When Microsoft uses its monopoly power in operating systems to take over other markets, that's against the law. The courts at one point called them on it (and then totally failed to follow through).
Corporate welfare for market losers? You're being ridiculous. When any one corporation controls the market, it's not a market anymore. Not a FREE market, anyhow.
What about data structures that are inherently non-hierarchial? MP3's are the perfect example. There are several taxonomies that could be applied, and although you may prefer one or the other, there's not an inherent superiority.
Some people like artist-album-track. Some people prefer genre-based hierarchies (which are really tough to model and maintain). You could organize chronologically.
Or, you could keep everything in a relatively flat folder hierarchy, and then apply queries to slice the collection however you want. Hey, I should patent that. I think I'll call it "iTunes".
Heck, I could generalize that to my whole file system! Or my mail client! This is getting good. I'll call the file system search function "Spotlight", and the mail client "Mail"! Now I need something catchy to call the whole thing...I know! Mac OS X Tiger! I'm going to make millions!
Well, if your mate Dave says it, it must be true! I can't imagine what I was thinking when I made MY purchasing decision.
I use a wireless network and a cordless mouse. I take my laptop (which has never, ever stopped itself after a few minutes, unless I shut the lid and it goes happily to sleep) with me most of the time when I leave the house.
Get what works for you, and don't piss about what you think should work for other people. Just because your mom made an unwise decision doesn't mean anybody who makes the same decision is unwise.
Applications that run on a 486 were probably written on 486's, and still run on modern hardware. Sometimes. The transition to the NT codebase on Windows broke LOTS of stuff.
Applications written for PPC MacOS X will probably work fine on Intel MacOS X because there is apparently a pretty good emulation layer. It will certainly not be foolproof, but it'll likely be pretty good.
Applications written for your PPC MacOS X box will continue to run on your box until a) the end of time or b) hardware failure, whichever comes first.
Applications written specifically for Intel MacOS X are far in the future.
Again: If you bought your computer with the assumption that it would never be obsolete, you were silly. Of course, "obsolete" is rather a silly idea, since your computer will continue to do the same stuff that it does now pretty much always. No, you may not be able to run software from 2009 on your current machine, but that is a pretty unrealistic expectation any way you slice it.
Yes, some day at some point in the future, your computer will no longer be compatible with new software. This is not a shocking revelation. It happens all the time, and it's not going to happen to you very soon.
So, you can either get into a tizzy, or not. You pick.
Yeah, because your computer is magically going to stop working when these new beasts ship.
What, you bought a computer thinking that there WOULDN'T be something better faster and cheaper in a year and a half? What color is the sky on YOUR planet?
Look, I thought that the likelihood of switching to X86 was slightly worse than me winning the lottery, but here it is. I do believe that if anyone can pull it off, Apple can. Despite the doom n' gloom of the poster who apparently had a hell of a time with the prior two transitions (I remember them both as well, and I remember that basically nothing bad happened), Apple has the track record to negotiate this smoothly.
Yes, at some point in the future, your computer won't be supported. Why does this surprise you?
"Apple convinced them to pay $130 for MacOS X, and then $130 every few months after that for the latest 10.x version"
Huh? How long has OSX been out? Four years? With major updates every twelve to eighteen months, that pretty reliably increase the performance of your existing hardware?
OK, you don't think your wife's iMac was a good deal. Doesn't mean I don't think it's a good deal...
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, you think your priorities are somehow better than mine?
There are more of me.
The solution is not clear just because you say so.
"It's not about whether a company arrived at success through deceptive or forceful means, only that it IS successful"
I disagree, and the courts do too. Deceptive and forceful means are not acceptable in a free market.
If I were an individual acquiring wealth by deceptive and forceful means, I'd be a criminal. Same thing with corporations.
When Microsoft uses its monopoly power in operating systems to take over other markets, that's against the law. The courts at one point called them on it (and then totally failed to follow through).
Corporate welfare for market losers? You're being ridiculous. When any one corporation controls the market, it's not a market anymore. Not a FREE market, anyhow.
What about data structures that are inherently non-hierarchial? MP3's are the perfect example. There are several taxonomies that could be applied, and although you may prefer one or the other, there's not an inherent superiority.
Some people like artist-album-track. Some people prefer genre-based hierarchies (which are really tough to model and maintain). You could organize chronologically.
Or, you could keep everything in a relatively flat folder hierarchy, and then apply queries to slice the collection however you want. Hey, I should patent that. I think I'll call it "iTunes".
Heck, I could generalize that to my whole file system! Or my mail client! This is getting good. I'll call the file system search function "Spotlight", and the mail client "Mail"! Now I need something catchy to call the whole thing...I know! Mac OS X Tiger! I'm going to make millions!
"Better yet, instead of the death of folders, why not something which sits alongside side, like som sort of brilliant search capability?"
Yeah, it's called Spotlight, from a company called Apple. Maybe you've heard of them...
No, because those activities limit the freedom of others.
It's not really complicated. More freedom==good. Less freedom==bad.
"at least not by any objective standard."
No, they were proven to be a monopoly by a court of law. What is this "objective standard" to which you refer? Is it in a museum somewhere?
"Microsoft enjoys no protection from the government"
Who protects Microsoft's copyrights? Governments.
"The recent EU mandate that MS offer a version of Windows sans their own media player is repulsive"
Says you.
"Who is the EU or any government body to set the terms by which a company provides its offerings to uncoerced customers?"
They're soverign nations who get to set the laws of commerce within their borders. I also don't buy that the customers are uncoerced.
It's an unfortunate situation you're in, but it's still a situation of your choosing.
Well, if your mate Dave says it, it must be true! I can't imagine what I was thinking when I made MY purchasing decision.
I use a wireless network and a cordless mouse. I take my laptop (which has never, ever stopped itself after a few minutes, unless I shut the lid and it goes happily to sleep) with me most of the time when I leave the house.
Get what works for you, and don't piss about what you think should work for other people. Just because your mom made an unwise decision doesn't mean anybody who makes the same decision is unwise.
Your boss can't make you do anything. You can choose to exchange your time for the boss's money, which, again comes down to willpower.
You're not a slave. Don't act like one.
Uh, you mean the one that's labeled "Emergency Air Supply" on this image?
"Pass the earplugs!"
Exactly. You can solve this problem all by yourself!
"I reserve the right to forcibly apply butter to your keypad."
So if I infringe on your notions of politeness, you will attempt to destroy my personal property?
You'd be wise not to sit next to me on an airplane, buddy. I guarantee you will not enjoy the consequences of your actions.
Any space can be a space where you can't use these tools. Use the power button.
I'm sorry you have difficulty restraining your urge to use the Internet, but I don't see why that should get in the way of me doing so if I choose.
I don't need forced downtime. I have a great manager. (Yes, they do exist.)
Applications that run on a 486 were probably written on 486's, and still run on modern hardware. Sometimes. The transition to the NT codebase on Windows broke LOTS of stuff.
Applications written for PPC MacOS X will probably work fine on Intel MacOS X because there is apparently a pretty good emulation layer. It will certainly not be foolproof, but it'll likely be pretty good.
Applications written for your PPC MacOS X box will continue to run on your box until a) the end of time or b) hardware failure, whichever comes first.
Applications written specifically for Intel MacOS X are far in the future.
Again: If you bought your computer with the assumption that it would never be obsolete, you were silly. Of course, "obsolete" is rather a silly idea, since your computer will continue to do the same stuff that it does now pretty much always. No, you may not be able to run software from 2009 on your current machine, but that is a pretty unrealistic expectation any way you slice it.
Deep breaths.
Yes, some day at some point in the future, your computer will no longer be compatible with new software. This is not a shocking revelation. It happens all the time, and it's not going to happen to you very soon.
So, you can either get into a tizzy, or not. You pick.
Yeah, because your computer is magically going to stop working when these new beasts ship.
What, you bought a computer thinking that there WOULDN'T be something better faster and cheaper in a year and a half? What color is the sky on YOUR planet?
Look, I thought that the likelihood of switching to X86 was slightly worse than me winning the lottery, but here it is. I do believe that if anyone can pull it off, Apple can. Despite the doom n' gloom of the poster who apparently had a hell of a time with the prior two transitions (I remember them both as well, and I remember that basically nothing bad happened), Apple has the track record to negotiate this smoothly.
Yes, at some point in the future, your computer won't be supported. Why does this surprise you?
Uh, no.
"You anicdotal evidence is pithy."
Do you know what the word "pithy" means? I suggest you check again.
I'll give you "anecdotal" for free.
Democracy is not the goal. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is the goal. (At least, that's the concise formulation I happen to like).
If democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority, it's bad. If democracy infringes on the inalienable rights of any person, it's bad.
So, yeah, GOOD government is the way to go. I happen to think democracy is the best current approximation of that concept, but it's hardly perfect.
I couldn't read the license before I bought it, so it doesn't bind me.
The Windows registry gets modified all the damn time by just about every program you install. What's the difference here?
" you are using software beyond the rights that were licensed to you with respect to that software"
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Care to substantiate this claim?
"Apple convinced them to pay $130 for MacOS X, and then $130 every few months after that for the latest 10.x version"
Huh? How long has OSX been out? Four years? With major updates every twelve to eighteen months, that pretty reliably increase the performance of your existing hardware?
OK, you don't think your wife's iMac was a good deal. Doesn't mean I don't think it's a good deal...
"In a lawful society responsible behavior is expected."
Wish we could expect the same of our corporate overlords. I mean citizens.