You do realise that if Apple had never ended the Mac clone market of the 90s, you wouldn't have a Mac Pro today ? Apple would've died then and there. Therefor, your argument for rooting for Psystar is at best ignorant.
Windows 95 and NT 4.0 were never lumped as the same thing. Except maybe by you. Or other ignorant people. Microsoft sure never lumped them together at all, and they are not v4 of the same thing. I guess by your standards, NT 3.5 and Windows 3.1 were the same thing because they shared Progman as an interface and you could install Win32s to get access to the Win32 API on Windows 3.1.
NT 4.0 is part of the NT family. It has many APIs that weren't available on the DOS shell based Windows of the time. Win32 is only one API, and about the only shared between both systems. Microsoft isn't daft and knew this and never promoted NT 4.0 as Windows 95 for corporate users.
So please, stop spreading this crap and calling others troll because they correct you.
Same logic ? Because I fail to see where Apple claimed that Mac OS 10.6 was somehow the 6th release of Mac OS. The point is, Microsoft did make such a ludicrous claim.
I don't see where your post addresses the claim that Windows 7 is not the seventh release of Windows. And lumping Windows 9x and Windows NT 4.0 into some kind of magical "4th release" is funny, since both OSes weren't even related, minus the Win32 layer.
Windows 7 is NT 6.1, not Windows NT 7.0. Just run the ver program and find out for yourself how wrong you are.
The fact is, no matter how you want to count it, you have to use pretty convulted logic to make Windows 7 somehow be the seventh release of Windows, in any shape or form, even counting only paid upgrades (all your "4.0 releases" were paid for upgrades. You couldn't get the Windows 98 patch for Windows 95 for free, you had to purchase an upgrade).
Actually, that's wrong, you can get to 7 one way. Paid-for releases of Windows NT. NT 3.1, NT 3.5 (let's leave out the paid for 3.51 update), NT 4.0, 2000 (NT 5.0), XP (NT 5.1), Vista (NT 6.0) and now 7 (NT 6.1). I had to use convulted logic for even that one!
Seventh release of Windows ? Hum... Let's see... Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me (ok, so I skipped Windows 95 OSR b, Windows 98 SE which were OEM only releases). Then the NT family, Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista and now Windows 7.
Windows 7 is only the seventh version of Windows for a very strange definition of seventh.
A server is useful precisely because I don't need to leave my computers plugged in and on all the time. And if I want something off my girl's laptop and she took with her, I would be screwed. I have 3 servers running presently, doing various chores. 500W power supply ? Why do you need a top of the line PC as a server ? I run a UltraSparc II box from 1994 with all its original parts still running. If you're not geek enough to have the need for a home server, don't bother reading a thread about those who do.
That said, OS X' universal files are pretty much on their way out, as Snow Leopard (10.6) doesn't play ball with PPC. As time goes on and people realize that x86 is a dead horse running, we might however see universal executables again, but then as ARM and x86.
This is wrong also. Snow Leopard still makes good use of Universal binaries even without PPC being there. They can ship 32 bit and 64 bit in the same binary (i386 and x86_64). Universal binaries aren't going away.
The binary is compiled twice. The way OS X packages its applications is the the Application that Icon that you click on isn't a File but a Folder with a predefined structure. So there there is a PPC and an intel port of the executable.
This is wrong. OS X has 1 binary file that contains both architectures in the App Bundle, not 2 executables :
The iPhone killer thing is only in the summary, not in the articles and especially not from Verizon or Google. So your comment is worthless. When companies dub something the "X killer", you can probably bet it's not. When users start to do it, it's because the product probably is or comes close to.
You can always head to the dozen of rumor sites and read about it. There have been rumors about this phone for quite some time and quite a few shots were posted. Everyone who's into Android already knows what this phone looks like, hence the comment in the summary.
No, they're really not. iPhone and Android compete in the same space, with the same kind of marketing and appeal to the same kind of crowd. They are Internet devices that happen to have phones in them. And Android is pretty device agnostic contrary to Symbian. The Android Market is open to all Android phones and Apps aren't really limited to certain phones yet (the ones on the market all share the same specs under the hood). You can think the iPhone is safe, but Apple has a lot of competition coming in the next few years and they better be ready to fend it off.
You're being shortsighted though. While your numbers might currently be true, you're not seeing the big picture in all of this. Apple is 2 years old on the market, they are past their initial launch boost and they have exactly 1 product with different capacities.
Android is less than a year old on the market, many of the Android devices are announced and coming this fall/winter. They have many more carrier deals than the iPhone has, and already more devices. Expect the tables to turn in 1-2 years. Apple will become the niche and Android will be everywhere. That is if they manage to supplant Symbian which right now has 3 times more market share than the iPhone and Android put together.
No, it's not how Android works, or how the iPhone works either. You can have cloud enabled applications, but you can also have local storage based ones without any problems. There is nothing in the SDKs that force you to use the cloud for storage at all.
Except once you submit an app it goes through the approval process. Then it will get rejected and I hope after seeing a blue screen (default project), they will revoke your dev access.
There is nothing wrong, but you have to pay damages... Uh ? Kinda weird logic you have there. Burning a stop sign also just results in a fine, it's still illegal. The problem is most people on here think that illegal means criminal. That is not the case. The law says you can't breach a contract unless there are provisions to do so and that you respect those provisions. The USB-IF has put no provisions about being able to use other vendors devices ID for interop in their contract, quite the contrary. And Palm hasn't paid any damages so they are in breach and open to a lawsuit or the revoking of their license right now.
Also, I was reversing Bruce Perens' statement because obviously, the poor boy has gone loco. Apple did nothing illegal in all this, they are simply protecting their hard work from being used by Palm in a manner that is in breach of their contract with the USB-IF.
Because the Linux guys have nothing to do with this and nothing to do with what Palm is doing. You're confusing 2 issues here. Palm is just using iTunes, which isn't available at all on Linux, to sync their hardware with the user's music. They can do this in a legitimate way, writing software that reads in the XML file and syncs, or they can do it the wrong way, pretending to be an iPod. They chose the wrong way.
Linux developers have another issue, and that is the encrypted database on an iPod. It has nothing to do with syncing your music files from iTunes, since iTunes isn't available at all on Linux. Apple provides a way to interface with iTunes, they don't provide a way to interface with the newer iPod Touch/iPhone. 2 issues...
How have you contradicted the point that breaking a contract is unlawful, hence illegal ? Even your judge agrees in that after breaking the law, there must be redressement in the form of damages. Not everything illegal is criminal. One means to break the law, the other means to break criminal law.
So you're saying Apple has more market share thanks to a better product ? Isn't that how competition works ?
But more to the point, monopolies aren't just about market share, they are about a control position in a market. If tomorrow Apple decided to try and lock out other vendors, consumers have dozens of alternatives they can use and Apple will just be a bad memory.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise that if Apple had never ended the Mac clone market of the 90s, you wouldn't have a Mac Pro today ? Apple would've died then and there. Therefor, your argument for rooting for Psystar is at best ignorant.
Windows 95 and NT 4.0 were never lumped as the same thing. Except maybe by you. Or other ignorant people. Microsoft sure never lumped them together at all, and they are not v4 of the same thing. I guess by your standards, NT 3.5 and Windows 3.1 were the same thing because they shared Progman as an interface and you could install Win32s to get access to the Win32 API on Windows 3.1.
NT 4.0 is part of the NT family. It has many APIs that weren't available on the DOS shell based Windows of the time. Win32 is only one API, and about the only shared between both systems. Microsoft isn't daft and knew this and never promoted NT 4.0 as Windows 95 for corporate users.
So please, stop spreading this crap and calling others troll because they correct you.
Same logic ? Because I fail to see where Apple claimed that Mac OS 10.6 was somehow the 6th release of Mac OS. The point is, Microsoft did make such a ludicrous claim.
I don't see where your post addresses the claim that Windows 7 is not the seventh release of Windows. And lumping Windows 9x and Windows NT 4.0 into some kind of magical "4th release" is funny, since both OSes weren't even related, minus the Win32 layer.
Windows 7 is NT 6.1, not Windows NT 7.0. Just run the ver program and find out for yourself how wrong you are.
The fact is, no matter how you want to count it, you have to use pretty convulted logic to make Windows 7 somehow be the seventh release of Windows, in any shape or form, even counting only paid upgrades (all your "4.0 releases" were paid for upgrades. You couldn't get the Windows 98 patch for Windows 95 for free, you had to purchase an upgrade).
Actually, that's wrong, you can get to 7 one way. Paid-for releases of Windows NT. NT 3.1, NT 3.5 (let's leave out the paid for 3.51 update), NT 4.0, 2000 (NT 5.0), XP (NT 5.1), Vista (NT 6.0) and now 7 (NT 6.1). I had to use convulted logic for even that one!
3.1 is the first release of NT, not 3.5.
And Windows 7 is NT 6.1.
Seventh release of Windows ? Hum... Let's see... Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me (ok, so I skipped Windows 95 OSR b, Windows 98 SE which were OEM only releases). Then the NT family, Windows NT 3.1, Windows NT 3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista and now Windows 7.
Windows 7 is only the seventh version of Windows for a very strange definition of seventh.
A server is useful precisely because I don't need to leave my computers plugged in and on all the time. And if I want something off my girl's laptop and she took with her, I would be screwed. I have 3 servers running presently, doing various chores. 500W power supply ? Why do you need a top of the line PC as a server ? I run a UltraSparc II box from 1994 with all its original parts still running. If you're not geek enough to have the need for a home server, don't bother reading a thread about those who do.
Hint : He's not running an enterprise off his server. It's going to be idling most of the time (and no, idling doesn't mean sleep or hibernation).
That said, OS X' universal files are pretty much on their way out, as Snow Leopard (10.6) doesn't play ball with PPC. As time goes on and people realize that x86 is a dead horse running, we might however see universal executables again, but then as ARM and x86.
This is wrong also. Snow Leopard still makes good use of Universal binaries even without PPC being there. They can ship 32 bit and 64 bit in the same binary (i386 and x86_64). Universal binaries aren't going away.
./iChat
./iChat: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
./iChat (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
./iChat (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/Applications/iChat.app/Contents/MacOS
$ ls -al iChat
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5844848 29 Jul 01:28 iChat
$ file
$ pwd
The binary is compiled twice. The way OS X packages its applications is the the Application that Icon that you click on isn't a File but a Folder with a predefined structure. So there there is a PPC and an intel port of the executable.
This is wrong. OS X has 1 binary file that contains both architectures in the App Bundle, not 2 executables :
./firefox-bin
./firefox-bin: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
./firefox-bin (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc
./firefox-bin (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS
$ ls -al firefox-bin
-rwxr-xr-x@ 1 user admin 42596 9 Sep 19:19 firefox-bin
$ file
$ pwd
You did notice the word vodka that appears a few times on that wikipedia page right ?
If it's in second place, it's beaten Apple and their iPhone. The iPhone is currently ranked 3rd in smartphone sales.
The iPhone killer thing is only in the summary, not in the articles and especially not from Verizon or Google. So your comment is worthless. When companies dub something the "X killer", you can probably bet it's not. When users start to do it, it's because the product probably is or comes close to.
You can always head to the dozen of rumor sites and read about it. There have been rumors about this phone for quite some time and quite a few shots were posted. Everyone who's into Android already knows what this phone looks like, hence the comment in the summary.
No, they're really not. iPhone and Android compete in the same space, with the same kind of marketing and appeal to the same kind of crowd. They are Internet devices that happen to have phones in them. And Android is pretty device agnostic contrary to Symbian. The Android Market is open to all Android phones and Apps aren't really limited to certain phones yet (the ones on the market all share the same specs under the hood). You can think the iPhone is safe, but Apple has a lot of competition coming in the next few years and they better be ready to fend it off.
You're being shortsighted though. While your numbers might currently be true, you're not seeing the big picture in all of this. Apple is 2 years old on the market, they are past their initial launch boost and they have exactly 1 product with different capacities.
Android is less than a year old on the market, many of the Android devices are announced and coming this fall/winter. They have many more carrier deals than the iPhone has, and already more devices. Expect the tables to turn in 1-2 years. Apple will become the niche and Android will be everywhere. That is if they manage to supplant Symbian which right now has 3 times more market share than the iPhone and Android put together.
No, it's not how Android works, or how the iPhone works either. You can have cloud enabled applications, but you can also have local storage based ones without any problems. There is nothing in the SDKs that force you to use the cloud for storage at all.
Newsgroups ? Son, dedicated line BBS with courrier service for some 7-day Warez is the way it is.
Except once you submit an app it goes through the approval process. Then it will get rejected and I hope after seeing a blue screen (default project), they will revoke your dev access.
You could look into Classilla, which is precisely a modern browser on the Classic Mac OS.
There is nothing wrong, but you have to pay damages... Uh ? Kinda weird logic you have there. Burning a stop sign also just results in a fine, it's still illegal. The problem is most people on here think that illegal means criminal. That is not the case. The law says you can't breach a contract unless there are provisions to do so and that you respect those provisions. The USB-IF has put no provisions about being able to use other vendors devices ID for interop in their contract, quite the contrary. And Palm hasn't paid any damages so they are in breach and open to a lawsuit or the revoking of their license right now.
Also, I was reversing Bruce Perens' statement because obviously, the poor boy has gone loco. Apple did nothing illegal in all this, they are simply protecting their hard work from being used by Palm in a manner that is in breach of their contract with the USB-IF.
I guess that's why they put fancy display output ports and USB ports on laptop, so you can connect it to full size keyboards and monitors...
Because the Linux guys have nothing to do with this and nothing to do with what Palm is doing. You're confusing 2 issues here. Palm is just using iTunes, which isn't available at all on Linux, to sync their hardware with the user's music. They can do this in a legitimate way, writing software that reads in the XML file and syncs, or they can do it the wrong way, pretending to be an iPod. They chose the wrong way.
Linux developers have another issue, and that is the encrypted database on an iPod. It has nothing to do with syncing your music files from iTunes, since iTunes isn't available at all on Linux. Apple provides a way to interface with iTunes, they don't provide a way to interface with the newer iPod Touch/iPhone. 2 issues...
How have you contradicted the point that breaking a contract is unlawful, hence illegal ? Even your judge agrees in that after breaking the law, there must be redressement in the form of damages. Not everything illegal is criminal. One means to break the law, the other means to break criminal law.
So you're saying Apple has more market share thanks to a better product ? Isn't that how competition works ?
But more to the point, monopolies aren't just about market share, they are about a control position in a market. If tomorrow Apple decided to try and lock out other vendors, consumers have dozens of alternatives they can use and Apple will just be a bad memory.