I worked closely with the kernel and firmware engineers at Apple for the last 4 years. They have never intentionally disabled any hacks, unlocks, or unofficially supported hardware. The changes that cause them to stop working were done solely to fix other bugs or to enable new features. It's not vindictive. I know, I helped make some of those decisions.

No, I was referring to a number of employees being forced out or let go in the past year. In fact, many of the ASIC engineers laid off after the Intel switch were hired back less than a year later to work on the iPhone SoC designs.

Prove that they intentionally blocked it. You are assuming that since the new version no longer boots on it, they intentionally blocked it. The more likely case is that they simply removed the support for it.

Consider that code support for a processor is non-trivial. While they may have added support for the Atom at some point, there is a cost to keeping that support functional. When working on other features in the kernel, it may very well be easier to remove the support for a processor that isn't officially supported than to keep it working. This is especially true for OS X which frequently changes their power management scheme for Intel processors.

Speaking as a former Apple employee: so _that's_ why a bunch of senior engineers in the hardware devision were let go or put in such a horrible situation that they left. Apple isn't being that great to their engineers and is focusing more on how hard they can drive them to produce new products every 6 months.

Actually, all labels are restricted to the characters allowed for ARPANET hosts. The spec does state that implementations should store labels as a length octect followed by a sequence of octets, thus implying that any compliant software _should_ handle UTF8, but no one wants to take that chance.

Except when the defaults of a release candidate have a bunch of debug options turned on that aren't normally enabled for actual releases. This wasn't testing the 'Default Settings', it was testing the debugging settings.

It isn't _that_ hard to saturate 1.544Mbps. Most cable/DSL downlink speeds are faster than that. Now, a T3 is a bit more challenging, but nothing a single decent machine can't handle.

And how does your system compare spec-wise to a fully decked out mac pro? It doesn't. A top of the line mac pro would include (2) Nehalem processors (8 cores total), 32GB of RAM, 4TB of disk.... Your system doesn't even come close.

In terms of the $4k mac pro, it still outspecs what you've listed. If you are going to do comparisons, at least use comparable parts.

Actually, it's fairly common to have international interference that prevents communication on the lower bands (160m/80m). So, yes, interference generated in China _can_ cause hams in the US to not be able to use that frequency range.

Not to mention NT came out before 95.

Yes, as a programmer, you can decide what comes into the cache. If not from C, you can certainly do so from assembly. Many architectures even include cache manipulation instructions so the program can better control cache reuse if it has sufficient external knowledge about the program's behavior.

Yes because a compiled, statically-typed, procedural language (C) has everything in common with an interpreted, dynamically-typed, object-oriented language.

Actually, I do have the schematics to my TV, microwave, washer, dryer, and car. I purchased these things called "service manuals." Sadly, they don't include the source code to the firmware.

Interface Builder lets you choose to specify offsets from either side for both axes (top/bottom for Y and left/right for X). Further it lets you defined resize behaviors. The only apps that will be bitten by a change in screen dimensions are those from developers who didn't bother to learn what those controls do and assumed that the screen size will just never change.