Based on that fact, I'd say those guys are either scammers, selling gray-market Nanos, or super cheap knockoffs that may or may not look anything like the Nano. The bottom line is the whole deal is dodgy, and I certainly wouldn't send them any money.
...the "convergence" buzzword since the early 90s. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
When you cram the functionality of a handful of different devices into a single form factor, you get something that does a lot of jobs poorly due to the inherent compromises that must be made. Word quickly gets out, and the product dies. The most glaring example I can think of right now is the original N-Gage.
History has shown that despite what the asshole markeeters claim as they try to cram "convergence" down our throats, people don't mind carrying multiple single-purpose devices that do their jobs very well-- especially if the alternative is a piece of shit that almost does everything they need it to do.
...there's no reason why MS couldn't emulate anything legacy (either with CPU partitioning or a Connectix Emulation like solution) on this new Theoretical NT.
You're more correct than you know, since Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix a couple years ago-- the fact that they already own the technology they'd need makes it even more curious that they don't do it.
In fact, when Microsoft announced the purchase it was believed that they wanted it for a very specific reason: There were a lot of companies running old NT4/2000 boxes for very specific, expensive software solutions. The type of product where the vendor configures the PC and installs their product, and ONLY their product runs on that box, and if you install anything else or otherwise monkey with said box they void your support contract. The theory was that Microsoft wanted VPC so they'd be able to sell a new, shiny version of Windows to those guys to run on new, shiny, much more impressive hardware, and they could run the vendor-specific NT4/2000 configuration within a virtual PC, even running clusters of those solitary, single-purpose boxes to consume less space in the server room.
If that's true, it's very interesting that Microsoft saw that as a solution to legacy support problems for everyone else but are ignoring it as a solution to their own.
Seriously? Forever? When do they stop? Who makes new hardware these days that connects to a serial port?
A little company you might not have heard of named Cisco, for one.:-)
Pretty much any software-configurable network hardware not aimed at home users has a serial interface (though Cisco uses that funky RJ45 port on their hardware instead of the old-school DB-9 port). Even the ones with pretty web interfaces have serial as a backup, in case the web interface gets hosed. Of course, that's what USB-to-serial adapters like IOGear's GUC-232A are for, so there are ways for machines lacking legacy ports to connect.
But I completely agree with you on the parallel port, that should have been dropped years ago, after USB and Firewire were firmly established. If some people still need it for legacy devices like impact printers that don't offer alternate connection methods, they can buy a cheap expansion card from CyberGuys and drop it into their box.
Of course, I'm talking about the physical ports. Support in the OS for the old stuff shouldn't be too onerous to maintain. A Mac hasn't shipped with a floppy drive since what, 1999? But if you plug a USB floppy drive into a new Mac running Tiger and insert a disk into it, it just works, and a photorealistic floppy icon pops up on the desktop. Same with a USB Zip drive, last time I tried one.
Compare this to OS X, where people fall all over themselves trying to get the newest version running on their old hardware because there's actual value in the new features.
He forgot to mention something else: That each successive version of OS X has run (or at least "felt") faster than the previous one on the same hardware. Whether that speed increase is perceived or real, it's been widely reported by users and is another selling point: Don't buy a new machine, just spend $129 on the OS upgrade (and maybe pick up some more RAM) and squeeze a little more performance out of what you've got!
As for locations, I just made shelves in DL that represent my different bookcases in different rooms in my house, and dragged the appropriate books into each. I'm eagerly awaiting a version of DL that supports 'smart shelves' so I can just use the location info in each book's entry and have those shelves dynamically update.
Did you read all of my post, specifically the last line?
I know all about Virtual PC. The current version does not run on MacIntels and Microsoft has not yet committed to producing a version that does. See the 5th question from the top on this page.
Great! Now we just need the final piece of the puzzle: something that will let me run that same installation of Windows as an OS X application, the same way OS X runs OS 9 on PPC Macs.
Because I need to run Windows apps occasionally during the day, but having to boot back and forth to do it would seriously suck.
I'm sure someone's working on it, and that someone is going to take a lot of sales from any future version of VirtualPC that will run on the MacIntels. (And that'll be what you deserve for dragging your feet, Microsoft.)
Apple needs to support Windows themselves, and not rely on a hack or third-party software. Because despite the risks, it will open up the Mac to new customers who couldn't consider a Mac previously.
I'd like to see a Mac that can both boot into Windows from scratch, as well as run that same Windows installation within OS X, a la Classic. That way the gamers can squeeze every last drop of performance out of the hardware, and people who want to stay in OS X as much as possible but need to run a Windows app or two once in a while can both be satisfied.
My only worry would be that developers would stop developing Mac versions of their apps and just tell Mac users to run the Windows versions in the Windows compatibility environment. Oh, and that there would be less pressure for companies to produce standards-compliant, browser-neutral websites, because Mac users would just be able to fire up Windows IE if they happened upon a site that excluded other browsers-- whereas now they complain to the operators of those sites.
Microsoft's USB keyboards have worked beautifully with Macs for years, and Mac drivers are available for them. All of their keyboards with the row of special keys on top of the F-key row have been great-- my first was a beige, wired Internet Keyboard Pro, dating back to 1999 or so. The "Media" key is the CD/DVD eject key, the volume keys set system volume, "Mute" works as expected, and the "Sleep" button brings up the Mac's Restart/Sleep/Cancel/Shut Down dialog. The "Play", "Pause", "Next Track" and "Previous Track" keys control iTunes system-wide, without it being the active application. I'm currently using the Wireless Optical Desktop 2.0, and it all works the same. It also works great with my USB KVM, which is also connected to an XP machine. Even the battery life is stellar, I got about 18 months of heavy use out of the batteries that came in the box with the keyboard. (If you buy one, get the "OEM" versions NewEgg sells. Plain brown box, about $20 cheaper than retail last time I bought one.)
As a Mac sysadmin who frequently runs into roadblocks trying to get Macs to play nice in Windows networks, I despise Microsoft for all the stuff they proprietarize just to make it harder to use non-MS solutions. But I really, really like their keyboards and mice specifically because they work so well with Macs and Windows.
The typical person who buys a computer from Dell is not even aware of the competition to boot XP on a Mac, nor would they be very interested if they were. The typical response would be something like, "Why should I buy a Mac for $1300 to run XP, when I can get a Dell for $499 that will do the same thing, and get a free printer as well?"
The people who were monitoring the status of this contest wouldn't be caught dead buying a personal system from Dell, they roll their own and enjoy doing it.
a) It would not be profitable for Apple to do that because they'd have to price it to make up for at least some of the revenue loss due to the lost hardware sales. The people who are too cheap to buy Macs will not buy an OS that costs as much as their cheap computer did.
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X. In other words, Microsoft would just go back to their old, anticompetitive ways to the degree they could get away with it (and if you think the Bush administration would lift a finger to stop them you're smoking some potent shit).
* How much do you want to bet the five-year agreement Microsoft and Apple announced at MacWorld included a condition that Apple not release OS X for generic PCs?
Perhaps the Migration Assistant hasn't been updated to 'know' about PPC vs Universal apps, and moved over PPC versions of your apps (possibly even replacing Universal versions on the new machine). Rosetta being used unnecessarily would seem to be a likely cause of the performance hit you describe, especially considering that when you just moved over your data the second time around, everything ran quicker.
I've seen a few posts here and there on Mac sites where some people found that Rosetta was kicking in when it shouldn't have on their Intel machines. Usually it was a matter of re-selecting the 'open with' application to make sure the Universal version would run, or just reinstalling the Universal app.
The ColecoVision controller was awesome, what are you talking about?
I held it in my left hand, my left thumb resting on the left button, my left index finger resting on the right. My right hand used the stick, which I held by wrapping my right thumb and index finger around the circumference of the top. The only part that was a little dodgy was the numeric keypad, because you had to take your hand off the stick for a moment to hit those buttons, or stretch your thumb down awkwardly to hit them. The only problem that I remember was going through quite a few of them because the side buttons would wear out over time.
I used to play that thing for hours on end when I was a kid (in fact, I still have it and it still works), and my hands never got sore in the least. No, I didn't know gaming-induced pain unil I got Nintendo Thumb in 1988 or so.
If you're going to cry about how the mini has no slots or additional internal drive bays, I'd like to point out the large number of nice, used Power Mac G4 and G5 models available on eBay that you can cram with RAM, drives and expansion cards. They are quite affordable, and machines dating all the way back to August of 2000 are still perfectly viable (though I'd stick with dual-CPU models that far back) for running the latest version of OS X.
a) It would not be profitable for Apple to do that because they'd have to price it to make up for at least some of the revenue loss due to the lost hardware sales. The people who are too cheap to buy Macs will not buy an OS that costs as much as their cheap computer did.
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X. In other words, Microsoft would just go back to their old, anticompetitive ways to the degree they could get away with it (and if you think the Bush administration would lift a finger to stop them you're smoking some potent shit).
* How much do you want to bet the five-year agreement they announced at MacWorld included a condition that Apple not release OS X for generic PCs?
That is guessing that OS X for intel is available for purchase. I don't care much for Macs and havn't bothered to check if it is sold seperately from a new mac.
Well, maybe you should do a couple minutes of Googling before shooting your mouth off. Mac OS X for Intel is not legally available for purchase by itself, and will not be until The only way you can legally possess it right now is if you own a piece of Intel-based Apple hardware, which means you're either a paid member of Apple's Developer Connection and/or you own an Intel iMac or MacBook Pro.
Since the whole point of these assholes cracking OS X is because they don't want to buy Apple hardware, they almost certainly are using and distributing illegally-obtained copies of it.
If I go and buy an Intel Mac I should get the hardware and an OSX disk with a single user license.
You do.
If I do that then I should be allowed to use that single user license on the machine of my choosing.
You are, as long as the machine of your choosing is an Apple-made machine. If you don't like these terms, don't purchase a Mac or OS X, and keep using Windows or Linux or another OS. It's that simple.
You know, if you buy a PC from Dell or any other big-name PC maker, you don't even get an OS install disk anymore, you just get a Windows restore disc-- and even if you did get a Windows install disc, that Windows license is likewise bound to the PC it came with. Of course, people ignoring the license and playing fast and loose with the included install discs are the very reason why Microsoft switched to using restore discs and added product activation.
So I don't see why everyone's crucifying Apple when Microsoft has been doing the exact same thing for years. Don't be surprised when Apple too starts using restore discs and activation, to try to fend off the God-forbid-we-should-pay-for-anything crowd and protect their revenue.
I did read what he posted, moron, and he tried to equate Compaq's two-team, clean-room reverse-engineering technique to one guy patching Apple's own code and posting his patches-- the lamest argument I've ever seen made in support of the OS X hackers.
Also, it's "you're" not "your". I suggest you look into some remedial English classes. Concentrate on homonyms and reading comprehension.
Franklin and Columbia did the wrong thing but Compaq did a white room reverse-engineering of the BIOS. This is all the OSx86 project is doing too.
No they aren't, you idiot. The IBM PC BIOS was examined and its specs were written up by a team of engineers. Those specs were then given to a second team of engineers who were very carefully selected for their lack of exposure to the IBM BIOS ("virgins", in industry parlance), so IBM would be unable to claim that their work was tainted by that. The second team was them tasked with developing a BIOS that behaved just like the genuine IBM BIOS according to the specifications the first team divined from it, but without ever being in the same room as the genuine article.
THAT is how legally-defensible reverse-engineering works, or at least did back then. The guys cracking OS X so it runs on generic PCs are just patching Apple's code to fool/circumvent the checks it does to make sure it's running on genuine Apple hardware. That's not even close to legitimate reverse-engineering. I don't even think they'll be able to hide behind the "interoperability" provisions of the DMCA that allow some limited reverse-engineering.
Oh, by the way, a Mac can be bought for $500 that will use your existing display and (USB) keyboard-- it always cracks me up when you guys try to prop up your anti-Apple arguments by bitching about the price of their top-of-the-line hardware while conveniently ignoring their low-end machines.
Find the application file, either by browsing/Applications or doing a click-and-hold on an application's Dock icon and selecting "Show in Finder" from the menu that appears.
Do a "Get Info" on the application by either: -Ctrl-clicking on its icon and selecting "Get Info" from the context menu. -Clicking on it once to select it and then doing Command-I on the keyboard or File -> Get Info in the menu bar.
If the application is a Universal Binary, it will say "Application (Universal)" in the "Kind" field in the Get Info window.
I assume the legacy apps will say something like "Application (PowerPC)", and that Intel-only apps not compiled for PowerPC would say "Application (Intel)" (but I don't know why anyone would compile only for Intel just yet, seems to me that'd be limiting your audience just a tad).
First Google says no to US government's request for logs of searches and now they told Bell South to stick it.
Bully for Google. Unfortunately, given this administration's track record for how they treat people/entities who speak out against them or don't roll over and give them what they want, I'd wouldn't be surprised if the government sides with the telcos if/when it comes to that-- just to get back at Google.
1) Games that aren't made for the Mac: 'Nuff said. Granted this would never satisfy the 'leet gamer d00dz who trick out their rigs, but there would be a lot less Mac users keeping a cheap PC under their desks for games, and casual PC gamers would be able to consider a Mac.
2) Vertical-market applications that aren't made for the Mac: A lot of businesses depend on vertical-market applications that will just never be available for the Mac, whether they're expensive professionally-produced titles or some POS quick-and-dirty VB app.
3) To make an easy, gradual transition to a Mac from Windows: A Mac that can dual-boot is the logical progression from a PC, Mac mini, and KVM. Imagine a future version of the Migration Assistant that sucks the contents of a switcher's PC into the Windows compatibilty environment on their new Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, that image and most of the copy on the listing was lifted from Apple's own page about the Nano.
Based on that fact, I'd say those guys are either scammers, selling gray-market Nanos, or super cheap knockoffs that may or may not look anything like the Nano. The bottom line is the whole deal is dodgy, and I certainly wouldn't send them any money.
~Philly
...the "convergence" buzzword since the early 90s. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
When you cram the functionality of a handful of different devices into a single form factor, you get something that does a lot of jobs poorly due to the inherent compromises that must be made. Word quickly gets out, and the product dies. The most glaring example I can think of right now is the original N-Gage.
History has shown that despite what the asshole markeeters claim as they try to cram "convergence" down our throats, people don't mind carrying multiple single-purpose devices that do their jobs very well-- especially if the alternative is a piece of shit that almost does everything they need it to do.
~Philly
with an arial bombardment. That's OK then -- for a moment I was worried it would be Times New Roman
Me too. Those serifs HURT!
~Philly
...there's no reason why MS couldn't emulate anything legacy (either with CPU partitioning or a Connectix Emulation like solution) on this new Theoretical NT.
You're more correct than you know, since Microsoft bought Virtual PC from Connectix a couple years ago-- the fact that they already own the technology they'd need makes it even more curious that they don't do it.
In fact, when Microsoft announced the purchase it was believed that they wanted it for a very specific reason: There were a lot of companies running old NT4/2000 boxes for very specific, expensive software solutions. The type of product where the vendor configures the PC and installs their product, and ONLY their product runs on that box, and if you install anything else or otherwise monkey with said box they void your support contract. The theory was that Microsoft wanted VPC so they'd be able to sell a new, shiny version of Windows to those guys to run on new, shiny, much more impressive hardware, and they could run the vendor-specific NT4/2000 configuration within a virtual PC, even running clusters of those solitary, single-purpose boxes to consume less space in the server room.
If that's true, it's very interesting that Microsoft saw that as a solution to legacy support problems for everyone else but are ignoring it as a solution to their own.
~Philly
Seriously? Forever? When do they stop? Who makes new hardware these days that connects to a serial port?
:-)
A little company you might not have heard of named Cisco, for one.
Pretty much any software-configurable network hardware not aimed at home users has a serial interface (though Cisco uses that funky RJ45 port on their hardware instead of the old-school DB-9 port). Even the ones with pretty web interfaces have serial as a backup, in case the web interface gets hosed. Of course, that's what USB-to-serial adapters like IOGear's GUC-232A are for, so there are ways for machines lacking legacy ports to connect.
But I completely agree with you on the parallel port, that should have been dropped years ago, after USB and Firewire were firmly established. If some people still need it for legacy devices like impact printers that don't offer alternate connection methods, they can buy a cheap expansion card from CyberGuys and drop it into their box.
Of course, I'm talking about the physical ports. Support in the OS for the old stuff shouldn't be too onerous to maintain. A Mac hasn't shipped with a floppy drive since what, 1999? But if you plug a USB floppy drive into a new Mac running Tiger and insert a disk into it, it just works, and a photorealistic floppy icon pops up on the desktop. Same with a USB Zip drive, last time I tried one.
~Philly
Congratulations, you're my first customer! I didn't even have to wait an hour.
(See journal entry referenced in sig. Constructive comments only, please)
~Philly
Compare this to OS X, where people fall all over themselves trying to get the newest version running on their old hardware because there's actual value in the new features.
He forgot to mention something else: That each successive version of OS X has run (or at least "felt") faster than the previous one on the same hardware. Whether that speed increase is perceived or real, it's been widely reported by users and is another selling point: Don't buy a new machine, just spend $129 on the OS upgrade (and maybe pick up some more RAM) and squeeze a little more performance out of what you've got!
Another vote for Delicious Library here.
As for locations, I just made shelves in DL that represent my different bookcases in different rooms in my house, and dragged the appropriate books into each. I'm eagerly awaiting a version of DL that supports 'smart shelves' so I can just use the location info in each book's entry and have those shelves dynamically update.
~Philly
Did you read all of my post, specifically the last line?
I know all about Virtual PC. The current version does not run on MacIntels and Microsoft has not yet committed to producing a version that does. See the 5th question from the top on this page.
~Philly
Great! Now we just need the final piece of the puzzle: something that will let me run that same installation of Windows as an OS X application, the same way OS X runs OS 9 on PPC Macs.
Because I need to run Windows apps occasionally during the day, but having to boot back and forth to do it would seriously suck.
I'm sure someone's working on it, and that someone is going to take a lot of sales from any future version of VirtualPC that will run on the MacIntels. (And that'll be what you deserve for dragging your feet, Microsoft.)
~Philly
Apple needs to support Windows themselves, and not rely on a hack or third-party software. Because despite the risks, it will open up the Mac to new customers who couldn't consider a Mac previously.
I'd like to see a Mac that can both boot into Windows from scratch, as well as run that same Windows installation within OS X, a la Classic. That way the gamers can squeeze every last drop of performance out of the hardware, and people who want to stay in OS X as much as possible but need to run a Windows app or two once in a while can both be satisfied.
My only worry would be that developers would stop developing Mac versions of their apps and just tell Mac users to run the Windows versions in the Windows compatibility environment. Oh, and that there would be less pressure for companies to produce standards-compliant, browser-neutral websites, because Mac users would just be able to fire up Windows IE if they happened upon a site that excluded other browsers-- whereas now they complain to the operators of those sites.
~Philly
Microsoft's USB keyboards have worked beautifully with Macs for years, and Mac drivers are available for them.
All of their keyboards with the row of special keys on top of the F-key row have been great-- my first was a beige, wired Internet Keyboard Pro, dating back to 1999 or so. The "Media" key is the CD/DVD eject key, the volume keys set system volume, "Mute" works as expected, and the "Sleep" button brings up the Mac's Restart/Sleep/Cancel/Shut Down dialog. The "Play", "Pause", "Next Track" and "Previous Track" keys control iTunes system-wide, without it being the active application. I'm currently using the Wireless Optical Desktop 2.0, and it all works the same. It also works great with my USB KVM, which is also connected to an XP machine. Even the battery life is stellar, I got about 18 months of heavy use out of the batteries that came in the box with the keyboard. (If you buy one, get the "OEM" versions NewEgg sells. Plain brown box, about $20 cheaper than retail last time I bought one.)
As a Mac sysadmin who frequently runs into roadblocks trying to get Macs to play nice in Windows networks, I despise Microsoft for all the stuff they proprietarize just to make it harder to use non-MS solutions. But I really, really like their keyboards and mice specifically because they work so well with Macs and Windows.
~Philly
The typical person who buys a computer from Dell is not even aware of the competition to boot XP on a Mac, nor would they be very interested if they were. The typical response would be something like, "Why should I buy a Mac for $1300 to run XP, when I can get a Dell for $499 that will do the same thing, and get a free printer as well?"
The people who were monitoring the status of this contest wouldn't be caught dead buying a personal system from Dell, they roll their own and enjoy doing it.
~Philly
a) It would not be profitable for Apple to do that because they'd have to price it to make up for at least some of the revenue loss due to the lost hardware sales. The people who are too cheap to buy Macs will not buy an OS that costs as much as their cheap computer did.
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X. In other words, Microsoft would just go back to their old, anticompetitive ways to the degree they could get away with it (and if you think the Bush administration would lift a finger to stop them you're smoking some potent shit).
* How much do you want to bet the five-year agreement Microsoft and Apple announced at MacWorld included a condition that Apple not release OS X for generic PCs?
~Philly
Perhaps the Migration Assistant hasn't been updated to 'know' about PPC vs Universal apps, and moved over PPC versions of your apps (possibly even replacing Universal versions on the new machine). Rosetta being used unnecessarily would seem to be a likely cause of the performance hit you describe, especially considering that when you just moved over your data the second time around, everything ran quicker.
I've seen a few posts here and there on Mac sites where some people found that Rosetta was kicking in when it shouldn't have on their Intel machines. Usually it was a matter of re-selecting the 'open with' application to make sure the Universal version would run, or just reinstalling the Universal app.
~Philly
The ColecoVision controller was awesome, what are you talking about?
I held it in my left hand, my left thumb resting on the left button, my left index finger resting on the right. My right hand used the stick, which I held by wrapping my right thumb and index finger around the circumference of the top. The only part that was a little dodgy was the numeric keypad, because you had to take your hand off the stick for a moment to hit those buttons, or stretch your thumb down awkwardly to hit them. The only problem that I remember was going through quite a few of them because the side buttons would wear out over time.
I used to play that thing for hours on end when I was a kid (in fact, I still have it and it still works), and my hands never got sore in the least. No, I didn't know gaming-induced pain unil I got Nintendo Thumb in 1988 or so.
~Philly
If you're going to cry about how the mini has no slots or additional internal drive bays, I'd like to point out the large number of nice, used Power Mac G4 and G5 models available on eBay that you can cram with RAM, drives and expansion cards. They are quite affordable, and machines dating all the way back to August of 2000 are still perfectly viable (though I'd stick with dual-CPU models that far back) for running the latest version of OS X.
~Philly
Mac OS X for Intel is not legally available for purchase by itself, and will not be until The only way
should read
"Mac OS X for Intel is not legally available for purchase by itself, and will not be until OS X 10.5. The only way..."
Would it ever occur to you that:
a) It would not be profitable for Apple to do that because they'd have to price it to make up for at least some of the revenue loss due to the lost hardware sales. The people who are too cheap to buy Macs will not buy an OS that costs as much as their cheap computer did.
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X. In other words, Microsoft would just go back to their old, anticompetitive ways to the degree they could get away with it (and if you think the Bush administration would lift a finger to stop them you're smoking some potent shit).
* How much do you want to bet the five-year agreement they announced at MacWorld included a condition that Apple not release OS X for generic PCs?
~Philly
That is guessing that OS X for intel is available for purchase. I don't care much for Macs and havn't bothered to check if it is sold seperately from a new mac.
Well, maybe you should do a couple minutes of Googling before shooting your mouth off. Mac OS X for Intel is not legally available for purchase by itself, and will not be until The only way you can legally possess it right now is if you own a piece of Intel-based Apple hardware, which means you're either a paid member of Apple's Developer Connection and/or you own an Intel iMac or MacBook Pro.
Since the whole point of these assholes cracking OS X is because they don't want to buy Apple hardware, they almost certainly are using and distributing illegally-obtained copies of it.
If I go and buy an Intel Mac I should get the hardware and an OSX disk with a single user license.
You do.
If I do that then I should be allowed to use that single user license on the machine of my choosing.
You are, as long as the machine of your choosing is an Apple-made machine. If you don't like these terms, don't purchase a Mac or OS X, and keep using Windows or Linux or another OS. It's that simple.
You know, if you buy a PC from Dell or any other big-name PC maker, you don't even get an OS install disk anymore, you just get a Windows restore disc-- and even if you did get a Windows install disc, that Windows license is likewise bound to the PC it came with. Of course, people ignoring the license and playing fast and loose with the included install discs are the very reason why Microsoft switched to using restore discs and added product activation.
So I don't see why everyone's crucifying Apple when Microsoft has been doing the exact same thing for years. Don't be surprised when Apple too starts using restore discs and activation, to try to fend off the God-forbid-we-should-pay-for-anything crowd and protect their revenue.
~Philly
I did read what he posted, moron, and he tried to equate Compaq's two-team, clean-room reverse-engineering technique to one guy patching Apple's own code and posting his patches-- the lamest argument I've ever seen made in support of the OS X hackers.
Also, it's "you're" not "your". I suggest you look into some remedial English classes. Concentrate on homonyms and reading comprehension.
~Philly
Franklin and Columbia did the wrong thing but Compaq did a white room reverse-engineering of the BIOS. This is all the OSx86 project is doing too.
No they aren't, you idiot. The IBM PC BIOS was examined and its specs were written up by a team of engineers. Those specs were then given to a second team of engineers who were very carefully selected for their lack of exposure to the IBM BIOS ("virgins", in industry parlance), so IBM would be unable to claim that their work was tainted by that. The second team was them tasked with developing a BIOS that behaved just like the genuine IBM BIOS according to the specifications the first team divined from it, but without ever being in the same room as the genuine article.
THAT is how legally-defensible reverse-engineering works, or at least did back then. The guys cracking OS X so it runs on generic PCs are just patching Apple's code to fool/circumvent the checks it does to make sure it's running on genuine Apple hardware. That's not even close to legitimate reverse-engineering. I don't even think they'll be able to hide behind the "interoperability" provisions of the DMCA that allow some limited reverse-engineering.
Oh, by the way, a Mac can be bought for $500 that will use your existing display and (USB) keyboard-- it always cracks me up when you guys try to prop up your anti-Apple arguments by bitching about the price of their top-of-the-line hardware while conveniently ignoring their low-end machines.
~Philly
Find the application file, either by browsing /Applications or doing a click-and-hold on an application's Dock icon and selecting "Show in Finder" from the menu that appears.
Do a "Get Info" on the application by either:
-Ctrl-clicking on its icon and selecting "Get Info" from the context menu.
-Clicking on it once to select it and then doing Command-I on the keyboard or File -> Get Info in the menu bar.
If the application is a Universal Binary, it will say "Application (Universal)" in the "Kind" field in the Get Info window.
I assume the legacy apps will say something like "Application (PowerPC)", and that Intel-only apps not compiled for PowerPC would say "Application (Intel)" (but I don't know why anyone would compile only for Intel just yet, seems to me that'd be limiting your audience just a tad).
~Philly
First Google says no to US government's request for logs of searches and now they told Bell South to stick it.
Bully for Google. Unfortunately, given this administration's track record for how they treat people/entities who speak out against them or don't roll over and give them what they want, I'd wouldn't be surprised if the government sides with the telcos if/when it comes to that-- just to get back at Google.
~Philly
Here's why you'd want to run Windows on a Mac:
1) Games that aren't made for the Mac: 'Nuff said. Granted this would never satisfy the 'leet gamer d00dz who trick out their rigs, but there would be a lot less Mac users keeping a cheap PC under their desks for games, and casual PC gamers would be able to consider a Mac.
2) Vertical-market applications that aren't made for the Mac: A lot of businesses depend on vertical-market applications that will just never be available for the Mac, whether they're expensive professionally-produced titles or some POS quick-and-dirty VB app.
3) To make an easy, gradual transition to a Mac from Windows: A Mac that can dual-boot is the logical progression from a PC, Mac mini, and KVM. Imagine a future version of the Migration Assistant that sucks the contents of a switcher's PC into the Windows compatibilty environment on their new Mac.
~Philly