On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 08:02:41PM +0200, Sjoerd Hiemstra wrote:

Fred Miller wrote:

...

pro. photogs and graphic artists who use Linux are at a HUGE disadvantage because there's NO WAY in Gimp to get consistant ACCURATE color matching from the screen to paper, no matter what printer one uses!!

If you're a pro. photog. or graphic artist then you should have bought a Mac long ago!! MacOS is traditionally the primary OS in the graphics world.

What about SGI? They PWN the market in media. Graphics and movies are SGI, simple. Those machines make Macs seem like they run on DOS (You know, Apple DOS? ;) ) I use SUSE Slackware and Debian and free BSD, sometimes a few others, but most of the time SUSE, but let me tell you, I'd love to have an SGI. I'd stay with SUSE of course but that would be fun to toy with and they can run Linux anyway ;) Though I'd want to play with IRIX first. Just to play with it.

MickySoft has taken many ideas for Vista from both Linux and Apple

You're not kidding, I've seen some of the things they are planning and it's like.. Hold up Linux has been doing that a LONG time....

I really have no high expectations from an MS version of color matching. Also note the critical responses to the article wrt this.

...

If anything could get me to go back to MickySoft, this IS it!!!!

Why think in extremes? No OS has everything, and OSX happens to be most interesting for color management from a commercial viewpoint. I would certainly keep Linux as my main OS - it has great advantages unmatched by others.

S.H.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 3:18 pm, Rikard Johnels wrote:

Not that i "defend" MS ort anything, but as the subject of SGI came up... SGI had some very nice color management for the widescreen LCD (the 1600). And it was available for Win2000 as they ran it on the Visual Workstation 320 and 540. (dual/quad PIII boxes with special SGI graphics)

Have yet to get me one of those screens, but they are said to be wonderful together with tha drivers and color adjustment software.

They ARE!! 'Know someone who has that setup and have played with it. I'm just tired of waiting for color matching to come to Linux. I've needed if for years!!! If I wrote code, I'd tried to help a long time ago, but I don't. I know a lot of pro. photogs. and graphic artists who'd jump at the chance to dump MickySoft and Adobe and switch to linux and Gimp...........IF, IF, IF there was color matching!! There isn't, so they won't. And, since ignorance seems to rule in the Gimp camp, having no desire to provide profile support on the backend (printing), I've pretty much given up hope that color matching is going to be reality for Linux. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

* Allen (Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:32:40PM -0400)

What about SGI? They PWN the market in media. Graphics and movies are SGI, simple.

They used to, back in the day of jurassic park. These days SGI has put all thier money on the itanic, and itanic related super clusters for pure CPU power. I've used SGIs (next to Suns, linux boxes and windows boxes) for more then a decade, and can tell you that SGI has lost it Currently listening to: disc1Track05 Gerhard, (faliquid@xs4all.nl) == The Acoustic Motorbiker == -- __0 People have round shoulders from fairing heavy loads. =`\<, And the soldiers liberate them, laying mines along their roads. (=)/(=) Sorrow paid for valor is too much to recall Of the countless corpses piled up along the wailing wall.

Fred A. Miller wrote:

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 2:02 pm, Sjoerd Hiemstra wrote:

...

...

If anything could get me to go back to MickySoft, this IS it!!!!

Why think in extremes? No OS has everything, and OSX happens to be most interesting for color management from a commercial viewpoint. I would certainly keep Linux as my main OS - it has great advantages unmatched by others.

What could solve some problems, is IF Apple would release the OS to run on any Intel box. Then a dual boot would be workable for those need high end printing, where color matching is of paramount importance. For now, I have a professional Epson printer that doesn't get used much because of VERY POOR color - from a pro. standpoint, and it takes "forever" to get a decently balanced print because of NO profile support in Gimp nor color matching support in Linux. I have to send out ALL important work.

Fred

I've heard it said that the minute Apple releases OSX to run on Intel is the minute that they will die. MacOSX is a wonderful and amazing OS, but can they handle direct competition with MS's flagship product? Honestly, I love the great strides that I've been seeing in Linux and SuSE in particular with going head-to-head with MS, but I don't think Apple's ready to go there yet. MS just has too much of a monopoly on that market still. -- Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ jordan@viviotech.net

On 9/14/05, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com wrote:

Na, the hardware doesn't have that much to do with it...

My Linux box isn't the same hardware as yours...and I hear apple is only having it run on _their_ hardware.

Apple has changed hardware-processors-etc several times over the years...

No biggie.

Yeah. That's pretty much true. The hardware doesn't really matter and most don't care whether it's a PPC or Intel. What they do care about is MacOS and it's various features. Fred...Fred.. if your issue is Gimp then by all means get CXOffice and a copy of Photoshop and go to town. :) -Ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

On 9/15/05 5:46 AM, "Sid Boyce" wrote:

...

Na, the hardware doesn't have that much to do with it...

My Linux box isn't the same hardware as yours...and I hear apple is only having it run on _their_ hardware.

Apple has changed hardware-processors-etc several times over the years...

No biggie.

http://www.osx86project.org/ It's been hacked to run on non-Apple hardware, but the interesting question are how you could legally get hold of a copy and if you have a copy with Apple hardware if it's legal. My reading so far and Apple's existence has always been to sell hardware at premium prices rather than to be an OS provider. Interesting to see how this pans out for them on the bottom line if they don't find a method of crippling performance on typical x86 hardware. Regards Sid.

Sign up for the apple developer and you can have it for free... Apple has every version (ie 10.4, 10.3, 10.2, etc.) running on intel now. I hate paying a lot for things too, but I must say apple hardware is far better than "generic intel" stuff. I have had too many hardware items go in PC's than apple products. (and no, I don't work for apple but do hate being locked into their hardware line) -- Thanks, George If there is no monitor, it's an Apple ASIP server. If there is a dusty stool sitting in front of it, it's a Linux server If there is a comfortable chair and several coffee cup stains in front of it, it's an NT server. If no one can remember where the server is, it's a Novell server. If there is a high paid network admin contractor, comfortable chair, several coffee cup stains sitting in front of it, it's a Apple OSX server. -- Thanks, George If there is no monitor, it's an Apple ASIP server. If there is a dusty stool sitting in front of it, it's a Linux server If there is a comfortable chair and several coffee cup stains in front of it, it's an NT server. If no one can remember where the server is, it's a Novell server. If there is a high paid network admin contractor, comfortable chair, several coffee cup stains sitting in front of it, it's a Apple OSX server.

On 9/15/05 5:49 AM, "Kevanf1" wrote:

On 15/09/05, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com

...

Na, the hardware doesn't have that much to do with it...

My Linux box isn't the same hardware as yours...and I hear apple is only having it run on _their_ hardware.

Apple has changed hardware-processors-etc several times over the years...

No biggie.

I have to disagree there. It is a major biggie to software developers. Over the years it has hurt Apple's growth when they have changed processors etc. This time only time will tell. They are not only going up against MS but Mark Shuttleworth is now actually touting Ubuntu (the next one) as going head to head with Windows. Add to that the strides SuSE and all the other Linux distro's are making and I think it might be a bad idea and could kill Apple as we know it. I predict MS making an offer for Apple and buying it up lock, stock and barrel. This would come about around 24 months after the move over to the Intel chip.

But that's just my speculation :-)

I thought we were talking about Mr. and Mrs. Joe User. My bad. Plus if you listen to Mr. Jobs, there isn't that much to moving the code over due to some software they have...I forget the details. And of course it has hurt apple when they make major changes. Hell, I love OS9 and think it's faster than OSX but it had become a mess of code and didn't have protected memory and all the stuff that Unix, BSD, and Linux has. Yes, I have Ubuntu on a B&W G3 and it looks nice for a desktop...still testing...doesn't WOW me but it's nice. Apple isn't going anywhere soon. MS buying them? I know of a few people that would burn the building down first. LOL My guess is you don't know too many mac people...we would go back to using a typewriter, pony express, etc. first. ;) Gee, maybe even use Linux. Naaa... Yes, M$ is finally embracing open source, but there is this little thing about having a monopoly. I don't think they _can_ own apple. I just wonder how companies like yellowdog linux will survive. I tried their YD4 and didn't like it at all. Shame SuSE killed their PPC years ago @ 7.3. They lost a lot of folks. Me included. Now I have all these intel boxes around... The point is if a vendor isn't handling what you need, you change vendors. I know they keep going back and forth to Moto and IBM for the PPC chip. And I would agree it is a very good chip, but apple wants to keep moving on with their laptops... If IBM can't deal with it...someone else will. Sounds like Intel came answering. You gota do what you gota do. After all, Jobs said they would have a 3 gig powerbook and that didn't happen...guess he got pissed off with all that egg on his face. But then again you may know something I don't, and that's easy to do... -- Thanks, George The day Microsoft make something that doesn't suck will be the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Anonymous

On Thursday 15 September 2005 15:27, Kevanf1 wrote:

On 15/09/05, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com [snip]

...

I just wonder how companies like yellowdog linux will survive. I tried their YD4 and didn't like it at all. Shame SuSE killed their PPC years ago @ 7.3. They lost a lot of folks. Me included. Now I have all these intel boxes around...

Diversify or die. Sad :-( [snip]

One thing I noticed the other day might turn that frowney into a smiley: Novell has resurrected PPC, for OpenSuSE at least! There's a ppc version of OpenSuSE 10.0RC1 available for download. I'm looking forward to trying it out when I get time :) I don't know if there will be a boxed version for ppc, but the return of ppc as an architecture in OpenSuSE is great news anyway! Use the ppc bittorrent at http://ftp.opensuse.org/pub/opensuse/distribution/SL-10.0-OSS-RC1/SUSE-10.0-... to get it. -- Bill

Kevanf1 wrote:

On 15/09/05, suse_gasjr4wd@mac.com

...

...

Yes, M$ is finally embracing open source, but there is this little thing about having a monopoly. I don't think they _can_ own apple.

This is MS we are talking about, do you really think they are bothered about such piffling issues as company/product monopolies :-) If they really want Apple they could get it I'm sure. What is MS's stake in Apple these days?

Yeah, remember the Justice Dept. suit of the 90's? MS just stonewalled them for years until a friendly administration came into power, and poof! -- no more monopoly problems. John Perry

On 9/15/05, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

Yes, M$ is finally embracing open source, but there is this little thing about having a monopoly. I don't think they _can_ own apple.

If you think Jobs would let Mr. Bill take Apple by force.. you've not paid enough attention to Mr. Ego (jobs).. he would burn the building down himself and open source OS X completely first. ;)

This is MS we are talking about, do you really think they are bothered about such piffling issues as company/product monopolies :-) If they really want Apple they could get it I'm sure. What is MS's stake in Apple these days?

Microsoft sold it's stock in Apple completely 4 years ago. Which is probably a mistake since their $150M investment in 1998 would have given them about a $450M stake today. Microsoft only invested in Apple so they could say " See.. See.. We have a compeditor!! We're not a monopoly! " And this arrangement died a while ago... along with the contract that IE would be the default browser..etc..etc.

...

I just wonder how companies like yellowdog linux will survive. I tried their YD4 and didn't like it at all. Shame SuSE killed their PPC years ago @ 7.3. They lost a lot of folks. Me included. Now I have all these intel boxes around...

SUSE has restarted the PPC distro for endusers.. it's on www.opensuse.org or so I read a couple days ago. They stopped it when I worked for SUSE because why would anyone with half a brain run Linux on expensive PPC Apple gear when they can just use OS X which is UNIX and is optimized for the hardware. That was SUSE's thinking. But now that's not a consideration. Also, as far as Apples move to Intel.. you just have to look at the Mac news sites to figure this out. IBM didn't have chips to supply across the board from XScale to 64bit chips for laptops like Intel does... this is why they didn't go with AMD. I don't know about you but I love the fact that my Powerbook is under an inch thick.. it's sleek. But they COULD not put even a lowpowered G5 into that thin of a case. It was still too damn hot and power intensive for the designs. Apple designs from the outside --> in when it comes to laptops and whatnot. So they design a look and the engineers make it work and the because IBM had Xbox and PS3 deals.. Apple wasn't a consideration to IBM. There are a lot more reasons but it's not because the PPC isn't a nice cpu.

Nope, just pure speculation on my part. To be honest I really hope MS do not 'acquire' Apple. I'd like to see Apple gain some popularity. Though, not at the sake of Linux of course :-)

Well, 8 out of 10 engineers in my department use Powerbooks and PowerMacs now.. they are all old school UNIX guys.. which makes me understand why Jobs could say that their computer sales have gone up 40% over the last 3 quarters where Dell, HP and IBM have had their sales stay flat. :) It's possible that they are getting more popular. It's also possible that people have more then one machine like I do.. heck.. I've got 3 Linux boxes, 2 FreeBSD machines and a Powerbook. :) Anyway. :) Cheers! -ben -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

On Thursday 15 September 2005 10:26 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:

I was doing Macintosh development work during the switch-over from 68K to PPC. Yes, it caused work, but I welcomed it. The 68K had gone as far as it could and the switch was absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that the PPC has become an unacceptable processor for Apple's purposes. Apple's stated reason, that the power consumption characteristics of available processors were a problem in designing portable computers, rings hollow to me. Just a few days after Apple's announcement of the switch to x86 there was an announcement from IBM / Motorola of a lower-power PPC chip meant for portable uses.

Randall, maybe you or someone else knows for sure exactly what the differences will be, IF Apple is being honest about it, between a "normal" Intel spec. box and an Apple "approved" box. Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

On 9/17/05, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

...

On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that the PPC has become an unacceptable processor for Apple's purposes. Apple's stated reason, that the power consumption characteristics of available processors were a problem in designing portable computers, rings hollow to me. Just a few days after Apple's announcement of the switch to x86 there was an announcement from IBM / Motorola of a lower-power PPC chip meant for portable uses.

Randall, maybe you or someone else knows for sure exactly what the differences will be, IF Apple is being honest about it, between a "normal" Intel spec. box and an Apple "approved" box.

It will be Apple approved hardware... why do you think they are using the EFI firmware and the those damn TPM modules. :(

They said OS X will only run on their branded machines but it wouldn't preclude someone from running Windows on it. If you look at the last couple articles on OS X for Intel then binary files compiled for 10.4.2 (new dev release) will not run on the first dev. release.. so who knows what will happen on the final release shiped on Mactels.

I can say this.. I doubt that OS X will run on any old Dell or whitebox... and if it does it wouldn't be supported at all. It would be a support nightmare.. and since PC makers do the support and NOT Microsoft directly... I wouldn't rail on Apple to want to keep the hardware configs high and tight so they can support it.

Ah well. Tis all speculation anyway.

-Ben

Speculation indeed, but I think Apple are after 2 things, a greater margin on their x86 boxes and more unit sales, the second of these seems to put them back where they were with Power, Apples for Apple loyalists. Taking Sun as an example, their x86 boxes aren't shifting Solaris x86, they are largely shifting Linux, but at least they bring in revenue which Apple won't be able to emulate unless they will also support Windows -- MS definitely won't on those boxes. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

On 9/17/05, Sid Boyce wrote:

...

Speculation indeed, but I think Apple are after 2 things, a greater margin on their x86 boxes and more unit sales, the second of these seems to put them back where they were with Power, Apples for Apple loyalists. Taking Sun as an example, their x86 boxes aren't shifting Solaris x86, they are largely shifting Linux, but at least they bring in revenue which Apple won't be able to emulate unless they will also support Windows -- MS definitely won't on those boxes.

I can just see a Dualbooted Mactel with Windows/OSX.. the user has no problems with anything while booted into OS X and when in Windows their machine gets taken over with spyware and whatnot an the lose all their data as a friend had happen to him a couple weeks ago. I'll bet that slice of the drive is reclaim by formating it again into HFS+ :)

In any event. I think OS X and Linux are going to benefit greatly from the absolutely HUGE requirements of VISTA. With the cost of living going up because of petrol costs.. I don't think your average Joe is going to go buy an uber badass new machine just to run VISTA. :)

I do think they'll be more inclined to try Linux on their machines and to give a look at machines like the Mac Mini which will probably have one of those 64 bit DuelCore Yonah cpu's in it. ;) So all in all the last half of the decade could be the nail in the MS coffin.

-Ben

The Corporate IT buyers will be their main gains, where those guys will convince their companies that they really need Vista because of the new smarts that puts it ahead of anything ever done by man and make the case to buy Vista look a good long term move ahead. Our guys back some years were as proud as punch when they were able to show they could run our servers on NT with good results, it was a smart move -- they replaced a lowly Sun Enterprise server with 3 NT boxes, when I pointed that out, I was met by a telling silence. I still expect there are more gears for MS to shift and companies will lay off staff, reducing slightly the number of MS licenses and patting themselves on the back. I used to ask how many people we had to lay off in order to keep paying MS the same amount per year and also asking how much money we'd save by migrating services and end users to Linux, having done all the work preparing CD's for guys to install the additional apps needed to turn RedHat into our standard desktop, a project I was asked to undertake - some (a few) of us used only Linux at work and before my boss got disenchanted with the Senior Management's refusal to endorse Linux fully, I had also prepared a Linux mail server on a Sun E3500 that was due to be brought into service as a European mail server rather than the 3xNT boxes serving just the UK. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

On Monday 19 September 2005 6:17 am, Damon Register wrote:

Ben Rosenberg wrote:

...

the absolutely HUGE requirements of VISTA. With the cost of living

That I wasn't aware of but then I shouldn't be surprised

...

going up because of petrol costs.. I don't think your average Joe is going to go buy an uber badass new machine just to run VISTA. :)

Does an Ultra20 count? but then I certainly don't intend to run any MS product on it

...

one of those 64 bit DuelCore Yonah cpu's in it. ;) So all in all the last half of the decade could be the nail in the MS coffin.

Can you imagine the partying that would happen?

I'm ready! ;) Fred -- Planet Earth - a subsidiary of Microsoft. We have no bugs in our software, Never! We do have undocumented added features, that you will find amusing, at no added cost to you, at this time.