When I initially read the "Why Apple Can't Use the 970" article, I
was confused. It seemed to contradict everything else I had been
hearing about the 970, and how it could be used by Apple. It was only
after reading the entire article and seeing your own writing at the
bottom, that I realized the first article was factually incorrect.
Maybe Gene Steinberg didn't present himself in the best way in his
column (his associated comment about file sharing could be considered
a bit arrogant), but I do think that your "reader's opinion" article
was not well-presented as such.
You claimed it was a "point/counterpoint" presentation, yet the
title of the page and the title of the link was "Why Apple Can't Use
IBM's PowerPC 970". It wasn't anything like "Why They Can/Why They
Can't" or even "Why They Can't: Point/Counterpoint". Also, though you
said it was a reader opinion column, that is not clear from the
heading. Looking back on the previous 20 or so "My Turn" columns,
almost all of them have titles that clearly identify them as opinion
- mostly reviews of products, human interest stories like
"Confessions of a Mac-Collecting Addict", and many stories about what
direction Apple should take for this or that product category.
Furthermore, not only did the title of the article give no clue that
it was opinion, not fact, but the tag line, quoted from the article,
was "The sad truth of the matter is that Apple can not and will not
use IBM's PowerPC 970 64-bit chip in any of its systems anytime in
the foreseeable future." In other cases where something is presented
that was way out there, you, as the editor, usually add a "huh?" or
some other commentary when you post the link and the tag line.
The PowerPC 970 article had all the appearance of being an
objective, factual article. Its main point was that the 970 didn't
have any sort of 32-bit compatibility with the G4 and previous
processors' instructions. The entire article was predicated on this,
and it went on clear to the end without correction. I guess that I,
like Gene Steinberg, expect things published as objective facts to be
accurate and true. A "point/counterpoint" format doesn't debate
things that are objective and easily verifiable. It debates issues on
which people have varying opinions, and different ideas about how to
proceed in the future.
It would have been better if you had said something up front about
"A reader has written this article/letter, and he has a misconception
about the 970." Or, if you were trying to present that this
misconception is widespread (not my experience), to point this out,
and then to follow his article with your correction.
I can see where you would get upset over Gene's criticism of your
site and his repeated criticism of Charles Moore, but I have to agree
with him in this case.
I'd always felt the columns title and header graphic made it
very clear that My Turn is
a reader column. The name has been used time and again both on the
Internet and in print journals to indicate a column written by
someone not generally associated with the publisher.
We've been publishing My Turn as a reader column since May 2000. A
few of the contributors have become regulars at Low End Mac, and
several have had repeat appearances in My Turn.
We have never before used the point-counterpoint format, but we
have in the past published controversial pieces in hopes of
engendering conversation. Instead of waiting for reader replies, I
felt that the level of misinformation was so overwhelming that it
needed to be addressed immediately. Thus the point-by-point Why
Apple Can Use the 970 immediately following Why Apple Can't Use
the 970.
Most readers understood it. Many wrote to praise our understanding
of the PowerPC 970 and the way we debunked the most common myths
about the PPC 970. For the record, the article did not go
on "clear to the end without correction" - the entire second half
was the correction.
The only way I can see someone not understanding that is if they
only read the first few paragraphs and didn't bother to read the
whole column.
Paragraph 1, near the end of your "Cheerleading" article: 'By
integrating the browser with the OS, Microsoft has had an important
advantage that Mac couldn't touch until Apple delivered Safari.'
The next paragraph: 'Apple needs to push the advantages. Like
viruses. Can anyone name a virus that infects Mac OS X? Anyone? With
five million users, you'd think someone would have come up with a
virus by now.'
There's a strong relationship there. The vast majority of Windows
viruses exploit the security holes created by the integration of the
browser with the desktop. What Microsoft sometimes calls "cross-frame
attacks" occur because the decision whether to trust a piece of code
or not has been moved too deep into the OS. You get a piece of mail,
or you visit a website, and the browser (either directly, or via
desktop integration with Outlook) finds itself with a name and a
request that it be opened.
Unlike Netscape, or any other browser on any OS that I'm familiar
with, Internet Explorer is integrated with the desktop. It takes that
name, looks at where it is, and if it's in a "safe" place it asks the
desktop "how do I open this?".
The problem is, when Outlook calls IE, Outlook has already
extracted the attachment and put it in a file on disk. So, it's a
local file, and the Desktop says "oh, that's an executable" and runs
it.
If this was Netscape, or Opera, or any other conventional piece of
software it would say "hey, I don't trust this, I won't open it".
Oh, Microsoft's fixed a lot of these cases, but it's done it piece
by piece, instead of saying "hey, this program knows it can't trust
the document, let's have it handle it itself". It can't, because that
would involve unlinking the desktop and the browser, and that would
be admitting that the browser isn't an inherent part of the OS (the
HTML renderer, OK, I can see that... but it doesn't need to have the
inherent ability to resolve anything itself, it can ask the program
that called it), which would mean backing down on everything they've
been fighting the DoJ since the mid-90s over.
They can't do that, they'd lose face.
OK, what does this have to do with Apple?
Well, Jobs hates to lose face too. If he comes up with some kind
of integrated browser/finder thing, he's heading down the same dark
path...
I don't know the ins and outs of Windows (in)security, but I
know that Word and Excel macros, Visual Basic, handling of email
attachments, Outlook, and Outlook Express are all among the ways
viruses propagate in the Windows world. I was unaware that the
tight integration of Explorer with Windows also contributed to the
problem.
Anyhow, the point I was trying to make (albeit perhaps less
clearly than I'd hoped), is that Microsoft's intimate knowledge of
Windows allows them to create programs, such as IE 6, that
are optimized for Windows in ways that the competition can rarely
match. Opera is facing an uphill battle creating the world's
fastest browser when it runs on the world's most proprietary
operating system.
With Safari, Apple has taken an Open Source project and optimized
it for Mac OS X, something similar to what Chimera does with
the Mozilla source code and not altogether dissimilar to the way
OmniWeb is designed from the ground up as an OS X browser. By
customizing the browser specifically for the OS instead of simply
recompiling existing source code and leveraging Apple's resources,
Safari will be tightly tied to the operating system, although
never to the extent IE 6 is on Windows (we hope!).
I don't think Safari will ever integrate with the OS like IE does;
we already have Aqua to handle local and networked file services.
That's not what I meant when I talked about integration; I meant
the way Safari is tightly coupled to the underlying OS, optimized
for OS X, and cannot exist without it.
The G5 is dead. It was suppose to have been released last summer.
In addition to the Apple AIO bus vs. Motorola Rapid-IO bus fight,
Motorola couldn't get good enough yields. Then Motorola's chip design
team became a victim of the flagging economy. That's why Apple worked
with IBM to create the 970.
That's the story I'd heard, too, but Motorola doesn't seem
willing to say it.
Well said, Dan, and may I add a few things about Apple and
OS X? I've been servicing Macs for years, after switching over
from the Wintel crowd when Win 95 debuted. Though I'm a fan of X in
many ways, I think Apple has gone way overboard with the networking
complexity in OS X. I am constantly receiving calls from those
who either switched to X or actually bought a new Mac as their first
computer and have had problems figuring out all the "Users" and
networking "privileges" built into OS X. And I won't even bother
recommending X to any of my clients running a SOHO network.
What used to be a snap to set up and maintain (AppleTalk and
AppleShare) has turned into a nightmare for many, with users not
being able to access their files after doing a little house cleaning,
or almost locking themselves out of the system entirely after trying
to share a drive. Ever tried sharing your volume over the network or
enabling guest sharing? Have fun! Sure, now we have Rendezvous, but
that does nothing to simplify setting up the file sharing side of
things, unless everyone is content with nothing more than a "Public"
folder.
It used to be so simple in the era of the classic Mac OS and
the Chooser. Open the Chooser. Pick a printer or networked volume.
Connect. Maybe configure the printer if you haven't used it
before.
Intuitive? Not really, but something Mac users became used to over
the years. Now we have to remember to go to the Finder, open the
Go menu, and go to the bottom for the Connect to Server... option.
I can never remember, so I just put an alias on the desktop.
Ditto for printing. It was easy to choose and configure a printer
in the old days. Now the question "How do I print?" shows up when
the user discovers no printer has yet been selected - and these
longtime Mac users don't have a clue how to do it.
Yes, it's smart to let you choose and configure printers from the
Print dialog, but it's so different.
I hope Rendezvous and Rendezvous enabled devices will bring back
the simplicity, but the NeXT paradigm underlying OS X seems
to relish the power, complexity, and obscurity of the underlying
BSD Unix while abandoning so many Mac conventions that we've
worked with over the years.
Someone needs to write Switching from the Classic Mac OS to Mac
OS X for Dummies.
Fortunately we have an old SuperMac C600 with a 15 GB IDE hard
drive as our network file server. It runs Mac OS 9, so I know
how things work. I prefer to avoid personal file sharing on user
machines when an inexpensive older Mac can sit in a corner and
serve everyone.
I think you are misinformed about the USB print sharing
capabilities of the AirPort Extreme Base Station. While it is true
that you need both Jaguar on your 'puter and a Rendezvous capable
printer to use Rendezvous, you don't need it for plain and simple USB
print sharing. The automagical thing about rendezvous technology is
that it enables devices to recognize each other on a network. No
changing setting, no muss, no fuss.
In the realm of speculation I would guess that someone will come
up with a hack to use Rendezvous with OS X.1.x and maybe even with OS
9, since rendezvous is open source.
Anyway, just thought you should know the truth. You put a scare
into a lot of people over at dealMac and this is how those crazy
apple rumors get started. Question your source and then give 'em a
good whack for feeding you a bunch of horsepuckey. =)
Keep up the otherwise great work!
I guess I should have gone to Apple instead of assuming that
someone who told me I was wrong had experience with the product
and knew what he was talking about. Apple has a nice list
of printers compatible with USB Printer Sharing with the
AirPort Extreme hub, and a lot of these printers predate
Rendezvous.
I don't have an AirPort Extreme hub, nor do I expect to ever
purchase one (I'll probably go with Belkin or D-Link). Until
someone who has one can tell me whether it supports USB printer
sharing without the use of Rendezvous, I'll just have to say that
I don't know if it works without Rendezvous or not.
I have an iMac which I use for internet (via PPP dial-up). I also
have a PB 540c with ethernet.
If I network these two machines with a crossover RJ45 cable, will
the PowerBook be able to surf the Web as well?
In a word, yes. However, you will need a program to enable
sharing the connection, such as SurfDoubler
or IPNetRouter.
I've used both, and each works well. IPNetRouter has the
additional advantage of supporting as many computers as you want;
SurfDoubler is limited to three.
Best Mac for Writing Revisited
On Friday, I answered Michael's questions about the
Best Mac for Writing. Over the weekend, he replied:
Thank you for taking the time to give me such a comprehensive
answer. I have been doing exhaustive research and I have decided on
the following:
I had thought of a PowerBook, but they are very expensive in
Northern Ireland. I have opted, instead, for a new iBook with full
RAM and maximum hard drive, AppleCare, and Microsoft Office for Mac.
I am getting all of this at a reasonable price that will leave me
money to try broadband for the year.
My choice is not ideal but a compromise between what I really
need, what I really wanted, and cost. Ideally, I would have gone for
a 17" or 20" Cinema Display with a big Power Mac G4, Apple Pro
Speakers, the works. But upon reflection this seemed excessive and
indulgent considering that I really only use a computer as a
glamourized typewriter.
I hope my choice meets with your approval. I will be ordering my
iBook this Friday. It will be my first Apple.
Once again, thank for your reply and time.
Best wishes, Michael
A writing tool is very much an individual choice, and most of
us have to make our tools fit limited budgets. I know a lot of
people who are very happy with iBooks; I'm sure you'll join their
ranks.
Broadband is a worthwhile investment. The Internet is only as fast
as you can access it.
I've done fine without Microsoft Office, but in the real world of
sending files to publishers, it's probably the path of least
resistance. I find AppleWorks adequate for all my word processing
and spreadsheet needs, but 95% of the world's computers wouldn't
have a clue what to do with the files it creates.
Congratulations on your new "glamourized typewriter."
Letters sent may be published at our discretion. Email addresses will
not be published unless requested. If you prefer that your message
not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters may be
edited for length, context, and to match house
style.
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
Mac of the Day: Mac LC III, Feb. 1993 - The first LC without compromise: 25 MHz 68030 CPU, 32-bit memory, up to 36 MB of RAM.
List of the Day: G4 'Books an email list for G4 iBooks and PowerBooks.
September 8 in LEM history: 99: Big sound from the little iMac - Ethernet alternative to USB drives - 00: Building a back-to-school bundle - 03: 17" 1.25 GHz iMac G4 - My Mac Plus revisited - 06: Inside your notebook's battery - Andy Hertzfeld, software wizard - OS X is a pleasure to use - MacBook random shutdown - Core2 7% faster
Listen to Just the Music with the V-Moda Vibe Earbuds, Tommy Thomas, Welcome to Macintosh, 09.05.
Well built, the noise canceling earbuds will let you hear all the nuances of your music without letting through background noise.
Best iPod touch Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.05.
Refurb 8 GB, $199; new, $284; refurb 16 GB, $299; new, $370; refurb 32 GB, $399; new, $453.
Best 15" MacBook Pro Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.05.
Used 1.83 GHz Core Duo, $999; 2.16, $1,125; new, 2.2, $1,450 after rebate; refurb 2.4, $1,699; 2.5, $1,999; 2.6 Santa Rosa, $1,849; rebates on new.
Best iMac G4 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.05.
Used 15" 700 MHz CD-RW, $279; 800 Combo, $300; 1 GHz $390; 17" 800 MHz SD, $439; 1.25 GHz, $449; 20", $569.
Best Mac mini Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.04.
Used 1.25 GHz G4 SD, $549; 1.42 Combo, $409; new 1.83 Core2 Combo, $569 after rebate; 2.0 SD, $769 after rebate.
Tomorrow's Solid State Drives and Notebooks, Dan Knight, Mac Musings, 09.04.
Flash drives are great but have some shortcomings. Some thoughts on building better SSDs and notebooks to use them.
Best 12" PowerBook G4 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.04.
Used 867 MHz Combo, no APX, $490; 1 GHz, $550; SuperDrive, $625; 1.5 GHz w/o APX, $660; w/APX, $675.
Best 17" PowerBook G4 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.04.
Used 1 GHz, $779; 1.33 GHz, $799; 1.5 GHz, $859; 1.67 GHz, $910.
11 Mac Browsers Compared, Simon Royal, Mac Spectrum, 09.03.
The latest versions of Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, Shiira, iCab, Radon, Firefox, Netscape Navigator, SeaMonkey, Flock, and Camino tested in Leopard.
Best eMac Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.03.
Used 700 MHz Combo, $120; 1.25 GHz SuperDrive, $150; 1.42 GHz, $349.
Best Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard' Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.03.
Mac OS X 10.5, single user, $99; 5 users, $140; 10.5 Server, 10 users, $395; unlimited, $850.
Best MacBook Air Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 09.03.
Refurb 1.6 HD, $1,499; new, $1,690 after rebate; refurb 1.8, $1,699; new, $1,919 a/r; refurb 1.6 SSD, $2,099; new, $2,294 a/r; refurb 1.8, $2,299; new, $2,400 a/r.
Psystar Strikes Back, Countersues Apple, Frank Fox, Stop the Noiz, 09.03.
Psystar is trying to paint Apple as a monopoly and force it to license the Mac OS.
Our advertising is handled by BackBeat Media. For detailed
price quotes and advertising information, please
contactat BackBeat Media (646-546-5194). This number
is for advertising only.