I would imagine the transition wouldn't be smooth. There are people that just aren't going to think, don't watch the news or whatever but I have to admit I much prefer it when I can easily calculate out prices in my head. I lived in the US and UK and it's always easier to figure out what I'm spending here in the UK. So of course my person preference would be to see it. But then again I'm not in the US so it doesn't really matter to me.
While I'm sure it's rare I have seen the a couple people moan about the cost at the till because it doesn't matter the flyer which is because the person is dense and the "plus sales tax" text is usually in microscopic text. There will always be stupid people and I think there could be some value in advertising with the tax. Shelf labels get printed and replaced more often than sales tax changes anyway.
The ad says $9.99 plus sales tax which they often say anyway and tags used within the store are printed locally. It is doable but no store would consider it unless it's forced on them which I suspect the government does no want. It's easier to hide sale tax spikes from people when they can see up front that the cost has risen.
I understand pricing was different then, my point is more (assuming things stay the same) that you can upgrade quite a few times on a Mac before it reaches the cost of one upgrade on a PC. There is also the fact most of the OS cost will be built into the hardware so when you buy a Mac with its pre-installed OS it is also not strictly true that the cost of that is $30. It's only the additional versions that cost that.
You don't have to upgrade a Mac either. I'm still on Snow leopard and still receive security and regular updates too. I'm sure that will end sooner than it would on XP for example but likewise I would say a lot of MS' problems are that XP support will go on for at least another 2 years from now possibly longer. There's no reason to be on XP in 2014 and what "support" you do get will be minimal because even MS doesn't really want you using XP at that point.
Apple's model is slightly different to Windows. I think it's a bit silly when people complain that they have to pay $30 to upgrade their operating system (forgetting the fact that even top xbox titles are twice that) and comparing it to a service pack that Windows gives away for free. Comparing going from Snow Leopard to Lion to installing a service pack is wrong. I'd even say going from Lion to Mountain Lion isn't the same as a service pack. Mountain Lion isn't fixing a broken system. It's adding additional features to the system. It may still look roughly the same but I'd argue that's because Apple has quite a good user interface and doesn't feel to need to try and re-invent it with every release. Not that Windows XP, for example, was that visually different from Windows 2000 if you used the classic theme which, imo, is necessary giving how ugly the default theme is.
I have a Macbook pro (last version not the one with thunderbolt) and at the time the Macbook Pro was reasonable priced. I could have got a Dell with fairly similar specs, buy an external HD and plug it in to match the Macbook but that drives the price up quite a bit, it's still in a cheap ugly plastic case, thicker and has a much shorter battery life. I could have spend more than the Mac to get a Lenovo that had theSSD included or again buy something similar with an external SSD.
Macs certainly are expensive and in desktops it's much easier to get something cheaper and as good but with laptops that's not the case. Macbooks are more competitive than people think if you actually buy a quality PC laptop. You can of course buy junk, the lid will be loose in a short time, the battery life will be shit and it'll probably be a pain to carry around. I have to commute with my laptop every day so I don't want that and it's invaluable to get 10 hours, sometimes more, out of a single charge.
True, the price has changed and if you want to be technical the majority of the OS price is built into the cost of the machine. My point is though when you buy a mac now, to advanced the OS, it costs $30. Where as if I bought a Vista laptop rather than a macbook the cost to move up to windows is more expensive even if I go with the upgrade option.
When I bought my Macbook Pro I checked out to get a Dell with an SSD and similar spec, the Dell was nearly the same price but it also had a cheap plastic case, half the battery life and it was thicker. So no, it's not that bad of a deal at all thanks to Dell being such a tight ass and charging extra for standard things like Bluetooth. I do like IBM Lenovo laptops but they're pricier than Dells (and better) and again, at least at the time I was looking, I could not get an SSD in a Lenovo laptop in the same price range so I was looking at paying an few hundred on top for a separate SSD to put in and throw away a perfectly fine HD.
A used copy of Windows technically isn't valid and while the risk is low you would risk them saying it's now yours and not authorising it. OEM is fine, for me, as I build my computers but it's irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers. By that logic I could build my own machine and even put a pirated copy of OS X on it but most people are not going to do that.
The OS only ever costs $30. So yes MS charging $260.65 for Windows 7 ultimate and then charging $30 for service packs would be a fucking insult. Where as you have to buy 8.7 versions of OS X to equal the cost of Windows 7 ultimate. That means you could buy version 10.0 Cheetah all the way to 10.7 Lion for the cost of Windows 7. So that is nearly a decades worth of operating systems upgrades for the cost of one microsoft operating system and since you.7 left over that means you also get 70% of the cost of Mountain Lion left over for when it comes out.
So now compare that to the cost of XP, Vista and Windows 7 in the same time frame.
Do you have anything to actually back that up? Because from my experience of Android virtually all apps ask for more permissions than they should actually need so who knows what they're doing with that data. Given how many times Malware had to be removed from the market I'd say there's a good chance that, on average, Android developers have lower morals which is no surprise given that their customer base is less likely to pay for things.
Black is the colour of no light reflecting. Plus it's just not reflecting a spectrum you can see. Which is the whole point of this submission. He can see colours you and I can't.
Compared to who? Sony's first part line-up is infinitely superior to Microsoft's and a strong second to Nintendo. They're responsible for some of the greatest games of recent times (shadow of the colossus, Ico, Uncharted) Their garden is far more open than on the xbox too. For starters you can actually freely surf the net on a PS3. Both the PS3 and PSP are region-free. Their ebook readers are more open than Kindle. But hey go ahead and prove they're more of a walled garden than their competitors otherwise you just look like yet another one of those idiots who never used Linux on their PS3 (or doesn't even own a PS3) but acts like Sony raped their family by taking it away.
You need a cell phone in a densely populated city with phones on every corner yet the guy that's miles away from anyone else or a phone doesn't need a cell phone? That makes complete sense.
The thing is though you can mount ISOs via the GUI in Linux too. There are few errors in the article including saying Ubuntu One came with Ubuntu 11. I've been using for ages on Ubuntu 10 and I believe I even had it with 9. With 9 you had to add it as I recall but it came with 10.
You still generally lose something if you rip a CD and and then sell it on. Of course that only matters if, for example, it's got decent album art and all that so it does only matter if you care about those things. But you also don't take a CD into a shop and get the same price you paid for it. The economics of buying CDs, ripping and then selling just don't work in your favour. Selling something where duplication is free works in your favour even if you get a penny in return.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own MP3s and even be able to sell them. I do view it as your property. I just hope the company is doing this wisely so it doesn't lead to the RIAA from getting the government to take even more of our rights away. If they did just blindly accept any MP3 and don't really care how you obtained it then I would have some issues with that but if they're making a decent effort to stop con-artists then I have no problem with it and yes if they're making the effort then it quite rightly becomes the supposed MP3 owner's responsibility if they find a way around their system.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not too bad and sometimes it's better than Google but when DDG gets it wrong it's really wrong.
I would imagine the transition wouldn't be smooth. There are people that just aren't going to think, don't watch the news or whatever but I have to admit I much prefer it when I can easily calculate out prices in my head. I lived in the US and UK and it's always easier to figure out what I'm spending here in the UK. So of course my person preference would be to see it. But then again I'm not in the US so it doesn't really matter to me.
While I'm sure it's rare I have seen the a couple people moan about the cost at the till because it doesn't matter the flyer which is because the person is dense and the "plus sales tax" text is usually in microscopic text. There will always be stupid people and I think there could be some value in advertising with the tax. Shelf labels get printed and replaced more often than sales tax changes anyway.
I'll buy both the Mac and Linux version to support this way of working and to support Linux gaming.
The ad says $9.99 plus sales tax which they often say anyway and tags used within the store are printed locally. It is doable but no store would consider it unless it's forced on them which I suspect the government does no want. It's easier to hide sale tax spikes from people when they can see up front that the cost has risen.
I understand pricing was different then, my point is more (assuming things stay the same) that you can upgrade quite a few times on a Mac before it reaches the cost of one upgrade on a PC. There is also the fact most of the OS cost will be built into the hardware so when you buy a Mac with its pre-installed OS it is also not strictly true that the cost of that is $30. It's only the additional versions that cost that.
You don't have to upgrade a Mac either. I'm still on Snow leopard and still receive security and regular updates too. I'm sure that will end sooner than it would on XP for example but likewise I would say a lot of MS' problems are that XP support will go on for at least another 2 years from now possibly longer. There's no reason to be on XP in 2014 and what "support" you do get will be minimal because even MS doesn't really want you using XP at that point.
Apple's model is slightly different to Windows. I think it's a bit silly when people complain that they have to pay $30 to upgrade their operating system (forgetting the fact that even top xbox titles are twice that) and comparing it to a service pack that Windows gives away for free. Comparing going from Snow Leopard to Lion to installing a service pack is wrong. I'd even say going from Lion to Mountain Lion isn't the same as a service pack. Mountain Lion isn't fixing a broken system. It's adding additional features to the system. It may still look roughly the same but I'd argue that's because Apple has quite a good user interface and doesn't feel to need to try and re-invent it with every release. Not that Windows XP, for example, was that visually different from Windows 2000 if you used the classic theme which, imo, is necessary giving how ugly the default theme is.
I have a Macbook pro (last version not the one with thunderbolt) and at the time the Macbook Pro was reasonable priced. I could have got a Dell with fairly similar specs, buy an external HD and plug it in to match the Macbook but that drives the price up quite a bit, it's still in a cheap ugly plastic case, thicker and has a much shorter battery life. I could have spend more than the Mac to get a Lenovo that had theSSD included or again buy something similar with an external SSD.
Macs certainly are expensive and in desktops it's much easier to get something cheaper and as good but with laptops that's not the case. Macbooks are more competitive than people think if you actually buy a quality PC laptop. You can of course buy junk, the lid will be loose in a short time, the battery life will be shit and it'll probably be a pain to carry around. I have to commute with my laptop every day so I don't want that and it's invaluable to get 10 hours, sometimes more, out of a single charge.
True, the price has changed and if you want to be technical the majority of the OS price is built into the cost of the machine. My point is though when you buy a mac now, to advanced the OS, it costs $30. Where as if I bought a Vista laptop rather than a macbook the cost to move up to windows is more expensive even if I go with the upgrade option.
When I bought my Macbook Pro I checked out to get a Dell with an SSD and similar spec, the Dell was nearly the same price but it also had a cheap plastic case, half the battery life and it was thicker. So no, it's not that bad of a deal at all thanks to Dell being such a tight ass and charging extra for standard things like Bluetooth. I do like IBM Lenovo laptops but they're pricier than Dells (and better) and again, at least at the time I was looking, I could not get an SSD in a Lenovo laptop in the same price range so I was looking at paying an few hundred on top for a separate SSD to put in and throw away a perfectly fine HD.
A used copy of Windows technically isn't valid and while the risk is low you would risk them saying it's now yours and not authorising it. OEM is fine, for me, as I build my computers but it's irrelevant to the vast majority of consumers. By that logic I could build my own machine and even put a pirated copy of OS X on it but most people are not going to do that.
What does iOS have to do with OS X?
The OS only ever costs $30. So yes MS charging $260.65 for Windows 7 ultimate and then charging $30 for service packs would be a fucking insult. Where as you have to buy 8.7 versions of OS X to equal the cost of Windows 7 ultimate. That means you could buy version 10.0 Cheetah all the way to 10.7 Lion for the cost of Windows 7. So that is nearly a decades worth of operating systems upgrades for the cost of one microsoft operating system and since you .7 left over that means you also get 70% of the cost of Mountain Lion left over for when it comes out.
So now compare that to the cost of XP, Vista and Windows 7 in the same time frame.
They don't wait 5 years and completely break the shit out of everything so it doesn't matter.
Sure if the major version didn't cost an arm and a leg in the first instance.
Do you have anything to actually back that up? Because from my experience of Android virtually all apps ask for more permissions than they should actually need so who knows what they're doing with that data. Given how many times Malware had to be removed from the market I'd say there's a good chance that, on average, Android developers have lower morals which is no surprise given that their customer base is less likely to pay for things.
Black is the colour of no light reflecting. Plus it's just not reflecting a spectrum you can see. Which is the whole point of this submission. He can see colours you and I can't.
Sony and the Playstation have nothing to do with xbox live, you nonce,
Compared to who? Sony's first part line-up is infinitely superior to Microsoft's and a strong second to Nintendo. They're responsible for some of the greatest games of recent times (shadow of the colossus, Ico, Uncharted) Their garden is far more open than on the xbox too. For starters you can actually freely surf the net on a PS3. Both the PS3 and PSP are region-free. Their ebook readers are more open than Kindle. But hey go ahead and prove they're more of a walled garden than their competitors otherwise you just look like yet another one of those idiots who never used Linux on their PS3 (or doesn't even own a PS3) but acts like Sony raped their family by taking it away.
You need a cell phone in a densely populated city with phones on every corner yet the guy that's miles away from anyone else or a phone doesn't need a cell phone? That makes complete sense.
Yes because you should have to choose either a healthy environment or being cut off from civilisation and excluded from every modern innovation.
It is apparently a big deal because people in here are making it out anything not handed to people on a silver platter is impossible to do.
The thing is though you can mount ISOs via the GUI in Linux too. There are few errors in the article including saying Ubuntu One came with Ubuntu 11. I've been using for ages on Ubuntu 10 and I believe I even had it with 9. With 9 you had to add it as I recall but it came with 10.
It's amazing we got past the DOS era with the impossibility of command line operations.
looooooool
Someone has to complain in every comments section so it's his duty to stay.
You still generally lose something if you rip a CD and and then sell it on. Of course that only matters if, for example, it's got decent album art and all that so it does only matter if you care about those things. But you also don't take a CD into a shop and get the same price you paid for it. The economics of buying CDs, ripping and then selling just don't work in your favour. Selling something where duplication is free works in your favour even if you get a penny in return.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to own MP3s and even be able to sell them. I do view it as your property. I just hope the company is doing this wisely so it doesn't lead to the RIAA from getting the government to take even more of our rights away. If they did just blindly accept any MP3 and don't really care how you obtained it then I would have some issues with that but if they're making a decent effort to stop con-artists then I have no problem with it and yes if they're making the effort then it quite rightly becomes the supposed MP3 owner's responsibility if they find a way around their system.
I've seen better trolls.