The PPC version of NT (which is no longer supported and has no SPs more recent that 1) is for IBMs PPC boxes, like the RS6000. Some of the Mac clones might run it, but nothing from Apple is likely to be able to handle it.
On the other end of things, have you noticed that the price of the Mac version of Office keeps going up? Last I checked, around here it was about US$500 or so. In that vein, if there ever is a Linux port, I predict it'll be US$1000, which will be just US$100 more than the Mac port by that time. --
I'm not about to take the word of an anonymous poster who is pro-ID very seriously.
Still... On the server side, yes, it's "just an administrative hassle". Yeah, right.
What about the end-user side? You know, where most of the discussion on this originates? CPU ID's are worthless for "anti-piracy"; in that sense they fall right in there with all of the other schemes used in the desktop environment for the last 20 years. How effective have they been?
Of course, this all completely ignores the real question that has people all hot under the collar. What about the potential for abuse in the end-user area?
In a typical week, I use about a half-dozen different machines heavily and a much larger number of them 'a little bit'. If all of them had CPU ID's that just 'had' to be included in any transaction, I can imagine what my use pattern would look like - and anyone who tried to do base some 'targeted mailing' on it would be completely wrong. (This, of course, skips some of the other issues - I'll leave those as an exercise for the reader.) Even if I only used one box - say the closest thing I have to a 'personal' machine, that's changed completely every 18 months for the past few years - again, anything based on that would be completely wrong.
How about one of the other big concerns - encryption? Yes, you use this unique value to seed a secure transaction, and someone else has managed to get it from your machine with, say, a trojan plug-in for your browser, making cracking the transaction that much easier. Not too different from other secure transaction issues, but the same value is used for all additional transactions, making it much more valuable in cracking them. --
Nope. They took MS to court for messing with the definition of Java. This new licensing affects the implementation of Java, which is a rather different thing. --
Slashdot Mirror
It's just your imagination, kid.
--
I had Rhapsody DR2 running on a Powerbook 3400 - there was no support for the PCMCIA slots or Zip drive in the bay, but it ran.
IIRC Mac OS X Server is supposed to have an option to install to "unsupported" hardware.
--
I go for roff and HTML (with an audio CSS) myself, though the tactile aesthetics of large stone letters has its own appeal.
--
On the other end of things, have you noticed that the price of the Mac version of Office keeps going up? Last I checked, around here it was about US$500 or so. In that vein, if there ever is a Linux port, I predict it'll be US$1000, which will be just US$100 more than the Mac port by that time.
--
Still... On the server side, yes, it's "just an administrative hassle". Yeah, right.
What about the end-user side? You know, where most of the discussion on this originates? CPU ID's are worthless for "anti-piracy"; in that sense they fall right in there with all of the other schemes used in the desktop environment for the last 20 years. How effective have they been?
Of course, this all completely ignores the real question that has people all hot under the collar. What about the potential for abuse in the end-user area?
In a typical week, I use about a half-dozen different machines heavily and a much larger number of them 'a little bit'. If all of them had CPU ID's that just 'had' to be included in any transaction, I can imagine what my use pattern would look like - and anyone who tried to do base some 'targeted mailing' on it would be completely wrong. (This, of course, skips some of the other issues - I'll leave those as an exercise for the reader.) Even if I only used one box - say the closest thing I have to a 'personal' machine, that's changed completely every 18 months for the past few years - again, anything based on that would be completely wrong.
How about one of the other big concerns - encryption? Yes, you use this unique value to seed a secure transaction, and someone else has managed to get it from your machine with, say, a trojan plug-in for your browser, making cracking the transaction that much easier. Not too different from other secure transaction issues, but the same value is used for all additional transactions, making it much more valuable in cracking them.
--
Nope. They took MS to court for messing with the definition of Java. This new licensing affects the implementation of Java, which is a rather different thing.
--
Well, my Powerbook 3400 does. As a point of fact, it runs LinuxPPC better than it runs MacOS.
I've given up on trying to keep MacOS going on my Powerbook and have moved what little of it I use off to a few Zip disks and CDs.
--