Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Macworld: IE out, new apps and PowerBooks in

By 90X Double Side in Technology
Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 11:30:12 PM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

At this morning's MacWorld Expo San Francisco keynote, Apple introduced a slew of new apps and expanded the PowerBook line to include 12" and 17" models (the first notebook with a 17" display), which are 802.11g and Bluetooth compatible.

Perhaps of most interest is the fact that Apple will no longer be bundling Internet Explorer, and will instead include a new open-source Apple web browser based on Konqueror.


There have been rumors of an Apple branded web browser ever since Apple hired David Hyatt, the former Netscape employee who created the Chimera project (which is the Mac OS X equivalent of Phoenix, and its predecessor). But as it turns out, Apple's new browser, called Safari, is based on Konqueror's KHTML engine, not on Mozilla's Gecko engine.

Apple is emphasizing the speed of their new browser, which they claim far outperforms the glacial Mac versions of IE and Mozilla, and even edges out Chimera. Indeed, Safari is the antithesis of Mozilla, and makes even lightwight browsers look complicated: it is a heavily simplified browser with four toolbar buttons, a Google search field, a "snapback" button that takes you to the top level of a site, and little else (the progress bar is the background of the URL field, and there is no status line). The browser incorporates some Jaguar features, for example it creates a bookmark folder with the homepages from all the people in your address book, and it uses Rendezvous (Apple's open-source implementation of ZeroConf) to find configuration pages for your network devices. It also retains some essential Konqueror features like pop-up blocking, basic cookie management, an option for custom stylesheets, and good standards support. Safari (currently in public beta) is a 3MB download available now.

Apple also unveiled a $99 commercial presentation app called Keynote (which CEO Steve Jobs revealed he had been using to make his 2002 keynote slideshows) featuring all the usual alignment, theme, table and chart options, as well as Quartz rendering and some 3D transitions through OpenGL. Keynote can read and write PowerPoint applications, making it the second app revealed today to supplant a MS product on Mac OS X. This will no doubt further fuel rumors of an AppleWorks 7 with compatibility with Office file formats, as Word and Excel are now the only MS products Apple isn't competing with.

They also announced revisions to iMovie and iPhoto, bringing them up to versions 3 and 2, respectively. The new versions emphasize integration, for example you can browse through your iTunes playlists to find a song for the soundtrack to your iMovie. Contrary to rumors, iPhoto remains free, and iMovie, which used to be commercial, is now free (as in beer). iDVD, which used to be free for people who had an Apple DVD-R drive, is now only available on DVD-ROM (to hold all the included themes) for $49, and is bundled with a CD-ROM with iTunes, iPhoto, and iMovie in a boxed retail product Apple is calling iLife. As always, the new versions will be bundled with all new Macs.

On the hardware side, Apple released a huge 17" PowerBook, and a tiny 12" PowerBook that is smaller than even Apple's old Duo notebooks at 10.9"x8.6"x1.18". They also announced 802.11g wireless networking products (the 802.11b backwards-compatible format with 54Mbps speed): new cards and base stations branded as AirPort Extreme. The big model has a 17" screen with 1440x900 resolution, a 1GHz G4 processor, 512Mb of PC2700 RAM, a 60GB hard drive, a DVD-R/CD-RW optical drive, and a GeForce4 440 Go 64MB graphics card, for USD$3,299. The small model has a 12.1" screen at 1024x768, a 867Mhz G4, 256MB of PC2100, a 40GB drive, a DVD-ROM/CR-RW, and a GeForce4 420 Go 32MB card.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Google
o Konqueror
o David Hyatt
o Chimera
o Phoenix
o Safari
o Jaguar
o Rendezvous
o ZeroConf
o download
o Keynote
o iLife
o 17" PowerBook
o 12" PowerBook
o Also by 90X Double Side


Display: Sort:
Macworld: IE out, new apps and PowerBooks in | 90 comments (83 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
The 'Bookmarks' field is good... (3.50 / 2) (#5)
by tea light on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 04:01:03 PM EST

Like... Duh!
Why didn't someone do that before? It's SO obviously an improvement to be able to choose the folder.

The automatic unzipping is good too. (Wonder if it will do multiple downloads and transfer resume?)

Snapback. Hmmm, to me a drop down back menu is preferable. I might want to go back to the second page I looked at. What then Apple?
Also, Opera used to have this feature 'set Window Home Page' (although it was dropped, and not automatically set).

Overall, great stuff!
Can't wait for Opera to copy these features (for a change). Can't do without tabbed browsing [right now: 9 windows open].

Definately Needs Tabs (4.00 / 2) (#7)
by Rand Race on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 04:35:52 PM EST

And more in the contextual (right-click) menu than 'view source' and 'save page as' (like, oh, I don't know.... BACK!).

Give me those two features and Moz is gone from my G4s. Safari is just so damned fast...


"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Amen to the tabs. [nt] (none / 0) (#52)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:36:31 AM EST


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

No back in context menu.That could be a good thing (none / 0) (#75)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:26:05 PM EST

And more in the contextual (right-click) menu than 'view source' and 'save page as' (like, oh, I don't know.... BACK!).

Given that there are keyboard shortcuts, and button at the top. I don't think it's nessesary for it to be cluttereing up the context menu. It's not like you can go back for indervidual frames, unlike if you may want to save a specific frame etc.

Yes. I also will be waiting for a tabbed version before I ever consider dumping Chimera.

[ Parent ]

right click on the back button.... (nt) (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by jdrake on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 04:53:36 PM EST


-----------------------------------------
- If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around, is there any sound?
- If the universe is created, and nobody is around, is there any bang?

[ Parent ]
Right click? (none / 0) (#45)
by crankie on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:58:44 AM EST

On a mac? Surely you jest.

~~~
"The great thing about hardcore socialists is the silence they emit once they start earning a decent wage." - tombuck
[ Parent ]
What did you think he meant the middle button? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:36:15 AM EST

*My* mac mouse has 5 buttons. Maybe you think we should use the thumb button?


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

Try click and hold -- same as a right click <nt (none / 0) (#62)
by tudlio on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 01:47:52 PM EST




insert self-deprecatory humor here
[ Parent ]
Bookmarks field (4.33 / 3) (#11)
by ocelotbob on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 05:40:54 PM EST

It's been in Phoenix for a while now. Hit Bookmark, and a window pops up that asks you what folder you want to put it in, or on the bookmark bar. I just wish that the bookmarks field will make it into mozilla proper.

Why... in my day, the idea wasn't to have a comfortable sub[missive]...
--soylentdas
[ Parent ]

Control + Shift + D ? (none / 0) (#34)
by NFW on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 01:00:46 AM EST

Like that, or do I misunderstand?


--
Got birds?


[ Parent ]

It's a bit nicer, and less cluttered in phoenix (none / 0) (#41)
by ocelotbob on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:32:56 AM EST

Personal preference, I guess. The Phoenix version is a bit simplified, and brings up the manager by default. The mozilla way is a bit more convoluted, IMO.

Why... in my day, the idea wasn't to have a comfortable sub[missive]...
--soylentdas
[ Parent ]

Mas os 9 (3.00 / 4) (#6)
by steveftoth on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 04:32:50 PM EST

Also, these new powerbooks won't boot os9 (I think) as Jobs said that all new computers after today won't be able to boot into os9.

I don't like this, because it reduces choice.  It would be similar to all Dell PCs not being able to boot into DOS.  I know that it will help force people to use OSX, but it seems like everyone who tries OSX stays with it.  (Assuming that their computer is 'fast enough')  OS9's advantages are more software and speed, but those advantages are fading in relationship to the advantages that OSX include.  

Also, now that OSX has an apple supported X11 server, it is the unix of choice in my opinion.  You can now run almost any unix application on it, if not local, then remotely.

incorrect analogy (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by mattwnet on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 06:22:57 PM EST

It would be similar to all Dell PCs not being able to boot into DOS.

Not really. DOS is hardly an operating system. Any PC computer should boot any version of DOS. Driver support + getting things to work is what the problem is.

[ Parent ]
heh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by tps12 on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 06:41:14 PM EST

I remember people saying this when the first Macs came out that wouldn't boot 6.0.8. Then I was saying it when our new Mac required 7.1. And again when they started requiring 7.5, and 8, and and 8.6...

[ Parent ]
True... (none / 0) (#60)
by steveftoth on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 12:37:18 PM EST

but I would say that the differences between all the previous OSes is much smaller then the difference between OSX and all the previous versions.  

[ Parent ]
yes but (none / 0) (#70)
by tps12 on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:17:55 PM EST

The important thing is not "how different" the old OS is from the new, but how many apps are broken by forcing the user to upgrade. Most apps that run under 6.0.8 also ran under 7, and most apps that ran under 9 also ran under X in Classic mode. In both cases, some apps broke, but I actually don't think the 9->X transition was uncharacteristically inconvenient in this respect.

[ Parent ]
on Apple's X11 (4.00 / 1) (#15)
by tebrow on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 07:42:50 PM EST

You can now run almost any unix application on it, if not local, then remotely.

I don't think it's quite that simple. All Apple's page claims is that their implementation will make it easier to port applications to Darwin. The Fink Project's sole business is to do that sort of porting, and even with Apple's X11 implementation installed, I'm still having to use their versions of software. I'm not an expert, but I don't understand how Apple's X11 is easier for developers than XFree86 for Darwin.



[ Parent ]
But what I do know is that... (none / 0) (#33)
by the on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 12:51:00 AM EST

...any X server has gotta be faster than XFree86 for Darwin.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
I'm planning to reinstall the Gimp (none / 0) (#50)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:35:04 AM EST

I'm going to re-fink the Gimp today, I'll let y'all know if it works with Apple's X11 server.

Early point, though: Apple's rootless X server is already driving me nuts because I keep typing Apple shortcuts in X windows - and they don't work. With XDarwin I at least had a visual reminder about whether I was in Kansas or Oz...


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

stupid question (none / 0) (#84)
by calimehtar on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 09:19:05 AM EST

I didn't even know I had the Gimp. but I typed 'gimp' at the command line and ... there it is! But I try to add it to the X11 application menu name -> Gimp; command -> gimp; and then select the menu item and nothing happens. Same with dillo. Why?

[ Parent ]
hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#85)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 10:50:04 AM EST

You must have installed gimp thru fink at some point.

If it works from the terminal, but not from the X11 menu, try typing "which gimp" in the terminal and then putting that full path in the command part of the X11 application menu item.

I had no joy reinstalling gimp myself - for some reason it kept saying that it didn't recognize any of my picture files...


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

backwards compatibility sucks (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by j1mmy on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 09:26:18 PM EST

I applaud Apple for throwing out the old and bringing in the new. If MS had thought to do that sooner, the Windows 9x series might have actually been stable.

[ Parent ]
They did (none / 0) (#39)
by drsmithy on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:30:38 AM EST

It's just that Microsoft care much more about backwards compatibility than Apple do.

With Apple, once it's more than a generation or two old, don't expect it to work, or Apple to expend much effort to help make it work better. With Microsoft, you can probably still run most DOS and Win16 software on Windows XP. Prior to that, they created an entire product line solely to pander to backwards compatibility (Win9x) - instituting many horrible hacks to make it as compatible as possible - and then extended its lifetime twice as long as originally planned.

[ Parent ]

You ever try to install DOS on a modern Dell? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 09:50:03 PM EST

I dare you to try. Where you gonna put the 5.25" floppy?


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

floppies (none / 0) (#25)
by ucblockhead on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 10:19:22 PM EST

Lots of versions of DOS came on 3.5" floppies...
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Duh. I know that. (none / 0) (#28)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 10:49:16 PM EST

Just wanted to see if *he* did.

:-P

In any case, I still want to see him install DOS 3 on a new Dell then try to access his CD. Or even his hard disk.


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

What? (none / 0) (#31)
by ucblockhead on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 11:19:04 PM EST

No mscdex?
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Only worked with some drives. (none / 0) (#47)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:27:59 AM EST

By 1996 I was already seeing CD-ROM drives that only worked in windows, not in DOS. I can't imagine the situation got better.

Plus the whole "long" filename issue....

--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

Punk (none / 0) (#56)
by virg on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:22:02 AM EST

You Windows punk. I put the 5.25" floppy in my 5.25" floppy drive, and I formatted my 30 GB drive into fifteen FAT16 partitions (and I added fifteen FAT12 parts for DOS 3.3)! MY CD-ROM works fine with the SoundBlaster drivers and I boot DOS for breakfast. Punk. Windows Punk.

Okay, I'm just jerking your chain. Still, booting to DOS just requires FAT16. Long file names aren't a problem with booting, they just appear in the mangled form (and if you change them they stay mangled when you go back to Windows). Realistically, you can boot your new Dell to DOS easily if you have a small hard drive to work with. Or, you can just run FreeDOS. Or run DOS on your palmtop. Whatever.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Re: floppies (none / 0) (#29)
by elemental on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 10:51:27 PM EST

/me looks at his Dell

Where am I gonna put the 3.5" floppy?

--
I love my country but I fear my government.
--> Contact info on my web site --


[ Parent ]
in the zip drive ;) /nt (none / 0) (#86)
by pschap on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 07:46:49 PM EST



--
"In 1991, we had almost nothing. We'd only begun building cocks. After just 10 years, we have a very robust, active cock."

[ Parent ]
Why there is no OS9 support. (none / 0) (#44)
by Alannon on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 06:11:09 AM EST

This wasn't because Apple decided, "Let's make it so that these new machines won't run OS9." In order to make these machines run OS9, Apple would have needed to make yet another update for OS9 in order to allow it to run. OS9 was marked as a dead product quite some time ago. Apple has a nice advantage in hardware flexibility because it controls the OS that most people run on it. That means Apple can easily change chipsets and other hardware without having to worry about legacy OS support.

[ Parent ]
The other advantage... (1.00 / 1) (#68)
by jmzero on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:46:39 PM EST

Is they can screw over their users in terms of software compatibility, because a good portion of their users will take whatever Apple's giving.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
For about a year, (1.27 / 51) (#9)
by Hide The Hamster on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 05:02:09 PM EST

Mark Allen, a gay man living in New York, conducted an online relationship with a man living in Austin, Texas. But as the relationship matured, Allen realized it wasn't his cyberboyfriend he was falling in love with, it was his PowerMac G3.

Mark met Bryan online. Their first date was a romantic candlelight dinner, via webcam. In New York, Mark lit a candle and ate Chinese takeout, while Bryan did the same 1,700 miles away in Texas.

Soon they started sleeping together: Mark put his monitor and webcam next to his bed so he could watch Bryan sleeping, and vice versa.

When they eventually met in person, about a year later, the relationship fizzled out. That's when Mark realized it wasn't Bryan he fancied, it was his Mac.

"Bryan, my cyberboyfriend, was in a lot of ways, my PowerMac G3, webcam and telephone," Mark wrote on his website. "He literally lived inside of this machine ... that I myself could control like a light switch. The perfect boyfriend."

Mark diagnosed himself with a minor case of "objectum-sexuality," a fetishistic attraction to inanimate objects, in this case, his Mac.

"You may find the line between your attraction to your lover's face and your computer monitor starting to blur," he wrote.

The concept of objectum-sexuality appears to have originated with Eija-Riitta Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer, a Swedish woman who "married" herself to the Berlin Wall in 1979 (Berliner Mauer is German for Berlin Wall). Eklöf-Berliner-Mauer started the Objectum-Sexuality chat group (age-restricted login required), where a number of like-minded individuals gather. There's a similar forum in German.

Objects people have become attracted to include toy trains, organs (the electronic kind), drilling rigs and various buildings. The most common expression is the love of cars. There's a FAQ for having sex with cars (the tailpipe is involved) and sites devoted to car porn.

Objectum sexuality is not a recognized paraphilia in the American Psychiatric Association's manual of psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statisticians Manual. However, psychologist and cybersex expert Al Cooper said such fetishes exist, and nothing surprises him.

"It's phenomenal the kind of things people fetishize," he said. "The world is a big place with a lot of people. There's somebody somewhere in the world with a fetish for anything."

Cooper, editor of Sex and the Internet and director of the San Jose Marital and Sexuality Centre, said he hasn't treated anyone with a Mac fetish, but thought they could become objects of sexual attraction.

"It's not surprising people will fetishize the computer because you can get a lot of sexual stuff off them," he said. "Part of (Apple's) campaign is to make them sexy. They are sleek and colorful.... It makes it more likely people will fetishize it."


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

needs more of this (2.00 / 2) (#18)
by j1mmy on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 09:41:06 PM EST

http://www.wired.com/news/images/0,2334,56409-5528,00.html

[ Parent ]
non-ie browser (4.16 / 6) (#10)
by Ras Bomboclaat on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 05:16:31 PM EST

Maybe that will convince all the leet Jobs-worshipping, turtle-neck wearing, web-deezinurs to build something that works with other browsers.
~~ DOING NOTHING ~~ FUCKING SOMETHING
Yes, it's excellent news for that reason (none / 0) (#21)
by jbuck on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 09:50:17 PM EST

Most of the graphic artists in advertising use Macs. Now they'll have to make their web pages work on at least two browsers, which will rapidly improve the commercial web and get people to use validators, and not just the "looks ok on IE" test.

[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#22)
by paine in the ass on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 10:04:31 PM EST

Among my daily reading are the blogs of quite a few notable web designers. They all use Macs, true, but they also all push web standards like the gospel, and even use Chimera once in a while.


I will dress in bright and cheery colors, and so throw my enemies into confusion.
[ Parent ]
They are a minority (none / 0) (#61)
by Ras Bomboclaat on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 01:42:46 PM EST

Most web-dezinuurs do what Steve tells 'em to do.
~~ DOING NOTHING ~~ FUCKING SOMETHING
[ Parent ]
Beware of generalizations (none / 0) (#69)
by paine in the ass on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:58:21 PM EST

Most people are idiots.


I will dress in bright and cheery colors, and so throw my enemies into confusion.
[ Parent ]
Will IE still be developed for mac? (4.50 / 2) (#14)
by John Milton on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 07:02:45 PM EST

I can't see Microsoft wasting the time to develop a browser for Macs when no one is going to use it. Has there been any word on the MS reaction to this?


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


sure why not? (none / 0) (#16)
by Work on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 07:51:46 PM EST

this sounds like a healthy call to competition.

[ Parent ]
MS has been cooling towards Apple over the past (none / 0) (#19)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 09:48:13 PM EST

year or so. They need Apple to remain their symbolic competitor to keep Justice off their backs, but that doesn't mean they have to keep feeding them (Apple).


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

Not a competitor (none / 0) (#37)
by drsmithy on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:23:22 AM EST

They need Apple to remain their symbolic competitor to keep Justice off their backs [...]

Apple are not a competitor in the market Microsoft were ruled a monopoly in (x86-compatible Operating Systems). Ergo, Microsoft don't need Apple to "remain their symbolic competitor" at all, because (from the legal perspective) they aren't.

[ Parent ]

And not x86 monopoly (none / 0) (#42)
by juahonen on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:52:23 AM EST

We are talking about desktop OS monopoly. Apple is a competitor as well as Linux. With Apple it's just a bit different since you'll need special hardware. Taking into account that corporate buyers are the major source of income for all desktop OS manufacturers, and the fact that corporations buy new computers more often than home users, it's not justified to say that Apple is out of scope of Microsoft monopoly just because they aren't using x86 based hardware. From the legal perspective, Microsoft is a dominant desktop software vendor.

And speaking of Microsoft not updating IE for OSX just tells us Microsoft is not going to support Unix-based operating systems. A good reason for users dependant on Microsoft software to switch to PC hardware.



[ Parent ]
actually, recent rumor (none / 0) (#67)
by SocratesGhost on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:49:04 PM EST

there's a rumor recently been floated that Apple will retrofit OS X to work on X86 architecture. There's some that feel that Apple is doing this so that they can make a concession to Microsoft. In other words, if MS won't support Office/IE for Mac, then they will have a potentially credible threat on the desktop OS market.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
Unlikely (none / 0) (#72)
by drsmithy on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:51:25 PM EST

There's two major issues with OS X in x86:
Firstly, if it ever does happen, it won't happen in the way everyone who wants it would like it to be - able to run on any x86 box. All that would happen is Apple would change over to x86 processors - the machine would still only be available to Apple, and OS X would only run on Apple machines.
Secondly (and this is the killer) there is the software problem. There would be practically zero OS X/x86 software available, and developers still reeling from the porting effort from Classic -> OS X would have little interest in porting to an entirely different platform.

Finally, there's little reason to believe it would make the machines much cheaper - the only "proprietry" (and hence, expensive) parts left in Macs are the motherboard and case. Everything ele can be pretty much bought off-the-shelf. It might make them faster - but since there'd be no software available to take advantage of the speed, what would be the point ?

[ Parent ]

Re:And not x86 monopoly (1.50 / 2) (#71)
by drsmithy on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:40:14 PM EST

We are talking about desktop OS monopoly.

*You* might be, but the law wasn't. Microsoft haven't been ruled a monopoly in the market of "Desktop OSes", and no company is a monopoly until legally ruled so.

It's perfectly justifiable to say Apple are "out of scope", because from the only ways of defining a monopoly (either the arbitrary legal way or the literal way), they _are_.

[ Parent ]

Not correct. (4.00 / 1) (#87)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:40:25 PM EST

...and no company is a monopoly until legally ruled so.

I think you meant that no company is culpable for 'anti-competitive' practices until a court of law so determines. Any company that is dominant in any market is a monopoly in that market per se, regardless of whether a court of law has so ruled. Being a monopoly is not a violation of antitrust laws without anti-competitive practice (e.g., predatory pricing, dumping, price fixing, etc.)
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Which law ? (2.00 / 1) (#88)
by drsmithy on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 02:26:24 AM EST

Any company that is dominant in any market is a monopoly in that market per se, regardless of whether a court of law has so ruled.

This is not my understanding of the relevant law(s), I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you think this. While you're at it, please give the appropriate (ie. legal) definition for "dominant".

AFAIK, a company cannot be deemed a monopoly until a court of law rules them so - there is no "one this proportion of the market is owned, you are a monopoly rule" (and even if there was, how would you objectively measure market share ?). Such a ruling also requires a strict definition of the "market" that the company is being ruled a "monopoly" of. For example, Microsoft were ruled a monopoly of x86-compatible desktop operating systems (which is why you can't consider Apple a "competitor" in the market).

This is the primary reason I think these type of anti-competitive laws are a crock - because a company doesn't know it is breaking the rules until after the fact.

[ Parent ]

Okay... (3.00 / 1) (#89)
by SPYvSPY on Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 11:40:24 AM EST

...so...

1. In the US, antitrust law is enforced at both the state and federal levels, under separate (but obviously related) bodies of law. Outside the US, there are local country antitrust regimes, as well as regional regimes (e.g., EU, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc.) that bear on member state antitrust regimes, and generally play the (often ineffectual) role of an international antitrust authority. Note that many regimes outside the US use the terminology 'competition law' rather than 'antitrust'. Antitrust laws can be enforced by public authorities (e.g., state A.G.'s office), or by private lawsuits.

2. The main source of antitrust authority in the US is the Sherman Act of 1890. For other relevant authorities, see Cornell's excellent resource here. 3. The key concept in antitrust regulation is "restraint of trade". The original problem that antitrust regulation was meant to address was the "trusts" that were essentially collusions between ostensibly separate 'competitors' that were acting as cartels, fixing prices and pricing competitors out of the applicable market. Cartels face many problems internally (such as cheating by one of the cartel members), and are often self-destructive. But, notable examples otherwise do exist. Just have a look at the jurisprudence to see plenty of examples of cartel-type antitrust actions. Generally, these cases focus on commodities such as sugar, metals, food products, etc.

4. Another problem is the single company that has, through whatever means, risen to a position of dominance in a market so as to permit that company to behave in an anticompetitive manner. This is a 'monopoly'. From an economic perspective, a definition of a monopoly is: "any seller that faces a downward-sloping demand curve". A monopolist has the ability to set the price of its output to any number it likes, which is *potentially* anti-competitive.

5. Now, ask yourself a key question: What is the result where a monopolist sets the price of its output to the market price? Well, this is an extremely complex question. One immediate problem is that there may not be any market price, since the monopolist controls the market. Of course, that assumes that the monopolist operates in a dominant position in that market worldwide. That is quite rare, and so it is generally possible to extrapolate a domestic price from the 'competitors' outside the relevant geographic market. So, assuming that a market price is discernable, and assuming that the monopolist is charging that price, what is the harm to consumers? Where is the restraint of trade? Isn't there only *potential* harm? Does it seem right to hold a dominant company liable for *potentially* restraining trade? It is for these reasons that a company can be dominant in a market, but not in violation of antitrust laws.

5. One of the reasons that antitrust law is such an elusive beast is that it depends on a somewhat arbitrary definition of a market. In order to establish that a particular company is a monopolist, one must first define the market that such company has monopolized. This is a very subjective exercise, at the end of the day. For instance, nearly everyone will agree that Microsoft is dominant the market for desktop operating systems in the United States. Is the same true globally? Is the same true for server OS markets? As you can see, the establishment of a company's dominance is dependent on (a) the geographic definition of a market, and (b) the functional definition of a market. Therefore, taken to an aburdity, I could argue that Sanrio is dominant in the market for cute Japanese animal characters sold in US malls. They are, in fact, a monopolist in that market. Are they in violation of the antitrust laws? No, because my market definition is absurd. There is a healthy market for stationary and other trinkets of the type sold by Sanrio, and one could easily argue that the crap sold in the KMart stationary aisle is easily 'interchangeable' with the Sanrio stuff. Therefore, antitrust authorities would most likely look at the broader market for stationary, in which Sanrio is not dominant by any stretch.

6. Let me conclude by pointing out that antitrust is a very elusive set of legal and economic ideas, and that I am far from being an expert in this field. Also, since IAAL, don't use this post as actual legal advice.
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

It isn't now (4.00 / 1) (#24)
by 90X Double Side on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 10:14:44 PM EST

They haven't added one single new feature to it since before the release of Mac OS X (anyone remember the release date for IE Mac Edition 5.0? I don't, but it's over a year). The only updates have been a few service packs to fix security holes, and 0.0.1 updates to fix the security holes in the service packs, so Microsoft really stopped actively developing the product quite some time ago, which is why there have been so many alternative browsers created for Mac OS X.

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
[ Parent ]
"Features" (none / 0) (#35)
by Zontar The Mindless on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 01:07:59 AM EST

The only feature I'm interested for the time being is compliance with W3C standards. When all the major players offer decent CSS-2 support, then I'll be ready to talk about new whiz-bangs. In the meantime, the browser is a mature and well-known UI.

Excepting Mozilla, of course, since it already supports more of the standards than anything else out there. ;)

Note to site admins: Why don't you guys allow title attributes in HTML tags?



[ Parent ]
well (none / 0) (#27)
by calimehtar on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 10:44:01 PM EST

The ever-observant Codebitch reports seeing things in her logs that look like new IE builds. I haven't noticed Microsoft cooling to Apple at all, and fully expect them to keep working on IE if only to help advance the ".Net Initiative" and keep mac users on MSN.

[ Parent ]
Users will be forced anyway (none / 0) (#46)
by Silent Chris on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:25:43 AM EST

It's not a matter of whether or not it's a good browser, but the fact that all users will be forced to use Safari whether they like it or not.  It's bound to be bundled with all Macs eventually as the default browser.  Very few will change it.  It's one of the reasons why IE is so used right now.

[ Parent ]
Chestnut, oh chestnut (none / 0) (#53)
by eightball on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:01:56 AM EST

According to a graph on the site in the link above yours: comment here, graph link here, the default browser for OS X (IE) started at 80% usage (at some time after betas were in play) and down to about 40% now. So that is about 60% of OS X users have changed browsers.

This isn't the most scientific of studies and probably reflects computer enthusiasts more than the population, but it is a far cry from "very few will change it"

[ Parent ]

macedition vs rest of world (none / 0) (#78)
by calimehtar on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:44:07 PM EST

Certainly a lot of mac os x users are geeky early adopters who read MacEdition, but I guess Google or some such site would be a better indicator of actual browser usage on Macs.

I mean, if you buy your grandmother a mac for christmas, does it follow that she'll be putting in her vote for Mac IE at Macedition a few weeks later? No! It does not!



[ Parent ]
macedition vs rest of world (none / 0) (#82)
by CodeBitch on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 06:51:10 AM EST

Well, I'd like to think that people's grandmothers ARE interested in MacEdition (-: But until other site start putting the effort into browser share tracking that we do, our log files are all you have. The trend is very clear - the sort of people who use OS X do seem to be willing to switch browsers. Thank heavens they have Chimera, Mozilla and now Safari to switch to, instead of the standards-unfriendly OmniWeb and (in different ways) iCab.

[ Parent ]
Konqueror/Safari (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by 90X Double Side on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 11:06:55 PM EST

Apple has now posted a summarized changelog and the source code for their modified KHTML rendering engine. The vast majority of changes deal with increasing speed and eliminating crashes.

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
Gah! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by thadk on Tue Jan 07, 2003 at 11:45:04 PM EST

Jobs can't make things easy for me. Now I've gotta choose between a tablet or a Mac for my college laptop purchase. I was hoping they'd finally take advantage of InkWell from the Newton today and announce one. . . Maybe there's a little of that "Not Invented Here" syndrome left. That 17" is out of my range and while nice  (DDR333! better than my desktop) the 12" is still only 1024x768.

Safari is a huge deal with KHTML--instead of IE for the majority of web browsers or Mozilla + IE, it's now a total standards game if you want Mac, PC, and maybe AOL users to see your site. Very great!

The fact that it'll be hard to test the KHTML renderer on Windows particularly will make things a bit more complicated...of course IE for mac had it's own quirks I suppose.

I was also a bit disapointed at the fact that they didn't release Safari as a whole under open source. At least it appears just the engines. But Konqueror was a bit on the unstable side last time I checked so even what they did'll be helpful.

What about the 15"? (none / 0) (#36)
by Xenex on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 01:39:59 AM EST

"That 17" is out of my range and while nice  (DDR333! better than my desktop) the 12" is still only 1024x768."

Wouldn't you be after a 15" PowerBook then; the middle ground between those two? Higher resoulution than 1024x768, cheaper than the huge 17" Powerbook...




It's what's not there that makes what's there what it is.
[ Parent ]
I would but, (none / 0) (#43)
by thadk on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 04:26:02 AM EST

the 15incher wasn't updated...look at the specs: SDRAM, ATI 9000...I assume it's still the old Ti architecture as well and would probably be buying sort of an obsolete product, especially with the Ti+WiFi range issues. But I don't really want a larger screen--just more weight to lug around, just higher resolution.

[ Parent ]
ATI9000? (none / 0) (#79)
by obi on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:08:50 PM EST

... is actually better than the Nvidia, since it supports programmable pixel and vertex shaders.

Nvidia's Geforce4Go 420 and 440 don't (the GF4Go 4200 however does, how's that for confusing marketing)

If you intend to run Linux the 9000 is better too, since there's no PPC binaries of the nvidia drivers (for 3D).

And, there's a good chance that battery performance is better too for the 9000, although I'm not sure on that one (it was so in the Past with the mobility Radeon vs the GF2Go - maybe nvidia's chips are better now)

Personally, if it wasn't for that NVidia, I'd buy the 12" as soon as it came out.

[ Parent ]

Quirks (none / 0) (#55)
by MilTan on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:11:21 AM EST

If by "... IE for mac had its own quirks, I suppose," you meant "IE 5.x for Mac is the only fully standards compliant browser available" then yes, you'd be right :-). No comment on the compliance of kHTML, but I found it funny that you dismissed IE 5.x for Mac's compliance as "quirks."

[ Parent ]
There is no such thing... (none / 0) (#73)
by 90X Double Side on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:51:50 PM EST

as a "Fully standards compliant browser," period. The standards are far too complex for any group to produce a browser that implements all of them perfectly. Here is a a href="whole article on the Apple Developer Connection about just the CSS bugs in internet explorer. Likewise, a quick search of bugzilla will reveal dozens upon dozens of bugs blocking standards compliance. And all the smaller projects are generally in even worse shape, since it's such a huge task for a small team.

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
[ Parent ]
Whoops (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by 90X Double Side on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 07:52:50 PM EST

link should point to http://developer.apple.com/internet/css/ie5cssbugs.html

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
[ Parent ]
IE5 Mac never was the holy grail of standards sprt (none / 0) (#76)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:02:26 PM EST

If by "... IE for mac had its own quirks, I suppose," you meant "IE 5.x for Mac is the only fully standards compliant browser available" then yes, you'd be right :-).

If I was a professional stand-up comedian, I would be including this into my routine.

IE 5 for Mac may have had better support than other browsers....A couple years ago! But it was never 100% complient. And I've found it to have many rendering bugs compared to Gecko today.

[ Parent ]

Win32 port of Safari ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by istevens on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:16:55 PM EST

Someone is already working on a Win32 port of Safari.    Mind you, it doesn't compile and the results are preliminary, but it's a start.  View the thread containing the above post.  The person doing the work seems to think that "Apple has freed XHTML from the Qt non-commercial license" and that "a port of the kwq library to Win32 means that KHTML will run on Windows."

ian.
--
ian
Weblog archives
[ Parent ]

Safari Impressions (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by chigaze on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:23:38 AM EST

So here I am posting this from Safari and I have to say it's not a bad browser but it's still not what I'm looking for. The good: It's fast. The interface is fairly clean and seems to be a good base to work from. (Side note: there is a status bar, it's just off by default). The bad: Lacks the excellent control of Javascript, cookies, images, etc. of OmniWeb. Lacks the tabbed browsing of Chimera. Needs more available commands contextual menus (right-clicking a page should give navigation as well as cut and paste options, need more options when opening a link). The nitpicks: OS X has a pill shaped widget in the upper right that is used to hide/reveal the toolbar at the top of the window. It's not there in Safari. I like to hide the location/toolbar while I'm browsing to maximize window space. There's also no spellcheck when typing in text boxes. Overall it looks like a good start I just hope they develop it faster than they have Mail.app.
-- Stop Global Whining
Um, isn't that the point? (none / 0) (#48)
by Silent Chris on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:28:48 AM EST

The idea of something like Safari (at least, according to the marketing drek I'm reading on Apple's website) is to strip web site viewing down to its core.  If they add features, they're going to be "just another IE/Omniweb/Opera/Netscape/Mozilla".  The downside of this is, if you don't like the interface, tough.  

Apple has a habit of pigeon-holeing its users into a certain way of doing things.  Up until OS X (when users started truly going under the hood and making changes) a lot of them just lived with it.

[ Parent ]

Pre-OS X tinkering (none / 0) (#59)
by ToastyKen on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:14:34 AM EST

Actually, people tinked all the time in the pre-OS X days with ResEdit, at least. :)

[ Parent ]
Never a real tinkering environment (none / 0) (#64)
by Silent Chris on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:51:28 PM EST

There was ResEdit, and themes, but that's about it.  Occasionally you'd see someone come up with a tool to eject all disks at the same time (kind of amusing), but never anything like Terminal in OS X, batch files in DOS or daemons in *nix.  From an academic standpoint, OS X is cool that way.  From a marketing standpoint, it's hard to tell.

[ Parent ]
which browser has spell check? (none / 0) (#49)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 08:30:18 AM EST

I've never heard of that!


--
Wouldn't it be a victory for the oppressed people of Iraq, of North Korea, of Iran, if their police-state regimes were overthrown? Even by a cowbo
[ Parent ]

Omniweb, Mozilla (none / 0) (#57)
by Stereo on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:57:20 AM EST

Obniweb's is built-in. See mozdev.org for the mozilla module.

kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


[ Parent ]
it's no big whoop (none / 0) (#63)
by zephc on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:03:55 PM EST

It's built into the text box widget (NSTextBox or something)  I'm sure a programmer can supply args to underline or not those misspelled words (as omniweb seems to and safari doesn't... UI reasons for the target audience?)

[ Parent ]
Spell Checking (none / 0) (#65)
by 90X Double Side on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 03:20:54 PM EST

Safari does have spell checking, it's just not on by default (you need to go to Edit>Spelling>Check Spelling As You Type). My big dilemma is now whether I would rather have spell checking or tabs... hopefully Chimera will get spell checking or Safari will get tabs soon :)

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
[ Parent ]
Brushed Metal browser (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by zephc on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 02:39:48 AM EST

sick of the brushed metal look in Safari?

open the bundle Safari.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/Browser.nib in Interface Builder (requires Apple dev tools installed w/ IB 2.3 or greater)

from the menu bar, Tools > Get Info...

In the drop-down menu called Attributes (command+1 i think) there should be a check box called Textured Window.  Deselect it, save the NIB, and restart Safari.  Voila! Enjoy =]

how (none / 0) (#54)
by highenergystar on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:39:29 AM EST

hello im a switcher and i just installed dev tools onto my mac and i opened interface builder from the developer directory and the safari file is grayed out and i cant seem to open it. i could greatly use your help thnak you much

[ Parent ]
Opening an applicaton package (none / 0) (#58)
by ToastyKen on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 11:13:10 AM EST

Right-click the Safari app icon, and there should be an option called "Open as package" or "View package contents" or something.  You'll then get a window with a single "Contents" folder in it.  Dig down into that as the previous poster mentioned. :)

I found that, once I got rid of the aluminum look, the buttons were a bit too close to the title bar. So I made the window a notch taller, then did a Select-All and down-arrowed all the contents a bit to get a bit more aesthetic distance from the title bar.

InterfaceBuilder rules.. It's like ResEdit of the old days, except better!

[ Parent ]

Shouldn't really be a metal app anyway. (none / 0) (#77)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 09:16:39 PM EST

Hopefully it's just the beta. The other problem is that I don't think you're supposed to be able to customise the toolbar of a metal app. Apple seems to confirm this by the fact that you can't drag and drop the the icons on to the toolbar, You have to choose from the menu. It seems as if Apple are totaly ignoring their own guidlines.
Also, all the other metal apps have thick borders around the outside, Safari dosen't.

[ Parent ]
Indeed. (none / 0) (#80)
by whee on Wed Jan 08, 2003 at 10:09:26 PM EST

It almost looks like Apple was about to release this as an iApp (iBrowse! err, wait) but didn't want to for some reason.

I really don't mind the metal look; it's completely out of the way and clean looking. Of course, it is a beta -- who knows what they're planning for the final release. Perhaps the GUI will be dynamic like Sherlock'? There's quite a few features that would work great with a Sherlock style GUI.

I'd be extremely pleased if they did decide to offer browser features as separate bundles; It'd keep Safari simple for those who don't need oodles upon oodles of browser gadgets, yet allow others to customize and beef it up.

[ Parent ]

a nitpick (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by Hakamadare on Thu Jan 09, 2003 at 08:56:38 AM EST

there is no status line

not quite true.  "the status line is not visible by default" would have been more accurate.  select View->Status Bar, or hit Command-.

-steve
---
Schopenhauer is not featuring heavily on the "Review Hidden Comments" page at the moment. - Herring

non IE browser. (none / 0) (#90)
by Michael Moser on Mon Feb 17, 2003 at 09:49:46 AM EST

Ouch!

Just wait till all the MAC users figure out that
they can't use half of the sites due to

(1) JAVASCRIPT compatibility problems (yes, you must have the same DOM as IE).

(2) CSS - formatting of styles looks slightly differnt.

(2) XML support problems.

Another browser, cute idea when the WEB was _much_ simpler (the W3C did churn out so many specs that supporting them all in a meaningfull and non contradictory way is quite a task).


Macworld: IE out, new apps and PowerBooks in | 90 comments (83 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!