Ahh.. you got me. You tricked me into reading a macosrumors story by wrapping it in a tuaw column. Fool me once.....

But, really.. Isn't there enough mac rumors garbage on those silly sites? Most of us simply ignore their baseless crap. If you keep posting their garbage here, tuaw will end up similarly filtered.

This story is junk. It is sourced from a place with a long history of junk.

> leveraging web technologies will allow both Mac OS X developers and web developers to easily get their apps onto the iPhone

No, this allows web developers to get their apps on the iPhone. It ignores Mac OS X developers completely. Even though they claim the iPhone runs "real Mac OS X" and uses Cocoa, developers can use none of it.

I really think WWDC was a poor place to announce that Apple will be allowing web development for the iPhone. Talking to a room full of Cocoa developers, I doubt they were all excited about this..

"Everyone knows that the Intel switch was about LESS power consumption per cycle" No. The comparison Jobs used was "performance per watt", i.e. the Intel chips use more power, but their performance is enough to justify it. To get the same performance, you would have to use multiple PowerPC chips which would add up to more power.

The PowerPC chips did use less power than the Intel replacements (well, the G4s at least.. the G5s were IBM chips with different design parameters). My PowerBook G4 used less power than my MacBook Pro. The CPU on my old G4 Cube ran at about 10W. That lower power usage design requirement was one reason the PowerPC lagged behind the Intel offerings in horsepower.

Let's compare two systems I run today:

Mac Mini G4 1.42Ghz. Power Consumption: 20W, at the high end of G4 power. ( http://www.gridtoday.com/04/0301/102774.html )
Mac Mini 1.66GHz Core Duo: Power Consumption: 31W ( http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm )

Yes, I am quite happy with x86 Macs, the performance is very good. But, the power usage has gone up. The PowerPC chips are excellent low power options. They now have good dual core versions, and lower power G5s that Apple never took advantage of.

Hopefully they change the voting to achieve better results. Maybe give the project leaders and developers more weight in the voting.

Two of the three apps from the first were among the most common, already available, apps possible.. a cookbook and a weather app?!? You gotta be kidding. An app to show me the weather, rather than looking out the window. Yeah, that's my dream app.. I might be exposed to sunlight if I get too close to a window.

They need to weight the entries based on other aspects like: uniqueness, usefulness, sellability, and existing competition.

MPEG2 and MPEG4 are also bad for video editing. Motion JPEG will work well with available video editing tools. It could also make for much higher quality video. The samples I have seen from previous flash based recorders doing MPEG4 have been terrible.

This thing, along with iMovie HD could be really great. I'm very anxious to see it in action.

My questions are: Does it have a firewire port, the standard for video transfer? Does it have a 16:9 lower resolution mode, like 720x480 (DVD resolution)?

He's not a lefty, which could explain the awkward grasp of the mouse. It was probably just done like that because of the office layout & camera angles.

For proof, check out Tin Cup, Bull Burham, For The Love of the Game, or Field of Dreams.

Was he well known in '83? I'm guessing no. His imdb filmography starts in 1982.

What benefit would there be for a Parallels user upgrading to Vista?

Personally, I use Parallels so I can have access to the odd Windows-only program I need. So, the major 'feature' I need is the ability to run Win32 apps. I really don't use much of the underlying OS, just the app. I use Windows 2000 in parallels, and it does the job, I certainly won't be spending hundreds of dollars to have Vista.

The www site does say it runs "OS X". I am surprised that they call it this, rather than "micro OS X" or "embedded OS X", because it's obviously not the same thing as I run on my MacBook (the resource constraints for the form factor are just too severe).

I don't think the original poster was suggesting he wanted to install any random OS X app, as some have replied. Rather, he meant that if I want to build a special version of my application for the iPhone, will I be allowed to install it?

If the answer is no, that will definitely decrease my interest in the iPhone. For me, half the point of a "smart phone" is having a versatile computing platform in your pocket. If I can build apps using Cocoa, or some derivitive of Cocoa, I will be first in line to buy one. If not, I'll probably wait and see how it looks, or possibly wait for the second generation.

How does the D40 differ from the D50?

I have tried similar checkpoint gateways in the past, and they are actually pretty good.

The one big difference between this and normal consumer wifi/firewall devices is that they charge for updates to the product. With this one, they give a year free subscription, but after that you have to pay up.

So, if they discover some big hole in this product 13 months after you buy it, you either pay up or live with the flaw.