Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Rebuttal, Satellite, Patents
RTFPrint An Anonymous Coward writes: "As I'm sure is true of many others among the Slashdot faithful, I was ecstatic to see the culmination of this story earlier in the week. It seemed that Comcast's leadership had experienced a sudden and uncharacteristic attack of common sense. As a former @Home subscriber being moved to Comcast's network, I'd balked at the new terms of service Comcast required (particularly the part about giving Comcast permission to track my browsing). So, if Comcast swears that it won't track users' browsing anymore, why does it still ask for permission to? Exhibit 1: Comcast's "Subscriber Agreement". May I direct your attention to section 5, entitled "Collection, Use and Disclosure Of Information On Subscriber Use", in which Comcast requests that you give permission for them to track (and sell) information about your browsing habits. I particularly like the part about how collecting information on users' browsing is "necessary to provide the Service". Note also that this exact "Subscriber Agreement" is required for ex-@Home users to move to Comcast's network. How fortunate that I just last week got notified about the avaiability of DSL in my area...."
It's not as simple as averaging "W" and "Y." marktwain writes: "Gene Steinberg probably has the most sensible rebuttal on his website http://www.macnightowl.com/ to Robert Cringely's recent article which Slashdot linked to, commented about, and which deserves a rebuttal. The whole idea of porting OS X is not only inane but is an idea which was flogged to death a year ago. And if Cringely's article wasn't bad enough, Slashdot kicked off with the equally inane "but Apples are so expensive" garbage. In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other."
Getting the most of sky-high satellite costs. Jason Nunnelly sent in a note that he's updated his information on connecting a home network to the Net using satellite, a feat that can be difficult and expensive. Of course, when all your options are difficult and expensive, it might look like a pretty good idea. Read this information if you want to know how to save money on the connection and the hardware required, and some sobering words about technical support. (Check those hourly rates, too.)
Novel idea: require patents to have one. Cecil Bumfluff writes: "An update to a recent /. story regarding European proposals for software patents. It seems that unlike the US system, the vendor must prove they have made a "technical contribution to the state of the art". This seems a lot tougher than current US patent law. Check out the story at The Register"
Judge Dredd, or Judge Milquetoast? spellcheckur writes: "Remember the ACME Rent-a-car and GPS fiasco? The Boston Globe is reporting that ACME has been ordered to cease the practice and refund the money. One of the interesting conclusions in the article, they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging. Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
MSNBC.com has this story on PayPal facing a class action lawsuit.... is it just me or does it seem like /. is skipping this story? Maybe Taco bought a whack of shares in their IPO last week :)
Here a few more links to anti-PayPal sites:
paypalwarning.com
paypalsuit.com
boycott-paypal.com
And here is Google's return on the query "paypal problems".
I wonder if this class action suit is for US residents only, as there are 13 million members, a good number of whom live outside the borders of the States. I recall the HP/Panasonic CD-R drive class action suit a year or two ago and being Canadian (go Team Canada today and tomorrow in Hockey!) I wasn't able to partake in it.
For those of you who want to sign up for this suit, here is the link to the lawyers registration form.
Thats just gross. Someone mod this down. >:p
"Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
.37 * 365 = $135. Going up $200 is a bit much maybe but not as much as you made it seem.
i use the internet for only a few things... and the main use is running servers.
satellite is basically worthless... we can't think of the internet as a media outlet, it is an interactive environment... users aren't 'surfing the web' hoping for content just be spewed at them, they want to interact, and the uplink of most satellites makes even posting a lot of form data a problem.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
In other words its still the same over here. And the reason is simple
THE US HAS TOO MANY LAWYERS
Which means they have an approach of grant and challenge (i.e. in the courts, long and expensive process for everyone involved, normally leads to might is right), rather than the European challenge and grant, which means academics and other interested parties can challenge it before its given. The later gives patents that are rarely over-turned and rarely granted, the former, lots of over-turns of lots of patents.
ITS THE LAWYERS MAKING MONEY HERE
Having Lawyer driven processes is bad... hell even Dan Quayle spotted that one on 8/13/91!
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The courts in Anchorage, AK threw out unmanned radar, probably on the same grounds as this.
No harm, no foul, I guess.
I can't believe we're still discussing this at all. Apple is never going to port OS X to Intel, it just doesn't fit with their business model. Apple is a hardware company. They make their money selling a good package of reliable, solid hardware and powerful software. Mac OS X sells for about $100 and Apple is happy with its returns, they are not interested in selling it for $279 per license to suck the money out of the consumer. They don't even use software keys on it! Can we please let this issue die?
On your insurance policy, you ticket means that one hundred percent of the people covered on your policy (ie: you) got a ticket.
That ratio's a little different for a car rental company.
In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other
Except that Apple have their own monopoly; only their business practives are worse than those of Microsoft - the only reason their market share is so small compared to MS is the price of the hardware.
Remember, the Free Software Foundation have never imposed a boycott on Microsoft. They have on Apple.
"I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
And subversive sublimation, i.e. the creation of original high-value works of original expression.
which still beats winBlows hands down.... linux is still free.. and its support is still free... as long as you know what your doing
LMAO
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
OS X on intel is not the answer. Mac holds about 5% of the market. Well that is what I have been told It sure as heck seems bigger but lets say that 5% is true. What can appple do to get more then 5% and still keep control of hardware, and make all these OS X on Intel freakes happy.
:)
,end of story.
2 simple steps
Step 1.
Make a head less Imac with no super drive as the low end. the super drive adds like $400 to the cost of the system and the LCD adds between 400 - 600. so if we cut those out you are left with a good sub 600$ system that will run X.
Step 2.
There is no step two.
This is the only way for apple to get more the 5% of the market they will have to win in the sub 500 system area. Think about it, if it had a TV hook up on it and a simple remote , it would be the digital hub
When your cheapest system that is current is a laptop you have done something wrong.
These were all very good article's, but they are happy feel good articles, sorta like what you would see on any local news stations.
I'd like to see more articles relating to what a lot of us nerds have been going through lately. I'm talking about dealing with the current economy, unemployment, depression. Reading this posts responses one can only assume that there are a lot us out here in the same boat.
I want to see more stories about how to get through these issues. Maybe some nerd recipe sharing for those on budgets. How about articles that deal with where the money that used to go into the technology sector went. Give me something more to do with my day than hitting refresh on slashdot.org to see what new stories are there. How about stories on places nerds can use their skills in a volunteer position? There are many ways slash can help, please start doing something different.
So they charge you $200 more if you get a speeding ticket. Do you pay it? Well, there you are, they charge more because they can.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
I'm confused by this whole no OS X for intel. The Darwin underpinnings of OS X is available for intel platforms. Do people not realize this?
..they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging.
:)
Really sucks if you get a divorce or have a medical problem, and then they nicely raise your rates for no reason other than your credit rating changes. Here in Washington state insurance companies are getting away with murder, if you have low credit or bad credit they want to charge you more, even if you have a perfect driving record. This is known as Credit Scoring, and our Gov. Gary Locke is trying to pass a bill to make it illegal.
I love that scene in fight club where the insurance companies are blown up.
OS X on intel is not the answer. Mac holds about 5% of the market. Well that is what I have been told It sure as heck seems bigger but lets say that 5% is true. What can appple do to get more then 5% and still keep control of hardware, and make all these OS X on Intel freakes happy. 2 simple steps Step 1. Make a head less Imac with no super drive as the low end. the super drive adds like $400 to the cost of the system and the LCD adds between 400 - 600. so if we cut those out you are left with a good sub 600$ system that will run X. Step 2. There is no step two. :)
This is the only way for apple to get more the 5% of the market they will have to win in the sub 500 system area. Think about it, if it had a TV hook up on it and a simple remote , it would be the digital hub ,end of story.
When your cheapest system that is current is a laptop you have done something wrong.
Dr. Suess: 'Gandalf, Gandalf! Take the ring! I am too small to carry this thing!' 'I can not, will not hold the One.
Before you all come back with "but macs are so well built," admit that if there were no mac OS, if Windows were ported to the G3/4, would you have bought a mac? I didn't think so.
Finally, it's not like there's some enormous future reward to being a hardware company. Think about it, who would you rather be: Microsoft or Intel? I've just never understood Apple's strategy...
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
> .37 * 365 = $135.
So if someone gets a speeding ticket, that means he speeds 365 days a year.
Does that also mean if you get two speeding tickets, you must be speeding 730 days a year, so your insurance bill should go up $400?
Slashdot kicked off with the equally inane "but Apples are so expensive" garbage
I wouldn't call this argument "garbage". As someone who grew up on a macintosh and couldn't think of anything else, I now use a pc (yay linux!). Why? Because macs are expensive. I'm not trying to flame; they just are very expensive.
The typical reply is that iMacs are cheap. That's why I told my parents to get one. For the rest of us who actually use computers, we want a computer we can take apart and fiddle around with. Macs just can't do this.
I'm sorry, but Macs are expensive. And this is also why we won't see MacOSX on PCs anytime soon -- hardware is how Apple makes its money. If they don't sell the hardware bundled with the OS, they won't keep making that profit they like so much.
In today's world, dominated by the Wicked Wizard of Redmond, the penguins and the mac heads need to hang together and understand each other.
I don't understand why we need to do that. Apple is a for-profit company. They would be doing what Microsoft is doing if they had the chance. Remember how they sued Microsoft for having a windowing OS? Remember how they sued people for making iMac clones? Remember how they smashed all the aqua themes as fast as they came? "[T]he penguins and the mac heads" don't need to stick together -- they're after totally different goals. On one end, superb computing, on the other end, profit.
I've tried to make this as non-flamey as possible, but this topic always causes a flame war. Please read my arguments carefully before you respond.
If you are on a tight budget, or unemployed, you should not be worrying about places to volunteer. Maybe get off the free-software wagon and go join the capitalists. After you are producing surplus, then you can start thinking about helping others.
. . . Apple hardware isn't overpriced, but OS X on x86 would kill Apple, because everybody would flock to the comparably priced alternative hardware that isn't compatible with any legacy Mac apps.
Look, the Mac clones were, when it came down to the hardware, real Macs assembled by people other than Apple. Nobody argued that the Mac clone hardware was not equal to that in an Apple Mac. All the arguments for OS X on Intel argue that Intel hardware won't satisfy people who want Mac hardware. While this argument may be fallacious, it is *not* refutable simply by bringing up the Mac clones.
Instead, the basic argument against Cringley is that Mac hardware isn't worth the premium over x86 hardware. That is, that Mac hardware is overpriced relative to equivalent PC hardware, and only can sell because the OS and software makes up for the cost differential. That Mac hardware, dollar per dollar, is inferior to x86 hardware.
Darwin is just the BSD underpinnings of Mac OS X, a whole OS onto itself. Darwin forms the base of Mac OS X but is not Mac OS X.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
i'm sorry.
I think what they mean is that they want an aqua type desktop, not just darwin.
Look, just because Apple changes the processor OS X runs on doesn't mean that Dells and Compaqs will be able to use it. It shouldn't be hard for for Apple to come up with some hardware feature that prevents normal x86 hardware from running OS X.
Back in the days when Amigas were the cool machines with great graphics, they used the same processor architecture as Macs. Did Amiga sales cannibalize Mac sales? Not much. Amigas didn't have the copyrighted Mac ROMs. Apple can do the same with x86.
There. No cannibalization of their existing business. Yet they get to take advantage of a processor architechure that is faster, and getting faster all the time.
Look, I don't WANT the dominant processor architecture to be one of the cruftiest ones around. But it IS the dominant processor architecture. The chips are cheaper and faster. Yes, there would be pain in such a switch. But Apple pulled it off pretty well last time. Apple shouldn't let pride and fear hold them back.
So what if the message board would do it job then it might noit have been posted twice.
Dr. Suess: 'Gandalf, Gandalf! Take the ring! I am too small to carry this thing!' 'I can not, will not hold the One.
Mac OS X was derived from NeXTStep, which did run on Intel as well as Motorola hardware. A number of the earlier Developer Releases, back when it was still only known as "Rhapsody", still ran on Intel hardware.
Steve Jobs, to be exact.
The man has a vision, no one can deny that. But he has an obsessive desire to control every aspect of the computing experience with a zeal few in the industry have ever been able to even approach, much less match.
He has a long-standing history of making sure Macs are as non-expandable as possible. Which doesn't mean he's going to bolt the G4 case closed, but he is going to limit expansion options as much as possible where it won't ruin sales of the particular model.
He wants uniformity across the line in every way possible. Even programming a theme creation app is enough to bring the wrath of Apple Legal down upon you. Of course, the offical reason is that a user could possibly violate Apple's trademarks with such a program, but really, everyone knows that it is to protect Aqua.
Apple likes to control its hardware and its software. Moreso than even Microsoft. They go to extrodinary lengths to make sure what ships from the factory is what ends up being thrown away years later.
The whole "you can mess with the BSD/Mach stuff" in OS X is nothing more than a bone thrown to the community. The stuff they use is already out there, so it's better for Apple to just let it remain so. People buy-into the idea that Apple is somehow a reasonably friendly company that won't screw you over. But that's a fantasy, I'm afraid. One proven countless times by various actions by the company as it has strived to maintain it's control over every aspect of the platform and the experince a user has interacting with it.
But people defend them because they are Apple and not Microsoft. People want to see an alternative and they are willing to accept any one that bills itself as being better, even if the painful reality is far different than they want it to be.
The point is, Apple wants to have an extremly high-level of control over every aspect of your computing experience. In many ways, even Microsoft is less restrictive. x86 hardware - even with some sort of ROM - would be the complete and total antethisis of what Apple consideres to be acceptable. They would quickly lose control over the platform, and their (Steve's) vision of the computing experience would be completely and utterly undermined.
Disclaimer: I would love OS X on Intel. Since I can't have it, I bought a Mac.
Let's see if I can proactively shoot down all the OS X on Intel crowd.
Here's my base assumptions:
Everything Apple does has to be advantageous (barring idiocy)
Advantageous to itself
Advantageous to it's current installed base
Advantageous to it's target market
Porting OS X to x86 in of itself implies several questions:
Dual architecture support
Legacy support (Classic)
Clones
Hardware limitations
So let's answer the questions.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to itself?
Apple gains more options. Options are good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Conclusion: Existence of OS X86 is good.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to customers?
If it means producing a new line of x86 hardware:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Performance is a question, but supposedly better. Better performance is good. Apple is burdened with more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets more thorough testing. Diversity is good. Developers have to undergo another transition, unless they use Cocoa. Loss of developer support is bad. Virtual PC would perform better under OS X86. Better performance is better. Conclusion: No change for Apple.
If it means releasing the OS only:
Customers get more choice. Choice is good. Apple is burdened with *many* more support variables. Complexity is bad. Apple gets less thorough testing. Complexity is bad. Developers would have another platform to support. Diversity, while good, is expensive. Expect no software except through Cocoa or VirtualPC. Apple gets more customers. Good. Apple sells cheaper product; lower revenue, lower margins? Arguably bad. Conclusion: Apple loses.
If it means doing both:
Combine both situations, and Apple loses. Not to mention that in order to support the current market base, Apple would need to emulate the 68k under Classic, which itself would need to be ported, and which probably also requires PPC emulation.
If Apple ports OS X to x86, is it advantageous to it's target market?
Flat out: No. Target market loses the whole widget equation. Software, OS, and hardware are no longer integrated. Ease of use is hampered. Design decisions are hampered by lowest common denominator effect, unless they release their own PCs, and then they gain no advantage.
How about dual architecture support?
Apple would have to support older G3s, new G3s and G4s, and new x86, not even mentioning the option/headache of AMD vs Intel. This is a headache for no real gain for itself at the questionable gain of performance for it's customers.
How about legacy support (Classic)?
More emulation! Unless the new hardware can emulate PowerPC without a performance loss, users will see sluggishness in all parts of the OS not optimized for the new hardware, especially the PPC native bits. This doesn't even mention emulation of the Classic OS under the new hardware... Emulating an older processor (PPC), which itself emulated an even older processor (68k) as well as emulating parts of the older OS (Classic)... what performance benefit, again?
How about clones?
If the only difference between a Mac x86 and a standard PC is the OS + bits of logic, how soon until someone reverse engineers and releases, ala Compaq-IBM, a clone and steal entirely the Apple market?
How about hardware limitations?
How about the fact that power consumption and form factor limits Apple's ability to create nifty designs? No more 1" laptops that run for 4 hours! No more fanless designs! *Note, Apple *could* use the Tualatin, but then get hobbled by high price and low performance.
GPL Deconstructed
Apparently, ask and you shall receive:
7 22 1
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/21/232
For those who are looknig at Apple and syaing that it's hardware is expansive and that Apple gives away it's OS (low cost compared to Windows) you also need to point out that the number of softwares and flavor of hardwares on Apple are limited when it comes to x86.
This is also a big factor in buying an Apple vs an x86. I don't have data on this but I think it is save to say that there are more softwares for Linux than for OS X.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Frankly put, why should us linux-using folks give a rats ass if the Mac does well or poorly? I don't see how Mac marketshare or 'cooperation' with the open-source crowd could be of any benefit whatsoever to Linux. To Apple, yes; to Linux, no.
Apple isn't and will never be a competitor. Apple has zero chance of negatively affecting the the development or use of Linux. And Apple has nothing to offer Linux. If Apple goes belly-up tomorrow it would have no effect at all on the development of the kernel, KDE, Gnome, various apps, etc.
I don't like Macs any more than I like Windows. In fact, I'd say I like the OS less because it's even more restrictive than Windows is (you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by Apple, and most of it overly expensive). I see no justification or need for cooperation between Linux developers and Apple.
Let them make their own way. Assuming they can.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
BSD RULZ :>
I love Windows 2000, but BSD is seriously quite nice.
For the simplest reason of all: Apple's market cap is $8.5 billion. Microsoft has about $30 billion in _cash_. Game over.
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
who the hell wants OS X on x86 anyway? why?, and if so whats the point of porting it?
My trolling paraphrase: [Inane, butt Apples are so expensive.]
You can get a new G3 iMac for $799, the iBook starts at $1199. You might want to check the prices before you post.
You may want to look up the term "ambulance chaser" for starters.
Think that's bad? With Cox, they reserve the right to come into your house if they want:
5. Access to Customer's Premises
Customer authorizes CoxCom, and its employees, agents, contractors, and representatives to enter Customer's premises (the "Premises") at mutually agreed upon times in order to install, maintain, inspect, repair and remove any CoxCom-owned Equipment and/or the Service. If Customer is not the owner of the Premises, upon request, Customer will supply CoxCom with the owner's name and address, evidence that Customer is authorized to grant access to the Premises on the owner's behalf, and (if needed) written consent from the owner of the Premises>
from cox.net's website
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
One of the interesting conclusions in the article, they say the increased liability of a speeding car amounts to about $0.37 in insurance cost, not the $150 they were charging. Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?
If you get caught speeding, your insurance agency knows that you speed, and you drive that car all the time. If a rental car is speeding, then the insurance agency knows that one of the multitude of people who drove that car speeds, but cannot expect the next X renters to speed.
I'm sick of people wasting bytes rehashing the same anti-mac rhetoric over and over. If this were a well thought out criticism, I'd welcome it, but this is just yet another kneejerk Linux geek shouting the same crap again. If you don't like Mac's, don't buy one. Period. I happen to use the more than enything else and find them to be very nimble and useful tools.
Pooty tweet
Do Macs come with any scsi standard anymore? I know their HDD are all IDE now, right? It seems like Apple would be nowhere nearly as important to Adaptec as they were 5 yrs ago when it seems like Apple was 100% scsi as a potential buyer of scsi chipsets.
ostiguy
Thank you for trying not to flame. I try too ;-)
This is silly. The only Macs that you can't take apart are the low-end stuff. What geek is happy with low-end anyway? The Towers are very easy to open up. For christ's sake, they won *design awards* for how easy they are to open up. Besides the motherboard, there really isn't much that you can't upgrade/fiddle with. Just last week I went to a local computer fair (PC stuff) and bought the cheapest 60GB ATA drive I could find. I stuck it in the slave drive bay and formated it. The whole operation took about 5 minutes. Not many people want to do complete motherboard swaps or want to build their own computer. Please tell me: what do you want to fiddle around with exactly?
I'm trying not to flame here but I'm sick of people making vague comments about why Macs aren't as good as PCs (we need a better name for this, wintel/lintel doesn't cut it). Here are some classics (not saying that you believe all of them):
I've missed some I'm sure. The Mac has some very real cons (working VNC would be nice, one that actually displays the cursor!), and I don't mind people griping about them but these are just FUD.
So that I'm not completely off topic, the guy that wrote the Mac OS X on Intel article is right. Unless Apple starts becoming a software company, this isn't going to happen. Apple is even more of a hardware company now than it was 5 years ago. Apple is giving away software for free and charging a lot less for Mac OS X than they could.
They seem to be reverting to their pre-system 7 days, where you bought a Mac and all the Apple software was free. IIRC, system 7 was the first MacOS they charged for.
I hope that wasn't a flame :-)
Guys, any idea what position the DirecPC satellite is in? I've got a second hand direcpc PCI card, and a spare single LNB...
Not that I'm up to coding anything close to the kernel code that would probably be necessary, but I'd at least like a stab at it.
WHAT?
How is their draining someone's bank account going to deter someone from speeding? And what is it going to do if they speed anyhow and kill themselves or someone else?
So basically:
They don't limit the fine to $150 for speeding. It's per sustained instance where the speed of the vehicle exceeds limits. (So if you go up to 90, drop back to 70, it's still one instance. But if you go up to 90, drop back to 55, then go up to 70, that's two instances.)
Imagine driving cross-country (Chicago to Vegas for instance). Assume 3 pit stops per day. And 6 appreciable speed changes that could take you above the speed limit.
On a 3 day trip, you could rack up as much $1500/day ($4500 total) in addition to the car rental fees!
For that kind of money you could fly out there round-trip, non-stop, FIRST CLASS, hire a limousine for the entire time, and stay in a 5 star hotel on the strip.
Not only that, you'd still have a couple grand in gambling money!
Also, I don't see how their profiting from speeders helps curb speeding in any way. It doesn't go to civil authorities to help put more cops out on the road. It doesn't go towards any awareness-type programs that inform people about the problems of speeding.
The money simply goes into the company's coffers.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
However, one idea that I haven't heard is to port Aqua and the developer package to FreeBSD.
Aqua on FreeBSD is good for Apple because they can extend their developer base without giving away the crown jewels.
Think about it. People who buy desktop Macintosh are going to buy desktop Macintosh. Aqua alone would be like selling an excellerated X server with the QT toolkit.
If people were allowed to install FreeBSD and load on Aqua with support for a few video cards, that would create a developer base on Intel, that still has to buy a Mac for the integrated environment of OSX.
FreeBSD/Aqua gives developers well, a completed GNUStep. But for iTunes, Final Cut Pro, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, firewire that works when you plug it in, sleek sexy machines that are attractive to most people, etc, etc, etc,you have to buy the Mac.
I know that Apple can port this. OpenStep was ported to damn near everything, and Aqua isn't all that different. Plus the fact that FreeBSD is similar in many respects to OSX.
Also giving FreeBSD users the development tools makes development candy for FreeBSD. Coupled with the fact that JKH works for Apple, we would see some cool apps, and some cool cross-pollination without diluting what makes Apple Apple.
Maybe down the line Apple would find it worth their while to port to other *nixen, but Apple seems pretty bent on "There are five times as many BSD users as Linux users" sort of PR.
I would probably reccommend that Apple keep Aqua/FreeBSD pretty much under their own control. (Like Sun with Solaris source) This would be neccesary to keep the platforms in sync. Before anyone flames me for not worshiping OpenSource, just ask yourselves how many people use the Trolltech produced version of QT versus FreeQT or whatever it is called.
Note that I intentionally left out Linux and Net/OpenBSD because they all compete on the same hardware. Plus, I use FreeBSD, and I'm a poopy BSD bigot. Perhaps for the aformentioned reasons of "the Apple platform", this wouldn't be an issue. Apple could unify the UNIX desktop this way, but that might hurt them in the long run. Plus choice is good, right?
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Not so, Carbon apps would run just fine in a Mac OS X for Intel. Most of the applications running natively on Mac OS X are Carbon apps, not Cocoa apps; for example Microsoft Office for X is a Carbon app. Perhaps you are thinking of Classic which won't be part of Mac OS X for Intel?
Carbon is an API, arguably one Apple could cleanly support on on OS X86. You're right, I confused Classic apps with Carbon apps. So theoretically Apple would provide the Carbon library for OS X and everyone would have to provide a 'fat' binary. So Carbon and Cocoa apps would indeed run on OS X86.
Actually there is one enormous advantage for Apple of a Mac OS X for Intel that only runs on Apple built hardware. They can use fast, relatively cheap x86/x96 CPUs. Currently the PowerPC CPUs - with the greatest respect to Steve's marketing snow job - are at about 2 years behind Intel CPUs in terms of performance for a given price point. This is hurting Apple more than it cares to admit.
That's only an advantage if x86 CPUs in a laptop running at 6W are faster than PPC CPUs... On the desktop, you may be right, but only if x86's *future* roadmap is brighter than PPC's *future* roadmap. I'm not in any position to argue that right now. Still, taking all four products into the equation, x86 is not an advantage.
GPL Deconstructed
1. Little-Endian to Big-Endian
2. Linux PPC apps are linux apps for PPC, not linux apps for x86
3. Very few major apps that you would get OS X for would actually be ported
4. Can you imagine the hardware issues? Re-friggin-gal-durn-diculous.
5. The user base of major Windows and Mac OS apps like Adobe and Macromedia is too large to encourage them to port their oh-so important apps.
One often overlooked item with Apple is the high cost of maintenance. When your Apple machine starts to get long in the tooth, you have to throw the whole thing out (usually including the monitor) and buy a new machine. On the other hand, if you are using an industry standard x86 system, you pop in a new $150 motherboard and presto, you are back in the game. Same with the other technologies from scsi controllers to video cards. When using industry standard x86 hardware, the latest, greatest, and cheapest in hardware is there for you to mix 'n' match. Apple does not offer this same flexibility. Your choices are far more limited, your options are far fewer.
In his article, Cringlely talks about how Borland gave MS a run for their money, and probably could have won out if not for their own mistakes.
Here's the problem with that argument: Microsoft didn't have much in the way of development tools at the time (i.e., they were vulnerable), so Borland was able to jump ahead and later maintain parity in marketshare with MS.
Apple is not in that situation. MS is very cognizant of the need to control the desktop, they have poured a ton of money into it, and they now control ~90% to Apple's ~5%. Apple is not in a position to leap ahead of MS because MS has already stolen most of the functional advances of the Mac OS, and they continue to steal shamelessly from Apple, from the bundling of video editing software right down to putting an "X" in the OS nomenclature.
Be had a vastly superior OS to Windows 9x; why didn't Be eat MS's lunch? MS was way too far ahead in the game, that's why. BeOS's superior architecture was understood and appreciated by maybe 1% of Windows users, but it wasn't enough to convince the other 99% to switch.
Maybe if Apple could magically convince every existing PC developer to develop for OS X first, and then maybe port to Windows, then yeah, OS X on Intel *might* have a shot at converting people in the long haul. It just ain't gonna happen, though.
Personally, I think Cringely couldn't come up with a good column for last week, so he said to himself, "Hey, I'll just talk about Mac OS on Intel again, that's always good for lively debate!" Cringely is a smart fellow who's well-read about the tech industry. I have a hard time believing that he actually thinks OS X on Intel would serve Apple well in the industry's current monopolistic state. In fact, I found his article disappointing and a little insulting.
I don't understand how anybody with a claim to a rational thought process can look me straight in the eye, and claim that Mac's are 'cheap, affordable, or reasonably priced' machines.
Rant? Troll? This is an opinion that evidence indicates I'm hardly alone in positing.
Mac price per unit of processing power (NOT just clock speed - I'm talking about actual work done from a user's perspective) is about triple what I pay for an Intel-based workstation.
For the price of a top of the line dual-G4+half-GB of RAM I can get 3 and a half loaded Athlon XP2000 powered beasts with a Gig of DDR apiece. In addition, relative to its Intel equivalent, every MacIntosh I've ever seen and tested (and sometimes even cussed at) has a severely limited range of reasonably-priced peripherals. This is understandable when one applies the immutable law of supply and demand, but my beef with the HW does not end here.
Mac laptops are insanely priced for the amount of horsepower available - and on top of that there's NO SUCH THING as a sub-notebook machine in Mac world. Those low-end iBooks (the "affordable" ones) are crappin' SLOW with OS X, in fact even slower than my old P3-600 slogging along with WinXP (quickly deleted, natch) AND the SINGLE-BUTTON trackpad is hands down the crummiest cursor-directive instrument I've ever handled. The button is virtually the size of the trackpad itself. Pile that atop the OS X dung heap and you've got a real winner, baby.
/TROLL
"Why is it then that my insurance gets to jack my rates two hundred bucks a year when I get one lousy ticket?"
Because they're paying for the insurance on just the car. You're paying for the insurance on you as a driver as well as your car.
Apple sell a cheap line of computers (starting at $799) and a more expensive line? That doesn't seem unreasonable, and it also seems to contradict the rest of your argument
I'd say that for 800 bucks I can get a relatively decent Intel system, or a Fisher-Price piece of plastic that barely lugs along. In case you haven't noticed, those low-end iMac baubles are barely usable - in other words, severely underpowered and I don't call USD$800 cheap for such a device.
For triple that much, I can have a system that will eat your Mac's unborn babies at will, and I'll end up paying less for every upgrade than you do. You, on the other hand, will get robbed as soon as you walk in the store. No offense intended, but Mac's don't offer a great deal of power per dollar spent unless they come as donations.
I'd like to see you upgrade one of those desk-lamp computers ;O)
show me a comparable *pre-built* PC (ie. Compaq/Dell) with a significantly lower price
I buy my PC hardware pre-assembled from a local whole-saler for ridiculously low prices. Windows is NOT included, and warranty=1 year. I've never seen a Mac that could touch my prices, and I never will because Apple doesn't sell affordably priced hardware for the masses. Heck, even an Apple flat panel display costs twice what I pay, for a comparable model (ie, same contrast ratio, viewable area, etc) so please don't try to convince me of the affordability of Apples unless you are prepared to lick my testicular appendages..
That's sheer utter bullshit. You can't say that OSX has less applications available compared to linux. The big deal with OSX was that it was BSD. Most linux apps could recompile for it. You can run X on top of OSX, you can't say that there is a lack of applications for it. That's simply illogical.
I'm not a mac user, I am too poor to afford a mac. If I could afford it, I think I'd want to own at least one, just to mess around with, if anything. But there's nothing I can't stand more than uninformed remarks about things that people have obviously no idea about. No apps... psh... Did occur to you that Photoshop was originally for Macs? Yea, Photoshop, the leading tool in graphics design. Macs have all the apps you could need; from MS Office to xBill. I'm not saying Macs are perfect. Not by any means. I simply mean to remind you, Macintosh is not an inferior platform.
When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom
All I want is highspeed internet access.
Not an e-mail account, not webspace, not content, just highspeed internet access.
Is that too hard to understand?
Oh and I guess Virtual PC on the Mac is inane too?
http://www.connectix.com/
If anything this is a case of a company abusing its customers. If James Turner didn't get a lawyer and sue the rental store this crap would still be going on.
Now back to your regularly scheduled knee-jerking.
However there were licensees which is a whole 'nother thing. Clones just rip off the product, licensees have an arrangement with the owner, contracts, payment schedules, etc.
In Apple's case they were having production, inventory & cost-control issues so they figured let some other folks into the pool, expand the market. Apple would keep the mid and upper-end NA & European markets for itself, others could service the super-premium, budget, Asian, educational, and gamer markets. Unfortunately many of these companies soon stopped expanding the market and just went for the low-hanging fruit: Apple's own sales.
Instead of bringing in lots of new Mac users from markets Apple wasn't strong in (or not particularly profitable) instead Apple found itself competing with their own licensees on their own turf with their own technologies and own their compatibility assurances etc. It was cannibalism and Apple was the one getting eaten. Every time Power Computing sold one of their Macs it was at the cost of Apple selling one, and instead of that sale bringing in $$$ it was bringing in $, all while Apple was hemorrhaging money.
Did they shut down the licensees? Damn right - if they hadn't Apple'd have been bled dry pretty darn quick. Sure no Apple would have meant no Mac market but that wasn't the licensees concern, they'd gotten contracts allowing them to buy MacOS ROMs and sell MacOS 7.0 at a great price and they were busy undercutting Apple and making super money.
So finally Apple took advantage of the contracts, refused to write a new license for the new MacOS 7.5 and then used the buy-out clause to shut the licensees down. Did they scream? Sure, they'd been milking an expensive cow for cheap, who wouldn't scream to see that taken away. But was it shutting down "clones"? No, it was all legal, no cloning there.
Wintel PCs on the other hand: IBM never locked wily Bill Gates into an exclusive for DOS. Bill was happy to sell a custom version to anyone who ponied up and when the plethora of versions became too great released the generic and soon to be standard MS DOS.
Later the subtly-incompatible-in-different-ways BIOS issue was surmounted when the IBM PC BIOS was legally reverse-engineered and at that point the cat was out of the bag. IBM had never wanted clones, never expected them, and fought long and mightily against them but was never able to eradicate them.
Clever strategy? No, awful mistake. While the market wouldn't have grown as explosively most folks agree that had IBM kept control of their PC design they'd have made multiples of what they did off of it, would likely have "owned" the market. Anyway, IBM came out with MicroChannel and the PS/2 design and OS/2 which were all attempts to redefine the "IBM PC" back to something IBM controlled but to no avail - and trust me Apple had watched and learned and made sure those MacOS ROMs were crucial.
Now - the ROMs are gone. They're a file loaded like any other. You can even download the core of MacOS X and Apple has kindly ported it to x86. They've kept the upper levels to themselves but Darwin (and particularly with X on top) is a usable OS with some nifty architectural features. After flirtations with standardized PowerPC platforms (PREP, CHRP, etc - at one point there was such compatibility it is rumored that it was possible to boot a legit MacOS on an IBM RS-6000) Apple has instead gone to industry standard hardware with IDE, PCI, AGP, etc - just their own North & South Bridges and Open Firmware instead of the ancient BIOS.
What keeps folks from producing PowerPC-based Mac clones? Well the non-embedded PowerPC motherboard market is pretty small and somewhat pricey. There are also the legions of rabid Apple lawyers. Finally while Darwin is a start on MacOS X it's certainly not the whole thing and without Quartz/Aqua/Carbon/Cocoa/Etc. nobody is going to even try to label the thing "Mac". Apple probably does lose some sales to folks running QuickTime servers on Darwin but hey, it gets QuickTime more exposure, likely results in some outside development on Darwin that can be rolled back into MacOS X and it's not all that big a loss. Besides - that's not a clone either.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Im unsure of direcpc, but as for starband...
Starband uses two satellites to provide internet access.
Telstar 7: 129 west
General Electric 4: 101 west
To get azimuth, go over to starbands installation training site and grab the point dish tool.
How can OS X have less software for it than Linux? OS X is unix at its core... which means if you have a unix app you have a good chance to get it running under OS X... XDarwin gives you XFree and the rest of the XFree software packages... sure some windowmanagers fail to compile but that has any easy fix spend some time to find the errors and make it compile...
Then you have all the classic apps that are carbon... that run under 9 and OS X... then you have all the non carbon apps that run under classic... then you have all the OS X only programs...
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 0?
Actually my point is you are only paying for one day of insurance. It costs the car rental place .37 cents more for that one day. When you do it at home, the insurance company is not going to only increase your rate for that one day. They are going to increase it for a good long period of time. Hence, an increase of 37 cents a day is about $135 a year.
Find the whole agreement here
Actually, there were a lot of stories like this one at mackido.com during the early development of OS X (when it was code-named Rhapsody) that Apple would provide 'Red Box' as a compatibility layer for Windows applications when running on Intel hardware in much the same way as 'Blue Box' provided Classic Mac OS services on PowerPC.
'Yellow Box' was the 'OS X native' environment, essentially NeXT OpenStep.
If there were any truth to the rumors of ongoing development of Mac OS X on Intel, then I'm sure Apple would be considering something like this.
The bartender at SJC bought me a free round the day I got laid off. Marzen! If you can't get free drinks at the bar, though, then I'd recommend drinking at home. Cheaper booze, fresher snacks, and no danger of legal ramifications related to transportation. Did you know they have the good stuff at Costco? Just be sure to hit bottom before the COBRA runs out.
"Lost my job for no reason or rhyme, guess that means ITS MARTINI TIME!" -- Rev Horton Heat
and just because he only got CAUGHT once, doesn't mean he was only speeding once.
Then what does it mean ? And what significance does it hold in this discussion ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Insurance - typical insurance company behaviour - try paying in for 20 years, then claiming a couple of times in the same year, suddenly your premiums are doubled because you claim 'often'.
If Apple wants continued support then their low powered hardware needs to come down in price. It's utterly ridiculous what they charge for their systems. And I want to see the return of clones and the ability to build my own from parts of my choosing.
Please stop repeating the EC lies.
www.eurolinux.org, an organisation that has been
figthing Eu patents for quite a while, pointed
out that the EU press release, whose view is quoted
here, contradicts the actual proposal, which in
fact allows unlimited patentability, hidden
behind hollow words.
What is more, the BSA, althought officially claiming
to be 'disappointed' by the proposal wrote it themselves.
See http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/eubsa-swpat0202
for more info
Let's do a price analysis of single-processor machines then, shall we?
t ml ... that takes care of my major annoyances with the OS X, at least.
Starting with the PowerMac G4, with:
933 MHz PowerPC G4 processor (not too bad...)
256 MB SDRAM (yes, i know the nineties are over, but seriously..)
60 GB of single disk storage
SuperDrive
NVidia GeForce4 MX
and a 56k modem...
total: USD$3000
This is from the Apple.com store. I'd imagine the price is 'competitive' by Apple standards.
Next, let's take a look at a pre-built system from local wholesale outlet:
Athlon XP2000 processor (about 1.7 GHz, probably quite over-clockable)
256MB DDRAM (just to be fair, I'll stoop a bit)
2x40GB Maxtor 7200 rpm hard drives (safer and faster than a single unit)
1.44MB floppy (the power of legacy.. oh well)
nVidia GeForce4 MX 420
350 watt power supply (anemic, yes.. but more than comparable)
second case fan, a couple extra buttons on the mouse, some shitty speakers
total: USD$925
plus Pioneer DVR-A03 DVD burner: USD$1345
The math speaks for itself.
laptop survey ---
At last glance, there wasn't a single iBook or other portable Mac out there that is under 3 pounds, so there's no comparison for my intents and purposes. As much as I like big clunky PowerBooks, I'd rather spend that loose change on a pad of paper, due to size handicap.
total cost of ownership???
Here's the deal: I can upgrade my DDR-RAM, swap in a new graphics card, buy a few replacement DVD burners and maybe a printer/scanner or two while STILL saving HUGE dollar$ over your initial investment, so don't talk too loudly about TCO. As for reliability, all my machines (I have several) are rock solid. No (hardware) problems with a machine in three years, aside from standard gaming upgrades.
Your "better overall experience" is a load of tripe, unless you think of OS X as a revelation.. the old Mac OS was a buggy, crashing piece of unworthy shit that never gave me a peek into the vitals of the machine. I used that shit quite recently in school, and I'll never forget the pleasure of that "better overall experience," thank you very much. For a well-worn list of Dock peccadilloes you can read Tog's column at http://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.h
I haven't the time to enlighten you any further. Please do some research of your own. Good night.
The only upgradable components in the new iMac are RAM and an AirPort card (and possibly the hard disk but it wouldn't be easy). This is in line with its expected market. The Towers are very expandable.
You win on this one, assuming you're being truthful. However, your situation is very atypical. Most computer users buy a CompUSA Compaq etc and for them Macs are cost competitive.
No thanks.
Alright, so you are at 50 karma, does that really mean you should post distorted rhetoric? I guess what I want to know is, do you believe half of what you have been posting in this cluster of threads? And did you really gain all of your karma points posting like this, or did you flip the troll flux capacitor when you reached 50? If it is the former, then I guess that you are the best argument for raising the Karma cap that I've recently seen.
Just various points, this isn't a zero-sum game. Macs only compete with systems providers in a general sense, but this is not strict competition, as there is not 1:1::human:computer ratio. Macs don't compete with Linux or Windows in any real sense, as Linux runs on Mac hardware, which is where Apple makes its money. Windows competes even less, because it doesn't run on Mac Hardware. Apples biggest "competetors" are their own development, production and advertising costs, in trying to win back new hardware sales from previous customers.
Apple and Linux need to cooperate... not against Windows, but for the advancement of consumer level computing for all. Macintosh has significantly developed the modern WIMP interface, the Windows 95 interface, and the KDE interface. This is already accounting for the invention of the foundation technologies at Palo Alto Research Center. If Apple (burned/fell-from-earth) then Linux developments in a desktop capacity would be seriously harmed, as the GUI would be locked until a later generation invents the feasible post WIMP GUI. This will take much too long without Apple's guidance, especially if we look to Microsoft for guidance. (Bob 2K? Can't wait!) Note that this is completely ignoring all direct MkLinux development, and lots of other Linux-indirect Unix development from before Linux's conception to modern day work.
Can Apple make their own way? They've been dying longer than Linux had been Buzzing. It looks to me like Apple's great fall is really just a LEOrbit. In another post you say same nonsense about Linus not support Apple. Apple already played the Linux game. They switched MkLinux for MkBSD/Lites server, so that they can restrict their system... almost like a Real UNIX, except that it still qualifies as Open Source.
Speaking of Real UNIX, how do you feel about them Unices as an OS? "In fact, I'd say I like the OS less because it's even more restrictive than Windows is (you have to buy very specific hardware, all approved by , and most of it overly expensive). I see no justification or need for cooperation between Linux developers and Apple." Care to replace all instances of Apple with NeXT? Okay, then how about any other Unix vendor?As for justification, it is the same with Linux as with with any other Unix. It's called the Portable Operating System Exchange standard, and it is the only RMS independant reason that Linux exists. While I have many harsh sentiments towards Jobs, many people would rather sit with him then Stallman - more flashy, less preachy.
Is Jobs and Co. capable of making their own way? I dunno, in a commercial sense, which Linux developer - hell, which handfull of Linux Resellers are doing better than Apple?
Hey Max, keep trolling, cuz you sure got my goat tonight. Now I'm gonna count sheep instead.
-castlan
Oh, for heaven's sake. That Mac that you have chosen is primarily a *professional workstation* aimed at a very few vertical market sectors. That is the core market. There are other markets, but they are small. Now this may come as a shock to you, but professional work such as graphics and audio is *very expensive*. And professional users use professional quality equipment. Vanishingly few buyers in the target demographic are interested in a locally-bought machine put together with a view first-and-foremost to price. They are interested in a machine that adds most value. If initial costs are driven up more, so be it. Comparable PC workstations are also expensive. If you were a professional chef, you would consider Sabatier or Global knives -- even though a two dollar knife from Wal-Mart is also sharp and probably has a tang. You would pay more for having knives that will work efficiently and last for years. The benefits that you think you have from your PCs would simply not be present if you had to use them to do what the target market had to do.
$3000.00 USD??
$2,299.00 is the real price of that system.
Sure, it doesn't really compare to your $1345, but at least get your facts stright, chump.
Nonsense -- your post is nothing but trolling.
/. -- but this one needs a reply.
I always ignore such bullsh*t comment coming form troller on
Have you been to a computer store lately? Check the number of titles available for Mac vs. Windows. What about the hardware? And need I mention the price difference?
You bring up Photoshop as Apple had it first -- well I can bring up 123 as x86 had it first. But this point is irrelevant and it looks at the past. You need to wake up and face the *today* and the future -- it's 2002 not 1982 any more.
PS: Next time watch your language. I too can use silly words like "bullsh*t".
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
It's in the "Your Rights Online" section, but has never appeared on the frong page. This is, sadly, the fate of many quality submissions, including Ask Slashdot.
The company also said the policy was not a penalty but a deterrent to keep people from driving at unsafe speeds.
This reminds me of the French diplomat who, in response to complaints about France's continued testing of nuclear bombs in the Pacific, said:
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Think about it, if it had a TV hook up on it and a simple
After my apple IIc I thought I'd never have to hook a computer up to a TV again!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Some corrections: Apple does give software away: iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, etc. Apple is a computer company. They sell you a complete package of hardware and software designed to work together. Because of this, they will never sell just the OS for use on non-Apple hardware. That would make as much sense as Ford designing and selling seats for Hondas.
As far as price goes, anyone who has ever bothered to calculate the REAL cost of a PC in terms of downtime, unreliability, repair costs, and inefficiency would realize that not only is Apple competatively priced, but they actually undersell the competition. My G4 from 1999 is still a fine machine that runs quickly enough for just about any application you'd care to thow at it. I see two and three year old PCs being retired all the time.
So not only will I get more use out of my Mac, but I'll have to upgrade less frequently. It will need fewer repairs, and function properly for a greater percentage of the time. There was a study that showed Mac users to be more productive than PC users, probably because of the fact that Apple has user interface guidelines that improve productivity and are designed ergonomicly. Lets not forget that when I finally do replace my G4 (probably in late '03 or early '04), my old machine will be worth more than any PC from 1999. So I not only get more work out of my Mac for a longer period of time, but it actually costs me less in maintainence and depreciation.
Macs cost less to own than PCs.
t'nera semordnilap
Stupid American dyke referee. Go hump a bedpost already !!
True patriot love in all thy sons command!
With glowing heart we see the rise
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada
We stand on guard for thee!
God keep our land
Glorious and free [of stupid dumbass Americans]
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
Unfortunately in the US, cretinous tinfoil-hat-wearers have decided that a speed camera infringes their privacy by taking a photo of them speeding, so the police can only use handheld cameras to catch speeders.
I don't know about speeding, but I understand why there's so much resentment to the stoplight cams that catch people running red lights: When they're installed at intersections the installer will set the yellow-light time from 3 seconds down to 2. So people who are used to the yellow light being on for 3 seconds will get a nasty surprise when the light turns red exactly at the moment their car crosses the line.
And the city (and the manufacturer of the device who gets a cut from every ticket) makes tons of money.
This is from the Apple.com store. I'd imagine the price is 'competitive' by Apple standards.
Next, let's take a look at a pre-built system from local wholesale outlet
You are comparing wholesale to retail. In other words, your comparison starts off on the wrong foot.
he old Mac OS was a buggy, crashing piece of unworthy shit that never gave me a peek into the vitals of the machine
You obviously had no clue what you were doing. Apple gave away a programmer's shell (MPW) on their website. It gave you a CLI-like shell for really gettig into the machine. They also gave away MacsBug, a powerful low-level debugger that ran beneath the OS. I could at any time drop into the debugger and disassemble code, play w/ registers etc. I could even execute assembly routines, examine(and search!) memory, etc. The old Mac OS did hide the internals from CASUAL users. Power users could get deep into the machine. If you buy a car, you are not required to know how to change your head gasket. If you want to you can, but it is not required of you. With Windows and Linux, the underpinnings of the OS thust themselves upon novice users, causing them to fear the computer. Windows users associate ease of use with lack of power. That is because they are using an OS that copied the interface of the Mac w/out a firm understanding of its subtly hidden power. With a Mac, the newbies can get work done and the power users can play with the internals. All is as it should be.
t'nera semordnilap
Maybe so, but you'll be upgrading more often.
I'd like to see you upgrade one of those desk-lamp computers ;O)
He acknowledged the iMac's lack up upgradability when he wrote this:
This is silly. The only Macs that you can't take apart are the low-end stuff. What geek is happy with low-end anyway?
Work on your reading comprehension, moron.
As is that stupid witch of a ref. Thank goodness Team Canada kicked some AmeriKKKan ass in Womyn's Hockey!
However we're already there with FireWire & USB devices. Lots of them work in MacOS (the generic USB class drivers do a good job) but not everything is and folks deal. The same for PCI cards in Macs that do have them - if it don't say Mac support on the side then you takes yer chances. Usually you'll be fine for generic items.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Whoopsie, put 3000 for the Mac, shoulda been 2300 .. sorry. But the wholesale price is what every nerd and tech nut I know would pay for such a machine, so I stand by that figure.
It's good to know that you were able to overcome the natural Mac abstraction to tweak a little.. gives me some hope that someday the GUI won't get in my way if I ever, for any reason, have no alternative but to use a Mac again.
Now this may come as a shock to you, but professional work such as graphics and audio is *very expensive*
Aye, I'll vouch for that... however, it need not be so, and I've quoted you what I would pay for the equivalent of $2300 of Mac hardware.
Vanishingly few buyers in the target demographic are interested in a locally-bought machine put together with a view first-and-foremost to price
It seems that you are under the mistaken impression that price is the end of the road: rather, price is simply a baseline used to compare the relative value of two roughly equivalent machines. In other words, without sacrificing quality, I can obtain performance that will crush the Mac at the same price point.
There's really no excuse for my sloppiness, and I realized this error only after you pointed it out. You have my sincerest apologies. Thank you for setting me straight.
N.
It's good to know that you were able to overcome the natural Mac abstraction to tweak a little
I was able to tweak a lot* using tools that Apple provides for free to anyone who wants them. I did not overcome any "natural" tendancies of the OS anymore than removing the training wheels from a bike is overcoming its "naturally" poor turning ability. It's designed to work that way. If you can't figure out how to get the tools, you're better off not having them.
* I neglected to mention tools like ResEdit that let you edit the internal datastructure of applications and even the OS itself or the other tools used by Mac power users. Just because you don't know how to use it doesn't mean that the system is inferior.
t'nera semordnilap
Just because you don't know how to use it doesn't mean that the system is inferior.
I agree with that red herring completely.
DOS was better than Mac OS for my purposes, and I've never regretted that decision.
The necessitation of the tools you allude to is unfortunate; use of such things to obtain reasonable control of a system should be strictly optional, n'est-ce pas?
OS X runs on certain hardware. So does Solaris, yet I never hear anyone here complaining about overpriced Sparc hardware. Yes, I know that there is a big difference between their markets and performance factors, but in both cases you buy the hardware to get the OS, or you want the hardware to do something with it. If you want OS X, you have to get PPC. If you want Solaris, you get Sparc (well there is x86 Solaris, but that's just silly).
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
32 words and you said nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Amazing.
I'm forced to use Windows at work, and I use OS X at home. Funny, but when I'm using X, I never feel stifled by the lack of a "commodity computer marketplace." Instead, coming home to my Mac after a frustrating day of Micro$oft feels like losing the wingtips and putting on a comfortable pair of slippers.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
When any company sells a product it has to recover its costs and make a profit. If Apple were to release OS X for x86 PCs, one of the costs, quite literally, that it would have to recover is the resulting loss of hardware revenue. So I would have no problem with them charging $279 per license.
When Apple experimented with Mac clones, the fundamental mistake it made was charging too small a licensing fee. If the revenue from licensing Mac OS to a cloner had been the same as the profit on an Apple-made box, the company woudn't have cared if the cloners ate into their hardware market share, because it would have made no difference to the bottom line.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.