The options within the Internet Options are applicable for IE only, to set browser/e-mail client you have to do that through a tab within Add/Remove Programs.
In Vista it's even easier - to change such options all you have to do is click 'Default Programs' on the start menu.
The main point of this post: I have to completely disagree with you with regards to Apple being more proprietary than Microsoft, especially in terms of software. Microsoft's approach seems to be ignore already defined standards, and invent their own (typically worse) way of doing things. As they enjoy a 90%+ market share, their own implementations quickly become standard unless there is a very good reason otherwise. For example: media players. By default, WMP rips to a DRM protected WMA (I'll give you a clue: Windows Media Audio file). iTunes rips to an unprotected AAC.
Now while this is only wild speculation, but if Microsoft were to sell their own PCs, I believe they would be just as locked down or even more so than Apple's offerings.
So, in your opinion, it would be best for the consumer for Apple to have a monopoly on online music distribution? How exactly does that work? Especially considering that you then have a monopoly selling someone else's product, and ultimately it's them who set the prices and not Apple... and AFAIK there are already songs on iTunes that you can only purchase as part of an album.
If Apple opened it's DRM (IMO) not much would change. Apple would still have the majority of the market because if everybody is offering the same product for the same price, why bother purchasing from somewhere else? Your fear of Apple being 'shut out' is completely unfounded, by doing what you suggest the record labels would be effectively killing legal online downloads, which for an industry which is already seeing decreasing turnover/profits wouldn't be the best of ideas.
Kind of an aside, but most music (albums at least) traded over P2P are ones which have been leaked prior to release.
An evil communist (government supported) hacker but wouldn't a greater volume of attacks be a bad thing? Surely it would make sense to find a single or small number of vulnerabilities and target them, rather than set off alarm bells by using a 'carpet bomb' approach?
That is the result of effectively having a $1000+ hardware dongle. As is so often pointed out, Apple is a hardware company. I would imagine that the most important thing to them is that you are running their OS on hardware purchased from them, not whether you've paid for the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
The options within the Internet Options are applicable for IE only, to set browser/e-mail client you have to do that through a tab within Add/Remove Programs.
In Vista it's even easier - to change such options all you have to do is click 'Default Programs' on the start menu.
The main point of this post: I have to completely disagree with you with regards to Apple being more proprietary than Microsoft, especially in terms of software. Microsoft's approach seems to be ignore already defined standards, and invent their own (typically worse) way of doing things. As they enjoy a 90%+ market share, their own implementations quickly become standard unless there is a very good reason otherwise. For example: media players. By default, WMP rips to a DRM protected WMA (I'll give you a clue: Windows Media Audio file). iTunes rips to an unprotected AAC.
Now while this is only wild speculation, but if Microsoft were to sell their own PCs, I believe they would be just as locked down or even more so than Apple's offerings.
What. The. Fuck?
So, in your opinion, it would be best for the consumer for Apple to have a monopoly on online music distribution? How exactly does that work? Especially considering that you then have a monopoly selling someone else's product, and ultimately it's them who set the prices and not Apple... and AFAIK there are already songs on iTunes that you can only purchase as part of an album.
If Apple opened it's DRM (IMO) not much would change. Apple would still have the majority of the market because if everybody is offering the same product for the same price, why bother purchasing from somewhere else? Your fear of Apple being 'shut out' is completely unfounded, by doing what you suggest the record labels would be effectively killing legal online downloads, which for an industry which is already seeing decreasing turnover/profits wouldn't be the best of ideas.
Kind of an aside, but most music (albums at least) traded over P2P are ones which have been leaked prior to release.
So you'd donate to the people releasing cracked software, but won't pay for the software itself? Please explain how that makes sense...
An evil communist (government supported) hacker but wouldn't a greater volume of attacks be a bad thing? Surely it would make sense to find a single or small number of vulnerabilities and target them, rather than set off alarm bells by using a 'carpet bomb' approach?
Nor do the vast majority of Muslims, what's your point?
Microsoft?
That is the result of effectively having a $1000+ hardware dongle. As is so often pointed out, Apple is a hardware company. I would imagine that the most important thing to them is that you are running their OS on hardware purchased from them, not whether you've paid for the OS.