1. OS X upgrade discs may only be installed on systems with a valid license for a previous version of the system.
2. Windows upgrade discs may only be installed on systems with a valid license for a previous version of the system.
To further address your argument, Apple does, in fact, sell a "full" version at a higher price. I am sure you are familiar with the statement "Macs are more expensive than PCs." But have you considered why Macs are more expensive? OS X is a big part of that additional cost.
Remember: Full and upgrade pricing is a matter of licenses, not software locks.
With that said, if you want to talk about software locks, the vast majority of PCs will not run OS X out of the box. It is called a Hackintosh for a reason. If someone found a way to remove the upgrade check in a Windows install, should we consider the reduced-price copy of Windows the full version?
If they mention on the package that it "requires OSX 10.5" or similar, then I understand.
OS X upgrade-priced discs have always been quite clear that they require Apple branded hardware. Assuming you comply to those terms, it is impossible for you to install the software without also having previously purchased a full-priced copy of MacOS (hint: it was hidden in the price of the hardware).
This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft does with all of their upgrade packages. The only difference is the authentication mechanism.
It is an upgrade as far as pricing goes. You can install Windows 7 Upgrade on any system you wish as well, but that doesn't mean it is within the spirit of the licence Microsoft gave you.
Quartz actually does not do the same job. You cannot execute Postscript code within it, for example. But Quartz does take many ideas from Display Postscript, including using a subset of Postscript features; those available within the PDF format. Maybe "inspired by" is a better way to put it.
If the application is the server, and the display is the client, then a web browser running in X is a server. Does that make the HTTP server the client?
That is a strange way to think about client/server interaction. Even a web browser might execute some Javascript logic where the results are sent to a web server to generate a graphic. Does that mean in that case the web browser is the server and the web server is the client?
Who says the hardware is overpriced? Maybe Apple charges $499 for OS X itself? If there were OS X for the PC, I am sure it would be in that price range. That would put the Mini at around $100. A pretty decent price for the hardware, no?
I believe you are off on your price considerations. $129 only gets you an upgrade copy, roughly the same as what Microsoft charges for a Windows upgrade.
Yes, I know, unlike Windows it does not check to make sure it is an upgrade. But, like Windows, the license restricts its use to those who have already purchased the "full version." It is upgrade pricing. While only Apple knows for sure, I think we can assume that "full versions" of OS X are closer to that of Windows, if not more.
Apple does not sell OS X without accompanying hardware. You can grab an OS X upgrade disc for a nominal fee, but it is just that, an upgrade version.
If you want Apple to play fair, you must also play far. "Full version" copies of OS X start at around $599. Not a bad price when you think about it. It is only a couple of hundred dollars more than Windows 7 Ultimate (Full version) and it comes with a free Mac Mini!
According to that website, as long as your iPod is connected to your car stereo, there is no need for a mount. I also noticed that the exact wording of the law is absent from the website, which seems rather odd, and makes it difficult to verify the claim.
Unless your vehicle is considered a place of business (like a highway tractor, for instance) in which case it is against the law to smoke a cigarette while driving in Ontario.
On the 43rd parallel, which isn't even very far north as far as winter is concerned:
- In the winter of 2000 it started snowing in mid-November and it did not stop until February. - In the winter of 2004, daytimes highs hovered at no more than 30 below zero for several weeks. - In the winter of 2007, the snowbanks could easily touch the powerlines. - Fifteen feet of snow was the official recorded accumulation amount for the winter of 2008.
I mean, as an avid fan of winter, those just sound like ideal conditions to me. I can see how some would consider them to be hard winters though. My father says that modern winters are not unlike those of the past, we just have better snow removal equipment.
Given that posts are ordered chronologically, the only way he could have posted it before would be to go back in time. Last time I checked, nobody had found a solution to that problem yet.
So basically what you are describing is Internet Explorer? You have the rendering engine built as a standalone control that anyone can utilize in their (Windows) application. Internet Explorer itself is really nothing more than an interface built around the rendering control.
WebKit has similar properties. It is not tied to any one interface and has the added benefit of being open source which has lead to its popularity across many different browsers and integration into many interface toolkits.
Granted, there is no standard allowing different engines to be swapped in. But the separation concept is not new at all and already being used by some of the most popular browsers out there.
It's not a full browser. It's just WebKit and V8. All of your network calls and any other related system functions are all passed back to IE to do the heavy lifting.
From an instability and memory footprint point of view, it's really no different than hosting, say, Flash inside IE. Flash essentially is it's own "web browser".
Slashdot Mirror
Napster? It was, technically, no different than what Google is doing.
I fail to understand your argument:
1. OS X upgrade discs may only be installed on systems with a valid license for a previous version of the system.
2. Windows upgrade discs may only be installed on systems with a valid license for a previous version of the system.
To further address your argument, Apple does, in fact, sell a "full" version at a higher price. I am sure you are familiar with the statement "Macs are more expensive than PCs." But have you considered why Macs are more expensive? OS X is a big part of that additional cost.
Remember: Full and upgrade pricing is a matter of licenses, not software locks.
With that said, if you want to talk about software locks, the vast majority of PCs will not run OS X out of the box. It is called a Hackintosh for a reason. If someone found a way to remove the upgrade check in a Windows install, should we consider the reduced-price copy of Windows the full version?
OS X upgrade-priced discs have always been quite clear that they require Apple branded hardware. Assuming you comply to those terms, it is impossible for you to install the software without also having previously purchased a full-priced copy of MacOS (hint: it was hidden in the price of the hardware).
This is exactly the same thing that Microsoft does with all of their upgrade packages. The only difference is the authentication mechanism.
It is an upgrade as far as pricing goes. You can install Windows 7 Upgrade on any system you wish as well, but that doesn't mean it is within the spirit of the licence Microsoft gave you.
Quartz actually does not do the same job. You cannot execute Postscript code within it, for example. But Quartz does take many ideas from Display Postscript, including using a subset of Postscript features; those available within the PDF format. Maybe "inspired by" is a better way to put it.
If the application is the server, and the display is the client, then a web browser running in X is a server. Does that make the HTTP server the client?
That is a strange way to think about client/server interaction. Even a web browser might execute some Javascript logic where the results are sent to a web server to generate a graphic. Does that mean in that case the web browser is the server and the web server is the client?
This is a pretty ingenious solution to the bulk problem of the UK plug: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6DvjKkGT6s
Who says the hardware is overpriced? Maybe Apple charges $499 for OS X itself? If there were OS X for the PC, I am sure it would be in that price range. That would put the Mini at around $100. A pretty decent price for the hardware, no?
I believe you are off on your price considerations. $129 only gets you an upgrade copy, roughly the same as what Microsoft charges for a Windows upgrade.
Yes, I know, unlike Windows it does not check to make sure it is an upgrade. But, like Windows, the license restricts its use to those who have already purchased the "full version." It is upgrade pricing. While only Apple knows for sure, I think we can assume that "full versions" of OS X are closer to that of Windows, if not more.
Apple does not sell OS X without accompanying hardware. You can grab an OS X upgrade disc for a nominal fee, but it is just that, an upgrade version.
If you want Apple to play fair, you must also play far. "Full version" copies of OS X start at around $599. Not a bad price when you think about it. It is only a couple of hundred dollars more than Windows 7 Ultimate (Full version) and it comes with a free Mac Mini!
If the commercials are better than the TV show you are watching, why are you watching that TV show in the first place?
Microformats allow HTML to describe the data. But you are right, it is not the right tool for storing data.
According to that website, as long as your iPod is connected to your car stereo, there is no need for a mount. I also noticed that the exact wording of the law is absent from the website, which seems rather odd, and makes it difficult to verify the claim.
Unless your vehicle is considered a place of business (like a highway tractor, for instance) in which case it is against the law to smoke a cigarette while driving in Ontario.
Yeah, well I have a laptop (G4 Powerbook) that won't start with a battery. Not sure what happened to cause that problem.
It is called marketing. It is how an artist becomes rich and famous.
Macs cost more because of OS X. Microsoft gives Windows to OEMs for practically nothing.
How do you define a hard winter?
On the 43rd parallel, which isn't even very far north as far as winter is concerned:
- In the winter of 2000 it started snowing in mid-November and it did not stop until February.
- In the winter of 2004, daytimes highs hovered at no more than 30 below zero for several weeks.
- In the winter of 2007, the snowbanks could easily touch the powerlines.
- Fifteen feet of snow was the official recorded accumulation amount for the winter of 2008.
I mean, as an avid fan of winter, those just sound like ideal conditions to me. I can see how some would consider them to be hard winters though. My father says that modern winters are not unlike those of the past, we just have better snow removal equipment.
Given that posts are ordered chronologically, the only way he could have posted it before would be to go back in time. Last time I checked, nobody had found a solution to that problem yet.
So basically what you are describing is Internet Explorer? You have the rendering engine built as a standalone control that anyone can utilize in their (Windows) application. Internet Explorer itself is really nothing more than an interface built around the rendering control.
WebKit has similar properties. It is not tied to any one interface and has the added benefit of being open source which has lead to its popularity across many different browsers and integration into many interface toolkits.
Granted, there is no standard allowing different engines to be swapped in. But the separation concept is not new at all and already being used by some of the most popular browsers out there.
It's not a full browser. It's just WebKit and V8. All of your network calls and any other related system functions are all passed back to IE to do the heavy lifting.
From an instability and memory footprint point of view, it's really no different than hosting, say, Flash inside IE. Flash essentially is it's own "web browser".
The website has to explicitly ask IE to use WebKit/V8. Your cooperate intranets certainly won't be doing that.
In other words, just use Google Chrome itself. That way you do not have to worry about the additional IE vulnerabilities.
The operating systems behind many abacuses have since passed away. May they rest in peace.