trade press talking about Microsoft's product that will never be instead of competitors products which are shipping now
I don't think it's any coincidence that Apple began selling 10.3 last Friday. Maybe paranoid, but MSFT has done it before, and not just to Apple. What's more amazing, is why do they care enough to bother? Is it just force of habit, or do they actually feel that Apple may yet pose some threat? I think it's more likely the former, actually.
Calling this a no-brainer seems an understatement.
Well, you missed 10% off everything in the store (so I hear). So, if you only wanted Panther, that's no big deal; but if you were set to buy a G5 + LCD going to the Apple Store was a good time to do it.:)
The Apple Store where I worked gave both Ed prices and Gov't employee prices. The policy changed in the last year or so; if it's been awhile, you might check again. Or, it may have been a special for only our store--but I don't think so.
This reminds me of an odd issue seen in some Apple Repair shops. If an owner of a certain breed of iMac attempted to install OS X 10.2 before updating their firmware, you would get no video on reboot. You couldn't boot to OF to change to boot to OS 9, either, I don't believe; but you could attach an external monitor, which worked correctly, update the firmware, and then things would be hunky dory again. You could install 10.2, and the built-in monitor would work fine.
Does anyone in the know care to describe how this particular effect was created by simply installing 10.2? We were pretty stymied in the shop until we hit on it.
I think that you forgot 2a: "the usual suspects" will maintain that you shouldn't use Linux, not only because it's dangerous, but because if it does something bad to your computer, there's NoBody To Hold Accountable. Because Mandrake isn't in a position to pay for drives, they have noone themselves to fire, and the implication will be left hanging that if software from "the usual suspects" had caused such an issue, that they would have accepted responsibility.
Of course they wouldn't either, but then it wouldn't be FUD...
Straight from the horse's mouth. Frankly, I can't imagine why it's working for you--apparently G4s have a "little-endian" compatiblilty mode that G5s lack, that VPC depended on. Microsoft said so. Would they have lied? Been mistaken? Are you mistaken about how it's working? Now I can't wait until Monday to test it on my own work machine.
I'm going to call BullShit on you, sir. Are you going to tell me that you didn't purchase Microsoft products during the Monopolistic Practices hearings? For awhile it looked like there was a good chance that Microsoft was going to be split. That judgment was even entered, I believe, but was overturned on appeal. Certainly the future shape of Microsoft was in doubt for some time.
Frankly, I'm tired of hardware manufacturers complaining about MSFT. If they didn't want to be 0wn3d by Microsoft, they shouldn't have handed them their monopoly status, by, for instance, accepting Microsoft's terms on dual-installs. Now that MSFT has them by the short-n-curlies, they start whinging on? Tough luck, and MSFT could care less--they'll just negotiate with someone else, since the hardware is a commodity and therefore any given manufacturer is easily replaced by another one that wants to play ball.
All that time that the manufacturers were getting discounts and special arrangements with MSFT, to whose benefit did they think those benefits were designed to serve? Did they really think that MSFT was giving them a 90% discount on the retail cost of the OS, yet MSFT wouldn't come out the winner in the long run?
Listen up, Dell--think you can't be replaced by manufacturers out of China, or India, for 75%? And then what are you going to do--sell Linux? You already helped kill that market by giving in to MSFT.
This is what makes Palladium a certainty--MSFT will simply use any manufacturer that complies with their wishes, and ignore the feedback that Dell/HP is passing on from their customers.
The biggest question--I'm assuming that VPC still sells better to Mac users than Win users, anybody know?--is whether VPC 2004 will run on G5s. These screenshots are apparently of a VPC for Win build.
I'm guessing no--VPC for the G5 is apparently going to be a huge undertaking. It remains to be seen if MSFT is willing to do it at all.
Do people really buy this for Win? Why on earth? If you have XP would you want to install a virtual 2000 or 98? Maybe for development reasons? Maybe for Linux--but now even that is deprecated. What's MSFT's strategy for VPC? Could it be that they just wanted to make it that much harder for Mac users to interoperate, or is that simply tin-foil hat reasoning?
Excuse me, Mr. Asshole, but the only way for me to know the service is no longer on is for me to say "Hmm, I should have gotten a message by now... what the fuck?!?" Thank you for deciding for me, and then not telling me, that my settings should be changed.
I agree. And when you need that service, but can't figure out how to turn it back on, who do you call for support? Will AOL support phone staffers be prepared to recognize the symptoms and then tell me how to do this? Do I need to call Dell? Microsoft? Who?
Here's an example of someone who might need this but not know how to turn it on: someone who uses AOL for personal use, but then uses a VPN to telecommute. P'raps the telecommuter corporate depends on this?
Maybe the next MS patch will break the useability of the AOL client--then who's fault is it?
Hope you're right. More likely, whatever Office 2003 uses to authenticate that you're the intended recipient of a DRM word doc isn't going to work with OO. Once the doc is locked, OO isn't going to have the key to open it.
And, since it's DRM, it's going to harder to reverse-engineer that key, than, say, the document format. And, even if it is reversed, I wonder if it'll be a DMCA violation.
Not a big issue; you, of course, don't have to lock your documents. This time. Next version of Office, watch for the DRM feature to be 'on' by default; you have to turn it off, but it'll just take a preference selection. Version after that, two versions from now, DRM "feature" is on all the time, and takes arcane hacks to turn it off.
So I'm curious--do you use a Mac for that? If so, are you willing to describe more about what you do/where you work? I know that Macs aren't the only things with FW, but they're most of what I see actually using it...
You speak as if you have experience with this matters. So let me ask you: isn't there a risk of becoming the next Mitnick, and spending 5 years of your life in jail? Or is that considered just too remote a possibility, like winning the lottery? Or is it not considered at all, either because it is remote, or because criminals habitually do not have long-term vision to evaluate their odds over the course of a career?
I find it interesting that the back of the 'zine 2600 includes ads from "hackers", purportedly in jail, who purport to want to have an email friend with which to converse. Assuming that they're legit, at least some folks are going to jail long enough to get wistful.
I'm at the moment halfway through lawschool, and one thing I have learned is this: getting justice done is expensive.
I guess I should be more surprised that that's the "one" thing you've learned. I guess I might have expected that you'd have learned something about the law before learning how to bill for your services--but then maybe I shouldn't have, really.
That post just gives me the shudders. Or maybe it's the +2 insightful?
Well, I suspect the Russian Mafia will have one less customer after the Sicilians and the Chinese learn that you consider them to be boobs. Which begs the question: does the Mafia take offense to being called sleazy criminals?
I think it's more likely to kill HD. For me, at least. Neither HD nor TiVo has achieved anything like "broad market penetration" so it's tough to determine who will win that battle. Essentially, it's a decision between convenience vs. quality--but the TiVo works with things out now, whereas HD requires new gear.
The requirement of a.NET passport account probably means that the key for the decryption is held by MS directly. This is no surprise. However:
Can corp customers manage the keys themselves, in essence being their own.NET passport server? I'm unaware if this opportunity exists in the.NET framework.
If the answer to the above is yes, would it prevent someone outside the corp network from being able to authenticate against the corp.NET server, and thereby prohibited from reading the email?
If the network becomes unavailable, will I not be able to get my auth key, and thereby not be able to read email on my local HD? Or once unlocked does the email remain unlocked?
I'm never, ever, going to use a "MS viewer" for my email. If they expect this service to catch on, they would implement the key exchange as an open standard, that alternate email viewers could write plugins for. That's bad enough--but requiring a proprietary viewer? Emails sent to me requiring the use of this will be bounced back as "undeliverable".
Not to mention, such email will probably not be scannable for attached viruses (presumably the entire email is encrypted, including attachments)--so either virus checkers will have to bounce them automatically, or let an unscanned email through their gateway. Great.
In fact, that last is almost sure to kill this idea stillborn, once the threat is realized. Would you allow a certain percentage of your email through without being checked? Or would you bounce it back, first?
Hm. But it could still be, say, a unique identifier on the processor? The end result would be the same to you, but for other folks who could replace their NICs it would be a different story.
Here is that form. You sound as if you're sure it's tied to the MAC address--is that a guess, or something you know? What if I have two NICs? And, on a multiuser system, is one account/computer authorized, or does authorizing iTunes in one user authorize the entire computer? What about two different boot volumes on the same computer? Those are issues that, frankly, I just never cared to explore, but now I'm curious.
How does iTunes know that it's on 2 machines? Does iTunes talk to Apple via the Internet the first time you play any AAC file you haven't played before on that machine?
Before you purchase music, you are asked for a Apple Store ID. When provided, it authorizes that computer to play those files. Creating a new ID is part of the process of purchasing. When you go to another computer, you provide the same credentials (without necessarily having to actually purchase something on the second computer); at that point, the second computer checks with Apple to learn how many other computers have been authorized. If numAuth=orLessThan3, then that computer is allowed to play those files. I don't know how often iTunes updates it's auth status; ie, is it once/lauch? Once per timeFrame? Once per song play? For instance, I dunno what happens if you authorize a computer and then disconnect it from the net, forever. Also, I don't believe that you could authorize computer C to play files from computers A and B, when A and B have different auth themselves: one authorization/computer/account login.
What if, at some point in the future, I've now gone to my third home PC and my third job. Does that mean I can never play that music on the third work PC? Is there a way I can tell Apple that I no longer need to listen to the music on the old machines, but need new machines authorized instead?
Actually, you can authorize up to 3 computers (Mac or PC). If you have access to the machine, you can "deauthorize" that computer easily from the same place where you gave it the initial credentials; essentially numAuth is simply deprecated. If you no longer have access to that computer, for instance the HD dies or is stolen, etc, Apple provides a form to request a deauth here. They promise 4 hour response to such a request; it was added since the iTMS was rolled out for the Mac, as it's absence was noted. So, I haven't heard what is required to deauth a computer with such a mechanism, or if there is actually someone on the other end "picking up the phone."
Slashdot Mirror
How many people read the headline as a way to extend the self-expire date of SoBig and the Blaster worm?
Need...more...coffee.
trade press talking about Microsoft's product that will never be instead of competitors products which are shipping now
I don't think it's any coincidence that Apple began selling 10.3 last Friday. Maybe paranoid, but MSFT has done it before, and not just to Apple. What's more amazing, is why do they care enough to bother? Is it just force of habit, or do they actually feel that Apple may yet pose some threat? I think it's more likely the former, actually.
Calling this a no-brainer seems an understatement.
Well, you missed 10% off everything in the store (so I hear). So, if you only wanted Panther, that's no big deal; but if you were set to buy a G5 + LCD going to the Apple Store was a good time to do it.
The Apple Store where I worked gave both Ed prices and Gov't employee prices. The policy changed in the last year or so; if it's been awhile, you might check again. Or, it may have been a special for only our store--but I don't think so.
It only applies to Apple branded gear, however.
This reminds me of an odd issue seen in some Apple Repair shops. If an owner of a certain breed of iMac attempted to install OS X 10.2 before updating their firmware, you would get no video on reboot. You couldn't boot to OF to change to boot to OS 9, either, I don't believe; but you could attach an external monitor, which worked correctly, update the firmware, and then things would be hunky dory again. You could install 10.2, and the built-in monitor would work fine.
Does anyone in the know care to describe how this particular effect was created by simply installing 10.2? We were pretty stymied in the shop until we hit on it.
I think that you forgot 2a: "the usual suspects" will maintain that you shouldn't use Linux, not only because it's dangerous, but because if it does something bad to your computer, there's NoBody To Hold Accountable. Because Mandrake isn't in a position to pay for drives, they have noone themselves to fire, and the implication will be left hanging that if software from "the usual suspects" had caused such an issue, that they would have accepted responsibility.
Of course they wouldn't either, but then it wouldn't be FUD...
So, do you indeed have VPC installed on a G5? If so, have you launched it successfully? That would be interesting news. Feel free to reply in private.
Straight from the horse's mouth. Frankly, I can't imagine why it's working for you--apparently G4s have a "little-endian" compatiblilty mode that G5s lack, that VPC depended on. Microsoft said so. Would they have lied? Been mistaken? Are you mistaken about how it's working? Now I can't wait until Monday to test it on my own work machine.
I'm going to call BullShit on you, sir. Are you going to tell me that you didn't purchase Microsoft products during the Monopolistic Practices hearings? For awhile it looked like there was a good chance that Microsoft was going to be split. That judgment was even entered, I believe, but was overturned on appeal. Certainly the future shape of Microsoft was in doubt for some time.
Frankly, I'm tired of hardware manufacturers complaining about MSFT. If they didn't want to be 0wn3d by Microsoft, they shouldn't have handed them their monopoly status, by, for instance, accepting Microsoft's terms on dual-installs. Now that MSFT has them by the short-n-curlies, they start whinging on? Tough luck, and MSFT could care less--they'll just negotiate with someone else, since the hardware is a commodity and therefore any given manufacturer is easily replaced by another one that wants to play ball.
All that time that the manufacturers were getting discounts and special arrangements with MSFT, to whose benefit did they think those benefits were designed to serve? Did they really think that MSFT was giving them a 90% discount on the retail cost of the OS, yet MSFT wouldn't come out the winner in the long run?
Listen up, Dell--think you can't be replaced by manufacturers out of China, or India, for 75%? And then what are you going to do--sell Linux? You already helped kill that market by giving in to MSFT.
This is what makes Palladium a certainty--MSFT will simply use any manufacturer that complies with their wishes, and ignore the feedback that Dell/HP is passing on from their customers.
The biggest question--I'm assuming that VPC still sells better to Mac users than Win users, anybody know?--is whether VPC 2004 will run on G5s. These screenshots are apparently of a VPC for Win build.
I'm guessing no--VPC for the G5 is apparently going to be a huge undertaking. It remains to be seen if MSFT is willing to do it at all.
Do people really buy this for Win? Why on earth? If you have XP would you want to install a virtual 2000 or 98? Maybe for development reasons? Maybe for Linux--but now even that is deprecated. What's MSFT's strategy for VPC? Could it be that they just wanted to make it that much harder for Mac users to interoperate, or is that simply tin-foil hat reasoning?
Excuse me, Mr. Asshole, but the only way for me to know the service is no longer on is for me to say "Hmm, I should have gotten a message by now... what the fuck?!?" Thank you for deciding for me, and then not telling me, that my settings should be changed.
I agree. And when you need that service, but can't figure out how to turn it back on, who do you call for support? Will AOL support phone staffers be prepared to recognize the symptoms and then tell me how to do this? Do I need to call Dell? Microsoft? Who?
Here's an example of someone who might need this but not know how to turn it on: someone who uses AOL for personal use, but then uses a VPN to telecommute. P'raps the telecommuter corporate depends on this?
Maybe the next MS patch will break the useability of the AOL client--then who's fault is it?
Hope you're right. More likely, whatever Office 2003 uses to authenticate that you're the intended recipient of a DRM word doc isn't going to work with OO. Once the doc is locked, OO isn't going to have the key to open it.
And, since it's DRM, it's going to harder to reverse-engineer that key, than, say, the document format. And, even if it is reversed, I wonder if it'll be a DMCA violation.
Not a big issue; you, of course, don't have to lock your documents. This time. Next version of Office, watch for the DRM feature to be 'on' by default; you have to turn it off, but it'll just take a preference selection. Version after that, two versions from now, DRM "feature" is on all the time, and takes arcane hacks to turn it off.
Bet on it.
So I'm curious--do you use a Mac for that? If so, are you willing to describe more about what you do/where you work? I know that Macs aren't the only things with FW, but they're most of what I see actually using it...
You're welcome to reply off-list if you prefer.
A "computer lawyer"? Does that look something like:
Hello! It looks like you're trying to stake a patent claim! Would you like me to:
Kidding aside, is that actual specialty of law now?
You speak as if you have experience with this matters. So let me ask you: isn't there a risk of becoming the next Mitnick, and spending 5 years of your life in jail? Or is that considered just too remote a possibility, like winning the lottery? Or is it not considered at all, either because it is remote, or because criminals habitually do not have long-term vision to evaluate their odds over the course of a career?
I find it interesting that the back of the 'zine 2600 includes ads from "hackers", purportedly in jail, who purport to want to have an email friend with which to converse. Assuming that they're legit, at least some folks are going to jail long enough to get wistful.
I'm at the moment halfway through lawschool, and one thing I have learned is this: getting justice done is expensive.
I guess I should be more surprised that that's the "one" thing you've learned. I guess I might have expected that you'd have learned something about the law before learning how to bill for your services--but then maybe I shouldn't have, really.
That post just gives me the shudders. Or maybe it's the +2 insightful?
Well, I suspect the Russian Mafia will have one less customer after the Sicilians and the Chinese learn that you consider them to be boobs. Which begs the question: does the Mafia take offense to being called sleazy criminals?
I think it's more likely to kill HD. For me, at least. Neither HD nor TiVo has achieved anything like "broad market penetration" so it's tough to determine who will win that battle. Essentially, it's a decision between convenience vs. quality--but the TiVo works with things out now, whereas HD requires new gear.
My bet's on TiVo.
My thoughts exactly. I look forward to seeing the salesman's face when I refuse to purchase anything that doesn't work with my TiVO.
The quality may be great, etc, but using a TiVO is more important to me than quality--I already sacrifice quality on the TiVO, actually.
And if shows broadcast in HD only? Well, there's 4 other channels with 24x7 programming on them. I guess I'll just switch channels.
Not exactly the effect they were hoping for, I don't imagine? I think this just killed HD dead.
The requirement of a
In fact, that last is almost sure to kill this idea stillborn, once the threat is realized. Would you allow a certain percentage of your email through without being checked? Or would you bounce it back, first?
Hm. But it could still be, say, a unique identifier on the processor? The end result would be the same to you, but for other folks who could replace their NICs it would be a different story.
Here is that form. You sound as if you're sure it's tied to the MAC address--is that a guess, or something you know? What if I have two NICs? And, on a multiuser system, is one account/computer authorized, or does authorizing iTunes in one user authorize the entire computer? What about two different boot volumes on the same computer? Those are issues that, frankly, I just never cared to explore, but now I'm curious.
How does iTunes know that it's on 2 machines? Does iTunes talk to Apple via the Internet the first time you play any AAC file you haven't played before on that machine?
Before you purchase music, you are asked for a Apple Store ID. When provided, it authorizes that computer to play those files. Creating a new ID is part of the process of purchasing. When you go to another computer, you provide the same credentials (without necessarily having to actually purchase something on the second computer); at that point, the second computer checks with Apple to learn how many other computers have been authorized. If numAuth=orLessThan3, then that computer is allowed to play those files. I don't know how often iTunes updates it's auth status; ie, is it once/lauch? Once per timeFrame? Once per song play? For instance, I dunno what happens if you authorize a computer and then disconnect it from the net, forever. Also, I don't believe that you could authorize computer C to play files from computers A and B, when A and B have different auth themselves: one authorization/computer/account login.
What if, at some point in the future, I've now gone to my third home PC and my third job. Does that mean I can never play that music on the third work PC? Is there a way I can tell Apple that I no longer need to listen to the music on the old machines, but need new machines authorized instead?
Actually, you can authorize up to 3 computers (Mac or PC). If you have access to the machine, you can "deauthorize" that computer easily from the same place where you gave it the initial credentials; essentially numAuth is simply deprecated. If you no longer have access to that computer, for instance the HD dies or is stolen, etc, Apple provides a form to request a deauth here. They promise 4 hour response to such a request; it was added since the iTMS was rolled out for the Mac, as it's absence was noted. So, I haven't heard what is required to deauth a computer with such a mechanism, or if there is actually someone on the other end "picking up the phone."
Also, AppleWorks for Windows. Although, to be honest, I've never actually seen a copy in person. I heard that someone bought a copy once...