Slashdot Mirror


Satellite Internet Service for Macs?

Untimely Ripp'd asks: "Satellite broadband has been available to PC users for half a decade, and still is not trivially available to Mac users. It can be done, but it's always an unsupported hack, or it requires buying expensive extra hardware and software. I cannot understand why Hughes and the other providers would refuse to spend the relatively few dollars necessary to develop a couple of device drivers and glue libraries. Time after time, the vendors have said, 'it's coming,' but it never does, and the promise eventually goes away. (Earthlink's FAQ page no longer says that Mac software is being developed, for example). I'm not gung-ho on conspiracy theories, but the only explanation I can figure is that they're either being paid or bullied. Does anyone know of any serious tech hurdle that would make it cost more than $100K or so to develop the necessary software?" this article mentions one-way Mac service coming online from OWC in a future expansion, along with nationwide service. A comment from that story does mention a simple solution, but why is it that Satellite service, even one way satellite service, depends on Windows-only software? What other solutions have Mac users resorted to when they wanted their Macs connected?

339 comments

  1. Again? by Clue4All · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not gung-ho on conspiracy theories, but the only explanation I can figure is that they're either being paid or bullied.

    How many times can we go over this same point? It's the same for Linux and Mac, it's just not economically viable to develop software for something used by less than 5% of the computing masses. It doesn't pay, plain and simple, and companies aren't going to waste money developing with little to no returns. I await next week's Ask Slashdot with the same question.

    --

    Is your browser retarded?
    1. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5% of any industry is still a damn lot of potential customers. We are talking tens if not Hundreds of millions here.

    2. Re:Again? by NineNine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there are more costs than just development... They'd have to spend money on support for the product, money on the marketing, etc. Rolling out a product for a different platform isn't as simple as paying some guy to write the code. There's a lot more that goes into it. So I guess I'm re-enforcing the parent here. It's just not economical, but even more so than saying "Well, it only costs $100K for development".

    3. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, increase sales by 5% at double the development costs. Somehow I don't think you've worked outside of the "Internet economy."

    4. Re:Again? by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, while Mac users may be ~5% of the total, they're a vanishingly small percentage of the construction supervisors, petrologists and logging bosses who need a satellite link. This troll is essentially correct, even if he can't spell Shih-Tzu.

    5. Re:Again? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      In most markets people would kill for 5% market penetration.

      Seems sort of odd to me, ah well.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    6. Re:Again? by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      This explanation assumes that software development is a major part of the costs involved. But let's say that the cost structure is 99% satellite (either launching one or renting the bandwidth) and 1% software. Then developing the software twice (once for PC and once for Mac) would increase the total cost of the project with 1%, but increase revenues by 5%. A great deal!

      I guess we can suspect that software development is at least 5% of the cost involved. Of course there are alternative explanations, perhaps the original investment projections were flawed, or (as somebody else suggested) people who use satellite links are Mac users to a disproportionately low degree.

      Tor

    7. Re:Again? by zaffir · · Score: 1

      Do you expect every single Mac user to sign up for satelite service? Really, sat net service sucks. I'd be surprised if they got .001% of Mac users to use their service.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    8. Re:Again? by GlassHeart · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's the same for Linux and Mac, it's just not economically viable to develop software for something used by less than 5%

      One way to make money is to build a product that 95% of the people use. Another way to make money is to build a product that 5% of the people use. Microsoft certainly made a boatload of money, but Apple is not exactly bankrupt. In fact, I'd expect that Mac sales of Adobe Photoshop account for significantly more than 5%.

      In practice, a lot of times you'll find that the reason a minority OS is not supported is not because somebody determined that it was not viable, but that nobody ever bothered to see if it was viable or not. Only the former is a good business decision.

    9. Re:Again? by xo0bob0ox · · Score: 1

      does anyone remember Falling Down? Im not economically viable...

      --
      Support Objectivism and the United States,

      Ayn Rand

    10. Re:Again? by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      This is why these bullshit reports from IDC and gartner should not be tolerated.

      Even based on THIER numbers, the Mac Marketshare of currently used computers accessing the internet is around %15 to %20. Making them prime candidates for this type of access.

      Furthermore, simple thought about who runs linux boxes tells you that the linux market would probably be profitable for them as well. Even if the linux market share was only %2 (I'm not saying it is)--- whats relevant is how much money you'll make from the customers, not how much of the market there is.

      For Mac software, for instance, its a very lucurative market. Mac users spend more and buy more software items than Windows users AND there's less competition. so its quite possible that if you release a good product you could be 4 times as profitable in the Mac space as the PC space-- even though its much smaller. Simply not having Microsoft there to take away your thunder is a big help in itself.

      Unfortunately, most of these decisions are made by newbie marketing types who don't understand the industry and don't think for themselves-- they just all do what everyone else is doing and so you end up with 10 different applications in category X on the Windows side, all loosing money, and one done by some guy in a garage on the Mac side making more than he can figure out how to spend.

      The value of a market is the number of people who will buy your service-- not the number of people you have to try and reach to tell you about the service. A 10,000 person market is more valuable than a 100 million person market if you can get 500 customers for $500 in the former and $250 customers for $1 million in the latter.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    11. Re:Again? by freaq · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's a lot more that goes into it.

      i should hope not. how much work is it to add

      , macintosh, and linux
      to your print ads, and two links to your downloads page? if you're selling cds instead of offering downloads, is it _that_ much more expense to say to your presser, "here's a new cd image for you to print"? if it is, allah preserve you when you have to do a point release.

      and if, after porting your app, re-making your manual requires much more than substituting some screen shots, replacing 'ctrl' with 'cmd' and replacing 'alt' with 'meta' or 'option'... there's a good chance your software isn't worth the time it takes to download over a dedicated oc3.

      in a similar vein, aren't extra support costs a result of more paying customers? unless you're giving support to folk who haven't bought your product, in which case the trolls in accounting might want your hide.

      i freely admit, i'm not a marketer. maybe apple has bundled a free and superior alternative to your software with their os. maybe yellowdog has also. would it take more than an hour to find this out? what principle am i missing here? marketers, feel free to correct my myopia.

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
    12. Re:Again? by Plyati · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the whole 5% will automatically migrate to it if it were to become available. Wake up, Alice. 5% being potential and 5% becoming reality are two entirely different things.

    13. Re:Again? by neildogg · · Score: 1

      5% of the computer market is HUGE. If you were sitting around in a meeting and someone said "Hey, I have an idea that could add 30 million people to our potential customer list, and it'll cost us next to nothing, wanna give it a shot?" wouldn't you pay attention?

    14. Re:Again? by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      not that I am knocking you but do you have numbers to back up this claim...I fully agree that IDC and Gartner OFTEN have ulterior motives but a 10% difference is SIGNIFICANT.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    15. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This comment is pretty inaccurate. I'm a systems engineer at a major satellite networking provider not unrelated to this story. I'm not working on the current consumer offerings, but on the next-generation system. Of course, I don't speak for said employer.

      The DirecWay satellite is pretty much paid for - sure it's a large capital investment up front, but the software side is a constant ongoing expense. The software is constantly under revision by a largeish team of software developers and network engineers. New features are still being added. That's a lot of salaries to pay, and it doesn't stop. Software is never finished. Adding support for another operating system, at least with the current (legacy?) satellite networks, is a large undertaking. All the spoofing for the consumer products is done by software, and it fools with the TCP/IP stack directly. It also needs to be supported. There's at least 10 programmer salaries and about 50 customer service people, just to have a shot at the .1% of the 5% of computer users who have macs and might want satellite internet. If you look at the news, you'll see that the consumer side of the business isn't doing so well anyway - it's a very small take-up rate, so even that .1% estimate is extremely generous.

      Are you a shareholder of Hughes? If you were, would you want them spending 3+ million dollars a year on software that _might_ get 5000 subscribers at under $70 a month? It's hard enough making a profit with 100,000 subscribers on the PC platform. Don't forget that there are a whole host of other costs - installer training, advertising (subscriber acquisition costs are huge), etc.

      So my position isn't one where I would know what anyone's future plans are - hell, they could be releasing Mac software tomorrow and I wouldn't know. But you're seriously underestimating the costs of software development and support for adding an OS.

    16. Re:Again? by jgalun · · Score: 1

      There is no way the Mac has 15-20% market share, or that Macs make up 15-20% of the number of computers accessing the Internet. Why? First of all, no browser stats pages (like Google's Zeitgeist) show Mac browsers at any more than 5% of the hits. Secondly, Mac sales have been stuck at 3-4% market share for at least 6 years. Even if Mac users use their Macs longer than PCs (and this is a very debatable point, given that many Mac users are being forced to buy new machines to use OS X, while the trend in the PC market is that users find that 3 year old machines are still plenty fast unless they are gamers), it is still hard to believe that Macs stay in use so much longer than it turns 3% sales into 15% browser share.

      I am currently a PC user, but I am a former Amiga and Mac user. I am not trying to flame the Mac - I would consider buying a Mac for my next computer - but claiming 15-20% market share is just wrong.

    17. Re:Again? by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that 100% of Mac users will get satellite broadband...

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    18. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because porting from Windows to Mac costs next to nothing. You are a fucktard.

    19. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Operator: If the window isn't closing when you press...ummm...'option' or 'meta' F4 then you'll need to reinstall...uhhhh...OS ecks. ...or...

      Operator: what programs are listed when you press...hrmmm....'cmd', 'meta' or 'option', and 'del'

      And to make this on-topic:

      Operator: OK, we need to see which protocols you have installed...click your right mouse button on Network Neighborhood...what do you mean you don't have Network Neighborhood?! It must be hidden! Let's clean up your desktop...click your right mouse button on the desktop and select 'Arrange Icons by'...what do you mean you only have one mouse button?!

      Insightful indeed!

    20. Re:Again? by Chasuk · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, most of these decisions are made by newbie marketing types who don't understand the industry and don't think for themselves--

      And you can substantiate this assertion how?

    21. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd really like your opinion on how you think Apple can piss away 30% of the Logic market with a retail cost of ~$1K. Most of those are probably repeat buyers.

      And 5% market penetration? That assumes a)you'll support both Mac OS versions and b)every single one of them will sign-up.

    22. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes...let's ignore statistics made up by some company whose business it is to track statistics and believe statistics made up by some guy named BitGeek on Slashdot.

      Mac owners buy more software than their Windows counterparts....sure they do! You must think big retail markets like CompUSA are run by idiots who deliberately low-ball their inventory based on whimsy, right?

    23. Re:Again? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

      I have no clue what your first paragraph is saying, so I'll ignore it.

      You will gain 5% market penetration by supporting apple assuming all other factors are equal (which the are probably not in this case.. but you didn't say that did you)

      I seriously doubt they have 100% market penetration in the PC world. In fact I own a PC and I don't have satelite, so I know they do not.

      Say they have 10% penetration in the Wintel land, (this is very generous), and lets give Wintel 90% marketshare for consumer PC's (this might be accurate in europe and america, dubious worldwide), now you have 9% marketshare.

      Lets add 10% of the Mac users out there, you gain 1/2%.

      Now lets calculate the percent change in marketshare. Looks to be 5.5555555..%, seems to me they have gained prety close to the proposed 5% market penetration. This means for every 19 customers you have, you could have one more.

      This applies equally well to browser arguments, in fact there it's even more valid, as the cost increases much slower if you develop right to begin with.

      I have proven two things to myself here

      1: People like you who make claims like "it only has 5% marketshare, so it's obviously worthless to support" definatly do not work in any sort of money-related position, and you are definatly not MBA's.

      2: Neither of you have a clue how statistics work to manipluate truth.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    24. Re:Again? by swdunlop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Having done a stint or two of technical support, a tour in quality assurance, I can point out several costs of supporting less-used OS's and hardware platforms.

      First, it's not quite so easy to provide technical support for more than one environment. Like it or not, it isn't just a case of hitting Command-C instead of Control-C; Windows users expect one set of UI conventions, Mac users expect another, and Unix users want it three different ways, and it should also work from the command line. Each OS requires different tactics to work around existing issues. For technical support departments supporting diverse platforms is a nightmare, since it means they have to either spend most of their time in training, or provide multiple specialized departments, which can easily eat up manpower.

      Setting rigid support boundaries is a partial solution, but I have yet to have a customer who knew of the support boundaries and had a problem outside those nicely defined lines who didn't try to cajole and/or threaten me into helping him "just this once." It wastes my time, and his.

      For developers, this is similarly a nightmare. I know of one decent cross-platform GUI toolkit that works on X11, Win32 and Mac OS, and on the Mac, it doesn't conform strictly to the Apple User Interface guidelines. Compound that with the highly specialized skillset required to write drivers for a particular operating system, with some exceptions, and to go with your bloated support department, you'll have an increased software development budget, and QA budget.

      The only recourse we fringe users have is open standards; encourage your vendors to use published protocols, open standards and to document their API's. Take those documents and write a solution for your environment of choice.

    25. Re:Again? by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 1

      Thank you. You are the first person to address the question. If I had the mod points I've try to get you up to five. Bravo.
      Also, having read your response and as somebody who has literally considered getting the six-color Apple logo tatooed on my shoulder, if I were in fact a Hughes shareholder I would *not* want them pursuing that market. mac folk will just have to continue spoofing/using Dave/whatever.
      I also think that it's a bit funny that your response so effectively refutes the BSD "we brought sanity and order to TCP/IP" muck.
      Thanks again.

      --
      Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    26. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You proved another thing: you "definatly" don't know how to spell.

    27. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d00d, neither am i!!

    28. Re:Again? by eastshores · · Score: 1



      hmmm..

    29. Re:Again? by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Actually CompUSA in the past WAS run by idiots. They would actually steer people away from the Mac section.

      I'm not making that up.

      And people wonder why Mac users love the Apple Store (rolls eyes).

    30. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You have proven nothing:
      1. Your 5% market penetration is based on fabrications that even you call "generous"
      2. I know how to manipulate the truth with statistics...pull numbers out of the air

    31. Re:Again? by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Tell that to HP, Epson, Brother, Lexmark, Kessington, etc.

      The Mac market is a very profitable and lucrative market to be in as Mac users do in fact buy more software/etc. then Windows users. Just because a market is 5% doesn't mean it isn't lucrative.

      I mean 32 million users of installed machines (some of those may be a bit old)

    32. Re:Again? by Regul8or · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you have the first-strike advantage then you might win. Why doesn't one daring company out there start fullying supporting OSes other than Windows? If a small company out there becamse the Mac Broadband Provider then those small percentages would add up to a lot for a small company.

    33. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't know the second one, and you don't comprehend the first point either.

      I was proving through numbers what I can prove through variables if you would like

      marketshare in decimal format
      where x > a (Microsoft has more marketshare than Apple)

      Windows marketshare = x
      % of windows marketshare using product z = y
      Mac marketshare = a
      % of mac users who will use product z = y

      Marketshare of all consumer computers that the ISP has = x*y
      Marketshare of all consumers they will gain if they suddenly support macs = a*y

      Combined marketshare for ISP = xy+ay
      % of origional marketshare diffrence = (xy-ay)/(xy) = 1-a/x

      As you can see, the value of adding apple increases proportionally to the gaining of marketshare, directly with no k. So you gain exactly apples marketshare when you add support for them (all other things equal)

      To say that statistic is meaningless is niave, to say that statistic is false is idiotic.

      What you proposed (all mac uses of all os's adopt this service [y1=1 while y=.1 still]) would have given them a 55% marketshare boost with mu numbers above (if you ignore the marketshare I gave to windows users was generous)

      The smaller the windows marketshare the larger that percent

    34. Re:Again? by dfung · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Say they have 10% penetration in the Wintel
      > land, (this is very generous), and lets give
      > Wintel 90% marketshare for consumer PC's (this
      > might be accurate in europe and america,
      > dubious worldwide), now you have 9%
      > marketshare.
      >
      >Lets add 10% of the Mac users out there, you
      > gain 1/2%.
      >
      >Now lets calculate the percent change in
      > marketshare. Looks to be 5.5555555..%, seems
      > to me they have gained prety close to the
      > proposed 5% market penetration. This means for
      > every 19 customers you have, you could have
      > one more.

      Actually, this is amazingly close to the proof of why they *don't* support alternate OSes.

      Start with a realistic market penetration for satellite connectivity - probably 0.1%, which is still probably generous. I don't even think DSL or cable have 10% each.

      At this point, the mathematical argument you make could conceivably hold true - add a 5% platform and get 5% more users. But numerically, that number is really small and you gain them at very high cost. You have to pay to develop a new version of software and keep developing it as the world and the platform move forward (this is a big deal in the brave new world of OS X), provide technical support to these new users (along with all the people that aren't upgrading along the way), documentation, advertising so that anybody knows it exists, etc., etc.

      If all these numbers were in the millions, then you might at least try to make a go at it - the per head cost might not look great, but it's not ridiculous. But these numbers are probably in the 10s of thousands for the Windows platform, and you probably would have to battle for even a couple of thousand Mac users. With a million users, $500K for software and support infrastructure might work - for 2000 Mac users, it would just be stupid.

      When you try to sell this to your boss, he'll say, "we only have 0.1% market share with our existing product and support which targets the biggest mass market. Wouldn't be be better off spending the half-mil on advertisting for the current product? Couldn't we double our market share [e.g., tens of thousands more customers]?".

      And you know that he'd be right, don't you?

      David Fung

    35. Re:Again? by foonie · · Score: 1

      Let's look at it this way. Say x% of current PC users use satellite broadband. And after porting this technology to the Mac, then that same x% of current Mac users use satellite broadband. That's a 5% increase, assuming Mac users make up 5% of the market. Your argument assumes that 100% of PC users use satellite broadband, which is wrong.

    36. Re:Again? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      So what about enough of the specification of the hardware and TCP/IP hacks so that someone else could write a Linux driver? You wouldn't have to support it, you wouldn't have to write it, and your competitors are probably already reverse engineering your work in order to pick up anything not patented. I can totally understand why you don't want to be in the business of writing and supporting drivers, but Linuxers aren't really asking you to write the drivers.

      Just curious.

    37. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...
      "% of windows marketshare using product z = y"
      "% of mac users who will use product z = y"

      This is where you get into trouble.

      First, with all things being equal, you can't arbitrarily state that the percentage of adoption in one market with one demographic is going to be identical to a much smaller market in another demographic. Without your common factor(I called it a fabrication) your equation has to include both market shares(x and a) and both penetration variables(y and let's add b which is % of Mac users who use product z) giving you 1-ab/xy. Doesn't say as much as you thought it did, now does it?

      Second, if you think % of marketshare is static and costless then you know very little about marketing. Assuming some static percentage turn-out from advertising(which is a fantasy but, what the hell, you were the one to brought us to this make-believe territory) then which is the more attractive and valuable market: x-y or a-b?

    38. Re:Again? by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 1

      This doesnt really give any hard percentages, but Adobe Photoshop (full version) isn't even listed in the top 25 sellers of graphics software on Amazon.com Top 25 Graffics @ Amazon

      The mac upgrade version sells less than the full PC version, and the full PC version is way above them all. Considering that photoshop is Apple's main selling point to mac idiots, thye aren't doing THAT well. Considering that photoshop does significantly worse in sales than the PC version, its doubtfull that it would be profitable to make and support software wanted in this article.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    39. Re:Again? by 0x20 · · Score: 1

      True, 5% of computer users is a viable market, if you have a product that you're sure a good portion of them would pay for. But what about the (probably less than) .01% of that 5% who would pay for satellite internet service? Could that keep a satellite ISP afloat?

    40. Re:Again? by Graymalkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your arguement makes perfect sense and I have to say I agree. However I think the problem on the developer side doesn't lie with the fact supporting Macs would only get you .1% of 5% of the market but instead with the fact Hughes/EchoStar/everyone else screwed up originally in their implementation. The soon to be released DW4020 (maybe it is released already) is how the sat providers SHOULD have originally rolled out their connection equipment.

      Using USB based equipment in my ever so humble opinion was a major screwup on their part. Besides the obscene price tag of the equipment and installation (far more than my DirecTV system cost me) the USB satellite modem was a huge turn off. It is far more inefficient to fsck with the Windows networking set up than to do it in your own little box in a self contained manner. A satellite modem with an ethernet port is a much better idea, yet again in my opinion. For starters support is rather trivial, instead of needing to rely on Windows to work properly which is a lot to ask, they only need to really maintain their own software. All the network stack customizations and proxying tricks to let the network run on a high latency connection would be relatively simple to maintain on something like VxWorks or some other embedded system. All the end user would need is an ethernet port which in available on a huge percentage of systems, including every Mac made since the iMac.

      At the time I was looking at DirectWay about when I was looking for boradband and was picking up a DirecTV system anyways the only satellite modem options were USB. Had I been able to plug it into my Ethernet hub I probably would have bought the service. For a long time I lived out of reach of both cable and DSL and my telephone line choked data down at a staggering 24kbit/s. Now I have a cable modem plugged into my router which is plugged into my hub. I think there's plenty of Linux/Mac/Whatever users who also would have signed up for their service a long time ago and thus been locked into satellite instead of opting for cable or DSL. I think Hughes dropped the ball with DirectWay, it had a major opening even in metropolitan areas before the massive cable internet rollouts of the past two years. Not only could they have likely increased their customer base but they could have also lowered their costs by not relying on Windows hacks in order to get their systems to work right.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    41. Re:Again? by ek_adam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about the people in rural locations who don't have any other options available?

      My father lives in northern Maine. He has a 56k modem, that can barely get 24k on his phone line. No cable available. Positively no DSL, he's about 15 miles from the central office.

      Reasonably priced satellite service would be great.

    42. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a network engineer (sic) who was contracted
      by some company-who-had-satellites after they
      discovered they owned a warehouse full of, what,
      rs232(or was it eth via co-ax)->X.25 routers.
      Basically, these outdated, Canadian-manufactured,
      but really cool-save-for-the-million-jumpers boxes when
      coupled with a crap consumer antenna was viewed (IMnsHO)
      as a way of making a profit ("wow, we own what? cool,
      let's use it.") It seemed OK, but really wasn't an
      initiative by them; just a way of further recouping
      the cost of the satellites while putting to use a
      bunch of boxes gathering dust/costing for storage.
      I didn't think they would actually sell this, thinking
      it was for in-house redundancy only. Whoops.
      Now, hearing that it supposedly only available for
      MS-DOS extensions (what some call "Windows") doesn't
      surprise me, the boxes were kludges to begin with: only
      barely configured for hooking to a MS-DOS machine on
      one side and some proprietary bldg cntrl box on the other.
      What does surprise me is the continual push to re-use
      those models for future (nowadays current) products
      when they barely operated originally (typical baling
      wire/duct tape/wookie spit).
      Mac users: Don't know. *BSD & Linux: change your MSS/MTU.

    43. Re:Again? by kuiken · · Score: 1

      They would hqve been idiots if they didnt steer them away, profit margins on apple are so low for resellers its not even wurth trying to sell them

      Apple has slowly been doing a DELL on their reselers

      --

      42
    44. Re:Again? by Casualposter · · Score: 1

      Caution, Economic Genius at work.

      If Mac's are 5% of the total internet computer market, and it is uneconomical to support 5% of the market, then why do ISP's support macs? Macs have had 5% of the market for a while and games, and good software are still developed. ISP's still support macs.

      And all this balderdash about development costs is really a piss poor excuse for not being serious about the satellite internet business. Seems to me that if these guys really wanted to provide the service they would come up with a simple, and economical solution.

      Cost of Development: how much did Warcraft and Diablo cost to develop and support? What about Photoshop? Norton Untilities? Quicken? They are all out for the mac. 5% of the market isn't economical? I'm sure that the market penetration on the mac for these titles isn't really that much different than for the PC (though I'm only speculating).

      I was getting fed up with the down time on my cable internet and was looking into DSL (Very Expensive out here) or satellite. I use Linux and Macs at home and Windows at work. The attitude that I got from talking to the Satellite ISPS wasn't comforting. This didn't appear to be their business. The attitude appeared to me to be one of "Let's put our toe in this market and if it really takes off, then we'll be ready." These guys are into satelite communcations by large corporations and governements or providing TV. The internet is not part of their core business, but a hedge against future developments that might infringe on their current business model.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    45. Re:Again? by Golias · · Score: 1
      You're assuming that the whole 5% will automatically migrate to it if it were to become available.

      No he's not, math wizard.

      Assuming that 5% of currently used home computers are Macs (there's a lot of conflicting data about that. The 5% number actually represents total new sales, which includes all business sales... but let's roll with that number for this example).

      If a product $FOO is currently used by, oh say, 1% of Windows users, and you manage to sell it to 1% of Mac users, you just increased your sales by 5%.

      If the whole 5% "automatically" migrated, you would be talking about a massive windfall of profit, due to a more than 500% increase in sales!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    46. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real answer is hardware costs. Any idea how much a satellite modem with a built-in router and spoofing stack costs? Of course it's better to do things in hardware, instead of having users install software. That's why the newer systems don't require software on the PC - hardware costs are coming down to where the hardware can be offered at a more attractive price.

      Windows software hacks are cheap in comparison to choosing, testing, developing on, and purchasing hardware.

    47. Re:Again? by Golias · · Score: 2
      First, it's not quite so easy to provide technical support for more than one environment.

      Except "Windows" is not exactly one environment, is it? A product like this probably already has customers on 98, NT4, ME, Win2000, and XP, perhaps more, and apart from similar-looking GUI's, the differences (particularilly between 98/ME and NT) are pretty vast, when it comes to what's likely to break for any given app.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    48. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hazard a guess (pure speculation) that the reason the "stack" isn't released is because you're not just buying a router. The modem talks to a company-owned hub, not to "the internet". So all those protocols are proprietary, and they probably don't want a bunch of "linux hackers" trying to figure out how to make their home-rolled stack work with the hub. Opening up the modem to allowing low-level packets to be generated by the host PC may also break security. I'm not familiar with the product side of things, though, so I really have no idea.

    49. Re:Again? by Golias · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's got to me the wisest post I've seen in this entire discussion. Kudos.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    50. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I have no clue what your first paragraph is saying, so I'll ignore it.

      Well basically, after reading your comments I conclude that you have *no clue* about anything anyhow, but just to elucidate on the original post...

      'Logic' is an expensive pro-audio software tool that is used by many recording studios. Logic ran happily on Mac and PC platforms. Logic was made by a German company that was recently bought out by Apple.

      Now this is where it gets interesting, Apple, in their infinite wisdom, decided to stop developing Logic for the PC platform (and rumors say they will dumb it down to some kind of 'prosumer' application).

      Result: very unhappy pro-audio PC users, very uncertain pro-audio Mac users.

      Another master stroke from Jobs & co.!

    51. Re:Again? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      Yes exactly, I was just pointing out he was wrong in stating that all mac users must use the service for them go gain mac's marketshare equal to the mac penetration of pc's.

      If I suggested we pick up a market that was going to double our cost, well I wouldn't. OTOH I would have (as I always have done) made sure my minions, I mean developers below me, work in such a way that adding additional markets is cheap. To do otherwise (since this incurs very little inital cost) is similar to designing a brick and mortar franchise that has to be redesigned every time you open a new location. This allows us the option of switching if it became econmical, and more than once I have been in a situation where I have saved significant cash and goten a raise for it.

      The fact that more people don't do this shows the general immaturity of the IT profession. IMO we will see more and more people having inital "platform agnostic" development because those who partake in it always beat those who don't.

      Your other costs are significant, but at the same time it dosen't take much marketshare for them to be offset (remember it's easier to convince someone who wants a product, but currently cant have it, to buy it than it is to convince someone who has already chosen not to get it to buy it). I would say if you have 0.6% and apple has 7%(this is prety close to thier current marketshare I believe) it would be prety close to break even point for most products on some simple math I just crunched in my head.

      You also must realize support etc costs increase mostly because more people are using that platform. If you have currently 19 "wintel" tech support you only need to add 1 "apple" tech support in the presented situation, so none of your costs really "double". (actually this one would probably be greater per customer, but it's all a balance)

      To be clear, I'm not supporting everyone using apple products, I'm simply stating to say "only 5% marketshare is worthless" is absurd. In almost every other industry 5% marketshare increase is something to keep a very carefull eye on, and only people with little grasp of buisness would dismiss it offhand.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    52. Re:Again? by coleridge78 · · Score: 1

      1. Mac users aren't "being forced to buy new machines to use OS X." Where did that come from? First, nobody has to run OS X at all, and so far the majority of mac users have chosen not to. Secondly, you don't need a new machine. I run it just fine on an old 300MHz iBook.

      2. You totally miss the point. It has nothing to do with longetivity. It has to do with the fact that while PCs have a 94% market share, or whatever, many of those rarely or never touch the 'net. Think about it, how many people do you know with a bedroom or basement full of cheap PCs that they use for this and that but save their one ballsy daily use machine for most of the online work? I know quite a few.

      3. Zeitgeist reports on exactly one thing: www.google.com. How do you extrapolate from those statistics to Internet use (including non-www) as a whole? Zuh? Given the cost of satellite, I doubt that many people are going to get it just to go googling around the web, so those stats are even more meaningless in the current discussion.

    53. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I did have sort of a point, but I'm too tired to explain it now and I have work to do.

      I will agree what I said was very simplistic, but then again the post I was replying to was very simplistic itself.

      If you want to analize a market completly you would find 5% marketshare increase for the cost increase we are talking about is normally worth little, on the other hand once apple hits 10% market share it becomes much more viable again for many companies.

      yadda yadda yadda, this post is a reply to a semi-troll that was replied to by a troll, replied to by logic, replied to by a troll, replied to by another semi-troll. I'd say YHBT but I think that would be pointless now wouldn't it.

    54. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The satellite industry is far behind everyone else. Ever see the equipment in an earth station? A lot of it still uses serial connections. And when some of these device manufacturers switch to ethernet, all they do is tack on a half-assed ethernet-to-serial converter.

    55. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > as Mac users do in fact buy more software/etc. then Windows users

      That seems incredible (litterally).

      Care to back this astounding statement up with some solid facts?

    56. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real answer is hardware costs. Any idea how much a satellite modem with a built-in router and spoofing stack costs?

      Less than a satellite modem with built-in USB, more than likely.

    57. Re:Again? by Comen · · Score: 0

      These days, I think most all ISP's support MACS, Maybe, But back when you used to have to install FreeePPP for a MAC and some Dialup stack for a PC and I worked for a ISP, We tried to support macs for awhile and found that it wasnt worth the fustration with working with teh 10 MAC users to actully SUPPORT it, we still would sell accounts to them, and offer the software for download but wouldnt support it if they couldnt get it to work.

      Now adays I am sure that isnt a problem, unless with this satellite service you have to install drivers for a USB modem or something, then maybe this would still apply.

    58. Re:Again? by swdunlop · · Score: 1

      Yep. Our support department doesn't support NT 4 and earlier, Windows 2000 or XP aside from Home Edition. If they had the choice, they wouldn't support XP, either; it's a support nightmare since users have so much control over appearance, layout, etc.

    59. Re:Again? by sparkyman · · Score: 1

      Amen!

      If someone would come out with two-way satellite software for linux, I'd get it! No more busy signal complaints from the SO's family! (doesn't bother me, becuase no one calls me anyway :)

    60. Re:Again? by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Whatever the reason, that is no way to treat your customers.

    61. Re:Again? by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Just look at Adobe's sales figures or other software makers for that matter that sell both Mac and PC version of their software.

      That and the software on both paltforms would have to be decent to qualify for a comparision like this.

      Adobe will do.

    62. Re:Again? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Yeah, well. Being in QA and tech support means we only see the downsides. And we have to take the Dev's word for how hard things are (when they often complain to just get us off their backs).

      We don't see shipping/sales bonuses. That's why we're not the ones that do the product design.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    63. Re:Again? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2

      Less than a satellite modem with built-in USB, more than likely.

      And way less than that plus custom windows network drivers, supporting software, etc.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    64. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but they're cutting off 30% of an existing market!

    65. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first post was about 5% market penetration--I pointed out that it would require the full adotion by the Mac community.

      Your second post changed the rules from 5% market penetration to 5% increase in market presence with an equal market adoption of 10%--I pointed out that this was a fabricated number that even you thought was spurious.

      Your third post replaced the made up numbers with a faulty premise, i.e. that adoption rates would be identical--I pointed this out.

      I might have gotten snippy about your making things up but you were the one that tried to back your faulty concepts with attacks on how "naive" and "idiotic" I was for not accepting them.

      The irony here is that a)supporting the Mac doesn't look good until they increase their marketshare but I already said that(x-y is more attractive than a-b) and b)you seem to have known this from the start.

    66. Re:Again? by NTSwerver · · Score: 1

      In the UK there is an ISP offering a 500Kbps up and down satellite connection. A friend of mine, who lives in a rural area and cannot get cable/DSL, is waiting for it to be installed for his Mac. It's going to cost him £900 ($1400) for the modem/installation, plus a £60/month ($94) fee.

      --
      -----------------------
      Moderator's essentials
    67. Re:Again? by zonker · · Score: 0

      BEST MOVIE EV-VER.

    68. Re:Again? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      This doesnt really give any hard percentages, but Adobe Photoshop (full version) isn't even listed in the top 25 sellers of graphics software on Amazon.com

      You will also note that Photoshop 7 the Mac upgrade comes in at number 12. Since many Mac users probably already own Photoshop, they will naturally be upgrading, rather than buying the full version.

      Incidentally, Adobe can also cut development costs by reusing PC and Mac code, as well as reusing the code in simplified products like Photoshop Elements, which is incidentally at the top of the list. (Elements ships both Mac and PC versions in the same box, IIRC.)

      The mac upgrade version sells less than the full PC version

      Look, at 5% market share, even if every Mac user upgraded and only 6% of PC users bought a new box, your statement will be true. Obviously, if you cater to the PC, you can make more (total amount) money. However, if you know how to cater to the minority Mac, you can make even more money.

      It'd be idiotic for Adobe to stop shipping PC versions of Photoshop. But why shouldn't they ship Mac versions also if they can make additional profit off the Mac version?

      its doubtfull that it would be profitable to make and support software wanted in this article.

      Uh, I wasn't using Photoshop to prove that. Different demographic (rural Mac user?!), different business model (subscription versus software sale). What I was talking about is that many businesses dismiss the niche market without seriously examining it, which can be a disservice to their company.

    69. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You specifically stated "Say", indicating that you are aware that it is possible that Mac users might behave differently than PC users. Perhaps more Mac users would tend to use satellite because they could afford it, or less because fewer live in rural areas, or more because they value fast downloads, or more/less because they do a cost/benefit analysis better (or in a different way)... We have to remember that we're comparing Apples to PCs as well as users who chose between them.

      What about schools?
      Many schools use Macs. Schools are all over each state, not only in metropolitan areas. Are rural schools likely to desire satellite access?
      ...and are schools forced to not use Microsoft products because they are forbidden from using the products of a convicted monopolist?

    70. Re:Again? by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      Yeah-- they only count computers sold in a given year. People then take that number and call it the total addressable market. This ignores the fact that the average mac is kept around twice as long as the average PC.

      Furthermore, Gartner counts every computer sold with windows as a windows sale, and every sale of windows software as another windows sale-- so many computers which ship with windows and are then upgraded to another version of windows are counted twice.

      Furthermore, they count all computers sold with windows that are installed in a datacenter or otherwise have Linux installed as windows sales-- inflating the windows numbers and deflating the linux numbers.

      They don't do ANY RESEARCH into the actual operating system installed on customers computers.

      Nor do they account for the fact that many computers are bought for data centers or for business use that does not involve customer use. The business market and the consumer markets are quite different-- when you talk about selling software into a market, you're talking about the consumer market (unless you're talking business software). The huge distortion causes by counting computers that live in closets and computer rooms as addressable for software sales is very erronous-- nobody installs word or a movie editing package on these machines.

      Basically, their numbers are made up.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    71. Re:Again? by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      OH, I forgot another issue with their numbers: They dont' count mac sales.

      Yep.

      When they say Macs have "%3" of the market, they are saying that macs make up %3 of the x86 market-- that is companies that sell x86 boxes or distribute them, also often care apple hardware and report that to them. But they don't count sales made via mac mail order companies, local mac dealers, the apple retail stores or the apple online store.

      In other words, the ignore all the mac sales channels and only count sales thru x86 sales channesl as mac channels. Thus not counting most mac sales.

      (I'm sure there are irregularities in how they count linux and other unix on pc hardware sales as well.)

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    72. Re:Again? by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      I didn't say that was the market share-- I don't know the market share. but Gartner and IDC don't either.

      I'm saying by thier published numbers, if you account for the way they collect data, then THEY are saying the mac market is %15-%20 of the consumer internet accessing market.

      By the way, almost all mac browsers report to be PCs-- googles stats are pointless. After getting told you cant' use a website because you aren't running IE, (even when you are) people switch and report themselves as PCs.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    73. Re:Again? by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      If you had experience working for software developers, I wouldn't need to substantiate the assertion.

      But it is my experience, and I've a long history with various software companies.

      I've seen profitable products killed because they were mac products (while the PC product was loosing money) and the company eventually goes out of business, etc.

      Most marketing people working for software companies are newbies. There are few experienced marketers, and even then they tend to have a herd mentality.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    74. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah but trolling is fun on occasion, and I was kinda depressed last night =p

      cut some slack

    75. Re:Again? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      Interesting that you chose Amazon.com to prove the insignificance of Macs: Top-Selling Desktop Computers @ Amazon

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    76. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn

    77. Re:Again? by foonie · · Score: 1

      Those are other good considerations. My only point was that 100% of all Mac users did not need to sign up for satellite service for a company to increase their customer base by 5%.

    78. Re:Again? by kuiken · · Score: 1

      Well the way apple treats its small resellers is much worse IMHO. I had a friend working in a smallish mac reseller and he said that if an iMac came back under waranty, the RMA costs would be higher then the profit on that box

      --

      42
  2. Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by realmolo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought they were all too busy making Quicktime movies of their trip to the Volvo dealer, and ripping Yanni CDs to play on their iPod while they wait at the coffee shop for their Shitsu to get it's nails manicured, sipping latte's. You know, Thinking Differently.

    1. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you forgot about them taking away the weed they give to their daughters that delete their Word Documents.

    2. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Apple owners are, by and large, the type of nancy who gets the vapors trying to figure out which end of the screwdriver to use. The idea of choice or configurability frightens them. That is to whom Apple targets their marketing. You know the kind; they dress head to toe in black and drive a Volkswagen new-beetle. They spend hours--nay--days getting their virtual desktop decorated just right. They agonize over which screen wallpaper to use. Style over substance.

    3. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by thesupermikey · · Score: 1

      Keep Fighting the good fight! BEIGE RAGE!!!!

      --
      Mikey
      I've always been the kinda guy to fall for the girl dressed like an eskimo.
    4. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Darthbert · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thank you realmoto, I now have a new signature. Troll or not, this post tells it like it is.

    5. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by ender's_shadow · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a natural fact that trolls are naturally unfunny, and that funny posts simply can't be trolls?

    6. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volvo dealer? I think you meant Volkswagon. It's in the EULA that if you own a Mac you have to drive a Jetta. A silver one.

    7. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by xo0bob0ox · · Score: 1

      or not.

      --
      Support Objectivism and the United States,

      Ayn Rand

    8. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is fascinating is that if someone introduces himself as a Mac guy, there is at least a 50/50
      chance that he is gay. About half of all Mac users are homosexual. Amazing demographic.

    9. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by SamTheButcher · · Score: 1
      Stupid Coward. One guy already wrote this post. And Macs don't use wallpaper.

      Dope.

    10. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by foo12 · · Score: 1

      ... to buy cool shit from BluDot, of course. DUH ;-)

    11. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I build jet engines and use Macs.

      When I get tired of making sure you don't fall out of the sky during the day, I don't want to have to keep rebooting a crash-happy computer, so I use a Mac.

    12. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by commodoresloat · · Score: 2
      They spend hours--nay--days getting their virtual desktop decorated just right. They agonize over which screen wallpaper to use.

      Heh, you must mean linux users. Remember, Mac users aren't allowed to tweak their UIs anymore.

    13. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Halcyonandoff · · Score: 1

      That argument is soooo outdated....

    14. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by rxchurch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I use my mac to come home and make music and edit video after a long week of smacking around linux/sunos/microsloth/ios machines around.

      When I come home, i don't really feel like spending half my night recompiling the latest kernel.

      I just want to make music and video.
      After I eat my sushi, of course.

      --
      This Sig doesn't like The Force, The Matrix or Middle Earth. It also gets laid.
    15. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Macintosh user, I don't think that's a fair stereotype. We have many niggers, kikes, spics, and chinks using Macs, plus I think stats show clearly that bitches prefer Macs to PC's.

      Gee, I'm glad you reminded me how funny stereotypes are.

    16. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Except for those of use who use Macs because we want a unix laptop to help us administer our unix servers.

    17. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and thank goodness that Mac users don't reproduce. It'd be bad for the ecology, don'tcha know.

      Hide the tofu!

    18. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Chemical · · Score: 2
      No kidding. My piece-of-shit Dell Optiplex GX1 at work (with a whopping 350Mhz PII) is running W2k and has been up since Aug 23, 40 days straight without so much as a hiccup. Prior to that it had been up for about 60 days but had to be rebooted after some asshole installed some software that required a reboot.

      Of course the only reason I don't reboot is because I am running ProgressQuest all the time and I don't want to lose my place. My charater, Captain Dingleberry is currently ranked 196 out of 39600 players. I was pissed when that guy rebooted my PC and I come back 2 days later to discover that ProgressQuest had been shut down.

    19. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, why don't you use Linux?
      I'll tell you. It's because you are a little fairy pansy-boy. Real men use Intel.

    20. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black is also acceptable, but only if you get the expensive one with the heated leather seats.

    21. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly homophobe. About half of everybody is homosexual. In fact, I'm getting a drippy, slobbery blow job from your dad right now. He says "hi," but it's kind of muffled.

    22. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong in so many ways.

      It's Volkswagen, not Volvo. The silver Jetta with the alloy wheels, or the black one with leather seats.

      We don't listen to Yanni; we listen to Liz Phair, Smashmouth, De La Soul, and Norah Jones. Nothing else, just them.

      And it's spelled "shih tzu."

      God, dude, you're so far off.

    23. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by broohaha · · Score: 1

      Well, some Mac users live in a remote island in Southeast Asia where crappy land lines are that's available (while most people end up with cell phones for voice communication).

      Three macs reside in this one household there that I occassionally visit, and getting online is a pain. It's even more painful to see all these net services pop up and not be able to take advantage of them.

      I'd kill for broadband access there. 9600bps is torture.

    24. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by jweatherley · · Score: 1

      I've got a dark blue Passat - does that count?

      --

      --
      Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
    25. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty much common knowledge that Mac users are fags. Thank God for AIDS.

    26. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by freeefalln · · Score: 1

      outdated or not. if its fact its fact. Would you want someone building jet engines on a PC? i Sure as fuck wouldnt. it better be a Unix variant.

    27. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he told me he was getting a Mac, so I'm not surprised.

    28. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by davepander · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is I did see a guy with an iPod at the coffee shop yesterday morning. I looked over his shoulder to see what he was listenting to... Yanni.

    29. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Jo.

      From your website:

      >>I'm a student at Queen Mary, University of London at the moment, and I will be for a while to come.>I build jet engines...>and use Macs> When I get tired of making sure you don't fall out of the sky during the day > so I use a Mac.

      Yep. Think deludedly!!

    30. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And Macs don't use wallpaper.

      That's right Sam, they use ever so chi-chi and expensive designer wall covering fabrics made from organic jute grown by happy peasants under a fair trade scheme sanctioned by the WWF.

    31. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Would you want someone building jet engines on a PC? i Sure as fuck wouldnt. it better be a Unix variant.

      How the fuck did engineers build jet engines before computers were around? Yeah - they did you know. I think they used pens, paper, log tables and slide rules and stuff.

      Woa! I hope none of them uses a M$ Sliderul(tm), I can just see those 1950's Commets falling out of the sky right now.

      You Idiot!

    32. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by SamTheButcher · · Score: 1

      See, now that's funny and original. That's all I ask.

    33. Re:Why would Mac users need fast internet anyway? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It is in fact designed on I-deas, one of the industry standard CAD programs running on a Unix platform.

      Either that or Catia, which runs on both Unix and PC. Geoff Kirk, designer of the Rolls Royce Trent 800 abandoned the PC version of Catia citing "OS instabilities when performing complex FEM stuff"

  3. Cost benefit by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know of any serious tech hurdle that would make it cost more than $100K or so to develop the necessary software?

    Regarding this hypothetical expense of $100k let us weigh the potential generated income versus investing it in something else.

    Hrm, my market research indicates I can draw 10x the potential customers by spending that $100k on improving my service toward the unix/windows/other market. (This is just an sample explanation of possible reasons, I have not actually had such research done.)

  4. route packets by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 1

    For an Apple alone? No.

    But with a PC, just route packets out of a Linux box -- all it requires is a cheap ($20 yardsale) PC, 2 $5 network cards, a backwards CAT5 crosslink cable, and a good reading of some Linux Howtos and possibly a couple of forum posts.

  5. not really worth it by SlugLord · · Score: 1

    Aside from the fact that it's not worth the effort on the part of the satellite providers (not enough mac users want satellite internet), it's also not worth it for the mac user (unless no other means of broadband connectivity is available) Satellite modems, despite their large bandwidth, have huge latencies (even light takes time to travel) and just aren't worth the price (which is generally the same or more than cable/dsl.

    Perhaps mac users know better than to want satellite ISPs...

    1. Re:not really worth it by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You know, not everyone can get cable/dsl.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:not really worth it by redgekko · · Score: 1

      It's more than worth it to our customers (we install vsat dishes) who can't get DSL or Cable. I've had Mac users who have bought PC servers and SatServ licences because any broadband is better than none at all. They are perfectly happy with their servce, and regularly send us referrals.

      --
      Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
    3. Re:not really worth it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, how hard is it for you guys to get this through your freaking heads.... MUCH OF THE USA DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO FREAKING xDSL, ISDN, or EVEN 56K!!!!
      Their telcos are jerks, dimwits, ignorant, or just plain uncooperative.
      For the victims of these bastards, satellite is the ONLY choice versus 26.4k (or even 21K) land line speed maximums.
      So stop yammering about "satellites are not worth it when compared to XYZ"... its an invalid comparison for the target audience of satellite connectivity.

      In my case, I live 3 freaking miles from Intel Corporate Oregon under Verizon's network and the BEST Verizon delivers is a pathetic 26.4kbps connection... no ISDN, no xDSL, no 56K. They don't even want to discuss frame relay. My ONLY choice is to run satellite for all port 80 stuff and ssh (play games) over that pathetic modem.

      Now there's a small company near my area that runs ground-to-ground Wireless DSL... I'm hoping to strike a relationship with them but we'll see as I'm sure I'm out of existing range.

      Get out of your house sometime and check out what's REALLY AVAILABLE... not what those insulting damn commercials claim to offer.

  6. Doesn't Apple have an investment in Earthlink? by jlower · · Score: 2

    They did anyway. That would seem to make a conspiracy less likely.

  7. It's not about the cost to *develop* the software by mbessey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The main barrier to providing a service like this for the Mac, or for Linux, Solaris, BeOS, or whatever, isn't the cost to develop the software, it's the cost of supporting users on another platform.

    Every time someone calls with a question, it costs the company money. The quicker you can answer their question and get them off the phone, the better. This means minimizing the number of different systems your support folks have to be trained for.

    -Mark

  8. Get a Used Windows Box by Alexander · · Score: 1

    And set up Winproxy or ICS. Used PII 233s abound for cheap.

    I've set up ICS on DHCP broadband using XP two NICs. The second NIC is off to an airport base station, which feeds mac laptops.

    --
    "oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!" ..."uhhh yeah, he's the one that begins with
  9. They should just move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they need broadband, they should just move to a place that has cable/DSL available ;)

  10. The real cost is maintenance by iiioxx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not the initial development of drivers and an application interface that is such the expense for the ISP. It is the ongoing support of an additional platform. By adding Mac support for your product, you've just doubled your ongoing testing and debug workload. It is also an additional platform for which they will have to provide user support. They either have to train their existing help desk staff to resolve both Windows and Mac problems, or they have to hire a special "Mac staff" and create a separate help desk to support that userbase.

    In the realm of mass market computing, the majority rules. Most companies can't afford to expend the budget to gain a small fraction of a platform that only makes up 5% of the industry as a whole. Remember, it's not like EVERY Mac user will start using the product just because they support the Mac. So, why would a company spend even 2% of their R&D budget to get 1% of a 5% market (if they're lucky).

    1. Re:The real cost is maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What? Rubbish, Earthlink and the rest subcontract thier support services out to other companies that specialise in the services. These companys have Support staff for every different Platform allready anyway so it's mainly just a matter of creating training documentation for the current Mac Techs at the operations. It's actualy pretty stupid to do in house tech support as it is a big waste of resources. Most of the cost assosiated with porting the service is one time development cost.

  11. I tried to like get the satellite to work.....like by Typingsux · · Score: 4, Funny
    on my Mac.... Then all of a sudden beep beep beep beep beep beep
    Unhhhhh?

    --
    The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
  12. Mac users should be able to have sucky service too by usurper_ii · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work for a dealer and we tested DirecPC through Pegasus (Pegasus Express was the offical name). It sucked. When talking to people that had satellite Net...about four out of five hated it. (I never could figure out why that one person said theirs was working so good when the other people had nothing but trouble). In the end, we never sold it because we were afraid it would make more people mad than anything else.

    By all means, though, Mac usuers should be able to get pissed off just like us PC users...

    Usurper_ii

  13. 2 Words: Microsoft DirectPC by whoppers · · Score: 1

    All of the orbiting satellites are actually owned by Microsoft. I'm endgangering myself by actually revealing this to you all, but I feel that this information yearns to be free.

    The way around this is to actually buy a new PC with MS on it, plug it into the satellite and share the internet connection. Tada!!

    My brother & sister's son has been using this setup for over a year now.

  14. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it interesting that there's no Mac support. You'd think that they'd try and pair up Apple Computers and Satellite Internet.

    Just think about it... Slow Computers, Slow net connection, match made in heaven.

  15. +0: Indecisive by psoriac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I couldn't decide whether to mod this -1: Troll or +1: Funny, so I'll just back away slowly. =)

    --
    I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
  16. Earthlink Satellite is USB only: why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was shocked when my rural parents recently upgraded to earthlink's two way satellite system for high speed internet. The hardway provided only supplied a single USB connection for PC connectivity. To wire a home network, even windows based, was more effort than it should have been. I was shocked that the hardware was not a simple ethernet based system; this would certainly seem to me the easiest and most portable solution, yet they choose to use USB instead. Certainly this would have implications for non-windows systems (macs and linux) and home networks.

    1. Re:Earthlink Satellite is USB only: why? by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most computers come with USB ports. Most home computers do NOT come with ethernet jacks as standard.

      Most satellite Internet providers use a form of header-rewrite on the packets, routing everything back to your PC through their NOC. It makes for difficulties in setting up direct-to-router connections.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Earthlink Satellite is USB only: why? by klparrot · · Score: 1

      Due to the increasing numbers of users who choose broadband for Internet access, and the low price of an Ethernet card, many (I would guess most) home computers now DO come with Ethernet standard, or at least it's a matter of "choose one of: modem or Ethernet."

    3. Re:Earthlink Satellite is USB only: why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your rural parents? that must be like my city sister!

    4. Re:Earthlink Satellite is USB only: why? by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but looking at the original question, most Macs and Mac clones built in the last 5-7 years have Ethernet ports on the mobo. Yeah, many of them require a transceiver in order to go to an RJ-45, but even my 5-year-old PowerCenter 120 has an RJ-45 in it... and hell, even my Mac 6116CD has an Ethernet port, and that damned thing's slower than a P-100.

      I'm not a Mac zealot... I just happen to like using them because I find the OS a lot less fiddly than either Micro$oft or Linux, so I find I get a lot more work done and spend less time fiddling. However, in many ways the PC has been playing catch-up on the hardware for a LONG time.

  17. Re:2 Words: Microsoft DirectPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Actually, they're owned by Major League Baseball. Don't make Mark McGwire come down there!

  18. Same thing in Brasil by Joe_Pineapples · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wanted a conection for my home on the country-side, Embratel has this StarOne service, but when I read the contract, it actually stated as FORBIDEN the use of Linux or Mac machines!! This shows up on the same part that talks about "stolen passwords" and "unauthorized access" .

    So I called the guy that manages my company's account at Embratel and he goes on explaininng that the software needed for their "accelerated access" was only available for M$. "Can I use a Proxy server and set my Linuxes and Macs behind it?", I tried, but he made it clear that this practice would break the contract and they could have me cut off from the service legally.

    After all the hard work I had O/C'g my ibook, there's no way I'm going back to a PC...

    ~/Joe

  19. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    it requires buying expensive...hardware

    Expensive hardware? You mean like the Mac you're trying to get online with?

  20. In two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? Macs are like 2% of computers worldwide (probably less than 10% even in the US). Of those, only about 5% would even be interested in having satellite internet access. Why is this front page news at Slashdot? Must be a really slow day.

  21. Most Mac Users Probably on Broadband by Shuh · · Score: 2

    It looks like satellite internet is one of those wonky markets that doesn't make any sense except to those people trying to pinch pennies or get ahead where there isn't broadband already available. That being said, most Mac users are used to paying for superior service and probably already have ADSL/cable internet access anyway... It's kind of like whining about a lack of USB-2 drivers on the Mac when Firewire has already been there for the past 4 years both faster and better...

    1. Re:Most Mac Users Probably on Broadband by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue with the subjective parts of your argument, because they are, by nature, subjective.

      What I am going to dispute is the fact that you state that Firewire is faster than USB-2 (as you put it.) It is not. I won't dispute the 'better' part, but Firewire (as currently available) is 400Mbps, and USB 2.0 (a.k.a USB High Speed) is 480Mbps.

      Yes, FireWire has 800Mbps and 1600Mbps in the works, but it's not available yet, as USB 2.0 is. (I have USB 2.0 on both my PC and my Mac. I'm about to get a combo USB2.0 and FireWire hard drive, so I'll let you know which interface is faster.)

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
    2. Re:Most Mac Users Probably on Broadband by foonie · · Score: 1

      Pretty good article here, where a guy tested out and compared USB 2.0 to Firewire on both a PC and a Mac. I remember reading somewhere that Firewire gets 400Mbps sustained whereas USB 2.0 gets the 480Mbps in bursts. Nevertheless, the tests conclude that they're virtually the same as far as performance--FW actually did do a tiny bit better. I'd be interested in hearing your results.

    3. Re:Most Mac Users Probably on Broadband by Shuh · · Score: 2
      What I am going to dispute is the fact that you state that Firewire is faster than USB-2 (as you put it.) It is not. I won't dispute the 'better' part, but Firewire (as currently available) is 400Mbps, and USB 2.0 (a.k.a USB High Speed) is 480Mbps.
      You need to read some real-world comparisons between USB 2.0 and Firewire. Firewire always wins.

      The 'specs' are only on paper. And USB-2 doesn't come anywhere close to a theoretical 480Mbps, much less 400Mbps, which you would expect now in the beta-stages of USB-2. And I said "beta" in the sense that this product has been released as a product for you to beta-test... unofficially. (Another "subjective" argument, based on the fact of the performance disparity.)
    4. Re:Most Mac Users Probably on Broadband by Shuh · · Score: 2

      The articles I looked at on the relative performance were these:

      mobilecomputing

      toms hardware

  22. Why Satellite? by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm living in Osaka, Japan right now, and the biggest hurdle the technology-savvy Japanese have to face in the telecommunications field is geography: Japan is 70% mountains.

    Their solution? Wireless internet. Give your user a wireless internet card, then connect the receiver to a fiber-optic network offering 100Mbps. Works with Windows as well as OS 9 and OS X.

    Currently, ADSL alone in Japan offers 12Mbps, for a slightly cheaper price than in the states.

    --
    "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    1. Re:Why Satellite? by Profane+Motherfucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Great, so rather than spend a shitload of money on some hardware solution, why not just pack all one's shit up and move to some foreign fucking country. What a viable and clever solution. You know, when I got fucking livid because there's no realiable cellular service here, my *first* thought was, "Why don't I move to fucking Finland, where cellular service is fantastic and mature?"

      After all, I'm sure that moving to a country where a person has no job, knows no language, no culture, has no contacts, and no life will all pay out in the end.

      What the fuck?

      That's great that Japan has some nifty fucking toys. Here's the thing: damn near every time someone complains about shit being gypsy rigged in their area, someone else says that "Oh, jeez, in elbonia the shit flows like fucking milk and honey. Those elbonians are some smart motherfuckers! We should mimick them!" But I don't think installing a nationwide wireless network is the solution to giving ONE FUCKING MAC USER internet.

    2. Re:Why Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, Japan is 70% mountains. And guess what, probably about 90% of the population lives in the plains. The wireless connection is NOT an option for those living in a rural area.

      I live in Tokyo Japan right now. I have 12Mbps ADSL and a backup wireless 1.5Mbps symmetric connection to fiber. But guess what... the only reason I live in Tokyo is because my job depends on a 24/7 (hickups are OK) and relatively fast internet connection. (I could live with 1.5Mbps.) Truth is, I want to move to the mountains. I already have a location set in my heart. It has no electricity, let alone internet connection or phone service. (Well, there is DoCoMo cell phone service, barely.) I can set up wind and solar power generators for electricity. No problem. But internet? No go. Nada. Arimasen. End of story. I envy the U.S. (or should I say the northern American continent?) for having 2-way satelite internet. If this were available for me, I wouldn't live in Tokyo. And my Macs? Hell, if I could get satelite internet, I wouldn't mind going out of my way to set up a proxy on a Windows server!!

    3. Re:Why Satellite? by juggler314 · · Score: 1

      The reason technical services such as this roll out faster and cheaper in most asian markets and ESPECIALLY japan is population density. 90% of the population of japan lives jam packed together. To cover the same 90% of the US population means that you need to install hundreds of thousands of miles of cable + far more DSLAMS and other access points. The economies of scale are completely different. If you want to compare you need to do so only to major cities such as NYC, SF, Chicago, etc. All these cities get services faster and generally there is more competition cutting the price.

    4. Re:Why Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sensed a little angst, but that was a damn good read! Bravo!

    5. Re:Why Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi.

      I am interested in knowing more about your job and the people you met there. Are you born in Tokyo? I currently live in Quebec and am thinking about moving in Asia sometime next year.

      I work as a programmer (oo/java/linux), have 2 years experience and a bachelor degree in CS.

      n 0 rmand at hotmail

    6. Re:Why Satellite? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Currently, ADSL alone in Japan offers 12Mbps, for a slightly cheaper price than in the states."

      /me drools

      I'm in rural Ontario, Canada and we can get only 28.8 dialup. 31.2 if we're lucky. Up the street is worse (usually 21.6.)

      As discussed above, satellite is just not worth the money due to the bad pings. As in Japan, geography here is the problem (except it's not mountains, it's the remoteness of the homes.) The houses are far apart that if you set up a wireless access point, you'd get in the very best case about 5 homes in a 1000 foot radius. Typically 2 or 3. And this is not accounting for the very dense trees which are full of water and block WAP signals. I don't think we'll EVER get decent broadband out here.

      Now the best case in my area is if you live in the city and can get 1.5Mb cable or the new "upgraded" G.Lite DSL connections (960Kb.) (That is, unless you pull a T1 in.)

      The moral of the story is that due to geography, some locations will NEVER have decent internet access for a good price in the forseeable future. That's just the way it is so some of us either have to live with it or relocate.

    7. Re:Why Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weeping Jesus on the cross. What is Slashdot, now, a fucking dating service?

      This is not the goddamn personal ads.

      Stupid cocksucking motherfucker.

    8. Re:Why Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'm in rural Ontario, Canada and we can get only 28.8 dialup

      But, on the plus side, you get all the cows you can fuck.

  23. Re:I tried to like get the satellite to work.....l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "beep beep". Hehehe hehehe. Dude fire one up.

  24. Three Words by rev_icon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Insufficient Market Share

  25. BUMMER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


  26. Sat sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google it for more info on why.

    But, I admit, if you're in the last mile (Which could be five minutes away from a sizeable city. *growl*), it can be better than nothing.

    Others have pointed out solutions (MS proxy?) and reasons (Mac 5% market share?).. So I'll ask it: Do you have any other form of broadband availible? If so, go with it. Seriously, cable or DSL tends to perform much nicer than sat broadband.

  27. Re:It's not about the cost to *develop* the softwa by Kylow · · Score: 1

    BINGO. Being in tech support myself, I would say that Mac calls bamboozle most of the techs around here.

  28. broken vendor promises... by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 1

    My local cable provider has two-way cable internet to some neighborhoods, and one-way telco-return to other neighborhoods. I'm in a one-way 'hood.

    Since summer of '97, they have promised two-way access to my home "in six months from now". Needless to say, their answer is still the same, and I'm still using cruddy telco-return.

    Beware any time frame claims from GS Communications in DC/MD/PA.

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    1. Re:broken vendor promises... by ethanms · · Score: 1

      Adelphia sucks like that too... they're still wiring stuff with RG-59

  29. I think the answer is pretty obvious by strictnein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is market share plain and simple.

    First off, you have the very small market share that Mac users represent. About 1-3% (right?)

    Then you have to factor in what percentage of the Mac users live in or near major metropolitan areas. I would argue that number is probably near 90% of the total Mac users (a number I am pulling out of my ass, but I just don't think there are a ton of Mac users in the rural US, which is where the Sat. companies are focusing).

    So, you have a possible market that makes up maybe .1 - .3% of the total computer users in the US.
    Hell, even if my numbers are a little bit off, the total market share for Mac users in rural areas can't be more than 1% of all internet users.

    So, if the software costs $100k to write, and then another $5k - $10k / year (/month?) to support, plus retraining all (or many) of your support/install personel to use the Macs, is it really worth it?

    I personally don't think I would do it if I ran the company.

    But whatever... hmmm... the linux router seems to having problems... wonder if throwing it out the window will solve it

    1. Re:I think the answer is pretty obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok every single number in that was grossly wrong, please mod back down to a decent number (1 or 2).

    2. Re:I think the answer is pretty obvious by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      is it really worth it?

      Yes, but you can also unofficially support the Mac (or Linux) by releasing documentation so that third party drivers can be written. If it's an attractive service (adds value to the Mac platform), it's not unthinkable that Apple would fund the development.

      More likely, the marketing department did what you did (pulling number out of rear), and decided not to bother. You must admit that it is the simplest explanation.

    3. Re:I think the answer is pretty obvious by gotih · · Score: 1

      everyone keeps throwing about this 'apple only has 3-5% (total) market' but i would like to know what % of the 'home user' market. sure, wintel machines are far more prevalent at offices but this is about an internet connection, primarilary used at home.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    4. Re:I think the answer is pretty obvious by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Where do you get 1-3%?

      If you mean worldwide current year sales (not really market share) you get 3%.

      If you mean US share of new computers sold in a year it is about 5%.

      If you mean actual in use machine, it is about 11% (calculated from sales over the last five years)

      It depends on what you are looking at.

      Even if you mean the 3% worldwide figure, the Mac market is still very lucrative and profitable. If you don't think so, do you think so many hardware manufactures would make Mac drivers for their products (such as Brother, HP, Epson, Kessington, etc.)?

  30. Linux driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There actually is a half assed linux driver available:

    http://www.linuxvoodoo.com/drivers/direcpc/

  31. heh. by hahnar · · Score: 1

    I guess MS's monopoly has extended intto space w/o us knowing. Ah the attack of the windows!!

    --
    what happened to spell check? please decode the above comment to your best ability.
  32. One word for j00: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buttfuck-a-thon.

    That is the most heinous network setup I have ever heard in my life! What an enormous waste of good hardware!

  33. Cost?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "it requires buying expensive extra hardware and software."

    You mac fanatics like buying expensive hardware and software, don't you?

  34. No Mac users would want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satelite internet service is a jury-rigged crappy solution that only an idiot living in some hick town would want. Thus, it would not appeal to Macintosh users. Most Mac users would get DSL or some other more ordinary broadband solution.

    There is money to be made in Macintosh software, but typically if you are maing a product that is only marginal in its usefulness or is a less than excellent solution, you make it for just PC. There are legions of fools who have PCs. Mac users expect quality.

  35. Technical issues by rochlin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think it's worth mentioning a couple technical points that have been overlooked by people considering using a PC as a bridge between the satellite receiver and the Mac.

    I set up a PC system (with win2k) purely as a bridge. The satellite reciever uses USB (this is from Pegasus-DirecPC-Hughes - now acquired by Earthlink). Pegasus and DirecPC provide proprietary Windows only drivers to deal with the USB network-satellite connection. That's issue #1. That means using Linux or (as suggested in the "comment" link in the oringal post) a simple router won't fly.

    Issue 2: Optimizing the Window size for the ethernet connections --
    The fact is, the TCP/IP conneciton to the satellite (high bandwidth - extremely high latency) needs different rwin settings to optimize the connection than the simple pc->mac LAN connection. So far as I can figure, Windows lets you choose one setting for all NICs (in this case the USB satellite connection is a NIC).

    Issue 3 - you need some kind of 3rd party NAT/Bridge software like Sygate to share the connection with the Mac. The built in (to Win2k, 98) Internet connection software won't work because it can't bridge different subnets. The USB conneciton is on a different subnet vs. a regular NIC. I don't think it can be configured otherwise. WinXP might fix that.

    Bottom line: You need a PC with Windows to share the satellite with the Mac and even then the Mac will have inferior service vs. the directly connected PC. So a satellite service supporting Macs would be nice :)

    1. Re:Technical issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are describing isn't a bridge really, it's a router.

    2. Re:Technical issues by redgekko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I've shared several DIRECWAY systems out to Macs using ICS on 98se and 2000, but not without problems with the "acceleration" software that is the client side of the crc spoofing tech used to compensate for latency. I haven't tried XP yet.

      Basically, sustained downloads perform great on both server and clients, but individual images on webpages seem to only load one at a time, as if only one socket connection is being made at a time to the server to download them. Running multiple simutaneous sustained downloads also seem to suffer, but not as bad has normal http page element traffic.

      If anyone knows what causes this or how to solve the problem without 3rd party software (SatServ seems to work great), I would greatly appreciate it!

      --
      Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
    3. Re:Technical issues by TrappedInaPC · · Score: 1

      I'll second this opinion. I've got DirecPC hooked up to a 98se machine with Proxy on it. Works pretty good with the rest of the network (mixed macs & PCs). The DirecPC drivers seem to hate Proxy tho, requires a total restart every few days.

    4. Re:Technical issues by rochlin · · Score: 2

      That satserv.com site is interesting, but I didn't see any software. What 3rd party software exactly are you talking about?? Thanks! (PS - interesting that you could share using ICS. Tried it and it didn't work - I thought because the DirecPC driver was assigning a different subnet than the ICS software was assigning to the 2nd NIC - but it must be somethign else).

    5. Re:Technical issues by redgekko · · Score: 1
      Oops, my mistake, it's http://www.getsatserv.com/. Sorry.

      PS to Slashcode Developers:

      I had two quick replies to questions people asked about previous comments. The first one posted just fine, but the second gave me an error saying I had to wait longer before posting again (two minutes I think).

      Okay, fine it's spam prevention, I'll just wait a couple minutes... so I hit back, and the previous page EXPIRED! Luckily, i've run into this before without other rediculious slashdot errors and timeouts and compose all my replies in a text editor first. (I can't begin to tell you how many long posts and hours of my life I've lost forever thanks to slashcode's incredibly sloppy session handling.)

      So I wait two minutes, and then paste and repost my comment, only to get slapped with "Slow Down Cowboy!" "Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment." (and incase you're wondering, yes, the post entry page EXPIRED again.)

      Common guys, at this rate you might as well post a message above the text box saying "Slashdot will likely shred your comments if you type too fast, please compose them elsewhere, paste, and THEN sit on your thumbs 20 seconds before hitting submit."

      Of course, it's probably more import to nip those "Duplicate Story" posts in the bud right along with the FP's. I mean, just think of the OSDN stockholders $$$ at stake!

      --
      Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
  36. Re:Important Message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SLASHDOT.ORG.
    VA SOFTWARE
    E-mail: malda@slashdot.org

    ATTENTION:SIR/MADAM

    I am MR. ROB MALDA, the Director of Operations SLASHDOT.ORG. Here at VA SOFTWARE.

    Our site is a "news" blog of questionable repute with years of outstanding crapflooding by the trolls of America.

    I have resolved to contact you through this medium based on business proposal that will be of mutual benefit to both of us. I got your particulars through a consultant company base on my research for a trustworthy and established person that understands moderation ethic for entering into a life time profitable joint partnership moderation and also co-operation with confidence and trust that you will keep the contents secret and not divulged to any third party.

    To be explicit and straight to the point. Some time early 1997, a reputable client of ours posted a comment on our company's website for safe keeping. And since then our client has failed to come forward to claim his comment, which has accumulated a considerable amount of points in karma.

    Consequently, in our bide to contact this client to redeem the karma which his comment had accumulated we discovered that our client was the former president of the Open Source Development Network, who died of AIDS after he was de-throwed in the same year the comment was entrusted into our care.

    Since the death of our client President Hemos, none of his benefactors has come forward to claim the comment with us, which means that non of his relatives or aids had any knowledge of this comment. Hence out of curiosity I decided to secretly read the two comments that our client posted on our website. And to my surprise I discovered that the two comments that were posted by our client actually contained a considerable amount of points in Slashdot karma amounting to about 40 million karma. Since this development I have been nursing plans secretly. I also found out from enquiries and the foreign media that our late client siphoned a lot of karma from his account while he was in office as head of moderation.

    It is my conviction that the comment on our website was part of the karma that our client siphoned and now that he is dead there is no race to this karma in our care.

    I am now soliciting your noble assistance to assist me in transferring this karma to your account for immediate +1 posting with your assistance. I have also decided that you will generously be entitled to 30% of the total amount. Upon my receipt of your reply confirming your willingness to assist me of this transaction, I will immediately arrange and transfer all the rights of ownership of this karma to your account to facilitate your easy clearance and transfer of the complete karma to your account.

    you have nothing to worry about, as I will be there to assist you in anyway necessary with all proper documentation. This transaction is 100% risk free. Please maintain absolute confidentiality on this matter.

    Please reply to the above email address with your telephone and fax so can call you.

    Thanks.

    Yours faithfully.

    CMDR TACO

  37. Re:A real life "switch" story by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Note: I'm not a Mac guy.

    Often people feel that systems different than what they are used to are "pieces of shit". Joel On Software has a very good article regarding this.

  38. As a junk hardware collector... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have both the DirecPC pci card, and the usb modem version. I'm not capable of reverse engineering these myself, but anyone that is, is welcome to mine. I could probably even spare an 18" dish+LNB.

    I mean, every time we wait for these fuckers, we end up losing. Maybe you need to decide to write it yourself? It's the only way to be sure it's done right.

    PS Anyone that knows the pinout for the power on the DirecPC usb modem (mini-din 8), could you send it to me? I know it's gotta have 14v for the lnb power, in addition to 5v, but last time I tried to deduce this from looking at the pcb, it took me a day and I still fried the device.

    1. Re:As a junk hardware collector... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The other problem is earthlink's Installation SCAM. they will not turn your equipment on if their installers did not install it for you. Any fool can install a directTV dish and this is no different...

      i would get it for my RV if they didn't have to try and scam another $199.00 out of their customers.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:As a junk hardware collector... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      Screw that. They wouldn't know how to install it with my dish anyway, a Toroidal 90. It takes more than a little skill to align the LNB's.

      Besides, who says we have to subscribe to the service to be able to do interesting things?

  39. well maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    maybe its because Hughes, like most other companies,
    know better than to get in bed with mac users. they
    tend to be the most pushy, clueless, demanding,
    ignorant and zealous user community out there ..
    always some screwed up issue .. and all for what?
    for the meager bucket-drop dollars from the pockets
    of people for whom the concept of more than one
    mouse button is overly taxing.

    (mac linux users are excluded from this rant)

    1. Re:well maybe by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'll probably be modded down for saying that, but your right. I long ago conceded the fact that Macs were at the very least as good as PCs (in some areas), but Mac users are a whole different story.

      I worked the phones in tech support for quite some time for a major ISP. I hated having to get mac calls. Not because they were difficult to troubleshoot; macs are surprisingly easy to fix when there are network issues, and I always liked that.

      But the users, as a general rule, were much much worse then PC users. The worst were the imac users. I have dozens of theories about why this is, but the only one I can come up with is mac users simply don't invest the time needed to really understand their own computers, or at least the time needed to properly opperate a PC, but instead just want everything to work right. When it doesn't it's the fault of whoever is on the other end of the phone.

      This is not a bash of macs. Macs are so easy to troubleshoot, the computer literate mac user rarely needs to call tech support, so the support folks just get the worst of the worst.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:well maybe by BWJones · · Score: 2

      The worst were the imac users. I have dozens of theories about why this is, but the only one I can come up with is mac users simply don't invest the time needed to really understand their own computers, or at least the time needed to properly opperate a PC, but instead just want everything to work right.

      And just what is wrong with this? I personally tend to push the limits of my computers in many ways and know the ins and outs of hardware and software, but my mother and my grandmother just want to be able to get email, surf the web and get photos and movies of the kids and grandkids. I would never dream of purchasing either one of them a Linux box or a Windows box. Rather I have always defaulted to the Macintosh because they don't have to spend time configuring settings. Macs just work.

      The other cool thing about this is that OS X works for both my grandmother (It just works and is easy to use) and me (I can compile lots of data visualization apps originally written for our SGI's, crunch data in the background, use my workstation as a server, surf the web, run the latest versions of Photoshop and Office, listen to 40GB of music on iTunes and have the best system wide text anti aliasing ever on a computer all on one machine and all at the same time.

      Cool.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    3. Re:well maybe by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      And just what is wrong with this? I personally tend to push the limits of my computers in many ways and know the ins and outs of hardware and software, but my mother and my grandmother just want to be able to get email, surf the web and get photos and movies of the kids and grandkids.

      There is nothing wrong with that. And if you don't quite understand your computer, you should by all means call tech support.

      But the problem is mac users, again as a general rule, are just plain rude.

      "Ok. in the upper left hand corner of your screen, you should see a little apple. I want you to click on that"

      "There is no little apple in the corner"

      "There should be, look again"

      "I'm telling you, there is no little apple"

      "I'm sure it's there. Take your time."

      "I'm not some idiot. If there was an apple, I'd tell you"

      (... continues for 15 minutes).

      "Sir, I hate to say this, but I can't help you. I want to help you, but I just can't. If you don't see a little apple, either you have a different kind of computer or there is something seriously wrong with yours that we don't have the resources to fix"

      "fine. I'll go into the den and turn the damn thing on"

      This is not some rare funny story... this is typical of the mentality of a mac user who calls tech support.

      Again, I'm not saying mac users are dumb, but the ones who use the support resources of a company, at least in my experience, sure the heck are.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    4. Re:well maybe by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Well, I should point out that Mac users have the minority mentality which means we have to deal with the majority mindset.

      Now in this particular case you had someone who wasn't computer literate (there are lots of PC users like that too) and you come off as condescending. If you are condescending what do you expect the reaction to be?

    5. Re:well maybe by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      That's not really true. I was given accolades for my sympathy and empathy at work. Even with mac users.

      I did my best to be kind and helpful regardless of if I knew the user was lying to me (I'm not in frount of my computer was a common one with mac users).

      And yes, there ARE pc users who are like that too, but again, in my expereince, there is a much higher percentage of mac users who are more interested in being right then being helped.

      This has nothing to do with being a newbie. If you don't know how to use a computer, there is nothing wrong with asking for help, espically when it's from someone who is paid to help you.

      On the other hand, the person on the other end of the phone is in fact a person. If he or she is good at what they do, they will do everything they can to help you and treat you as a person. And if they are really good, they will still try to treat you as a person even when you are a compleate prick to them.

      So, let me rephrase this. As a percentage of people who call tech support, mac users have more assholes.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    6. Re:well maybe by lemkebeth · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.

      You probably were just unlucky.

      I've helped a number of Mac users (and am one myself) and the group you mention seems to be the minority (having to be right).

      Most of the people like this however, are generally older people and a bit stubborn.

    7. Re:well maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree. I work in tech support for an ISP, and while the absolute *worst* customer I ever had was a PC user, the majority of Mac users who call are defensive to the extreme. About half won't tell you what kind of computer they have up front -- and when asked they snap at you -- and the other half question the intelligence of the techs ("Do you have any *Mac* techs down there? I want someone who knows what they are doing.") before they even tell you what the problem is.

      These are the worst, because they inevitably make up error messages ("It says your computer isn't working right") and randomly rename or move things out of file folders before calling so you have to guess where they put their Internet Setup Assistant or whatever. This last week I had one of the latter -- he blamed me me because when he dragged and dropped a couple hundred junk emails they didn't land in the trash but scattered all over his desktop (this was after he proved incapable of deleting email in the normal way). Funny thing, though, once on the desktop they deleted just fine. Could it be that he just missed the blasted trash last time? Naaah...

    8. Re:well maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (mac linux users are excluded from this rant) Fuck you anyway.

    9. Re:well maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do tech support as well, and as a general rule, I see little difference between the callers. PC users and Mac users are rude the same percentage of the time and are clueless the same percentage of the time. I don't know how many times I have seen fellow support staff have to spend a long time explaining the start menu and how to find out the Windows OS version.

    10. Re:well maybe by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      I have dozens of theories about why this is, but the only one I can come up with is mac users simply don't invest the time needed to really understand their own computers, or at least the time needed to properly opperate a PC, but instead just want everything to work right. When it doesn't it's the fault of whoever is on the other end of the phone.

      I don't agree with your language here. You say Mac users don't "invest" the time "necessary." I think a more accurate way of saying it is that Mac users don't have to waste time learning about the internal workings of their computers. Macs, for the most part, just take care of themselves.

      And, speaking as a moderately well educated and informed Mac user, when it doesn't work it is absolutely the fault of the person on the other end of the phone. I moved into my current home this summer, and decided to try AT&T's cable modem service. The required that I install some software on my computer-- an iBook, at that time-- before I could use my cable modem. I installed it, and it proceeded to send my computer into absolute shitfits. For some reason, it created a new logical network device with its own IP settings, and royally hosed my routing table. Evidently (as I discovered after literally tens of hours on the phone) they had never tested the software on a computer with more than one active network interface. When I installed it on my computer, which had both Ethernet and AirPort active, everything went to hell.

      This was absolutely the fault of the vendor. They provided me with software that had not been adequately tested. Hell the default configuration of a Mac with an AirPort card is to have both ports active in the "Automatic" configuration. To think that AT&T would ship software without testing it on a machine with AirPort astounds me. Running it once under OS 9 on the Power Mac 7600 in the back room does not qualify as quality control, guys.

      Naturally, I let the various people on the other end of the phone have it, then demanded a full refund, and fired them. They're lucky I'm not trying to bill them for the time I wasted on that fool's errand.

      Anyway, back to the point: it absolutely was AT&T's fault. If it doesn't work under circumstances in which a reasonable person should expect it to work, it's the vendor's fault, and they should take responsibility for fixing it.

    11. Re:well maybe by Slurpee · · Score: 1

      But the users, as a general rule, were much much worse then PC users.

      I worked Tech Support 5 years.
      I am an advid Mac user.

      Your statement is very correct. Almost.

      A higher percentage of the Mac callers are from people who have no idea. Why? Because those who have even a tiny idea can work it out themselves. That was my theory. And we backed it up with some numbers.

      - A Mac user was less likely to call for support than a Windows user.
      - A Mac user who called was much more likely to fall into the "idiot" catagory.

      This was because 20% (approx) of windows users who called were in the idiot basket. The other 80% had some idea, but Windows can be hard and thus they called.

      80% of Mac users who called in were idiots. The other 20% had some idea, but we all make mistakes.

      In summary, there were less calls from the Mac population, but they were more likely to be idiots. There were more calls from the Windows Population (representative), but they were more likely to be with it.

  40. can you run Virtual PC to connect? by IRNI · · Score: 1

    I know it isn't a good solution but if you HAVE to have net access in the boonies, maybe that would work for you. I have no idea if it would work, but it may be something worth trying.

    1. Re:can you run Virtual PC to connect? by foo12 · · Score: 1

      No --- VPC also emulates the networking, basically acting as a switch between the host client and the virtual sessions. It's actually quite nifty and clever, but it also means that whatever is running in the virtual machine nevers talks directly to the hardware.

  41. not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you actually get one, you'll know.
    Until then, suck it.
    Please.
    Now.

    1. Re:not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This dick ain't gonna suck itself!

    2. Re:not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But, it would be pretty cool if it could...you could be like,

      Engage Zombo-Robo-Dick!

      Or is it GNU/Zombo-Robo-Dick?

  42. but you're l33t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it-- all you Mac users now have OS X, which is based on BSD and Mach. From what I've been hearing from all the Darwin/OS X zealots lately, that means you're all uber-kernel-hax0rs now and can write your own device drivers.

    I'm suprised you didn't think of this yourself. What was that apple slogan... "Think outside the box?" C'mon!

  43. "Does anyone know of any serious tech hurdle...." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...that would make it cost more than $100K or so to develop the necessary software?"

    The answer to this is that $100k is too much to spend to get mac users as customers.

  44. Starband by moosesocks · · Score: 2

    The last time I checked, The Starband satelitte service was compatible with linux - if it works on linux, surely a port to OSX would be easy. (I believe it also worked with linksys routers - if not, one could simply use an ancient PC with USB and ethernet as a router)

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  45. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See also: http://daringfireball.net/2002/09/on_joel_on_softw are.html

  46. Irony is Ironic That Way by fm6 · · Score: 2
    I cannot understand why Hughes and the other providers would refuse to spend the relatively few dollars necessary to develop a couple of device drivers and glue libraries. Time after time, the vendors have said, 'it's coming,' but it never does, and the promise eventually goes away.
    Now you know how I felt when Apple kept postponning the Windows version of the Newton development kit. Drastically increasing the pool of Newton developers probably wouldn't have saved the product, but you never know. It certainly would have done more to increase the customer base than Hughes would by adding Mac support.
    1. Re:Irony is Ironic That Way by Backov · · Score: 1

      What would have saved it is Jobs not cancelling it.. You know that at the time he cancelled the Newton, it was one of the only decently profitable divisions of Apple?

      Jobs is a fucking nutjob.

      Cheers,
      Backov

      --
      In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
  47. Forgive them, 'kay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone uses a real browser. Go easy on them.

  48. wireless by bjmorel · · Score: 1

    Checkout www.speednetllc.com, I just signed up and am getting 2 Mb per sec. Its only in parts of Michigan, but there might be other's in different addresses.

    --
    That's About It!
  49. Re:It's not about the cost to *develop* the softwa by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Every time someone calls with a question, it costs the company money. The quicker you can answer their question and get them off the phone, the better. This means minimizing the number of different systems your support folks have to be trained for.

    So have the bulk of them trained for the bulk operating system, a few trained for each little one, and TRANSFER THE CALL if you get one for a little opsys. We are talking NETWORK companies, right?

    Heck - I bet the little guys would put up with a half-day delay and callback - and be grateful they could buy your stuff at all. YOU get to schedule the calls, rather than fielding them when they arrive - increasing the efficiency of the little-opsys helpers.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  50. pulling ot: satellite usenet by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

    Since we're thinking about satellite and Internet in this discussion, I've been wanting to ask what satellite usenet options are out there.

    In particular, I've been interested in a feed that pumps through something like a configurable cable modem or cable box that just jams articles over ethernet via the NNTP protocol to an NNTP server you specify. Then, any old NNTP server can be dual-homed between the sat and your LAN, and you just better hope you have lots and lots of disk.

    Any takers?

    --
    Intelligent Life on Earth
  51. HA by Holi · · Score: 1

    Setting up an ICS setup is not easy when you have to handle one-way satellite. Your up connection is a modem (yes dial up) and your down link is the satellite. ICS and its contemporaries are not really setup to handle that sort of connection. (it can be done but it is filled with headaches).

    I used the service in 99 - 2000 and it was not worth the headaches.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:HA by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Setting up an ICS setup is not easy when you have to handle one-way satellite. Your up connection is a modem (yes dial up) and your down link is the satellite.

      Not anymore. The current earthlink/directv system is bidirectional over the satellite.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    2. Re:HA by spitzak · · Score: 2

      The dish contains a transmitter able to reach a sattellite in orbit? Does the FCC know about this?

    3. Re:HA by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      Yes and yes.
      Check direcway's here. (I prolly should have linked this in my original post. oops...)

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
  52. Re:It's not about the cost to *develop* the softwa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when have you ever talked to someone in technical support that was trained in something? I haven't called tech support in a while so maybe all of a sudden they're knowledgable, but my experience has been..

    "I need to know the DNS address"
    "Okay, is your computer plugged in?" - "Huh?"
    "Is the monitor on?" - "From my parents' basement in Wisconsin, I stab at thee!!"

  53. Re:It's not about the cost to *develop* the softwa by neildogg · · Score: 1

    I worked at an ISP this summer. We were happy when MAC users called in. It meant that we could basically rule out a computer problem.

  54. I'm not sure I agree... by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Informative

    2) I think Window size is settable by device. Otherwise, there's no way you could route between say, a token ring card and an ethernet card (something that I'm certain can be done).

    3) You're probably right except that home networks don't have different subnets. Or I should say, there's no good reason to have multiple subnets.

    I think the primary problem with 2-way satellite service is that latency is so high that for the common things home users do (open up their home page of http://www.msn.com) its likely to be no faster than a dial-up connection.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:I'm not sure I agree... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      192.168.1.x is my main ethernet segment.
      192.168.5.x is my main arcnet segment.
      192.168.6.x is my token ring segment.
      192.168.7.x is my IP over localtalk tunnel segment.
      192.168.8.x is my ATM/LANE segment.
      192.168.9.x is my FDDI segment.
      192.168.10.x is reserved for my IP-over-HIPPI segment.
      192.168.11.x will be my 100mps token ring segment, should I ever find a MAU for it.
      192.168.3.x contains various slip/ppp serial connections, including the tivo.
      10.x.x.x is a cute little VPN I'm building for shits and giggles.

      And since I don't feel like pouring through the rest of my custom init scripts, I won't even bother to look up the other segments that I have. Then again, maybe I should get rid of them all, because...

      Or I should say, there's no good reason to have multiple subnets.

      BTW, if you mean routing IP between eth and tr, then yes, it's simple. Bridging though, is probably impossible via software.

    2. Re:I'm not sure I agree... by rochlin · · Score: 2

      Window size is protocol specific, so being able to route between network interfaces using separate windows sizes doesn't say anything about being able to set an ethernet tcp/ip parameter differently on two different NICs. If anyone knows how to assign different windows sizes to different NICs on Win2k ...??? that'd be interestin'.

  55. i was once forced to use a sat connection.... by eecue · · Score: 2, Informative

    when we moved to our new location we had a telecom problem and had to resort to a satellite connection. it wasn't so bad for just downloads.. you can get about 1.5 megs... but when you have 40 sales people using a tcp based service where every keypress took 2-4 seconds to give results... let's just say people were bitching. not to mention the 5-6 seconds it can take outlook to connect to the exchange server and show an email message... so if you don't care about slower latency than a bad 9600 baud modem connection than go with satellite. i would recomend using it as a very last resort. try doing a wireless connection to a friend who has cable or dsl... you can get a couple of wap11s and make a nice little bridge.. btw... does anyone know how to detect a wap11 bridge without a wap11? -eek

    --
    -- sigs suck --
  56. Your answer: Real soon. by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to DirecWay's FAQ bot thingie, they will be selling the DW4020 to consumers "fall of 2002" (read: "any day now").

    The DW4020 is pretty much the standard DW4000 satellite modem boxen they currently sell, except it includes a third boxen that eliminates the need for a USB connection and presents 4 Fast Ethernet ports. Supposedly you'll also be able to buy this box separately to upgrade your existing DW4000.

    Now the only question is when EarthLink will lower their monthly satellite service fees to match DirecWay through DirecTV. I just dropped BellSouth in favor of EarthLink this past June and I'm not interested in changing ISPs yet again so soon.

  57. Re:It's not about the cost to *develop* the softwa by TheDick · · Score: 1

    I do tech support for a large ISP.

    Every minute I spend talking to a customer costs my company at LEAST $0.90 US.

    So those hour PLUS dialup calls take us at LEAST 6 months to make back up from that subscriber in revenue...

    Fucked up eh?

    --

  58. Re:You can.... by redgekko · · Score: 1
    Actually, it's available from hundreds of providers nationwide (we're one) and works anywhere in the US). And the key point many of you seem to be missing is MOST people CAN'T get DSL or Cable!

    Admittedly, if you can get DSL/Cable... I DON'T recommend satellite, but if it's your only option and $59.99 isn't a barrier, then (and only then) will I offer satellite as an option. I WILL NOT sell satellite to someone who qualifies for DSL or Cable, or someone who does online gaming or VPN. Other than that, I highly recommend it and use it myself.

    --
    Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
  59. Great assumption by dextr0us · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    BECAUSE something isn't made for mac/linux, we all know microsoft bullied them into it. Kazaalite isn't for linux, because microsoft bullied them into it. wake the fuck up people..... 100K investment for 50K return really isn't the optimal scenario.

    --
    "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
    1. Re:Great assumption by dextr0us · · Score: 1

      um.... fucking mods. just because i stated something, its not flamebait. if i was like "FUCK MAC!! IT DOESN'T DESERVE SATALITE ANYWAYS!!" then its flame bait. Its based on fact, and not neccessarily aimed at anyone, or to piss anyone off.

      --
      "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
  60. But it IS economically viable to ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How many times can we go over this same point? It's the same for Linux and Mac, it's just not economically viable to develop software for something used by less than 5% of the computing masses.

    Let's phrase this another way:

    How much would a company pay for ADVERTISING to get a 5% increase in sales? (And thus a MUCH greater than 5% improvement in profits, since the development is already amortized.)

    Now if that same amount bought you the development of an incremental feature (i.e. a Linux or Mac driver) that enables another 5% of the market to use your product, it's the same case. (Actually, if you're currently addressing 90% of the potential market and the new segment is an incremental 5% you're adding 5%/90% or about 5.6%).

    But wait, it's better ...

    Suppose that you're currently splitting the market evenly with one other competitor. If YOU do it and HE doesn't, that 5.55% about doubles to 11.1%. With an even split among three competitors the first mover gets about a 16.7% bump in potential sales (and more in profit), and so on.

    With something like networking you have a small number of competitors but MAJOR lock-in. First mover gets the prize and KEEPS it. With something (like a device) with more competitors and less lock-in you may not keep it, but you get a BIG boost until your competition wises up.

    But WAIT! You don't HAVE to develop it yourself! Publish enough of the interoperability specs and - at least for Linux - SOMEONE ELSE will do it FOR you! You get the benefits and do only a tiny fraction of the work.

    Your work consists mostly editing your internal documents into an externally-releasable one that will enable a developer without giving away your trade-secret farm. But don't get too paranoid: Your competitors are ALREADY reverse-engineering you. You should have your critrical IP already locked up in patent-pending, which will keep your competition at bay if you publish more than you intended. Meanwhile, better specs mean better and sooner community software to enable your sales.

    Network operators might have some issues with security - but that's already been addressed elsewhere. (Bottom line is that the black hats will get you anyhow if you're already BADLY broken, regardless of whether you publish, while if you're reasonably secure (i.e. only a little flakey) the exposure will get the white hats on your side and you'll probably increase your lead in the arms race.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:But it IS economically viable to ... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2

      Wow....wait a minute here. I think you've seen too much /. math.
      ``Now if that same amount bought you the development of an incremental feature (i.e. a Linux or Mac driver) that enables another 5% of the market to use your product, it's the same case.''
      No, it's not. The increase you gain through advertising means that 5% of the people ARE using your product. The 5% you get from porting your software indicates the number of people that COULD use your product. In the first case, actual sales improve rather drastically, the increase from porting will at most be equal to this.If before advertising 5% of the people were using your software, the ad campaign has increased sales by 100%. The same is achieved with porting ONLY if ALL people who can use the port (5% of all users) ARE USING IT. This is highly unlikely (not 100% of Windows users want sattelite Internet, so it would be unreasonable to assume (without further data) that 100% of Mac|Linux users would).

      ``Suppose that you're currently splitting the market evenly with one other competitor. If YOU do it and HE doesn't, that 5.55% about doubles to 11.1%. With an even split among three competitors the first mover gets about a 16.7% bump in potential sales (and more in profit), and so on.''
      OK, I see what you're doing here. You have assumed that 100% is all people who want sattelite Internet. Then, if 90% of those people use Windows, and do in fact have sattelite access, and 5% use your new target platform, and all of those are going to use your software, you are right. However, these are a lot of assumptions to make. First of all, who says that 90% of those people are using Windows? This may be true for the total desktop market, but sattelite Internet is not only desktop market, nor is it _all_ of the desktop market. It's a different market, although it overlaps a bit.
      Then, not all people who _want_ sattelite access, _have_ sattelite access. Allright, maybe your 100% is all people who _would_ have sattelite access if software were available on their platform. OK. That also kind of removes my third objection, cause if these people are going to use software as soon as it comes available, and you port first (FP = First Port), then they are _all_ going to use your software. However, adoption of your software is going to take time, and your competitors might join you in the meantime and port their software as well...

      All in all, your reasoning is based upon assumptions that do not hold. Porting your software to a platform with 5% market share is more likely to increase your sales by 5% of your current sales than it is likely to increase your sales by 5% of _all_ sales. Try to keep in mind _what_ these percentages are of. I hope this post is more or less comprehensible, I just woke up after a long night...

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    2. Re:But it IS economically viable to ... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      You are basing your argument on an invalid assumption: That all 5% of Mac users would get this service, if it were made available. This is totally false.

      Most people neither want nor need satalite internet service, they either have a better form of high speed access (and basically anything would qualify as better, satalite service is super high latency) like DSL, cable modem, wireless, etc, or they are happy with their dialup. I am willing to bet the percentage of people that want this service is well below 1% of internet users, but pretend it is 1% for argument's sake.

      Now given that Mac users are going to be distributed roughly the same geographically as PC users (which determines need for alternative high speed access). But again, let's assume more are willing to get it, double in fact, so 2% of all internet using Mac users.

      So, we take 5% of the market, and multiply it by 2%. That's 0.1%. So realistically you are looking at an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM increase of 0.1%, and probably much less than that. Now to get that you have to develop the software, do some advertising (to let people know it's not on the Mac), and add support staff for the Mac side.

      See why it's probably not worth their time?

    3. Re:But it IS economically viable to ... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      But WAIT! You don't HAVE to develop it yourself! Publish enough of the interoperability specs and - at least for Linux - SOMEONE ELSE will do it FOR you! You get the benefits and do only a tiny fraction of the work.

      Your work consists mostly editing your internal documents into an externally-releasable one that will enable a developer without giving away your trade-secret farm. But don't get too paranoid: Your competitors are ALREADY reverse-engineering you. You should have your critrical IP already locked up in patent-pending, which will keep your competition at bay if you publish more than you intended. Meanwhile, better specs mean better and sooner community software to enable your sales.


      This is great, logical and sound thinking....

      something that no CEO or Board of directors on this planet is capable of as it requires not only having deep insight and a great business mind... but also be more mature than a room full of 5 year olds...

      you sir, need to start a business and run it... you will become very rich.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:But it IS economically viable to ... by Golias · · Score: 2
      You are basing your argument on an invalid assumption: That all 5% of Mac users would get this service, if it were made available. This is totally false.

      Holy shit! How many poeple on /. are making this same, simple math error! If you people are actually working as programmers, I fear for the world.

      He's not assuming that all Mac users are going to use the service. He's only making the reasonable assumption that roughly the same proportion of Mac users will use it.

      Let's break it down to small-ish numbers so you can understand.

      Let's take a pool of 19,000 PC users, and 1,000 Mac users.
      In other words, our Mac users are 5% of the total.
      Now lets say that product x has 1 percent market penetration with our PC group.
      That means they have 190 customers.
      Now, suppose the add Mac support, and pick up only 1 percent of our Mac users
      That means they have 10 new customers.
      That's about a 5.26% increase.

      See, you do not need to get all of the 5% of Mac users to get a 5% increase in sales. Do you get it now, or do you need to higher a math tutor outside of school hours?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:But it IS economically viable to ... by Golias · · Score: 1
      Do you get it now, or do you need to higher a math tutor outside of school hours?

      Urk. That should be "hire" a tutor. When you do, ask her if she can help with my spelling... or at least remind me not to hit the "Submit" button before proof reading my posts.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    6. Re:But it IS economically viable to ... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2
      Increase of 0.1% of all internet users. 5% more potential users. For writing a little driver. Not counting the fact that you would be the only shark in the small pond.

      Just for arguments sake (and using your numbers), let's say there are 10 providers of this service, with about equal share. That means that you only have 10% of the 1% of internet users as customers. IOW you double the number of your user if you act fast.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  61. No different than any other non-cross-platformies by MatrixCubed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Laziness and lack of research. Same reason why stuff isn't ported to other platforms (Linux mainly)... because the marketers don't understand there IS a market across user platforms (Windows, Linux, Macintosh) for most software and hardware.

    It likely boils down to a small group of Mac non-users legislating that "there is not enough of a market to compensate for its expenditure".

  62. Re:2 Words: Microsoft DirectPC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brother & sister's son

    I really hope you meant your sister's son and your brother have been using that setup. The way you wrote it is just... wrong.

  63. Market Share and support by waltc · · Score: 1

    For starters the Mac market worldwide commands less than a 3% slice of the market--many of the Macs in use today are older Macs (witness the extremes Apple's going to to entice, and then eventually force, its user base to go OSX or else move to another platform.)

    On top of that you've all the attendant support and software issues that go with supplying support for this kind of service. When you have better than 90% of the market buying your products from a basically standardized Windows market, it's not worth it for these companies to gear up for Mac support with its attendant issues for a very small slice of an already very small segment of market share.

    It's amusing to hear Mac users talk about "conspiracy" lurking behind every door when the fact is they just haven't faced the facts of what comes with being a member of a very small market. You often have to wait months or years to get software and services provided the much larger Windows market, and sometimes you don't get them at all. This situation is by no means unique or unprecedented. It would be nice if some of these erstwhile critics undertook the expense of doing something like this for the Mac themselves for a change. Easy it is to crticize, much more difficult to actually do something.

  64. No way, man. Parent is sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justify your claim.

  65. Don't plan on downloading anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DirectPC has this nice thing they like to call a FAP. This will cut your connecion off dead after you download a certain amount in a specified time period. Now I know what your thinking. "I'm no pirate, I don't need to download that much." Thing is, the amount per hour is rediculously low (like 40 meg). I can't remember off hand, but after a certian number of hours, you could actually download more with dialup than the satellite.

  66. gung-ho? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    I'm not gung-ho on conspiracy theories, but the only explanation I can figure is that they're either being paid or bullied.

    Yeah, just like all the other people who don't do mac ports of their software. All bullied, yup.

    Seriously though, the market for satilite internet isn't really all that big, you think they figure that maybe most mac users are urban and don't need it?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  67. the router? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    --umm, why exactly can't you use a router again? I read that linked comment. Can't you stick a crummy pc with some network cards for the connection to the satellite service, and then have that box goto a router, and then hook your macs? Or what? I admit I am NOT a network wiz, seeking comments from more knowledgable folks on this. If the up/down is all through the windows pc, then why won't this work? Or will it?

  68. It might be redundant at this point... by jaiteend · · Score: 1

    I have broadband with my mac. A simple DSL modem hooked up with my router allows me full access to what-ever I might want.

    Just because my boxen does not allow for direct T1 via a CSU/DSU nor a DS3 via an inserted card, does not mean that I need the previous to do what I need.

    I find this box to do what I need, and I need no specific Linux or Windows or Mac box to do the same, for Internet usage. If I find something that I cannot do with my current tools, and someone hasn't already started one that I can work with, I do my own and make all good to all.

    So if one is without broadband, make it work for you and not worry about others, unless you want to help with it.

    --
    and the Irishman took the fly in his hands and yelled, "spit it out!"
  69. You can afford the porsche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can afford the porsche of computers, but can't by a $120.00 firewall? Or find a pos to run ip chains on?

  70. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know where you can find h4rd c0ck!

  71. Maybe... by Xtraneous · · Score: 1

    It is as simple as the riovolt to Iriver firmware hack. Go in, change the first line, install, and pray.

    --
    .noitacidem deen uoy siht daer nac uoy fI
  72. Re:It's not about the cost to *develop* the softwa by Drishmung · · Score: 2
    So don't 'support' the users. This is not the same as not allowing them.

    I've worked with an ISP that had this very policy. If you ran Win9x and IE, the help desk would assist you. If you ran anything else---you are on your own. Anything else included Win/NT, Win2k etc.. Just the lowest common denominator 'consumer' systems were supported. BUT, all the documentation on what you needed was available. If you ran *nix/Mac you were assumed to be clueful enough to deal.

    Do this, and the only cost is the drivers. Maybe not trivial, maybe. So open source them. Let someone else write them for you. Your profit is not in the IP held in these drivers---which are just a means to an end---namely getting more customers online.

    Not only that, maybe the drivers will be better than the in-house ones. Being open source, you can benefit from that, roll them back into your Win drivers, provide better service, equals happier customers, equals more---and more profitable---customers.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  73. Copyright pending of course... :) by BMonger · · Score: 2

    Can the Apple service be called.... *opens the envelope*...

    "i in the Sky"

    ah-hahahaha! *this is the sound of one man laughing*

    BTW I only own a flat panel iMac so don't be too mad at me...

  74. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your ass?

  75. Satelite? by REDNOROCK · · Score: 0

    Believe me, we're not missing out on much...

    --
    Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
  76. Don't forget path packet size discovery... by raehl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or whatever the hell you really call it.

    The satelite drivers are written to keep the high-bandwidth pipe full (i.e. you can put a lot of data in the air before it gets to the satalite and back.) Since various networks that carry TCP/IP (Etehrnet, ATM, etc) are based on different optimal packet sizes, so oyu generally probe your connection to figure out the what link is going to split your packets into the smallest size and then just send packets of that size.

    I'd suspect that's why the Mac on a PC performs a lot worse than the PC in general - the ethernet packets that get sent to the PC probably get passed on as-is instead of reassembled into larger packets for the satalite link.

    One huge packet with one header is obviously more efficient than one huge packet made up of lotsa smaller packets each with their own header.

  77. then all of a sudden by commodoresloat · · Score: 2

    ....I got hit with a twenty-two pound block of ice from the sky.

  78. Need custom stack, do it in hardware/firmware! by aquarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A couple of people have posted saying a custom TCP/IP stack is needed. Well, then, do it in the sattelite receiver, in the hardware and firmware! Proprietary secrets would be safe within the box, and the damned thing would actually work! Plug and play- no drivers, no tech support calls. Give us our ethernet, dammit!

    Betcha this would be cheaper than creating and supporting software, too. They have to make the receiver/modem box anyway- so stick a router chip in there, and be done with it.

  79. Gotta read those headlines by avoisin · · Score: 1

    I thought the latest story said "Satellite Internet Service for MARS" and was all prepared to read about some hair-brained scheme to put a nuclear powered transmitter at some bizarre location on Earth.

    Instead I got something about doing an odd piece of networkig for rarely-used computers. I guess both stories involve things that aren't likely to be very commonn. </rimshot>

  80. Maybe the designers saw the "switch" ads... by Nolook · · Score: 1
    Under the "Why switch to a Mac?" heading (at http://www.apple.com/switch/) it says:

    You can do things on a Mac that PC users only dream about, and do them more easily, without giving up any of the compatibility with the PC world that you need.

    So maybe they thought it would "just work" like all those cameras, MP3 players and DV camcorders!

    --
    "Cries and screams are music to my ears." - Soundwave
  81. We can provide Mac support *if* demand is there. by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

    The company I work for, Spacenet, is the second-largest business satellite ISP out there. We serve *business* customers who have large and small multiple (5-5000+) locations (retailers, food service, energy, financial, services, etc.).

    If you have a *business* meeting these criteria and are looking for satellite connectivity that supports Macs, send e-mail to me and I can push for Mac compatibility if there is significant demand.

    Don't just say there is no corporate satellite ISP support for Macs and do nothing about it ... if you can genuinely justify large multi-site Mac satellite network support, I can help make it happen.

    As a BSD guru-turned-Mac-guru myself, I would love to help this but I do need the numbers to prove it. Right now, we have almost zero requests for this, but an influx of REAL potential customers asking for this could make it happen. I would really, really like to make this available, but I can't do it by telling our MS-oriented development guys to do it without visible justification.

    This isn't some random spam for business, this is a real request from a company's senior marketing staff to help build demand and make this happen. In your e-mail, please describe your multi-site business and its needs, and I can use this info to get Mac support for Spacenet's services.

    --
    "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  82. Simple by Perdo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Buy an old x86 box, install windows 98 SE or better and use internet connection shareing. Shouldn't cost more than $50 for a crap box with windows still on it.

    Power consumption will become a cost issue so you might try a mini-itx box, which will only suck about 25 watts, but up front cost will be higher, on the order of $200 for a complete system.

    You paid $2500 for your mac and around $500 for the satellite install what is another 200 bucks?

    If you want the service, you have to solve the problem yourself. The bonus is, you can have as many computers using the connection as you want without paying the satellite company's per seat fee.

    The only problem with satellite besides the cost is latency worse than a phone modem. your signal has to travel at least 46,000 miles round trip to a geosynch bird over the equator from the southernmost parts of the US. That's a 500ms ping time minimum.

    So, running a mac on satellite is no problem technically if you consider an extra 200 bucks for installation fees independent of what your provider is charging.

    The only time you will really notice the 500ms lag is in a game and, well, you are using a mac so that shouldn't be a problem either.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  83. Direcway 4020... by aquarian · · Score: 2

    Well, I just found out some more. I guess they're doing it already. Here's the new unit:

    http://www.skycasters.com/4020.htm

    I bet this is a shot in the arm for sattelite services. Too bad it took them so long to figure this out.

  84. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm biting this troll because I know Janie Porshe...and I've got to defend her honor.

    She's not a fucking skank, and in fact, her internal radiance is Spider-Man b0n3r inspiring!
    Also...Macs don't need drivers for digital cameras...they either work or they don't. I call your bluff!

  85. Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly Macs are used by the more educated wealthier people in the world. Most of the print materials and web sites you look at were made on the mac. The new mac is now used in science and engineering by the academics as a computer of choice. So while you tweaking you windows or linux systems the mac users are the ones doing the important and creative things. mac users are people who are savvy about computers for the most part in what they can do. other than that we see the computer as a tool not something to get in the way.

    1. Re:Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is absolutely true, and it raises an interesting question. Now that the Mac is almost 20 year old, I have to wonder whether the cause and effect have become inverted. Do people use Macs because they're smarter and wealthier, or are they smarter and wealthier because of all those years spent using Macs?

      In my case, I'd have to say it's definitely the second one.

    2. Re:Where have you been? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 0

      >>he new mac is now used in science and engineering by the academics as a computer of choice.

      WTF engineers don't use Macs, we can't there is nothing we use avalible on Macs. Matlab has just been ported to OSX. Still why would we switch for that. Engineers use windows and solaris and AIX for cad and big modeling programs. Only if your an engineer of scientist with lots of money to burn would you get a mac. And engineers never have to much money around.
      our ESM departments new building has only macs, they are all pissed since they are worthless computers to them. (They had no choice in the matter).

    3. Re:Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not real engineers but academics, people in universities. Normally you see two computers a mac and a Unix workstation. Apple is quite popular among academics and if and when the software comes it will be popular with engineers because of how problem free the systems are.

  86. That exactly what my company does by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 3, Informative


    It more of a commercial service than a residential one, but we do exactly what you describe: the custom TCP acceleration is in the embedded box itself. (Although the real heavy lifting is done by a linux box on the ISP side)


    We test with mostly Linux and Win2k, but apples should work fine over regular ethernet. Ne special software is needed to run a client site. Just plug and play (It also does DHCP and DNS-caching)


    Look at http://idirect.net/


    Its a pretty good programming gig, I get to work with gcc/cvs/all my favorites.


    jmaiorana at idirect.net

  87. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well in all honesty it is a rather old iMac running MacOS 8.6. But even back when 8.6 was new, Apple was saying that Mac's were less crashy, and easier to set up devices, which is a lie. And I don't care what you say, that girl on that weak ass commercial looks like an elitist, self-righteous, Jetta driving, yuppie, Mac owner. They're all the fucking same (except Mom. She's all right).

  88. How I keep my Mac connected. by tux-sucks · · Score: 1

    I don't know about you, but I always daisy chain my macs with adb printer cables when I want reliable connectivity!

  89. at first I read... by CySurflex · · Score: 1

    "Satelite internet services on MARS"...and I was wondering what the silver Apple logo has to do with it. But then I figure Aple is expanding lately..so who knows.

  90. Re:A real life "switch" story by Karma+Sink · · Score: 2

    But it worked all right on the Dell running Win 98 SE? Just plug and play?

    Honestly, 80% of problems with Macs running classic OSes are due to skankware being flung all over the system. Put some memory in that machine, and install OS X. Trust me... it's a world of difference, especially with modern devices like Digital Cameras...

    --

    When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
  91. $199 by jonnythan · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Spend $200 on a new PC (or even less for a used one), and set it up to share its connection.

    Easy as pie, and not all that expensive.

  92. Ooooooh well. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    This is most definitely a conspiracy. Microsoft and itself have basically bribed EVERYONE out there to avoid producing drivers for any system besides Windows. That's why it is extremely difficult and unlikely to find a bus driver for the Amiga operating system, or a truck driver for Mandrake, or a screw driver for OpenBSD.

    What I recommend that you do, instead of trying to hook up with satellite, is get like 5,000 miles of fiber optic cabling at your local Radio Shack and run your own trunk across the desert or whatnot. You don't even have to put it underground. Just remember to duct tape it down when crossing sidewalks and roads and railroad tracks and whatnot, so pedestrians don't trip over your wire and rip the jack out of the wall or whatever.

    Just my 3 cents. (Inflation.)

  93. I'm not being funny but... by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    All you need to do is put a windows or linux box (if you can get drivers for linux - I'm assuming you can as some kind soul normally hacks them together) and make it into a gateway - there's something called a network you see, which is what what the funny plug on the back of your Mac is for - yes - the one you hooked up to the phone that didn't do anything.

    Duh.

    Expense? Well if you can spring for the Satellite gear you can easily afford a cheap box to be your gateway. I've recently designed the network systems for a bus that gets it Internet connectivity via satellite and it works fine - Windows 2000 as a gateway, and any client you like. I'm putting 802.11b on it soon and going to put some warchalking symbols on it and let anyone who knows how use it. Yes it would work with Macintosh.

  94. Tech Support vs. Variety by Sunlighter · · Score: 1

    What they need to do is hire seperate tech-support people for each platform and offer a different 800 number. Just like they would do for English/Spanish.

    --
    Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
  95. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Macs might not be less crashy, but when they break you can always boot off a CD and get full OS functionality...even in old versions like 8.6. Make a bootable backup CD by burning your working system folder onto a Mac CD-ROM. then, unless it's a very serious problem you don't have to deal with it right away. (Like if you have a paper due or something)

    Also, those things called "extensions" can be real shitty in the old Mac OS. I had a scanner driver that wouldn't play nice with my printer driver, would lock up my machine every time..but, the good thing is that it's easy to catch the culprit that's causing the crash, instead of Win98 where it just freezes and you have to go into safe mode, which 9 times out of 10 is no help at all.

    I tried to setup a hardware profile for my girlfriend in WinME so she wouldn't have to reconfig her laptop to get on the 'net every time she comes over. well, for some reason that caused the built-in trackpad to stop working...and nothing but a USB mouse would work (no dice for serial or PS/2). It also ignored the settings and changed all her network settings back to default.

    After about an hour, I changed the name of the second profile to "Original," and deleted the original one, and whaddya know, it worked. But the fucking trackpad is still hosed.

    In any recent version of Mac OS (9 or X), I can pull up the TCP/IP or network control panel and change locations without having to reboot or anything...and yes, I know Win2000 can do that. But it'd run like shit on my girlfriend's aged laptop, and upgrading could cause as many problems as it would solve...

    Anyway, Mac OS 9 in my experience (as a video editor) breaks a lot less than Win98SE, and I use both everyday. And when it does break, it breaks in ways that give you pretty good clues on how to fix it. The multitasking is bad, true...but it never just randomly fucks up the way Windows does...

  96. Black box by Letnux · · Score: 1

    Why do they not make a platform independent satalite connection system? Instead of forcing it to be plugged into a primary usb slot on a windows machine, have the satalite plug into a little black box that sits on the floor with a cat5 jack in it?

    Having something that is limited to the os like this does not seem like a good marketing move. Most cable and dsl internets are not platform specific, so why make satalite this way?

    This would make installation easier. It would also hit 100% of the market.

    Any reasons not to develop this?

  97. offtopic - Firwire Vs. USB 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    400 Mbs = firewire
    480 Mbs = USB 2.0

    480 Mbs > 400 Mbs therefore USB 2.0 is faster than Firewire.

  98. Re:not really worth it-Helius (216.250.138.110) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.helius.com/products/hsrdpcspecs.html

    From the site:

    "Helius Routers for DirecWay (DirecPC) - Tech Specs
    NETWORK COMPATIBILITY
    Windows NT
    Macintosh
    Sun Solaris
    Novel NetWare
    BSD
    Linux and others

    SATELLITE RF INPUT
    Supports F type coax female connector for PCI/DVB One-way card (built into router) or USB for Two-way or One-way USB systems.

    FREQUENCY RANGE
    Dependent upon satellite service provider.

    ETHERNET INTERFACES
    1 standard 2 optional; ETH0 using RJ45 connector. Both 10/100BaseT

    FLOPPY DRIVE
    3.5 Inch, 1.44 Mbytes
    Floppy Drive NONVOLATILE MEMORY (HARDDISK)
    40+ Gigabytes

    MEMORY
    128+ Megabytes

    OPERATING SYSTEM
    Linux

    INTERNET PROTOCOL
    Unconditionally compliant to RFC1812 and RFC1122, Support of TCP, UDP, IP, ARP, IGMP v2, GRE, PPP, 32 concurrent IP filters

    DESIGN OPTIONS
    Desktop unit
    19" rackmount
    Custom enclosure

    REMOTE CONFIGURATION
    Virtual Technician "

    So it's quite possible.

  99. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And I don't care what you say, that girl on that weak ass commercial looks like an elitist, self-righteous, Jetta driving, yuppie, Mac owner.
    As a friend of Janie's, as well, I'd say she's very much none of the above, except a Mac user.

    Of course, you're just a troll. Your argument instantly lost all credibility when you had to reply with a "Well in all honesty..." Go get Mom some RAM, install OS X on her iMac, and then crawl back under your bridge.
  100. Re:A real life "switch" story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're complaining because your parents "recently purchased a digital camera" (as you said), and your mom's computer running a five-year-old operating system doesn't automatically recognize it? You trolls, you're all fucking the same.

  101. Apple should launch their own satellite by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2

    Apple should launch their own satellite from the mothership. Apple has a mothership, you ask? Of course they do. Do you honestly believe the story that the $400 million that Steve Jobs spent buying out next NeXT really went towards million dollar NeXT Cubes and $50,000 toilet seats?

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  102. Avoid Satallite!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working Tech Support for a DirecPC "Powered By" ISP. I have to say that its complete and utter garbage. We working with dialup, dsl, cable, all kinds or wireless stuff, but everyone hates DPC the most. Teching it fully can take hours on end, only to have hughe respond to our ticket with garbage delay tatics, such asking if the user or his neighbor have a radar detector that they leave on all the time... I mean WTF?

    Its junk, I have NEVER talked to a happy user of the "service".

    Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it, Avoid it,

  103. The cost to develop software... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to burst your bubble, but 100k to develop software for a new platform is a pretty low estimate.

    The burdened cost of an engineer is around $150,000 a year (that's what it costs the company in benefits, space allocation, resources, etc. not just what the engineer is paid).

    So, let's say you hire an uber Mac developer and he takes 6 months to write the software. Now, someone has to test it. That takes another three weeks. Someone has to document it. Add about four months of someones time. And, don't forget the people who hired and manage all of those people.

    You're up to at least three people working on nothing else for around 6 to 8 months. Hell of a lot more than $100k. And that's just the cost to develop and test the software and documentation.

    Now add the cost to support it, train the sales people about Mac support, etc.

  104. Whats the big deal here? by Scooter · · Score: 1

    Satellite broadband is a *network* issue - who cares whether people attach Mac, Windows or Linux clients to their networks? All the Mac needs is IP and say - ethernet - which last time I looked, it had. Buy a satellite receiver/switch/router device or a cheap PC and use that as your gateway - and stick as many Macs as you like on your LAN - ta-daaa! If you're one of those who won't have a non-Mac on your network for "religous" reasons - then you deserve to sit in unconnected misery :)

  105. Coming Options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hughes has a new Adapter coming out for the DirecWay service called the 4020. This will allow a MAC/Linux/Solaris/BSD/(WHATEVER) to connect as long as it can communicate over TCP/IP. The 4020 will function as a gateway, which can be managed with a Web Interface similar to Linksys (&other) consumer routers.

    So quit yer Whinin....

    1. Re:Coming Options by DirkDaring · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "So quit yer Whinin...."

      But then what would Mac users do with their time?

  106. It's because they dont want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we have a sattelite broadband connection here that is a private 2 way link (why it wasn't a T1 I'll never know...) but this device which is 2 years old... has ethernet out it's butt..

    Why doesnt any home broadband just have an ethernet port I will never know.

  107. Re:Again? - yay! by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    I really hope you arent' a creative troll and that you will actually read your responses.

    first off, why doesnt the sattelite boxes have their connection to the consumer equipment be ethernet like everyone else (cable/DSL)? your commercial equiupment does.. this eliminates 99.997% of all compatability issues and I can even use my Cromemco Model II Miniframe computer with it! you no longer have to support the computer/os just your equipment and a simple TCP/IP config of the box that YOU CAN CONTROL.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  108. The logic here is flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1: People like you who make claims like "it only has 5% marketshare, so it's obviously worthless to support" definatly do not work in any sort of money-related position, and you are definatly not MBA's.

    2: Neither of you have a clue how statistics work to manipluate truth.


    And I suppose the two multibillion dollar companies providing satellite service aren't sophisticated enough to recognize what you have? They can't hire anybody who has "a clue how statistics work"?

  109. Re:Again? -- do the math by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    Are you a shareholder of Hughes? If you were, would you want them spending 3+ million dollars a year on software that _might_ get 5000 subscribers at under $70 a month?

    5000 subs x 12 months x $70 = $4.2 million
    That's $1.2 million profit, 40% return on investment. So yes, I would.

  110. Re:Again? - yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the previous reply. Hardware costs. Enterprise business customers don't mind paying a few thousands for a full-featured satellite-based router with nothing more than an ethernet drop. Most consumers do.

    Software is cheaper than embedded-software + hardware.

  111. Re:Again? -- do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're ignoring all the other costs. Pluswhich, earthlink gets $70 a month - they buy capacity or service, and resell it. So Hughes' take is less than $70 a month. And, you only get 5000 subscribers after a lot of time advertising, and even that's only after a year or so of paying all those salaries (plus test engineers, etc) and having no subscribers, because the software isn't written yet. It's a huge gamble, compared to spending the same amount of money on only one platform, and having access to far far more subscribers. It's all economics. You think if the market were there, everyone would ignore it?

  112. Satellite service for MACs -- HOWTO by tjcw · · Score: 1

    If you really want to (at least with Starband), then get yourself an old PC with a Windows98 license from your local dumpster or pennysaver; install the Starband software; install Apache from http://www.apache.org, configure it as a 'cacheing proxy'; install XMail from http://xmailserver.org and configure it as MTA. Be careful with XMail, you do not want to make an 'open relay'.
    Starband will connect via USB or Ethernet, but will not share an Ethernet, so you may need to pay $2 for another Ethernet adapter to connect to your domestic area network.

    Then you will be on a level playing field with the rest of us PC satellite users; at least as far as HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, SMTP, and POP3 go.

    You might want to look at http://www.dslreports.com before putting any money down. Different people view satellite Internet as "wonderful" or "bottomless pit", you need to make your own mind up before committing.

    For me ? Well, I would have designed the satellite modem to be vendor-neutral --- I have a http://www.dlink.com/products/broadband/di713p/ and I think it's a good piece of domestic networking equipment. Come to think of it, Starband could still get it right by supplying new firmware for their modem, if they wanted to.
    I don't think "conspiracy" is the word; more like "failure to conform with standards, which eventually has unfortunate commercial consequences".

  113. Apple partners by PegQuin · · Score: 1

    Apple seems to have a problem in developing strategic partnerships in a number of areas. Jobs wants Apple to be driving force in the CG world but there isn't a significant accelerated 3D graphic card for the Mac. He's the frickin CEO over at Pixar and if you watch the extras on the Monsters, Inc DVD all you see is SGI! Sitting around talking about "fur," for cripes sake do something!

    --
    PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
  114. Try to keep up by Alexander · · Score: 1

    It's bi-directional these days. Before you go "HA"-ing people, do your research.

    --
    "oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!" ..."uhhh yeah, he's the one that begins with
  115. Not economical by skedstar · · Score: 1

    Developing for Mac is not the complete issue either, it's supporting Mac users. Cross platform software shops know that the support costs for a unit of Mac is THREE TIMES the support cost for a PC unit. Whine elsewhere, please

  116. My Simple Solution by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

    Although I don't use this at home (got DSL... shibby!), my CEO lives in the boonies and got a satellite connection in order to connect to the Internet. Anyway, although he didn't have a Mac, the same solution applies;

    Basically, I set up a Windows 2000 PC using scrap parts I had lying around... a basic USB-capable mobo (PII-350 actually), 128MB of RAM, a modem and so forth. I then set up Internet sharing and Dial on Demand, so the satellite starts working when access is required to an IP address not on the local network.

    The only caveat is that you need to be careful to tune the DoD so that broadcasts won't trip it... takes a little trial-and-error but it works.

    Anyway, he's happy because he's got a connection that "just works" from his perspective whether he's using his laptop or his wife's PC... and the DoD server itself just runs headless in the basement where we ran the satellite cable to. Piece of cake. I know it's not a perfect workaround, but it does work and I've proved it.

    I use Macs at home myself, as well as my PC's and Linux boxen... so I know this solution will work with them too so long as you've got an Ethernet card. Since most Macs since the original PowerMacs have Ethernet on-board, you probably DO have that capability.

  117. What about people who didn't call? by hellfire · · Score: 1

    Frankly, the logic here is not bad, at least in my experience, except the conclusion is badly worded.

    Please note that you only have statistics on people who CALLED. Your statements blanketly label all Mac users.

    I would say of the Mac users that called, if they were idiots, its because nothing could help them. There's always a percentage of the population that would never get anything electronic if they tried for years.

    However, on the PC side, you'd probably get more PC users who have some knowledge because the problems are weird, esoteric, obnoxious bug that was difficult to troubleshoot.

    The mac users who know enough about their computer, never called, because the problem was easier to troubleshoot on a mac.

    Mac users are far more likelier to know their systems, troubleshoot their own system, buy software, etc etc, than PC users. You have to be careful not to ignore the statistics you aren't directly exposed to.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:What about people who didn't call? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read before you post!

      This is not a bash of macs. Macs are so easy to troubleshoot, the computer literate mac user rarely needs to call tech support, so the support folks just get the worst of the worst.

  118. Got an itch you can't scratch? by apropos · · Score: 1

    Poor wittle Mac user... got an itch you can't scratch? USE OPEN SOURCE!

    Yeah, yeah, BSD is open source blah blah blah. Exactly how much of OS X is open source? I can tell you how much of Linux is: 100%

    I'm betting you have to pay $1500 for some developer kit to write drivers for that OS.

    So just switch to Linux, go to tldp.org and download the driver writing howto and go to town. Enough whining already.

    1. Re:Got an itch you can't scratch? by pianophile · · Score: 1

      I'm betting you have to pay $1500 for some developer kit to write drivers for that OS.

      The MacOSX developer tools, docs, etc. are free, silly.

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
  119. Market intelligence by Metropolitan · · Score: 1

    It's simple: a little box, with as many blinking lights as we might need to give us connection information, with ethernet ports for accessing it; a simple OS on the box, running connectivity software and a basic firewall; and a Modem Admin utility, much like that of an Airport Base Station or other device, that can be accessed via browser from the internal network only.

    Why is this difficult for the marketplace to produce? How many versions of M$ operating systems do they truly want to support?

    Make it easy to integrate with everything that wants a connection, regardless of OS, by putting it on the local network.

  120. Re:No mac users in the country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a strange idea. why would you think mac users only live in cities and everyone in the country is a pc user? i live in the country and I swear from the 20 people I know, it's 50-50.

  121. Starband & Echostar made pact with the Devil ( by potuncle · · Score: 1

    As noted on Starbands "who we are" site Starband and Echostar have made an agreement with Microsoft. In this agreement Microsoft gave a large investment to get the 2-way satelite system up and going. As part of the agreement, Starband was to make sure the hardware only supports Win98 and up.

  122. you won't be reading this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    as an AC posting, but oh well.

    I think a more accurate way of saying it is that Mac users don't have to waste time learning about the internal workings of their computers. Macs, for the most part, just take care of themselves.

    In my opinion this is a conceit. Macs may be easier to use, but they remain complex devices that can fail to perform as expected if the user either doesn't know how to do a particular task, or starts performing tasks the computer won't take well to, such as randomly deleting or moving files.

    when it doesn't work it is absolutely the fault of the person on the other end of the phone.

    Oh really. Let's take the example of dial-up support. Is it the ISP tech's fault when: the screen is all black. The computer won't turn on. The computer cannot dial when the phone cord isn't plugged into it. The user can't use their telephone and 'the internet' at the same time, when they have one phone line. The user was advised to make sure a phone number was local and not long distance, the user knew better, and is now angry at the long distance charges incurred because they did indeed use a long distance number. The user can't view files sent via email, when the file format used is something proprietary and no application is installed to view them. The user's modem is dead ("I'm paying you $xx, why won't you send me a new modem?")

    I hope you get the idea. Many people who call in for help have a concern that the ISP cannot address.

    The required that I install some software on my computer-- an iBook, at that time-- before I could use my cable modem.

    And here is the problem: you had a bad experience with a particular ISP, and now you have an ax to grind with any and all underpaid and poorly trained (most of them, that is) ISP techs out and about in the world.

    I'm sorry to hear you had such a bad experience, and from the details given here you are correct in that the vendor would be responsible for the software issue. However, putting aside the fact that having the isp require some sort of questionable software product was suspicious and probably not really necessary, the fact is your problem wasn't with the service you were to receive, it was with the crap software. And yes, it was the same company's fault. They should have been able to support the software, hopefully by connecting you to someone with experience with it. My guess is, however, that "the person on the other end of the phone" had never actually seen a computer with this software on it. And that just sucks, but not out of the ordinary in the glamorous world of low level tech support.

    However, your experience does not translate to a common standard for mac users calling in for tech support. Not even close. You had a real, complex concern, and ideally should have been put into contact with a more experienced agent who could either refer you to or act as liason with the developers of the software. It is unfortunate that this didn't happen, and that you were probably subject to some hand waving by the phone techs as a result. Venting on them isn't going to get you better service, though.

    Do you also yell and go about making a show of dominance when you speak to people in person, say in a restaurant or at a service counter? I try to avoid people like that.

    Naturally, I let the various people on the other end of the phone have it, then demanded a full refund, and fired them. They're lucky I'm not trying to bill them for the time I wasted on that fool's errand.

    I hope you felt better after yelling and ranting at some low-level phone techs, along with their likewise marginalized phone supervisors, I imagine. I'd kind of like to know how you managed to 'fire' them, though. Most phone centers deal with pissed off callers as a matter of course, but the caller who can 'fire' the workers there is a little uncommon. Maybe you mean you terminated your service with AT&T, but I can't say that translates to 'firing' anyone, though using that loaded term might make you feel a little better in some way.

    You know, I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience, but your whole post here is more along the lines of an ax to grind, rather than a typical representation of a mac tech support issue.

    Anyway, back to the point: it absolutely was AT&T's fault. If it doesn't work under circumstances in which a reasonable person should expect it to work, it's the vendor's fault, and they should take responsibility for fixing it.

    Taking your explaination as is, yes, it was AT&T's fault. That does not however mean that it is "it is absolutely the fault of the person on the other end of the phone," when some random mac user calls in for help, because not all mac users are reasonable, and many of those that are reasonable are mistaken about the particulars of the situation. The original post argued that mac callers are actually unlikely to be reasonable, since many reasonable people would be able to fix their own problem---if they're using a mac.

    1. Re:you won't be reading this by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Many people who call in for help have a concern that the ISP cannot address.

      The one thing that a customer must never hear from a technical support person is, "I can't help you with that." This is practically the textbook definition of customer service.

      I'd kind of like to know how you managed to 'fire' them, though.

      See, AT&T worked (at that time) for me. I was paying them every month to provide me with a service. No euphemisms are necessary here; I didn't "cancel my service," I didn't "opt out of my contract." I fucking fired them, right there on the spot. I told them, in essence, to clean out their office (i.e., to get their CPE out of my wiring closet) and get out.

      This, also, is a fundamental tenet of customer service: the vendor (them) is employed by and works for the customer (me). The customer is the boss, and the vendor-- and all the vendor's staff, including and especially front-line customer support-- are employees of the customer. When they forget this, and say things like "I can't help you with that," I fire them and hire somebody else.

  123. rendezvous by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    isn't this exactly the type of situation where costs could be reduced by supporting some sort of standard as opposed to os specific stack requirements (http://developer.apple.com/macosx/rendezvous/). sure ms grabbed the bsd stack, but there are likely so many interdependencies now that it is irrelevant. but, at some point common protocols have to be adhered to. fyi, i use a mac, so it is in my interest. but, my enemy's enemy is my friend, and i just want stuff to work. also, is it possible to develop a windows translation mechanism for something like rendevouz should ms decide that standards are not in their best interest?

  124. Something I understand even less by Moirke · · Score: 1

    What I really don't understand is why people even buy a Mac. It is not as though Mac's used to be supported and now aren't, they never have been supported. Mac's are more expensive than other computers and they do a lot less. If you are really stuck with a Mac I have heard that Linux will install on their architecture.

    1. Re:Something I understand even less by torgosan · · Score: 2

      OT: Had I not used my last mod-point earlier this would get a "Troll" easily.

      Regardless of the above poster's bigotry, what I see [and no, I'm not a satellite user] is an opportunity, a challenge - a chance to do some digging and question asking, as Untimely Ripp'd has done. Geez but it seems like so many people would rather rip someone else's choice of platform instead of offering up some helpful comments.Whatever happened to digging and scrounging for a solution?

      --
      "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
  125. Re:Again? - yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thousands of dollars? To build a simple router with an Ethernet drop? Are you high? How do you suppose they make Cable modems with Ethernet connectors so cheaply?

  126. same for dsl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when i sign up for verizon online dsl. They wouldn't support setting up the pppoe connection in MacOSX with my Powerbook. However; this was a very simple task that I did on my own with MacOSX and later with Debian. Basically it comes down to companies not investing into development and tech support to supprt operating systems that aren't popular.

    This brings an interesting thought. What if the market was more competitive. Lets say 50% microsoft, 30% linux, 20% Mac. Would software developers be making the same profit maintaining development and suport for 3 operating systems as oppose to just doing it for one takng into account the fact that they would be selling for the same number of computers either way. My guess is probably not. Thus, companies might be reluctant to support other operating systems in order to limit people from venturing into other operating systems and maintain the current market condition (Microsoft monoply) which is the most favorable to make money.

  127. Re:Important Message Scammer Reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT

    Attn: ************* Tel: 234 1 774 3428
    From: Engr. Harry M. Efax: 1 775-458-3249
    Date: 02/10/02

    Dear Friend/partner,

    Goodday to you, I hope this letter meets you in good health. Thank you very much for your positive reply to our letter of mutually benefiting business proposal. We the three members of the Contract Review Panel (CRP) have deliberated extensively on your response and unanimously agreed to commence this transaction with you and we have decided to furnish you with further information and proof regarding this great transaction. It is pertinent at this stage to assure you that this project will be carried out strictly and religiously within all laid down procedures and the transaction will also pass through all local and International laws and regulations which you are going to see as we progress in the successful realization of this transaction.

    Before letting you into the full picture, it is important to inform you that, as the Chairman of the Contract Review Panel, I am also the secretary of the Nigerian Propaganda Committee. You must be informed not to be confused by the numerous propaganda, which my committee is pushing into your country for some time now. All the propaganda is aimed at discouraging foreign nationals like you from assisting Nigerians in transferring money out of the country. The propaganda is all over your Radios, National Dailies, Banks, and International Courier Services as you may have seen. So you must not let it influence your decision.

    REQUIREMENTS TO BE SENT BY FAX
    There is a claims form of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing that, will be required of you to complete with your company and send back to me immediately, I will send the form to you via your fax machine as soon as you make your fax number available. If you encounter any difficulty completing the form, do not hesistate to call for assistance from me. Bank details are not necessary if prefered mode of payment is by Bank draft.

    On receipt of the above requirement we shall commence all pre-application processes including the Incorporation of your company at the Corporate Affairs Commission in Abuja the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria and the registration of the company with the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (FMW&H) as a category C contractor who has legal rights to execute contracts of such magnitude in Nigeria. The above two registrations will cost US$25,000 and US$42,720 respectively. We shall also obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate in the name of your company indicating that your company has paid company tax for three years amounting to US$30,000 as this is a pre-requisite for all category C contractors in Nigeria. We have made arrangements for all these initial expenses. We will also meet all equity requirements for the operation of a foreign company as spelt out by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    Immediately these pre-application requirements are met, we will legally sub-contract the contract entitlement of US$26.426M to your company making it legal and then the CRP of which I am the Chairman will validate the claim and the application proper will be submitted to the Federal Ministry of Works & Housing (FMW&H) for the approval for payment of the contract entitlement in the name of your company. All these are directly under my supervision. Immediately the approval is given by the FMW&H, your company becomes a legal creditor/beneficiary of the FMW&H to the tune of the contract amount and your payment file will be moved to the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF) for the Foreign Exchange Approval Order to be issued by the Exchange Control Division of the FMF. This is necessary since the payment is not in our local currency (Naira) but in a foreign currency (U.S Dollars). From the Exchange Control Division, your payment file will be moved to the endorsement (signing) stage of the Fund Release Documents i.e. (1) The Foreign Payment Order, (2) International Payment Receipt (3) International Payment Voucher.

    At this point you will be expected to come personally to Lagos to endorse the Fund Release Documents, witness the telegraphic transfer of the funds to you account and re-confirm your Bank particulars if necessary or alternative payment through Bank Draft. But if for reasons of tight business schedule you cannot come to Lagos, you have a choice of retaining the services of a local accredited Attorney registered with the FMF to perform the endorsement on your behalf. Also in privileged circumstances, your Fund Release Documents can be endorsed in any of the Debt Reconciliation Committee (DRC) offices in Europe, or Asia. For any option chosen 48-72hours after the endorsement of your Fund Release Documents, your funds will hit your account by telegraphic transfer, or you can receive a Bank Draft drawable in any correspondence Bank of the Central Bank of Nigeria worldwide, or you can also make application for cash payment in Lagos or in any of the DRC offices. Let me know the option most suitable to you.

    The above is our master plan for success, which is 100% risk and hitch free and everything will be done legally and perfectly. Note that to safeguard our common interest, a legally binding agreement will be entered into between us showing that the funds moving to your account are contractual sums and also a vetting approval will be issued by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation vetting the funds against drugs and fraud sources. With your unwavering assistance and co-operation and following our instructions religiously, this transaction will be concluded within 10-14 working days. On receipt of the funds in your account, my associates and I will fly to your country and meet with you for the sharing purpose and to commence our business plans. As we cannot bring back cash into Nigeria, we will count on your business acumen and network for our investment plans.

    The benefits are enormous so are the responsibilities. I therefore urge you to keep a sincere inventory of all expenses including telephone bills just as we keep ours for reimbursement on receipt of the funds in your account. Once again I thank you for your prompt positive response and remember that confidentiality is our watchword, as the advantages accruable to us from strict compliance can never be over emphasized.

    Best regards.
    N.B. Endeavor to reach me immediately after you peruse this mail, so that we can discuss verbally and for you to be privy to prompt information as they unfold as our international dialing facility is not efficient. The telephones in Nigeria are sometimes very difficult to get through, but if you are persistent you will definitely get through. A transaction of this magnitude requires us to speak to each other often. I will be expecting your call.

    Find details below of how to complete the claims form

    Beneficiary's full name and address------your name and address

    Amount: US$26,426,000.00

    Contract No: AAB/234/ECTJ/JDS/45

    Category of contract: "C"

    I Mr.---your name the president/managing director of ---your company name

    From there you should know what to do.

    Your account details are not necessary if your prefared mode of payment is by Bank draft. But if you prefer direct telegraphic transfer, then you can fill in your Bank particulars.

    Fax the claims form back to me immediately on completion, so that I can commence with the registrations.

  128. Do NOT buy Mac by macguiguru · · Score: 1

    Please, by ALL means, do NOT buy Mac. That way you'll be non-competitive... {:^D> Mac users aren't gay, our wrists are just tired.

  129. There already is Satellite internet for the Mac by MendoMole · · Score: 1

    It's available in Europe, Japan, India, etc.
    The Israeli company, Gilat Satellite has written the software and has the hardware, a 4 port ethernet router/modem. They are also the software provider for Starband.
    Here's the links:
    <http://www.btopenworld.com/satellite/our_ satellit e_services.html>
    and:
    <http://www.gilat.com/>

    MM

  130. No, YOUR math is wrong - here's why... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    You are basing your argument on an invalid assumption: That all 5% of Mac users would get this service, if it were made available. This is totally false.

    No, I'm not assuming that. In the sole-provider case I'm assuming you get the same percentage of adopters among Mac (or whatever) users as you got among Windoze users.

    In the multiple provider case I'm assuming that you end up with the same fraction of Mac users adopting the TYPE OF SERVICE/DEVICE as Windows users.

    For instance - if the product is satellite networking I'm assuming the same fraction of Mac users as Windows users would buy it - IF the Mac users could get it at all.

    That's a MUCH easer case than your strawman.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:No, YOUR math is wrong - here's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      /. slashed off my " Rod"

      Ouch.

  131. Re:Again? -- do the math by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    I used the costs quoted by the previous AC, who appeared to be an insider.

    Most of the other charges I don't see really. Anyway, Hughes is a multi-billion dollar corp, $3 million isn't a "huge gamble", it's pocket change. And similarly, $1.2 million profit is also peanuts. That's the real reason, I think, none of those in the company with the power to do this would get much kudos even if it brought in a profit.

  132. Re:Bulls**T by spitzak · · Score: 2
    Say "we don't provide technical support for Linux" and hang up. Problem solved.

    Somehow most of the broadband and DSL providers manage to connect to Linux without having anybody in tech support able to answer questions, so this is NOT a reason.

  133. Re:Bulls**T by swdunlop · · Score: 1

    Simply hanging up on someone is a wonderful way to injure a service-oriented business's standings in public opinion. One offended customer invariably complains to several of his or her peers, causing them to become more and more aggressive in their dealings with your products.

    I don't doubt that a majority of Linux users are capable of connecting to dialup, DSL, cable, &etc. But it is the minority who are having a problem and unwilling to RTFM who become nightmares for support personnel.

  134. Re:Bulls**T by spitzak · · Score: 2
    I suspect not offering service at all to Linux is worse than refusing tech support, so I can't understand this argument.

    I realize there are other very legitimate reasons for not offering the Linux version (ie it takes work to implement it) but this tech-support excuse does not make sense. There are plenty of compainies that do exactly what I suggest and the Linux crowds are not after them, in fact they often praise them for offering anything at all!

  135. better link by nikster · · Score: 0

    this is a better link

    duh! satellite crap on one end, ethernet on the other... problem solved. cuts down support costs by 90% (i would bet)

  136. Re:Bulls**T by swdunlop · · Score: 1

    I'm not advocating blocking a customer from a service simply because of their platform.. I'm advocating a company make sure they clearly state their limits of support to the customer.

    This entire conversation started with someone asking why software and hardware for satellite networking is win32/intel specific, not why Your-Local-DSL provider is skittish about your Redhat box.. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I was advocating that customers vote with their feet for those vendors that provide solutions that are based on open standards and provide coherent API specifications to developers.

  137. not worth it? by cyberdog6 · · Score: 1

    then why deos Microsoft have an entire division dedicated to it? why did they buy 100 million dollars of non-voting stock just to be able to develop software for it?

    it's tens of millions of dollars towards their bottom line. it would be less for satellite isps obviously, but i don't know of any Satellite companies that couldn't use a boost in revenue. and all they would have to do is leverage technology they already have on another platform, and take on minimal support costs.

    come on, how hard is it to tell someone how to set up an internet connection no matter how it's being done?

    --
    Evil is the money of all root....
  138. The Answer to the Question by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2
    Among lots of whining and complaining and technical explainations for why this can't work, I found this link burried in the comments. It seems to be the actual answer to the Ask Slashdot question.

    DirecWay DW4020:

    HNS' DW4020 is a self-hosted network terminal that provides a broadband Ethernet LAN interface to Windows, UNIX®, MAC, and other platforms using IP protocol. The terminal passes IP data packets to and from any IP device on the LAN in the same manner as an IP router. The HNS' DW4020 contains an integrated 4 port hub/switch which provides a direct Ethernet interface to four different devices. It is anticipated that one or more Postal kiosks could connect directly to the HNS' DW4020 via an Ethernet cable, without the need for hubs, routers or dial-up modems.

    The HNS' DW4020 system consists of an elliptical satellite antenna less than one meter in size, associated outdoor electronics, and the indoor equipment that attaches to Customer workstations. Alaskan locations may require larger antenna sizing.

    To place an order or receive more information about the HNS' DW4020 contact customer service.
    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)