StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Speaking as a Mac user, OS 9 should die.

Aside from that, you forgot to mention that the Classic environment will still run from inside of OS X on new hardware.

You also forgot to mention that Apple will likely be using the PowerPC 970 for their hardware in the future, a chip which requires certain changes to be made to a 32-bit OS to run it. Why should Apple spend resources making it work with an OS that, as far as they are concerned, is dead?

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:There's Quake 3 for Linux

quake 3 hoovers compared to UT and of course UT2003.

Hyperion wrote:quake 3 hoovers compared to UT and of course UT2003.

UT2003 rules ... except for the fucking copy-protection CD check. That blows.

Darth Wong wrote:

Hyperion wrote:quake 3 hoovers compared to UT and of course UT2003.

UT2003 rules ... except for the fucking copy-protection CD check. That blows.

Ah, I got a free copy at the games tournament this weekend. It is indeed a fucking sweet game.

MKSheppard wrote:JESUS CHRIST! IT WAS A JOKE!

THERE IS NO XP II or PC 2004!

I was merely pointing out that Apple is as bad and monopolistic as M$, but they
have better PR people.....

Perhaps the fact no one was surprised by this move should inform you that Apple is not worse.

At least Apple has taken to embracing open standards to a certain extent.

I really wish they'd open source QuickTime, though.

MKSheppard wrote:Redmond, WA (AP) Today, Bill Gates announced that the software giant's
new computing platform, PC 2004, which will be required for the forthcoming
Windows XP II OS will not run any other operating system, even older
versions of Windows.

Gates said this would make programmers jobs easier by not having to put
up with hardware designed for obsolete operating systems, which would
lead to more stability and ease of design.

......

Your Comments?

I think I'll stick with Win98 thank you very much. If I decide I want Windows.

Durandal wrote:At least Apple has taken to embracing open standards to a certain extent.

I really wish they'd open source QuickTime, though.

It'll be a cold day in hell before Apple even opens up the QuickTime framework. Sorenson is another issue entirely.

Well, with Real open sourcing their stuff, I can see Apple perhaps receiving some pressure to do so. It's really a shame. QuickTime is such a powerful tool, yet I've wanted to just bean the QuickTime team in the head for some of the stupid little things they don't fix or do half-assed.

Sorenson is their own little thing.

Durandal wrote:Well, with Real open sourcing their stuff, I can see Apple perhaps receiving some pressure to do so. It's really a shame. QuickTime is such a powerful tool, yet I've wanted to just bean the QuickTime team in the head for some of the stupid little things they don't fix or do half-assed.

Like the Windows client? That thing is still a piece of junk.

verilon wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:Redmond, WA (AP) Today, Bill Gates announced that the software giant's
new computing platform, PC 2004, which will be required for the forthcoming
Windows XP II OS will not run any other operating system, even older
versions of Windows.

Gates said this would make programmers jobs easier by not having to put
up with hardware designed for obsolete operating systems, which would
lead to more stability and ease of design.

......

Your Comments?

I think I'll stick with Win98 thank you very much. If I decide I want Windows.

It was a parody about Apple's decision not to add support for OS9 booting on the upcoming Macs.

Like the Windows client? That thing is still a piece of junk.

That's definitely one big thing. But, I was more or less referring to the AVI playback "bug" with MP3 audio. The bastardized AVI file format has become so common that supporting the original spec is hardly worth it any more, what with people putting AC3 audio tracks in AVI's, nowadays.

There's a host of other things, as well. Like how they removed the ability to cut/copy/paste or manipulate in any way MPEG tracks, or how it still can't properly demux an MPEG stream. This is all stuff that people have been screaming at them about for the past year.

People actually put AC3 audio in AVI? That's just plain silly, considering that AVI doesn't play nice with VBR audio. AVI should die the death it deserves - the world at least move to OpenDMF!

The MPEG stuff is damned annoying, and the whole QT Pro thing even more. They gave away that functionality in QT2.x.

People actually put AC3 audio in AVI? That's just plain silly, considering that AVI doesn't play nice with VBR audio. AVI should die the death it deserves - the world at least move to OpenDMF!

Yes. I've seen plenty of it. The fact that Microsoft's Media Player actually tolerates such blatant violations of the spec only exacerbates the problem.

The MPEG stuff is damned annoying, and the whole QT Pro thing even more. They gave away that functionality in QT2.x.

You'll notice that they began charging at about the time Steve Jobs returned...

Is it just me, or is the MPEG committee one of the most contradictory standards organizations in existence? The point of a standard is that nobody owns it and people can develop for it freedly, yet the MPEG committee wants royalties up the ass for the use of it!

Durandal wrote:

People actually put AC3 audio in AVI? That's just plain silly, considering that AVI doesn't play nice with VBR audio. AVI should die the death it deserves - the world at least move to OpenDMF!

Yes. I've seen plenty of it. The fact that Microsoft's Media Player actually tolerates such blatant violations of the spec only exacerbates the problem.

True dat, though I give some props to Microsoft for actually getting it to work. Of course, they're in the process of abandoning that standard for their own Windows Media.

The MPEG stuff is damned annoying, and the whole QT Pro thing even more. They gave away that functionality in QT2.x.

You'll notice that they began charging at about the time Steve Jobs returned...

Yeah, he wants more money.

Is it just me, or is the MPEG committee one of the most contradictory standards organizations in existence? The point of a standard is that nobody owns it and people can develop for it freedly, yet the MPEG committee wants royalties up the ass for the use of it!

Not neccessarily. IEEE1394 is a standard, but requires royalties (to the board) as well as various other ones.

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote: Yes. I've seen plenty of it. The fact that Microsoft's Media Player actually tolerates such blatant violations of the spec only exacerbates the problem.

True dat, though I give some props to Microsoft for actually getting it to work. Of course, they're in the process of abandoning that standard for their own Windows Media.

You mean the standard that keeps changin every eight months? I can still remember when you were creating .asf and .asx now its all .wmv with a whole different set of codecs.

It's not even a standard. It's proprietary crap. Windows Media Audio sounds like it was transcoded from MP3 through two tin cans and a string.

Durandal wrote:It's not even a standard. It's proprietary crap. Windows Media Audio sounds like it was transcoded from MP3 through two tin cans and a string.

Though the WM8 codec does do a pretty decent compression job (usually I can halve an MPEG in size without any noticeable loss in quality when I'm viewing at 1024x768)

It could be the best compressor ever for all time, and it wouldn't change the fact that it's limited to exactly one platform. We have standards for a reason.

Durandal wrote:It could be the best compressor ever for all time, and it wouldn't change the fact that it's limited to exactly one platform. We have standards for a reason.

Oh I'm not saying they aren't assholes for not opening up the standard but its still a halfway decent tool despite being the product of evil monopolistic designs.