Then why suffer with even that much degradation? Why not save it without compression/degradation?
Maybe it's because I never really liked listening to MP3's (remind me too much of listening to analog tapes), but I keep hoping they will soon die out as storage capacity continues to increase. Hope it isn't too long a wait for better broadband access and hard drives in the 200 GB range, compression will become irrelevant.
I'm actually surprised the NO vote isn't even higher. This scheme adds absolutely no value for the legit music buyer, and can potentially cause problems. It's not going to decrease the cost of CD's even if it completely eliminates pirating.
So my question is, what possible reason could anyone have to actually vote "YES"?
the Mac OS X version would probably be the code base from which a linux port would be made
I'm not so sure about that. Sitting between Darwin (the unix core, if you will) and IE, is Apple's Carbon API. So you'd have to port significant portions of Carbon to Linux to get the IE port to run. Seems like there would be easier ways to do it.
Apparently you don't understand how Classic works.
In order to run Classic, you must have a "Classic" OS installed (that would be the OS 9.1 that comes with OSX). Then, when you run Classic, it boots OS 9 "inside" OSX. There really is no "emulation" since OS9 and OSX are both "native" to Mac hardware.
So Apple isn't "throwing in a copy of OS 9.1" because emulation is bad, it's including it because it is a necessary part of Classic.
Almost every adult in the USA can operate a car with little difficulty.
Then again cars essentially perform a single task that hasn't changed in decades. If you exclude the radio and climate control, there are only about a dozen controls I need to worry about, and the most important are quite standard (steering wheel, gas & break pedals, ignition). As for the few remaining controls, most of us have grown up with them and fully understand what they do (lights, wipers etc) even if they aren't in a standard position/configuration.
Now tell me how this compares at all with a computer that performs several different, continuously evolving tasks, using dozens of changing controls (menus, buttons...).
I don't disagree that sometimes a bad combination can happen and there is no single entity to blame, but...
I also believe that the overwhelming majority of program/computer crashes are due to software bugs. I keep hearing people ask why consumers put up with such shoddy software. The simple answer is because most users blame themselves, not the software, whenever there is a crash. So from my perspective, I think software companies get far less blame than they deserve.
I don't even want to think about how many times I've heard users say things like "What am I doing wrong?" when they should be filling out a bug report.
"No Mrs. Simpson, the computer didn't crash because you used poor grammer in that Word document."
Just as an observation to show how widely held the "First Sale" rule is, you can also go into your local public library and check out CD's, movies (including DVDs) and, yes, even software.
In theory, at some point, RAMBUS did actually at least have some technical people working for them. After all, lawyers don't write memory patents by themselves.
Are you sure? They say if you have enough monkeys banging away at typwriters, eventually....
Many of Apple's first press releases specifically states it as "OS X (pronounced ten)"..........so it should be pronounced as "ten" (after all, that's what comes after OS9).
I hope it stays that way, I don't want to visit my mother a year from now and ask her if she wants me to install "Oh Sex" on her computer (at least that's what she'll probably hear).
The real reason Apple went with BSD is because Mac OS X is basically an updated version of NeXT's OPENSTEP OS that can run Carbon apps, has a new graphics sub-system, Java, and includes a few new apps like the emulation environment that runs Classic Mac OS programs. NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP were based on BSD/Mach. All Apple did was update the Mach kernel and update the BSD 4.3 code to BSD 4.4 from some Free distributions
Kinda like soup is basically just water with some stuff added : )
(Sorry, couldn't help myself, its been a long day already.)
From my experience, and what others have reported, OSX runs fine under 64 MB RAM, as long as you don't have to run a "Classic" app, which requires that OS9 be fired up and running also.
128 MB to run two OS's (one a beta) simultaneously doesn't sound so bad to me.
Slashdot Mirror
And why is that?
Maybe it's because I never really liked listening to MP3's (remind me too much of listening to analog tapes), but I keep hoping they will soon die out as storage capacity continues to increase. Hope it isn't too long a wait for better broadband access and hard drives in the 200 GB range, compression will become irrelevant.
So my question is, what possible reason could anyone have to actually vote "YES"?
And by my numbers that makes ~930 RIAA member employees.
I'm not so sure about that. Sitting between Darwin (the unix core, if you will) and IE, is Apple's Carbon API. So you'd have to port significant portions of Carbon to Linux to get the IE port to run. Seems like there would be easier ways to do it.
I don't understand this. Are you trying to say that Apple is going to stop developing the OSX line?
And maybe you can explain how Linux will "dynamically asorb the new developments" that Darwin/MacOSX can't?
Or, plug in USB or Firewire cable (whichever the drive uses), turn on drive (works quite well for the market segment the iMac is aimed at).
I know, you meant internal drive, but give me any computer and I'll come up with something you can't do with it that I can do on another.
I still think it'd be cool if the "Red Box" was still around (the Red Box is to Windows software what the Blue Box is to "Classic" Mac software).
In order to run Classic, you must have a "Classic" OS installed (that would be the OS 9.1 that comes with OSX). Then, when you run Classic, it boots OS 9 "inside" OSX. There really is no "emulation" since OS9 and OSX are both "native" to Mac hardware.
So Apple isn't "throwing in a copy of OS 9.1" because emulation is bad, it's including it because it is a necessary part of Classic.
And software has error checking (or should). You can build "tolerance" into software, it just takes time and good design.
One word....Microsoft (sorry couldn't resist).
Glad to hear I'm not the only one who runs into that mindset.
But do you know how to get Word to stop re-arranging where a figure is on a page every time you go to another part of the document to do some editing?
Then again cars essentially perform a single task that hasn't changed in decades. If you exclude the radio and climate control, there are only about a dozen controls I need to worry about, and the most important are quite standard (steering wheel, gas & break pedals, ignition). As for the few remaining controls, most of us have grown up with them and fully understand what they do (lights, wipers etc) even if they aren't in a standard position/configuration.
Now tell me how this compares at all with a computer that performs several different, continuously evolving tasks, using dozens of changing controls (menus, buttons...).
I also believe that the overwhelming majority of program/computer crashes are due to software bugs. I keep hearing people ask why consumers put up with such shoddy software. The simple answer is because most users blame themselves, not the software, whenever there is a crash. So from my perspective, I think software companies get far less blame than they deserve.
I don't even want to think about how many times I've heard users say things like "What am I doing wrong?" when they should be filling out a bug report.
"No Mrs. Simpson, the computer didn't crash because you used poor grammer in that Word document."
Just as an observation to show how widely held the "First Sale" rule is, you can also go into your local public library and check out CD's, movies (including DVDs) and, yes, even software.
Can I assume that you don't have small children running about?
yeah, or even "windows"
Are you sure? They say if you have enough monkeys banging away at typwriters, eventually....
So your choice is between censored material or no material at all.
Now that's real freedom from censorship.
One word : Windows
Many of Apple's first press releases specifically states it as "OS X (pronounced ten)"..........so it should be pronounced as "ten" (after all, that's what comes after OS9).
I hope it stays that way, I don't want to visit my mother a year from now and ask her if she wants me to install "Oh Sex" on her computer (at least that's what she'll probably hear).
Kinda like soup is basically just water with some stuff added : )
(Sorry, couldn't help myself, its been a long day already.)
From my experience, and what others have reported, OSX runs fine under 64 MB RAM, as long as you don't have to run a "Classic" app, which requires that OS9 be fired up and running also.
128 MB to run two OS's (one a beta) simultaneously doesn't sound so bad to me.
Now I'm looking forward to the day that Firstone only licenses their tires to me.
Remember, you only bought the rubber the tires were made out of, not their IP (the tire shape/tread), which can be revoked at any time.
I'm still trying to visualize the EULA written on the paper band wrapped around the silverware/napkin.
By breaking this seal, you agree.........