the groceries and pay the bill.

 

[rugby]

Originally posted by RMWallen


2 to the 128 power is 340282366920938463463374607431768211456
which is how many ip addresses you get with IPv6.

Thanks for catching that, I had a total brain fart and couldn't remember how to calculate IP addresses.