Re:Response to the Anti-Windows Points...
on
Review of Mac OS X 10.3
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there.
There are zero known OS X viruses in existence right now. A very few of the Office macro viruses could affect Macs as well as Windows machines, but for the most part a Mac with a virus-infected normal.dot file would just become a carrier and not see any negative effects itself.
There were a handful of "classic" Mac OS viruses around back in the late 80's, but few were malicious and most are extinct. In 12 years of using Macs, I have seen two of them, way back in 1991, and both were benign and easily removed by rebuilding the desktop file on the infected floppy. Until maybe 10 years ago, the leading Mac anti-virus software was a free product a guy maintained in his spare time. If I didn't get it free with.Mac, I wouldn't even be running antivirus software on my G4 running OS X.
Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.
Bullshit. No version of the Mac OS ever automatically executed code stuck in an e-mail message. When Apple came out with AppleScript about 10 years ago, it couldn't even read or write to files for security concerns. Now it's much more powerful and there's little you can't do with it, but the only malicious use of AppleScript we've ever seen was a trojan that had to be actively run by the recipient, and that was around 5 years ago. Outlook and Outlook Express could trigger some viruses just by clicking on the message and having it display in the preview pane. You still can't even effectively run as a non-admin user in Windows, because there are quite a few things that won't work that way. In Mac OS X, even running as admin you still have to authenticate before the system will let you do things like install software. Hell, the root account is disabled out of the box, and there aren't even any ports open by default. Apple has almost always gotten security right, and with OS X they're batting 1.000.
Microsoft spent years putting gee-whiz features ahead of security, and now they are reaping what they've sown. They're getting embarassed by critical exploit after critical exploit. They've drawn the ire of non-Windows-using internet users whose inboxes were crammed full of copies of SoBig and whose internet connections were slowed to a crawl or knocked out by Slammer. And they're trying to blame these things on their customers for not practicing safe computing, when it's Microsoft that is to blame for marketing a complex, high-maintenance system as a simple, low-maintenance one.
They expect people who can't be bothered to set the clocks on their VCRs to be proactive about watching for Windows updates, and then spend hours downloading tens of megabytes over a dialup connection. I just had to upgrade a client's machine from 98SE to XP. It took THREE HOURS and countless reboots to install the OS from CD and then download and apply all of the updates, and that was on DSL. Instead of just giving up and starting over with security at the foundation, Microsoft is attempting to bolt security onto their existing mess after the fact-- which is why they will continue to fail miserably at this "Trustworthy Computing" nonsense.
I'll bet any amount of money that no matter how many Macs you have in the world, even if the marketshare numbers are reversed, there will never be a Mac Slammer, a Mac Blaster, or a Mac ILOVEYOU.
Personally, I suspect that the ITMS may be too small to survive: if revenue is around $30 million and none of that is profit, there is no real budget to promote it.
Apple has a few billion in the bank, so there's your promotion budget.
Also, no matter how well the iTMS does, Apple still only makes a pittance from it, thanks to the record labels and their huge cut. The whole service is basically a loss leader designed to sell iPods (which are quite profitable), and ideally even induce some people to switch to the Mac. The iTMS is the razor, and iPods are the blades.
According to the graphs in this article, security is the #3 reason people use Linux, behind cost and reliability. For people purchasing Microsoft stuff, even "Other" scores higher than security, which came in dead last.
I guess we should be glad that most people are apparently not falling for their "Trustworthy Computing" horseshit. The numbers in this poll show that this summer of worm after virus after worm after virus has really put Microsoft under a cloud. It will probably take them at least five years to even begin to win back security mindshare, and that's assuming there's not another SQL Slammer or Blaster waiting to happen in that time.
First, Apple will probably never base their machines on x86. Secondly, even if they did switch to x86, OS X will never, never, never run on any hardware that Apple has not produced-- so surrender the fantasy of running OS X on some homebuilt shitbox. The major selling point of the Mac is the "it just works" factor-- the tight integration between Apple software and Apple hardware. They won't be able to deliver that if they suddenly have to support hundreds of varieties of commodity hardware flying out of factories in East Bumblefuck, Asia. Microsoft has blown through umpteen billion dollars over damn near twenty years in their attempt to do it, and they still haven't got it right.
Apple is a hardware company, period. Their software is just a selling point for their hardware. Look at iTunes and the iTunes Music Store as another example-- iTunes is a free download, and they barely make a profit on the sale of iTMS music. The whole thing is set up to sell iPods, and ideally induce some satisifed iPod buyers to switch to the Mac.
Shouldn't Adobe wait until they actually steal more of Quark's XPress customers away, before they start doing the same shit Quark did to drive their customers away in the first place?
This is potentially disasturous for compilation albums featuring multiple artists
Wrong. Within iTunes, the song Info window provides a Boolean attribute, "Part of a compilation." If you check the checkbox (if you're editing a single song's info) or select "Yes" (if you're batch editing multiple songs), a "Compilations" folder is created inside the iTunes Music folder, and inside of those are folders for each compilation album you have:
iTunes Music -Artist ---Album -----Tracks -Compilatio ns ---Compilation Album -----Tracks
The Compilations folder is where I keep all my movie soundtracks and "Hits of the $DECADE" type stuff.
With iTunes if I haven't ripped the CD through it then I have to reselect my music folder everytime for iTunes to rescan it and find the 10 out of 5000 new tracks.
Or, you could just check the box for the "Copy files to the iTunes music folder when adding to library" option in the Advanced preferences, and simply drag and drop the MP3 files you want to add into the iTunes window. They will be added to the library and copied into your designated iTunes music folder.
See, the problem with you Windows users is you're too used to having to do things ass-backwards to accomplish what you want. When you try to use Apple stuff with that mindset, you get frustrated because you assume what you're trying to do can't possibly be done so easily.
Bill always proclaims he was a visionary about the net, and saw ahead of everyone how much that could change the world.
Yeah, Bill's back is calloused from him patting himself on it.
How utterly visionary it was to completely ignore the internet until he saw there was a huge market he could steal from Netscape, starting with a stop-gap browser that was quickly licensed from another company and had the Microsoft name grafted onto it.
Starting when they put DOS on the PC, Microsoft has never been first into a new market that I can think of... they let competitors develop the market, then they move in and take it over-- bulldozing the competition if necessary. Examples:
-Macs had the first mass-market GUI, and Windows finally became usable in 1990. -AOL took off in the early 90's and the original incarnation of MSN was launched to crush it. (That was the push that was pre-empted by Microsoft's sudden Internet-awareness.) -Sony and Nintendo owned the game console market for over a decade, and then the Xbox was launched. This assault seems to have faltered. -After the original Palm devices came PocketPC (and don't forget Microsoft originally tried to call theirs the "PalmPC" until they were sued over it).
The next target is the mobile phone/wireless communication device arena, and a couple companies have already been date-raped by partnering with Microsoft.
iTunes was ported for profit. Safari would not be worth the trouble.
iTunes was also ported, at least partially, to slow the adoption of WMA. On the surface, Safari for Windows seems like a dumb idea, but consider:
-Microsoft not only abandoned the Mac browser market, but also is flat out ignoring cries to improve the standards-compliance of the Windows version now that they own the Windows browser market.
-One of the biggest remaining gripes about Safari is that a lot of lazy web developers code for IE exclusively, and ignore complaints from users of other browsers or lock out non-IE browsers from even loading the IE-specific sites.
If the most standards-compliant, most security hole-free, and easiest to use browser for Windows was a modest download from Apple.com, perhaps we'd see the Microsoft balkanization of the web come undone, and the web would return to the way it was imagined: platform-agnostic.
That would benefit the Mac platform-- Apple would sell more Macs because willing people previously unable to switch because of that Windows-only web site they had to use as part of their job would then be able to.
I'm neither for nor against Safari for Windows, I'm just pointing out that there are reasons why Apple might do it.
Expose was not bad at all on the 350, though I only opened up maybe 4 windows to test it. The motion was only slightly choppy (i.e. it looks like it skips a step in the scaling animation once in a while), whereas on the G4/733 I'm playing with today, it's all smooth as silk and quite a bit faster.
It seems to be perfectly usable on both machines. If you've got enough RAM in your 400, I think Panther will run on it just fine.
Let's just the feature ripped off by Microsoft and shoved into Longhorn in 2005/6.:-)
Actually, it has been claimed that the reason Microsoft is keeping a tight lid on the Longhorn GUI is that they already had a feature just like Expose and Apple somehow stole it. Riiiiiiiiight. Anyone care to provide proof of that? I find it highly dubious that while Expose has been being demoed for months now at every Apple event pimping the forthcoming 10.3, it was only very recently that Microsoft said that it was a feature filched from them and they have in fact been demoing something like that for years. I dunno, I've seen quite a few Microsoft demos, and read about still others. I saw video of the USB BSOD at the Win98 demo. I heard about their pointless "flapping Windows" feature in their knockoff of Quartz Extreme. But I've never heard a peep about their version of Expose, and considering the reaction it got when Apple demoed it and how useful people working with Panther betas seem to find it, you'd think someone would have heard something of Microsoft's.
I didn't want to wait another week until the release, so I grabbed the build claiming to be 7B85 that's been floating around on BitTorrent, and put it on a spare G4/350 I've got lying around.
I like the new installer, it's a little more informative about its progress. As for the OS itself, the GUI feels significantly faster, even on a creaky old 350MHz machine without the benefit of enough VRAM to use Quartz Extreme. They seem to have really tightened up the code quite a bit-- for shits and giggles, I ran xBench on it in 10.3, and in 10.2.8 on a different partition on the same drive. Results: Panther, 47; Jaguar, 40-- a decent improvement. I can't wait to see what it's like on my iBook 800, but that upgrade will wait until I have a purchased copy next week.
When I get some more time I'm going to take the Active Directory authentication and Mail.app's Exchange connectivity for a spin and see how that is.
~Philly
Re:Just ask the Mac owner who has Bluetooth...
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
That's quite a wish list.
All I really want is a car stereo that I can link to my T68i, so when I make or take a call the stereo mutes itself for the duration without me having to touch it.
Everyone wants Bluetooth built into their iPod, but nobody seems to take into account what having wireless headphones would do to its battery life-- I mean, people were bitching when the battery life dropped from 10 hours in the 1G & 2G iPods to 8 hours in the 3G models.
Bluetooth takes a hell of a chunk out of my T68i's battery just from a couple hours using it as an iTunes remote via Salling Clicker-- and I imagine that that transmits far less over the connection than an iPod streaming music to headphones would. Unless we're talking about some sort of external BlueTooth accessory with its own rechargable battery, it just doesn't seem practical.
IMHO, in the car is the only place where it makes sense using BlueTooth with an iPod, because you can plug into a power source there.
My 9 year-old 27" bedroom TV gave up the ghost last night, so until I can get to Best Buy to pick up a replacement, I've got a Commodore 1084S monitor in its place.
They do have a damn nice picture. I usually tip 'em over on their side and use them as a MAME display.
...when are Windows users going to wake up and take some responsibility for their machines?
Never. Windows is a high maintenance system, being sold to people who can't be bothered to learn how to set the clock on their VCR. They can barely use their PC for IM, e-mail and web browsing, so forget about them adequately maintaining it.
Microsoft should take the blame for that, too. All their blow-sunshine-up-your-ass marketing makes Windows seem like your lovable electronic pal who opens up the internet to you. People don't learn the awful truth until they've given their money to Dell or Gateway, clicked on the wrong spam, and their machine has gotten owned by some script kiddie or spammer.
G5 owners get the upgrade "free" because the G5s were originally supposed to ship with Panther as their OS. Since Panther wasn't ready when the G5s had to go out the door, Apple had to "hack" 10.2.6 to for the G5, producing the G5-only Mac OS X 10.2.7 to tide people over.
Secondly, Apple didn't fuck you, you fucked yourself by buying a PowerBook when you knew that Panther was forthcoming. You were perfectly happy to trade $x to Apple in exchange for a new PowerBook running 10.2.x. The deal is done, you got what you were expecting to get, and Apple does not owe you anything else other than the balance of time on your warranty.
From what I've read, it is not full MAPI support. Instead, you must supply Mail and Address Book with the URL to the Outlook Web Access pages on your Exchange server, and the apps 'screen-scrape' the data from there.
If true, it's not an optimal solution. But I suspect Apple didn't want to go to all the trouble of reverse engineering MAPI, only to have Microsoft "improve" MAPI (read: change it to break Mac interoperability) shortly thereafter.
In conclusion, you need to take a break from the gaming and check your facts before you post. Otherwise you come off looking like a dumb shit when someone like me comes along to easily prove you wrong.
...but real-world app tests have shown that the dual 2GHz G5 beats Dell's cheapest dual 3.06GHz Xeon sytem, both in performance and (when configured identically as possible to Apple's base 2GHz dualie) in price.
And don't bother playing the "I can build it cheaper" card-- you cannot fairly compare a manufactured system with one that you cobbled together with the cheapest parts you could find.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really completely virus-free? I find it hard to believe that there aren't any Mac viruses out there.
.Mac, I wouldn't even be running antivirus software on my G4 running OS X.
There are zero known OS X viruses in existence right now. A very few of the Office macro viruses could affect Macs as well as Windows machines, but for the most part a Mac with a virus-infected normal.dot file would just become a carrier and not see any negative effects itself.
There were a handful of "classic" Mac OS viruses around back in the late 80's, but few were malicious and most are extinct. In 12 years of using Macs, I have seen two of them, way back in 1991, and both were benign and easily removed by rebuilding the desktop file on the infected floppy. Until maybe 10 years ago, the leading Mac anti-virus software was a free product a guy maintained in his spare time. If I didn't get it free with
Anyhow, being more secure through obscurity is something that comes with any non-Windows platform. It's certainly an advantage, but it's difficult to say that this is somehow a failing of Windows.
Bullshit. No version of the Mac OS ever automatically executed code stuck in an e-mail message. When Apple came out with AppleScript about 10 years ago, it couldn't even read or write to files for security concerns. Now it's much more powerful and there's little you can't do with it, but the only malicious use of AppleScript we've ever seen was a trojan that had to be actively run by the recipient, and that was around 5 years ago. Outlook and Outlook Express could trigger some viruses just by clicking on the message and having it display in the preview pane. You still can't even effectively run as a non-admin user in Windows, because there are quite a few things that won't work that way. In Mac OS X, even running as admin you still have to authenticate before the system will let you do things like install software. Hell, the root account is disabled out of the box, and there aren't even any ports open by default. Apple has almost always gotten security right, and with OS X they're batting 1.000.
Microsoft spent years putting gee-whiz features ahead of security, and now they are reaping what they've sown. They're getting embarassed by critical exploit after critical exploit. They've drawn the ire of non-Windows-using internet users whose inboxes were crammed full of copies of SoBig and whose internet connections were slowed to a crawl or knocked out by Slammer. And they're trying to blame these things on their customers for not practicing safe computing, when it's Microsoft that is to blame for marketing a complex, high-maintenance system as a simple, low-maintenance one.
They expect people who can't be bothered to set the clocks on their VCRs to be proactive about watching for Windows updates, and then spend hours downloading tens of megabytes over a dialup connection. I just had to upgrade a client's machine from 98SE to XP. It took THREE HOURS and countless reboots to install the OS from CD and then download and apply all of the updates, and that was on DSL. Instead of just giving up and starting over with security at the foundation, Microsoft is attempting to bolt security onto their existing mess after the fact-- which is why they will continue to fail miserably at this "Trustworthy Computing" nonsense.
I'll bet any amount of money that no matter how many Macs you have in the world, even if the marketshare numbers are reversed, there will never be a Mac Slammer, a Mac Blaster, or a Mac ILOVEYOU.
~Philly
Personally, I suspect that the ITMS may be too small to survive: if revenue is around $30 million and none of that is profit, there is no real budget to promote it.
Apple has a few billion in the bank, so there's your promotion budget.
Also, no matter how well the iTMS does, Apple still only makes a pittance from it, thanks to the record labels and their huge cut. The whole service is basically a loss leader designed to sell iPods (which are quite profitable), and ideally even induce some people to switch to the Mac. The iTMS is the razor, and iPods are the blades.
~Philly
Subtract HR, bandwidth costs, etc, etc... and they are not making much at all.
:: iPods : blades
Which is perfectly according to plan, because this entire service is essentially a loss leader designed to sell iPods.
To put it more succinctly:
iTMS : razor
~Philly
According to the graphs in this article, security is the #3 reason people use Linux, behind cost and reliability. For people purchasing Microsoft stuff, even "Other" scores higher than security, which came in dead last.
I guess we should be glad that most people are apparently not falling for their "Trustworthy Computing" horseshit. The numbers in this poll show that this summer of worm after virus after worm after virus has really put Microsoft under a cloud. It will probably take them at least five years to even begin to win back security mindshare, and that's assuming there's not another SQL Slammer or Blaster waiting to happen in that time.
~Philly
First, Apple will probably never base their machines on x86.
Secondly, even if they did switch to x86, OS X will never, never, never run on any hardware that Apple has not produced-- so surrender the fantasy of running OS X on some homebuilt shitbox. The major selling point of the Mac is the "it just works" factor-- the tight integration between Apple software and Apple hardware. They won't be able to deliver that if they suddenly have to support hundreds of varieties of commodity hardware flying out of factories in East Bumblefuck, Asia. Microsoft has blown through umpteen billion dollars over damn near twenty years in their attempt to do it, and they still haven't got it right.
Apple is a hardware company, period. Their software is just a selling point for their hardware. Look at iTunes and the iTunes Music Store as another example-- iTunes is a free download, and they barely make a profit on the sale of iTMS music. The whole thing is set up to sell iPods, and ideally induce some satisifed iPod buyers to switch to the Mac.
~Philly
Shouldn't Adobe wait until they actually steal more of Quark's XPress customers away, before they start doing the same shit Quark did to drive their customers away in the first place?
~Philly
This is potentially disasturous for compilation albums featuring multiple artists
o ns
Wrong. Within iTunes, the song Info window provides a Boolean attribute, "Part of a compilation." If you check the checkbox (if you're editing a single song's info) or select "Yes" (if you're batch editing multiple songs), a "Compilations" folder is created inside the iTunes Music folder, and inside of those are folders for each compilation album you have:
iTunes Music
-Artist
---Album
-----Tracks
-Compilati
---Compilation Album
-----Tracks
The Compilations folder is where I keep all my movie soundtracks and "Hits of the $DECADE" type stuff.
~Philly
Well, it's packaged with OS X 10.2 because that shipped in August of 2002 and Safari has only existed since January 2003.
In Mac OS X 10.3, Safari is the default browser and IE 5.2.3 is an optional "Additional Applications" install.
~Philly
With iTunes if I haven't ripped the CD through it then I have to reselect my music folder everytime for iTunes to rescan it and find the 10 out of 5000 new tracks.
Or, you could just check the box for the "Copy files to the iTunes music folder when adding to library" option in the Advanced preferences, and simply drag and drop the MP3 files you want to add into the iTunes window. They will be added to the library and copied into your designated iTunes music folder.
See, the problem with you Windows users is you're too used to having to do things ass-backwards to accomplish what you want. When you try to use Apple stuff with that mindset, you get frustrated because you assume what you're trying to do can't possibly be done so easily.
~Philly
Bill always proclaims he was a visionary about the net, and saw ahead of everyone how much that could change the world.
Yeah, Bill's back is calloused from him patting himself on it.
How utterly visionary it was to completely ignore the internet until he saw there was a huge market he could steal from Netscape, starting with a stop-gap browser that was quickly licensed from another company and had the Microsoft name grafted onto it.
Starting when they put DOS on the PC, Microsoft has never been first into a new market that I can think of... they let competitors develop the market, then they move in and take it over-- bulldozing the competition if necessary. Examples:
-Macs had the first mass-market GUI, and Windows finally became usable in 1990.
-AOL took off in the early 90's and the original incarnation of MSN was launched to crush it. (That was the push that was pre-empted by Microsoft's sudden Internet-awareness.)
-Sony and Nintendo owned the game console market for over a decade, and then the Xbox was launched. This assault seems to have faltered.
-After the original Palm devices came PocketPC (and don't forget Microsoft originally tried to call theirs the "PalmPC" until they were sued over it).
The next target is the mobile phone/wireless communication device arena, and a couple companies have already been date-raped by partnering with Microsoft.
~Philly
iTunes was ported for profit. Safari would not be worth the trouble.
iTunes was also ported, at least partially, to slow the adoption of WMA. On the surface, Safari for Windows seems like a dumb idea, but consider:
-Microsoft not only abandoned the Mac browser market, but also is flat out ignoring cries to improve the standards-compliance of the Windows version now that they own the Windows browser market.
-One of the biggest remaining gripes about Safari is that a lot of lazy web developers code for IE exclusively, and ignore complaints from users of other browsers or lock out non-IE browsers from even loading the IE-specific sites.
If the most standards-compliant, most security hole-free, and easiest to use browser for Windows was a modest download from Apple.com, perhaps we'd see the Microsoft balkanization of the web come undone, and the web would return to the way it was imagined: platform-agnostic.
That would benefit the Mac platform-- Apple would sell more Macs because willing people previously unable to switch because of that Windows-only web site they had to use as part of their job would then be able to.
I'm neither for nor against Safari for Windows, I'm just pointing out that there are reasons why Apple might do it.
~Philly
Expose was not bad at all on the 350, though I only opened up maybe 4 windows to test it. The motion was only slightly choppy (i.e. it looks like it skips a step in the scaling animation once in a while), whereas on the G4/733 I'm playing with today, it's all smooth as silk and quite a bit faster.
It seems to be perfectly usable on both machines. If you've got enough RAM in your 400, I think Panther will run on it just fine.
~Philly
Let's just the feature ripped off by Microsoft and shoved into Longhorn in 2005/6. :-)
Actually, it has been claimed that the reason Microsoft is keeping a tight lid on the Longhorn GUI is that they already had a feature just like Expose and Apple somehow stole it. Riiiiiiiiight. Anyone care to provide proof of that? I find it highly dubious that while Expose has been being demoed for months now at every Apple event pimping the forthcoming 10.3, it was only very recently that Microsoft said that it was a feature filched from them and they have in fact been demoing something like that for years. I dunno, I've seen quite a few Microsoft demos, and read about still others. I saw video of the USB BSOD at the Win98 demo. I heard about their pointless "flapping Windows" feature in their knockoff of Quartz Extreme. But I've never heard a peep about their version of Expose, and considering the reaction it got when Apple demoed it and how useful people working with Panther betas seem to find it, you'd think someone would have heard something of Microsoft's.
~Philly
I didn't want to wait another week until the release, so I grabbed the build claiming to be 7B85 that's been floating around on BitTorrent, and put it on a spare G4/350 I've got lying around.
I like the new installer, it's a little more informative about its progress. As for the OS itself, the GUI feels significantly faster, even on a creaky old 350MHz machine without the benefit of enough VRAM to use Quartz Extreme. They seem to have really tightened up the code quite a bit-- for shits and giggles, I ran xBench on it in 10.3, and in 10.2.8 on a different partition on the same drive. Results: Panther, 47; Jaguar, 40-- a decent improvement. I can't wait to see what it's like on my iBook 800, but that upgrade will wait until I have a purchased copy next week.
When I get some more time I'm going to take the Active Directory authentication and Mail.app's Exchange connectivity for a spin and see how that is.
~Philly
That's quite a wish list.
All I really want is a car stereo that I can link to my T68i, so when I make or take a call the stereo mutes itself for the duration without me having to touch it.
Everyone wants Bluetooth built into their iPod, but nobody seems to take into account what having wireless headphones would do to its battery life-- I mean, people were bitching when the battery life dropped from 10 hours in the 1G & 2G iPods to 8 hours in the 3G models.
Bluetooth takes a hell of a chunk out of my T68i's battery just from a couple hours using it as an iTunes remote via Salling Clicker-- and I imagine that that transmits far less over the connection than an iPod streaming music to headphones would. Unless we're talking about some sort of external BlueTooth accessory with its own rechargable battery, it just doesn't seem practical.
IMHO, in the car is the only place where it makes sense using BlueTooth with an iPod, because you can plug into a power source there.
~Philly
My 9 year-old 27" bedroom TV gave up the ghost last night, so until I can get to Best Buy to pick up a replacement, I've got a Commodore 1084S monitor in its place.
They do have a damn nice picture. I usually tip 'em over on their side and use them as a MAME display.
~Philly
I think you meant towing.
Well you're wrong. In fact, I think he's the first person I've ever seen use the phrase properly in a Slashdot post.
~Philly
...when are Windows users going to wake up and take some responsibility for their machines?
Never. Windows is a high maintenance system, being sold to people who can't be bothered to learn how to set the clock on their VCR. They can barely use their PC for IM, e-mail and web browsing, so forget about them adequately maintaining it.
Microsoft should take the blame for that, too. All their blow-sunshine-up-your-ass marketing makes Windows seem like your lovable electronic pal who opens up the internet to you. People don't learn the awful truth until they've given their money to Dell or Gateway, clicked on the wrong spam, and their machine has gotten owned by some script kiddie or spammer.
~Philly
If this bullshit lawsuit doesn't get thrown out of court in five minutes or less, I am moving to Canada.
Mail these fucktards and let them know what you think of them and their ridiculous suit.
~Philly
G5 owners get the upgrade "free" because the G5s were originally supposed to ship with Panther as their OS. Since Panther wasn't ready when the G5s had to go out the door, Apple had to "hack" 10.2.6 to for the G5, producing the G5-only Mac OS X 10.2.7 to tide people over.
Secondly, Apple didn't fuck you, you fucked yourself by buying a PowerBook when you knew that Panther was forthcoming. You were perfectly happy to trade $x to Apple in exchange for a new PowerBook running 10.2.x. The deal is done, you got what you were expecting to get, and Apple does not owe you anything else other than the balance of time on your warranty.
From what I've read, it is not full MAPI support. Instead, you must supply Mail and Address Book with the URL to the Outlook Web Access pages on your Exchange server, and the apps 'screen-scrape' the data from there.
If true, it's not an optimal solution. But I suspect Apple didn't want to go to all the trouble of reverse engineering MAPI, only to have Microsoft "improve" MAPI (read: change it to break Mac interoperability) shortly thereafter.
~Philly
On Tuesday, October 7, HBI said:
> What did we get that we didn't have in 1994?
Me too!
~Philly
Half Life 2? Way to try to bolster your agrument by including a game that's not even out for Windows machines yet.
RTCW? Yup.
C&C Generals? Yup, coming soon.
Halo? Yup, soon.
Sim City 4? Yup.
Civ III? Yup.
In conclusion, you need to take a break from the gaming and check your facts before you post. Otherwise you come off looking like a dumb shit when someone like me comes along to easily prove you wrong.
~Philly
...but real-world app tests have shown that the dual 2GHz G5 beats Dell's cheapest dual 3.06GHz Xeon sytem, both in performance and (when configured identically as possible to Apple's base 2GHz dualie) in price.
In fact, Dell's current price ($4372) on the comparison machine has gone up by $600 since late June, the first time I configured one-- but even back then, Apple beat them by hundreds of dollars.
And don't bother playing the "I can build it cheaper" card-- you cannot fairly compare a manufactured system with one that you cobbled together with the cheapest parts you could find.
~Philly
...you also have:
- Junk mail
- Pocket fluff
- A thing your aunt gave you which you don't know what it is
- A buffered analgesic
~Philly