That's the thing. You're again comparing the developer CD to the final CD. The people who complained about it being slow and not working on certain computers were most likely using internal Apple builds that were never publicly released. If you have checksum verifications proving that your developer CD is the same as your final CD, that's fine with me. All I'm saying in the article is that lots of people downloaded bad bootlegged builds of 4K78, and got VERY confused when they found out 4K78 was the copy appearing on the shelves.
The thing is that they're NOT fixing bugs right now. They neglected to include a few features (like DVD) in order to meet deadline, but still nail all the bugs. Personally, I'm glad they chose this route.
True, the person who wrote that contacted me, but he wrote that statement before we got our discussion resolved. We came to the conclusion that he was not aware of the 4K78 builds that I was referring to, only of the 4K78 build that he received in the mail.
The truth is that there are multiple 4K78 builds out there, and every Apple employee I've talked to acknowledges this. The person who wrote that comment only saw two of the copies going around, and assumed they were all the same. This is strictly untrue.
I don't think the author is proposing a "none is better than some" plan. He is merely saying that it's better to have an almost flawless overall system, missing a few specific features, than have an overall crappy system. In a situation such as Apple's, these are indeed the only two choices of the matter.
On the article that was linked he refers us to another related article he has written. You can go directly there by clicking here. The second one is a worthwhile read too. Everyone should check it out.
Ok, now you're just taking things I've said out of context.
The bottom line is that if a company is selling something that can do graphics, and makes a prototype image to demonstrate the power that they intend to put in, they ought to declare it as a prototype. If they do not, consumers will assume it's the real deal, and be wronged because of it.
You gave a car example, where a company could post a prototype picture of a car door , before it was actually developed, and it would not be false advertising. This might be the case, however a declaration must be made that this is actually a made-up image.
You state repetitively that these doctored images are not harming the consumer. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot. I'm not blinded by hate towards Microsoft programmers. I don't even believe that consumers are wronged by being shown doctored images from a game system currently in development. I understand that X-Box should be able to do this kind of stuff in the future. The point still remains, however, that they didn't tell us that these images were doctored, leading us to the conclusion that when we buy an X-Box six months from now, the image should look like that. Since it won't be able to run Photoshop filters, it won't look like that, and the consumer gets the shaft.
You're not getting the point though. You say that it's fine, and legal, because X-Box will eventually be able to do the things that these screenshots show. However, let's go back to the car example.
Cars will eventually be able to do big loops in the air, as well as even fly about. However, if Chrystler were to show this on their commercials air next month, it would be false advertising, and would be illegal. Until the game can actually do it, they can't advertise that it does.
What Microsoft is actually advertising is a photoshop doctored picture, something which X-Box will never be able to create. Microsoft can legally post a screenshot taken from 20 different X-Box generated screens, but if they add even one photoshop generated scene, it's false advertising.
What could they add to the Linux Router Project floppies? A screensaver with pictures of your "favorite stars" like Britney Spears and N'Sync? Maybe they'll use the space to distribute Nazi and communist propaganda to millions of unsuspecting users.
Personally, I think they should use the space to include a SETI client. (By the way, I'm bleeding with sarcasm).
I just feel sorry for the poor bastards who dress gothic style and wear lots of metal. They're fine until the train starts up... then all of a sudden they're pinned to the floor the train wishing they'd never had those 15 nose-rings put in.
I don't know if any of you have seen this, but Sorenson is making their own MPEG4 codec. I was able to talk to the guys while at the MacWorld convention, and they said they are basing it off of the MPEG4 standard, but adding their own benefits. It WILL play on all existing MPEG4 players, so it looks like Linux will finally be able to play Sorenson files.
Didn't anybody see this article posted on Slashdot several weeks ago? It basically concludes that if a user switched to LinuxPPC because OS 9 lacked a feature, and MacOS X now includes that feature, it's quite likely that they will switch back. And yes, OS X is a very significant threat to LinuxPPC.
"You mean, Bill Gates used to be an actual human before he transformed himself into a child-eating cyborg robot? Wow!" --My grandson, 50 years from now
And viruses get through all the time! I can just imagine Microsoft trying to cover up the holes by calling them features.
"Microsoft Lubricated 2000 - Now with 20% fewer....add-ons"
All I know is that you can buy Microsoft beer in Russia. I want to know how long it will be before I can buy Intel toilet paper and Apple condoms in America.
I think that people are missing the point here. True, users can choose another ISP if they so desire. The point here is that if a typical user likes AOL, they will stick with it. Even if AOL has the minor annoyance of only letting you use their home page, they'll keep using it. Since these users will keep using AOL, and they keep visiting AOL's home page, AOL will have a monopoly over the media. This isn't AOL service bashing. This is a legitimate concern that AOL is trying to get too much power, and they're not even being honest about it.
How is an option in preferences to choose a different home page an aesthetic issue? If you were to remove the button that says "HOME", that's aesthetic. Preferences aren't made to be pretty, they're made to change a program. If AOL wants to make an aesthetic change, take off the HOME button. If they want to make blatant attempts to control the media, they could do what they're doing right now.
Sure, it's my article, but I can still answer criticism. This is news because it wasn't always like this. You'd have to be a fool to think that some of the insane contracts going around are just to protect companies and individuals involved. It's not news in the sense of "Sally hit John". It's more of a "wake up, this has been gradually happening for the last couple years".
By the way, I'm reading all of your comments, and they're all very good. I appreciate them.
Here's another way to look at things. If you run BSD, but want a better GUI, then you could theoretically buy a Mac and run OSX. All your apps will work, and you'll have the benefits of Apple's much-praised UI. If you have a problem with any of the other aspects of the mac, read this.
I own a Vx that experienced a screen problem a month ago. I sent it back, and the refurbed unit they sent me had Palm OS 3.5.0. So, you're probably going to wonder what's new in this new OS? As far as I can tell, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It must be under the hood stuff, but the only thing I found was a new icon for the battery (it's now a 3D graphic, instead of 2D). Is it worth 20 bucks? Hell no.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing. You're again comparing the developer CD to the final CD. The people who complained about it being slow and not working on certain computers were most likely using internal Apple builds that were never publicly released. If you have checksum verifications proving that your developer CD is the same as your final CD, that's fine with me. All I'm saying in the article is that lots of people downloaded bad bootlegged builds of 4K78, and got VERY confused when they found out 4K78 was the copy appearing on the shelves.
The thing is that they're NOT fixing bugs right now. They neglected to include a few features (like DVD) in order to meet deadline, but still nail all the bugs. Personally, I'm glad they chose this route.
True, the person who wrote that contacted me, but he wrote that statement before we got our discussion resolved. We came to the conclusion that he was not aware of the 4K78 builds that I was referring to, only of the 4K78 build that he received in the mail.
The truth is that there are multiple 4K78 builds out there, and every Apple employee I've talked to acknowledges this. The person who wrote that comment only saw two of the copies going around, and assumed they were all the same. This is strictly untrue.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Too many of you!
Fixed it though. Hopefully it'll stay up for good.
I don't think the author is proposing a "none is better than some" plan. He is merely saying that it's better to have an almost flawless overall system, missing a few specific features, than have an overall crappy system. In a situation such as Apple's, these are indeed the only two choices of the matter.
On the article that was linked he refers us to another related article he has written. You can go directly there by clicking here. The second one is a worthwhile read too. Everyone should check it out.
Ok, now you're just taking things I've said out of context.
The bottom line is that if a company is selling something that can do graphics, and makes a prototype image to demonstrate the power that they intend to put in, they ought to declare it as a prototype. If they do not, consumers will assume it's the real deal, and be wronged because of it.
You gave a car example, where a company could post a prototype picture of a car door , before it was actually developed, and it would not be false advertising. This might be the case, however a declaration must be made that this is actually a made-up image.
You state repetitively that these doctored images are not harming the consumer. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot. I'm not blinded by hate towards Microsoft programmers. I don't even believe that consumers are wronged by being shown doctored images from a game system currently in development. I understand that X-Box should be able to do this kind of stuff in the future. The point still remains, however, that they didn't tell us that these images were doctored, leading us to the conclusion that when we buy an X-Box six months from now, the image should look like that. Since it won't be able to run Photoshop filters, it won't look like that, and the consumer gets the shaft.
You're not getting the point though. You say that it's fine, and legal, because X-Box will eventually be able to do the things that these screenshots show. However, let's go back to the car example.
Cars will eventually be able to do big loops in the air, as well as even fly about. However, if Chrystler were to show this on their commercials air next month, it would be false advertising, and would be illegal. Until the game can actually do it, they can't advertise that it does.
What Microsoft is actually advertising is a photoshop doctored picture, something which X-Box will never be able to create. Microsoft can legally post a screenshot taken from 20 different X-Box generated screens, but if they add even one photoshop generated scene, it's false advertising.
But my girlfriend said size doesn't matter!
Are you saying she lied to me?
Just what I need. Instructions on how to turn my $2000 Linux box into a $100 VCR.
What could they add to the Linux Router Project floppies? A screensaver with pictures of your "favorite stars" like Britney Spears and N'Sync? Maybe they'll use the space to distribute Nazi and communist propaganda to millions of unsuspecting users.
Personally, I think they should use the space to include a SETI client. (By the way, I'm bleeding with sarcasm).
I just feel sorry for the poor bastards who dress gothic style and wear lots of metal. They're fine until the train starts up... then all of a sudden they're pinned to the floor the train wishing they'd never had those 15 nose-rings put in.
I don't know if any of you have seen this, but Sorenson is making their own MPEG4 codec. I was able to talk to the guys while at the MacWorld convention, and they said they are basing it off of the MPEG4 standard, but adding their own benefits. It WILL play on all existing MPEG4 players, so it looks like Linux will finally be able to play Sorenson files.
Didn't anybody see this article posted on Slashdot several weeks ago? It basically concludes that if a user switched to LinuxPPC because OS 9 lacked a feature, and MacOS X now includes that feature, it's quite likely that they will switch back. And yes, OS X is a very significant threat to LinuxPPC.
Can it run Linux? If it don't run Linux, I don't give a crap.
"You mean, Bill Gates used to be an actual human before he transformed himself into a child-eating cyborg robot? Wow!" --My grandson, 50 years from now
And viruses get through all the time! I can just imagine Microsoft trying to cover up the holes by calling them features.
"Microsoft Lubricated 2000 - Now with 20% fewer....add-ons"
All I know is that you can buy Microsoft beer in Russia. I want to know how long it will be before I can buy Intel toilet paper and Apple condoms in America.
I think that people are missing the point here. True, users can choose another ISP if they so desire. The point here is that if a typical user likes AOL, they will stick with it. Even if AOL has the minor annoyance of only letting you use their home page, they'll keep using it. Since these users will keep using AOL, and they keep visiting AOL's home page, AOL will have a monopoly over the media. This isn't AOL service bashing. This is a legitimate concern that AOL is trying to get too much power, and they're not even being honest about it.
How is an option in preferences to choose a different home page an aesthetic issue? If you were to remove the button that says "HOME", that's aesthetic. Preferences aren't made to be pretty, they're made to change a program. If AOL wants to make an aesthetic change, take off the HOME button. If they want to make blatant attempts to control the media, they could do what they're doing right now.
Sure, it's my article, but I can still answer criticism. This is news because it wasn't always like this. You'd have to be a fool to think that some of the insane contracts going around are just to protect companies and individuals involved. It's not news in the sense of "Sally hit John". It's more of a "wake up, this has been gradually happening for the last couple years".
By the way, I'm reading all of your comments, and they're all very good. I appreciate them.
Here's another way to look at things. If you run BSD, but want a better GUI, then you could theoretically buy a Mac and run OSX. All your apps will work, and you'll have the benefits of Apple's much-praised UI. If you have a problem with any of the other aspects of the mac, read this.
I own a Vx that experienced a screen problem a month ago. I sent it back, and the refurbed unit they sent me had Palm OS 3.5.0. So, you're probably going to wonder what's new in this new OS? As far as I can tell, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It must be under the hood stuff, but the only thing I found was a new icon for the battery (it's now a 3D graphic, instead of 2D). Is it worth 20 bucks? Hell no.
Just wait until I show off these babies to the hotties at the beach. They'll be all over my sexy geekness in seconds....right?
My only question is, "Do they provide 100% UV protection?"