The battery and it's installation is all covered under the same 179$ price. There's no extra charge for Apple doing any work. The battery also lasts 1000 cycle vs the standard 300.
Your example is flawed. A software EULA adds restrictions to what you can do on top of copyright law. The GPL on the other hand, doesn't add any restrictions at all. It gives you more permissions than what standard copyright laws allow, as long as you respect a few guidelines. Hence, in your example, since you never agreed to the GPL, standard copyright law applies. The same is true for the GPP, since he didn't agree to the EULA, standard copyright law applies. In both cases you end up being able to do the same thing with the provided work.
You say that as if there's no value in the design and esthetics of Apple computers. To some people, having a nice aluminium computer is more important than having a cheap plastic casing.
The 2407WFP and more recent 2408WFP use PVA panels from Samsung, which are cheaper than S-IPS panels. This also isn't the norm, as their consumer screens are all TN Film, and they make a point to say PVA or IPS when a screen uses those panel types, which they don't for the XP 24". The specs on the Dell are actually very awful, or very wrong (I'm guessing wrong). Directly from their site: Wide Viewing Angle (up to 89 degrees). What does that even mean, is it horizontal or vertical ? Even they don't use that notation on their monitors. 90 degrees means not even 45 degrees each side in the usual notation. So before saying people are WRONG capitalized, maybe you should actually try to know about the product you're trying to push.
Another thing, the Dell is made of cheap plastic, the iMac is made of glass and Aluminium. You're going to contradict that too ?
The iMac 24" comes with an S-IPS panel screen. Your Dell comes with a cheap TN Film. There's your price differential right there. It's also nice you falsely claimed the Mac didn't have 802.11n and got modded up anyway.
I'm a leftie, and my mouse is on the right, like.. well.. all the other lefties I know. Actually, I have never seen someone use a mouse of the left, though I'm sure that weirdo exists.
The problem is that you can't just say Image.newReference if you want to reference an existing image. How is it different than fopen();ing a file if you're saying Image.ByName("vacation08.png"); or something ? You have to actually get the reference to the object you want and from there on manipulate it. You know what this reminds of ? Mac OS X bundles. You don't "open" the file, you just fetch it from the bundle. I think these guys are just playing with semantics here.
In case you didn't get what the OP was saying, how is fopen(); fprintf(); fclose(); any different from GetReference(); Reference.addData(); Referance.dealloc();... On the surface, it doesn't seem to simplify a whole lot.
Seconded. All the GUI tearing in Ubuntu gave me a headache within minutes of using 8.10-- I also have Nvidia graphics hardware. It's becoming increasingly clear that X11 will never be hacked into a usable local display option. The open source community badly needs something more desktop centric.
I have never experienced this screen tearing you're mentionning, from the time I was running XFree86 on a Pentium 100 to a few months ago, running Xorg on a Inspiron 6400 with a GeForce 7300. I have been using X11 based GUIs for over 10 years and it's always worked great for me. What exactly do you find is the problem with the X11 protocol that prevents from being used "as a local display" (whatever that means) ?
But it also ships with all the Open, Unix graphical and media stacks. In fact, it now ships with Xorg. QT (available on OS X too) is not part of the Unix specficiation, nor is Compiz.
He said he wanted Photoshop on Unix, that's exactly what Photoshop for OS X is.
But it's not bullshit. Mac OS X is certified as Unix by the Open Group. That means it includes everything a modern Unix should include. For all intents and purposes, it's as much Unix as Solaris is, while Linux isn't Unix at all.
WOOOOOSH. He meant Wine is more compatible with Windows apps than Windows Vista is. He wasn't comparing the installed user base of each. Now his statement was an hyperbole meant to poke fun of Windows Vista breaking many apps when it got released and so it's probably not very accurate. It was meant as a joke. Your response should've been : Haha, moving along...
We could push this one step further, and make it so this USB dongle only works on certified hardware, so that there's less issue with different hardware configuration/drivers. Like let's say Sony could make a box, you put in your USB dongle, and it plays the game! Heck, Microsoft could also make one, and they could compete on game titles... Game consoles already exist.
How would this have solved the DRM issue at hand here ? People who played the shareware and decided to buy the full game would still have no game to play right now. You think because it's shareware, that there would be no DRM on the full game ?
Windows 95 release didn't ship with Internet Explorer. You're thinking of NT 4.0, which came with Internet Explorer 2.0 (the one where downloads would prevent you from switching web page). Windows 95 began shipping with a browser only in its OSR A revision, which was a OEM release only. The boxed version never got updated.
Because a lot of rich-text editors on Webmails and other web pages made heavy use of innerHTML to present pre-formatted output instead of just BBcode type output. I am guilty of writing such an editor for a website I made once, I cringed at every line of code when it wouldn't display properly in Mozilla.
Windows update doesn't use Internet Explorer anymore, it's been this way since Windows Vista. There's now a fat client that runs on your PC that takes care of updates. So one less reason to even have the Internet Explorer GUI/shortcuts by default.
Maybe you guys are too young, but back in the days, Windows 95 or Windows 3.11 didn't have a Web browser. And we still managed to get on the Internet. ISPs shipped CDs with browsers, or we would copy them over on disquettes (1.44 MB!). Nowadays, with USB flash drive and mass availability of computers, it should be even easier to get a Web browser on your browserless Windows. OEMs can also pre-install it for new computer buyers.
You're sort of right. It costs a bit more to Microsoft to make different flavors, since they have to add code to the installer that detects what type of license you have and install the proper components. It also needs to be tested in different configurations to make sure omitting some component doesn't break others you've installed.
Slashdot Mirror
The battery and it's installation is all covered under the same 179$ price. There's no extra charge for Apple doing any work. The battery also lasts 1000 cycle vs the standard 300.
Your example is flawed. A software EULA adds restrictions to what you can do on top of copyright law. The GPL on the other hand, doesn't add any restrictions at all. It gives you more permissions than what standard copyright laws allow, as long as you respect a few guidelines. Hence, in your example, since you never agreed to the GPL, standard copyright law applies. The same is true for the GPP, since he didn't agree to the EULA, standard copyright law applies. In both cases you end up being able to do the same thing with the provided work.
You say that as if there's no value in the design and esthetics of Apple computers. To some people, having a nice aluminium computer is more important than having a cheap plastic casing.
The 2407WFP and more recent 2408WFP use PVA panels from Samsung, which are cheaper than S-IPS panels. This also isn't the norm, as their consumer screens are all TN Film, and they make a point to say PVA or IPS when a screen uses those panel types, which they don't for the XP 24". The specs on the Dell are actually very awful, or very wrong (I'm guessing wrong). Directly from their site: Wide Viewing Angle (up to 89 degrees). What does that even mean, is it horizontal or vertical ? Even they don't use that notation on their monitors. 90 degrees means not even 45 degrees each side in the usual notation. So before saying people are WRONG capitalized, maybe you should actually try to know about the product you're trying to push.
Another thing, the Dell is made of cheap plastic, the iMac is made of glass and Aluminium. You're going to contradict that too ?
The iMac 24" comes with an S-IPS panel screen. Your Dell comes with a cheap TN Film. There's your price differential right there. It's also nice you falsely claimed the Mac didn't have 802.11n and got modded up anyway.
I'm a leftie, and my mouse is on the right, like.. well.. all the other lefties I know. Actually, I have never seen someone use a mouse of the left, though I'm sure that weirdo exists.
The problem is that you can't just say Image.newReference if you want to reference an existing image. How is it different than fopen();ing a file if you're saying Image.ByName("vacation08.png"); or something ? You have to actually get the reference to the object you want and from there on manipulate it. You know what this reminds of ? Mac OS X bundles. You don't "open" the file, you just fetch it from the bundle. I think these guys are just playing with semantics here.
In case you didn't get what the OP was saying, how is fopen(); fprintf(); fclose(); any different from GetReference(); Reference.addData(); Referance.dealloc();... On the surface, it doesn't seem to simplify a whole lot.
Seconded. All the GUI tearing in Ubuntu gave me a headache within minutes of using 8.10-- I also have Nvidia graphics hardware. It's becoming increasingly clear that X11 will never be hacked into a usable local display option. The open source community badly needs something more desktop centric.
I have never experienced this screen tearing you're mentionning, from the time I was running XFree86 on a Pentium 100 to a few months ago, running Xorg on a Inspiron 6400 with a GeForce 7300. I have been using X11 based GUIs for over 10 years and it's always worked great for me. What exactly do you find is the problem with the X11 protocol that prevents from being used "as a local display" (whatever that means) ?
How does that remove the fault from your site being the problem, not Windows 2000 + Firefox 3.0 ?
But it also ships with all the Open, Unix graphical and media stacks. In fact, it now ships with Xorg. QT (available on OS X too) is not part of the Unix specficiation, nor is Compiz. He said he wanted Photoshop on Unix, that's exactly what Photoshop for OS X is.
Then your website was at fault. Use standards next time.
But it's not bullshit. Mac OS X is certified as Unix by the Open Group. That means it includes everything a modern Unix should include. For all intents and purposes, it's as much Unix as Solaris is, while Linux isn't Unix at all.
For anything written using Cocoa, there is GNUStep.
English is also not my first language. Sorry if my grammar melted your eyes or something.
You can already run Photoshop CS4 on Unix, and I mean the real deal (http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html), not imitation Linux Unix.
WOOOOOSH. He meant Wine is more compatible with Windows apps than Windows Vista is. He wasn't comparing the installed user base of each. Now his statement was an hyperbole meant to poke fun of Windows Vista breaking many apps when it got released and so it's probably not very accurate. It was meant as a joke. Your response should've been : Haha, moving along...
We could push this one step further, and make it so this USB dongle only works on certified hardware, so that there's less issue with different hardware configuration/drivers. Like let's say Sony could make a box, you put in your USB dongle, and it plays the game! Heck, Microsoft could also make one, and they could compete on game titles... Game consoles already exist.
How would this have solved the DRM issue at hand here ? People who played the shareware and decided to buy the full game would still have no game to play right now. You think because it's shareware, that there would be no DRM on the full game ?
That's why there's Java and swing! (let the moderation wars begin...)
Windows 95 release didn't ship with Internet Explorer. You're thinking of NT 4.0, which came with Internet Explorer 2.0 (the one where downloads would prevent you from switching web page). Windows 95 began shipping with a browser only in its OSR A revision, which was a OEM release only. The boxed version never got updated.
Because a lot of rich-text editors on Webmails and other web pages made heavy use of innerHTML to present pre-formatted output instead of just BBcode type output. I am guilty of writing such an editor for a website I made once, I cringed at every line of code when it wouldn't display properly in Mozilla.
Windows update doesn't use Internet Explorer anymore, it's been this way since Windows Vista. There's now a fat client that runs on your PC that takes care of updates. So one less reason to even have the Internet Explorer GUI/shortcuts by default.
Maybe you guys are too young, but back in the days, Windows 95 or Windows 3.11 didn't have a Web browser. And we still managed to get on the Internet. ISPs shipped CDs with browsers, or we would copy them over on disquettes (1.44 MB!). Nowadays, with USB flash drive and mass availability of computers, it should be even easier to get a Web browser on your browserless Windows. OEMs can also pre-install it for new computer buyers.
You're sort of right. It costs a bit more to Microsoft to make different flavors, since they have to add code to the installer that detects what type of license you have and install the proper components. It also needs to be tested in different configurations to make sure omitting some component doesn't break others you've installed.