Forgot your password?

Comment: Man, I have no idea what you want from that compan (Score 1) 89

by garote (#47754411) Attached to: 3 Years In, a "B" For Tim Cook's Performance at Apple

Man, I have no idea what you want from that company.

Take for example the laptops. Under Big Steve's tenure - which everybody is using as an assumed judgement against Cook - Apple laptops got lighter, much faster, acquired new ports, higher resolution screens, more comfortable sizing, way better battery life, magnetic hinges, laser-drilled microphone ports and power lights, tiny built-in webcams, and a huge raft of software innovation like automatic backups, global search, and ... "widgets".

But they were still LAPTOPS.

Cook is replacing a CEO who was a worldwide icon who died at the height of his power. He's doing a damn good job in an insanely challenging position. But if all the stuff I listed above had happened under Cook's watch, you'd probably defecate on it, and point out that Apple was not first-to-market with ANY of those innovations.

Consider what's happened with iPhones during Cook's brief tenure. They've gotten lighter, faster, acquired new ports, more comfortable sizing, better battery life, will soon have higher resolution screens, and this year saw a pretty big raft of software innovation. Sound familiar? Was Apple first-to-market with ANY of it?

Go on, keep griping that it's still A PHONE.
Keep comparing them to Android phones, as if those were even a cohesive set of products. Keep repeating tired history.

You seem to want an entirely new product category, that is also wildly successful, and also completely rearranges an industry and becomes a cultural phenomenon. Did I say "want"? No, that's the wrong word. You seem to feel you are entitled to it, and that if Apple doesn't keep delivering these miracles like clockwork, it's a company of has-beens. Get off your high-horse.

Comment: Re:As a non-fanboy I like the Cook Apple better. (Score 1) 89

by garote (#47754309) Attached to: 3 Years In, a "B" For Tim Cook's Performance at Apple

Actually, "those Mac Pros" do not contain a 64-bit EFI. The choice was not arbitrary. Apple decided not to deal with the complication of driving a 32-bit EFI with an exclusively 64-bit kernel.

Now, you could still perhaps make the case that since Apple has very deep pockets, they could just throw more engineering time at the problem and do that support anyway. In fact, one dedicated hacker out there managed to create a replacement EFI interface for Mavericks that simply translates most of the vital 64-bit EFI calls to their 32-bit equivalents, allowing the OS to run on a Mac Pro 1.1 with very nearly no problems. (There are some sleep-wake issues with custom configurations for example.) If one hacker can do that, why couldn't Apple do it? He even posted the source code for the tool. I used it myself for about 6 months, until I saved up the 500 bucks to upgrade to a used 5.1 instead.

But again, the choice was not arbitrary. Most of development is testing, and it's not just a 32-bit EFI they would need to test for. They would need to test and debug Mavericks on every variation of the Mac Pro 1.1 with every combination of add-on peripheral, video card, RAM size, etc. Including older versions of the bluetooth module hardware, wifi module hardware, ATA bus, etc. That means more bugs, and more of the core developers' attention diverted from current products.

Plus, Mac Pro users may be the most technologically savvy of their entire userbase, but they are not the tastemakers and evangelists of the OS X platform any more. (I'm pretty sure that role is held by Macbook Air-using college students.) Apple isn't under much pressure to cater to us.

Oh also, you want an editable path bar on the stock OS? Type command-shift-U, then T, then command-O. Enjoy. ;)

Comment: Sold at discount, over the objections of teachers. (Score 0) 225

by garote (#47529223) Attached to: Chromebooks Are Outselling iPads In Schools

At least, this is what I saw first hand. The teacher ran a lab full of TEN-YEAR-OLD iMacs that were STILL in regular use, and what she really wanted was for the admins to simply fund REPLACING THE ONES THAT BROKE, with SLIGHTLY BETTER USED iMacs.

Her request was denied and her objections shot down, because some salesman from Google had convinced the department head that what students really needed were bottom-of-the-barrel cheap disposable crippleware netbooks that they could take home, because The Internet or whatever.

The teacher had a standing system with a school IT guy, where all the iMacs were rolled back to a known state every night, and the internet connectivity was heavily regulated. It worked fine - all she wanted was more powerful systems so they could use iMovie without things slowing down.

The Chromebooks will all be destroyed or wear out in a couple of years. Then the school will have to fork over another round of cash to Google due to vendor lock-in. There is no advantage here. You buy cheap hardware, you get cheap hardware. Same story as ever. Chromebooks are a "solution" in search of a problem.

Comment: NO! (Score 0) 711

by garote (#47162683) Attached to: Apple Says Many Users 'Bought an Android Phone By Mistake'

Unregulated app installation is a matter of FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS! A consistent UI experience is ESSENTIAL FOR DEMOCRACY! Samsung is evil! Apple is evil! Google is evil! Google is the hero! Apple is the hero! Google is the underdog! Apple is a monopoly! Google is a monopoly! Samsung is a monopoly! (In apps / search / South Korea) ONE OF THEM IS EVIL AND SHOULD BE DESTROYED! The other(s) should be GLORIFIED!

P.s. has anyone seen my schizophrenia meds?

Comment: New bells and whistles (Score 2, Interesting) 636

by garote (#47151039) Attached to: Apple Announces New Programming Language Called Swift

I was particularly surprised to see closures appear. So far I've only been using them in Javascript and Perl, but my experience has been that they are about 15% added flexibility for about -40% readability. That is, they make it harder to tell what's going on, more than they reduce development time.

Comment: Heh (Score 1) 258

by garote (#46895305) Attached to: BMW Created the Most Efficient Electric Car In the US

Well, neither are cars. I can't fit one through a door for example. :D

Aside from just being playful (sorry if you don't enjoy that sort of thing) , the point I was making was that there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement even still, and people might benefit from a wider perspective in that the answer _may_ not be to buy a shiny new car, but to buy a shiny new bicycle instead.

Comment: Well (Score 1) 258

by garote (#46895273) Attached to: BMW Created the Most Efficient Electric Car In the US

I'm sure a cyclist's efficiency drops dramatically with 60mph of wind! You could mitigate that with a fairing and a fancy recumbent bicycle. (Cyclists have actually achieved that speed, with such equipment.) But they kept that up for a matter of minutes, not hours.

That said, you can always put your chosen system on top by messing with the parameters.

For example: BMW's 2014 i3 has a 38 mile range, but I've been known to go over a hundred miles on a bicycle in one day. So, factor in two charge cycles, and not only use less fuel, I might actually outrun the vehicle as well.

Fun aside:

Cheetahs are significantly faster than humans, but over a long range, humans on foot can actually catch up with a cheetah and overtake it. Somali tribesmen recently did this to catch a cheetah who was attacking their livestock. (Reference: ) Walking on two legs is a hell of a lot more efficient than walking on four.

Comment: Not so naive fail (Score 2) 258

by garote (#46895137) Attached to: BMW Created the Most Efficient Electric Car In the US

That cost chart happens to include capital cost (manufacturing a solar panel) but only barely factors in the environmental degradation cost (crap spewed into the atmosphere by a coal plant). The adjustment chosen - $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions - is very optimistic, and acknowledged to be arbitrary. That's why the only number that comes close in your short list is nuclear, which factors in disposal cost.

Personally, I'd be happy to increase up-front cost to save on the back end. And given the popularity of electric and hybrid cars, I'm not alone in that feeling.