Yeah, sure, drivers. I heard that with XP. I heard that with Vista. Every single cherry install of XP or Vista I've ever done, without exception, has failed to load ethernet, wireless, video, or soundcard drivers. Every. Single. One.
Virtually everything can use the fallback LAN driver in Windows. Only certain weird emulated-in-firmware NICs cause problems with the fallback driver. I'd point out they don't work in Linux AT ALL. Lots of places use PXE to install Windows so this driver HAS to work.
The remaining devices were almost all served by downloading drivers from Windows Update
Has anyone, in the history of humanity, ever gotten that to work?
Are you serious? You've never seen an updated driver package on Windows Update?
At this point, I'm calling bullshit. Let's hear about some of this hardware that didn't work. Be specific. "Some random sound card" doesn't mean shit. I want specific laptop and desktop brands and models. I want specific pieces of hardware.
Meanwhile, with Ubuntu, the biggest driver headache I've ever had was back in the Dapper Drake days where I had to wrap the Windows drivers for a Broadcom wireless card
You're not doing anything with Ubuntu. How about that Brother printer? Does the Linux driver support ALL the features of the Brother printer? I bet not.
This is assuming NICs represent a major driver problem in Vista/7. They don't. Virtually all NICs (I'm willing to say 99%) will WORK (that is FUNCTION) "out of the box" with Windows 7. There are a number of generic fallback drivers. There might be some issues, like jumbo frame support on gigabit cards, and some settings you can't tweak, but they will almost always work. This has been the case since Windows 98.
No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
You are complaining about a problem that does not exist.
Go to one of the many, many, many "white box" vendors that will happily sell you a bare PC. Buy XP at retail and install it. Many white box vendors will sell you an OEM version of Windows XP (perfectly legal to install as long as you buy it WITH the bare PC) so you don't have to pay full price, but you won't have any OEM support (not that that's worth anything). The support for retail versions of Windows *IS* better so you'll have to weigh that in your purchasing decision.
Technically speaking you'll probably end up paying a little more ($30-50) than an OEM with bulk licensing would have paid for Windows XP, but that's it.
This should be common sense (business class is better than cheap consumer crap), but it isn't.
Last time I bought Dell Inspirons in bulk, 50% were DOA. I bought Optiplex workstations at the same time and about 2% of those were bad. Don't buy consumer-grade anything from Dell or HP. That goes double for Lenovo and Sony.
When talking about "consumer" equipment I'm excluding boutique vendors like Alienware and Falcon Northwest. I am a big fan of such vendors. You get what you pay for.
Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium do not include upgrade rights from Windows XP Professional, Vista Business, Vista Enterprise, and Vista Ultimate do. For the purposes of "downgrading" to XP Professional, you need upgrade rights.
So the cost of "downgrading" Vista is really the cost of UPgrading Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium to Vista Business.
This is typical. There are bulk licensing agreements and site licenses where this doesn't apply.
you've probably bought junk food, snacks or something for more than what a regular PC game costs.
Yes, but I can return that stuff if it's bad.
You may think you cannot return purchased food to retailers. You are wrong. I'll use the example of milk:
I've returned gallons of milk that were expired on the shelf and I didn't notice. I've returned gallons of milk because I bought non-fat and meant to buy low-fat. I've returned gallons of milk because I just didn't like them.
Also, the ability to return a game that I do not like.
For the record, you CAN return a game in most states and in many states restocking fees are illegal.
The stores simply ignore the law.
In California, you have (according to case law) 30 days to return anything no matter what and restocking fees are illegal. This doesn't prevent the retailers from insisting on this. I've had to take EB Games/Gamestop to court 3 times over this. Each time the judge quickly ruled in my favor. Each time the judge refused to issue an injunction against EB Games/Gamestop to stop this behavior because I didn't file in Superior Court (just Small Claims). You have to rack up over $10,000 in claims to go to Superior Court and you have to have a lawyer which, in practice, means you have to have a class-action to get anywhere. Unfortunately, a class-action in California requires $10 MILLION in losses. One lawyer tried to do a class action but he was unable to get enough plaintiffs. I've been lobbying the CA state legislature about this. Hopefully they're going to do something.
And this is how the situation stands in most of the country. The return polices you see that won't accept opened merchandise on ANY media and charge restocking fees are probably illegal. If you take them to court you'll almost certainly win, but who (other than me) wants to sue over $50?
Based on my experience your best bet is to try and lobby your state representative/senator to pass a law explicitly banning these practices. Argue for a provision that allows ANYONE to sue for violation (because the state AG won't do shit).
But then consider the budget that goes into making the massive 3D graphics, including modern rendering and lighting techniques, R+D, possible budget for voice actors (and unlike the 90s, they can't just rely on local talent, some of these games require big names), etc.
And? Film production costs have tripled since the 80's yet the cost of home movies has gone DOWN. You can now get new DVD releases for $12.
This is because the music studios have figured out how to properly advertise their products to wide markets. Most blockbuster Hollywood movies have thousands of TV and internet buys. Most of the game publishers barely bother to advertise games at all besides freebies to the gaming press (which costs nothing).
You also need to look at the entertainment value you are getting out of a game as opposed to say doing something like reading a book or going to the movies. A typical game is designed to give 40 hours of gameplay, so your $/hr entertainment cost is about $1-2.... So aside from a few clunkers, you are getting a good deal with video games compared to other forms of entertainment.
"Aside from a few clunkers"? Most video games are complete shit, like most movies.
The difference I've run into is the absolute refusal of the specialty game retailers to accept returns on video games. Big box retailers are relucant as well, but I've had them take back opened DVD movies and games with little protest. I've had to sue EB Games and Gamestop to get them to take back defective items, especially on used merchandise.
Capital punishment solves nothing, and just feeds the basest desire of humans for revenge.
What is the point of prison? This is a philosophical question and the answer to this determines whether or not you think the death penalty is a bad idea.
One view is that prisons are "banishment" as you describe. The purpose of prison is, in theory, to simply separate the criminal from the rest of society with the primary goal of protecting the society from the criminal. No attempt is made to change the criminal in any significant way. This is the European model.
Another view is that prison is punishment. Criminals are intended to suffer while in prison. Society is protected by deterrence, knowing the punishment that faces them criminals will be less likely to offend or re-offend. In such as system corporal punishment, especially execution, is preferred because it has a dramatic impact and it's cheaper.
The American system combines both aspects. Criminals are separated from society for very long periods in jails where they're tortured. We, as a society, have decided this is the way to go.
There are numerous other theories. Prisons were originally designed around the concept of penance. A prisoner would be confined with the Bible and required to take religious instruction. It's assumed the prisoner will eventually repent their sins and adopt a virtuous life whereupon they are released.
Now, if you don't believe that deterrence works on criminals (Either it works or it doesn't, you can't say that "fear of jail" works but "fear of death" doesn't) then you shouldn't support the death penalty because it won't deter criminals.
This is completely separate from questions on the application of the death penalty. Namely that only extremely poor mostly non-white men are executed in the USA. These judges DO NOT meet that criteria, which is why they can't get the death penalty. Even if they committed mass murders on national TV.
This is one of my big problems with the pack-in contracts, return policies, etc. You are in fact 100% right. Many of these contracts are flat-out void and illegal in many juristictions, but it's difficult for the consumer to know this and it's not like the reseller is going to tell them. In fact, I've had resellers vehemently deny they were breaking the law.
You might not like it, however, we can't stay in business long if we're losing money on every transaction, so where are you going to buy your candy bar from then, your high horse?
It really doesn't matter whether he likes it or not. You signed a contract and you have to follow it. These aren't "pack in" or "implied" licenses. You specifically agreed to this when you agreed to accept credit cards as payment.
And these contracts WILL NOT be tossed or altered in any way by the courts. They are approved by the Congress and are effectively laws. Contracts with other heavily-regulated industries work much the same way.
So every study I've seen including those from independent reviewing companies says otherwise.
I've been doing this kind of IT and support for a long time and I'm not quite sure how you would engineer such a test. It strikes me that very small changes in methodology would have a dramatic effect on the results.
The problem with most of these tests is that the engineers hide their methodology because they aren't following one. Usually they just ask the vendor and write down whatever they say.
I've never read what I would consider to be a well-designed study to analyze support from major Windows vendors vs. Apple. The only one I've seen was some time ago from PC World and compared Dell, HP, Acer, and a few others based on some well-defined critera. While I think HP "won" the study, if you looked at the raw data it was basically a wash with Acer being slightly inferior.
Upon what are you basing your assessments of reliability?
Personal experience. I've worked in IT for about 15 years now. I've used Apple computers from the very beginning. I've personally used the first Apple computer, met and spent time with principles (the Steves, engineers at Apple, etc.) I've worked in the Apple test labs.
I've also worked in IBM's test labs (for the Thinkpad line) and I've been out to Sony where they do QA. I've worked for and with Microsoft. I've worked for NEC. I've been the head of IT for Samsung Semiconductor.
Consumer Reports usually covers about 10 brands in their big studies (with Alienware being included in Dell's numbers for a few years now).
Consumer Report's "studies" have bad methodology. Last time I talked to their evaluators they were morons and I had to baby them through several stages of testing. And while I can't prove it absolutely, I'm pretty sure Consumer Reports bases these results largely on how much money they can get out of the vendor. You do know they have to pay to participate in these tests don't you?
And according to the most recent survey:
"Laptop percentages ranged from 20% (Lenovo and Compaq) to 23% (Apple). Dell, HP, and Gateway came in at 22%, while Sony and Toshiba come in at 21%. On the desktop front, percentages ranged from 12% (Apple) to 20% (Gateway). Thus, Apple came in on the high end for laptops but at the low end for desktops."
In fact, Apple WAS the high end. In the last Consumer Reports survey Apple had the very worst record for laptop repair of the vendors they tested. This was despite the fact Apple doesn't have a super-cheap $500 budget laptop like most of the other vendors.
So if you consider Consumer Reports authoritative (I don't), Apple laptop hardware sucks.
This process will take about one/two months from now.
In 2 months when shipping hardware is in people's hands and you've tested it you'll be able to say:
runs ubuntu just normally
Until then you're talking out of your ass about vaporware.
It's perfect for me.
It DOES NOT EXIST. You merely have a DESCRIPTION that makes it appear that the product will work for your needs. What it the unit arrives DOA or some of the features aren't as described in the shipping product? It won't be "perfect" then, will it?
You mean there's exactly ONE incredibly obscure development platform for a GUI on Debian ARM that hasn't been made since 1999? There's exactly one of these devices selling on eBay.
Macs cost more than the average PC by about 15%, which is to say about the same amount as other "premium" vendors like Sony, but Apple manages to win on reliability and support every year by a significant margin.
The first part of this statement is a well-established fact (15% more), the second is highly-controversial(better reliability and support). On reliability, I'll just say "no". I've seen nothing to convince me Apple has significantly lower hardware failure rates than other boutique vendors. "Support" is highly subjective and it depends on what kind of support you need. My colleague had Alienware write a custom driver (at no additional cost) to solve a problem with his laptop. Does Apple do that? I suspect your studies specifically excluded other boutique vendors and compared Apple to Dell, Acer, or Sony. Their real competitors are Pugent, Falcon Northwest, Alienware, VoodooPC, etc. And Dell, etc. offer premium support for additional fees. Does Apple do onsite repair? Dell does. If you buy cheap hardware from Dell (or anyone) don't expect it to be as reliable as more expensive hardware from Apple (or anyone).
The real issue is support for Windows. There isn't much of an "escalation path" to get you from an OEM to Microsoft with an issue, you have to handle this ad hoc. And the OEM will tend to blame MS and MS will blame the OEM. Apple's main support advantage is that they don't get to make this argument as they're a single vendor. That, plus a relatively small application and peripheral pool (and the most popular apps are made by Apple) means that Apple has a lot "less" to support. So if someone calls Dell and says "X application is crashing on my laptop" Dell will probably tell them to contact the application vendor, if someone calls Apple and says "X application is crashing on my laptop" Apple will probably respond with "We know about that, the fix is X" because it's probably THEIR application.
This is the real advantage of Apple: Single-vendor support if you stay in the sandbox.
Now people need to get over it. Whether you are a fanboy or a hater, just give it up.
I'd agree with this wholeheartedly. The real issue here is the software, not the hardware.
I'd love to see manufacturers targeting specifically blind and visually-impaired people as part of their strategy.
Remember that these devices have the big screen largely to play video. Visually-impaired people are almost explicitly excluded by design. By the same token, MP3 players aren't very useful for deaf people (hard of hearing people complain they're not loud enough). Designing UI for smartphones is tough enough, especially when the same interface has to work in English and Chinese. Designing with handicaps in mind would really hurt time to market for negligible returns.
Stay away from Apple. It's very unlikely Apple will abandon the virtual keyboard model and with one "flagship" device at a time I seriously doubt they're going to fork the product line anytime soon.
With the relatively open platforms of Android and Windows Mobile third-parties can pick up the slack. I know there are "visually impaired" interfaces for Windows Mobile. Also, Windows Mobile has been around a lot longer has has more highly-specialized applications like this. YMMV.
The issue is complicated. Microsoft has every legal right to change their pricing structure whenever they want. What they did is stop selling the "site" discounted XP licenses to OEMs. Starting in 2007 that was passed to Vista. This means that in effect the OEMs with the big discount pay less for Vista than for XP. That's what these fees are about.
As far as I'm aware, netbook makers pay the same price for XP i.e. they're paying more. Possibly more than they ever have.
You might notice this has nothing to do with the consumer. If the OEM choose to resell the XP license for $5,000 I suppose they could do that. I have a feeling the $69 fee is intended to cover the extra cost of the XP license.
About the only legitimate complaint for the consumer is if they're stiffed on the Vista license. After a downgrade they should have a license for both XP and Vista.
There's also I believe a legitimate case to be made about the transferability of licenses. The dubious pack-in terms that you can't transfer an OEM Windows install are basically garbage. You bought a licese to the software, you should be able to install it wherever you want (as long as it's only 1 PC at a time).
As far as monopolies go I'd have more sympathy if people weren't obviously singling-out Microsoft. For example, we just gave $35 billion to the Big 3 auto cartel (and they ARE a cartel) virtually guaranteeing no significant innovation in the auto market. Telsa, for example, is folding because of the bailout. Yet nobody's talking seriously about breaking up GM, Chrysler, or Ford.
I have used Debian ARM on the NLSU2 and it has EXACTLY the limitations I described above. There IS no meaningful repository so you have to compile everything AND you have to modify the MAKE files and even then 90% of software for Debian doesn't work.
There is no way Debian ARM could come close to replacing a desktop system.
Yeah, that crazy EU government and their enforcing the laws... the same laws we enforced against MS for the same crime which they still haven't stopped committing.
Laws which are only enforced against Microsoft (not EU companies).
And you can't create laws which violate your treaty obligations. The conditions imposed on MS fairly obviously violate the Berne Convention. If I was MS I would take this to the WTO.
If they don't think the law is just, the right way to solve it is to change public opinion and get the law changed by the democratic process. Not just break the law because you can and then make huge campaign contributions and hope you can get away with it.
How is lobbying "changing the law by democratic process"? It's not "public opinion" that's the enemy in the EU. These "crimes" are the results of complaints by European and other companies that they're were losing money to MS. It's those companies (which I'm sure do their own lobbying), that are the problem here.
Since OEMs can't buy OS X, it is not considered part of the market. Apple bypasses the market and instead competes against OEMs in the computer system market.
This is both splitting hairs and wrong. Windows, at least in the home computer market, has been traditionally pitted against "bundled" systems like Macintosh and the Amiga. To argue that this competition doesn't count is to argue that Windows has NEVER had any competition except Linux and maybe OS/2. Neither of which factor in the lawsuits. By your reasoning Microsoft is clearly a "natural monopoly" because nobody has ever tried to compete with them (again, Linux doesn't count).
Remember, the monopoly determination is based on the behavior of Microsoft in the mid-90s and you have to look at it solely through that lens.
> Bundling an essential application with an operating system is not an unfair practice.
In this case it is.
Based on what OBJECTIVE criteria? The essence of your opinion is that "Microsoft is bad and must be continually punished because I don't like them."
They aren't being sued, they're being prosecuted for breaking the law.
No, they're being sued. First, the US case is basically done and Sun and Netscape basically lost. This was the case I knew the most about. I worked for Netscape and I worked closely with Sun and had many friends and colleagues that worked for Sun. Netscape ran itself into the ground. Had they actually made a better product than IE people would have paid for it And people DID. Netscape was doing just fine until Communicator, which users hated. Quality took a nose dive due to pure laziness/craziness on the part of developers. Sun was ultimately hurt mainly by Linux, not Microsoft. Sun's inability to capitalize on their own good ideas (Java) is not MS' fault.
I'm less familiar with the EU case, but based on my reading it's sour grapes. Large EU companies (many of which have government-enforced monopolies) aren't treated this way by the EU. This is the EU whining that they can't seem to make an operating system. "Linux" is not an operating system. SuSE is an operating system (American now, bought by Novell). AmigaOS is an operating system (dead). Mandriva Linux is an operating system (development has moved to Brazil). So they're saying to MS: "We're too stupid to write a real competitive operating system so we're ordering you to work with your competitors to make a Windows knockoff which will be the only thing sold in Europe." Shockingly, MS doesn't want to be driven out of business.
Various Microsoft programs insist on launching that damned thing despite OS set preferences for Firefox. Something it would not be able to do if I truly had the freedom of CHOICE rather than the freedom of adding extras.
I have a Blackberry by RIM through AT&T. I can't install the all the apps I want unless they're Java. I've installed Opera Mini because the built-in browser sucks, but I can't set it as the "default browser" so my other apps won't use it. And I can't uninstall RIM's browser either.
Yet I don't here people bitching about RIM's "monopoly". You can replace "RIM" with "Apple" or "Google" if you want.
In fact, most of the smartphone OS vendors lock down their phones to make it hard to run any app you want. Who doesn't lock down their phones? Microsoft. That's why there's more apps for Windows Mobile (and PalmOS, who also don't lockdown their phones) than other smartphone platforms.
Has anybody actually seen this? I find this statement very difficult to believe. The issues with porting desktop Linux to ARM are massive. This isn't even the target, it's supposed to be an emulator box.
It's just a startup now, people did preorders (by preordering it means that you are trusting them;) and it will be delivered about March or April.
AKA vaporware.
It's a perfect UMPC for me, a really "mobile" PC, smaller than my wallet, actually.
How can it be "perfect" for you? It doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, sure, drivers. I heard that with XP. I heard that with Vista. Every single cherry install of XP or Vista I've ever done, without exception, has failed to load ethernet, wireless, video, or soundcard drivers. Every. Single. One.
Virtually everything can use the fallback LAN driver in Windows. Only certain weird emulated-in-firmware NICs cause problems with the fallback driver. I'd point out they don't work in Linux AT ALL. Lots of places use PXE to install Windows so this driver HAS to work.
The remaining devices were almost all served by downloading drivers from Windows Update
Has anyone, in the history of humanity, ever gotten that to work?
Are you serious? You've never seen an updated driver package on Windows Update?
At this point, I'm calling bullshit. Let's hear about some of this hardware that didn't work. Be specific. "Some random sound card" doesn't mean shit. I want specific laptop and desktop brands and models. I want specific pieces of hardware.
Meanwhile, with Ubuntu, the biggest driver headache I've ever had was back in the Dapper Drake days where I had to wrap the Windows drivers for a Broadcom wireless card
You're not doing anything with Ubuntu. How about that Brother printer? Does the Linux driver support ALL the features of the Brother printer? I bet not.
This is assuming NICs represent a major driver problem in Vista/7. They don't. Virtually all NICs (I'm willing to say 99%) will WORK (that is FUNCTION) "out of the box" with Windows 7. There are a number of generic fallback drivers. There might be some issues, like jumbo frame support on gigabit cards, and some settings you can't tweak, but they will almost always work. This has been the case since Windows 98.
Find another straw man.
Microsoft has become the laughing stock of the PC industry!
As opposed to who? Novell? Sun? Most of the other commercial OS vendors have gone down in flames or are going down.
No, I won't pay a cent for something I don't plan to use. I very specifically don't want to reward in the slightest or appear in the usage statistics of something I don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.
You are complaining about a problem that does not exist.
Go to one of the many, many, many "white box" vendors that will happily sell you a bare PC. Buy XP at retail and install it. Many white box vendors will sell you an OEM version of Windows XP (perfectly legal to install as long as you buy it WITH the bare PC) so you don't have to pay full price, but you won't have any OEM support (not that that's worth anything). The support for retail versions of Windows *IS* better so you'll have to weigh that in your purchasing decision.
Technically speaking you'll probably end up paying a little more ($30-50) than an OEM with bulk licensing would have paid for Windows XP, but that's it.
Mod parent up.
This should be common sense (business class is better than cheap consumer crap), but it isn't.
Last time I bought Dell Inspirons in bulk, 50% were DOA. I bought Optiplex workstations at the same time and about 2% of those were bad. Don't buy consumer-grade anything from Dell or HP. That goes double for Lenovo and Sony.
When talking about "consumer" equipment I'm excluding boutique vendors like Alienware and Falcon Northwest. I am a big fan of such vendors. You get what you pay for.
Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium do not include upgrade rights from Windows XP Professional, Vista Business, Vista Enterprise, and Vista Ultimate do. For the purposes of "downgrading" to XP Professional, you need upgrade rights.
So the cost of "downgrading" Vista is really the cost of UPgrading Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium to Vista Business.
This is typical. There are bulk licensing agreements and site licenses where this doesn't apply.
you've probably bought junk food, snacks or something for more than what a regular PC game costs.
Yes, but I can return that stuff if it's bad.
You may think you cannot return purchased food to retailers. You are wrong. I'll use the example of milk:
I've returned gallons of milk that were expired on the shelf and I didn't notice.
I've returned gallons of milk because I bought non-fat and meant to buy low-fat.
I've returned gallons of milk because I just didn't like them.
All of these were opened and partially consumed.
Also, the ability to return a game that I do not like.
For the record, you CAN return a game in most states and in many states restocking fees are illegal.
The stores simply ignore the law.
In California, you have (according to case law) 30 days to return anything no matter what and restocking fees are illegal. This doesn't prevent the retailers from insisting on this. I've had to take EB Games/Gamestop to court 3 times over this. Each time the judge quickly ruled in my favor. Each time the judge refused to issue an injunction against EB Games/Gamestop to stop this behavior because I didn't file in Superior Court (just Small Claims). You have to rack up over $10,000 in claims to go to Superior Court and you have to have a lawyer which, in practice, means you have to have a class-action to get anywhere. Unfortunately, a class-action in California requires $10 MILLION in losses. One lawyer tried to do a class action but he was unable to get enough plaintiffs. I've been lobbying the CA state legislature about this. Hopefully they're going to do something.
And this is how the situation stands in most of the country. The return polices you see that won't accept opened merchandise on ANY media and charge restocking fees are probably illegal. If you take them to court you'll almost certainly win, but who (other than me) wants to sue over $50?
Based on my experience your best bet is to try and lobby your state representative/senator to pass a law explicitly banning these practices. Argue for a provision that allows ANYONE to sue for violation (because the state AG won't do shit).
But then consider the budget that goes into making the massive 3D graphics, including modern rendering and lighting techniques, R+D, possible budget for voice actors (and unlike the 90s, they can't just rely on local talent, some of these games require big names), etc.
And? Film production costs have tripled since the 80's yet the cost of home movies has gone DOWN. You can now get new DVD releases for $12.
This is because the music studios have figured out how to properly advertise their products to wide markets. Most blockbuster Hollywood movies have thousands of TV and internet buys. Most of the game publishers barely bother to advertise games at all besides freebies to the gaming press (which costs nothing).
You also need to look at the entertainment value you are getting out of a game as opposed to say doing something like reading a book or going to the movies. A typical game is designed to give 40 hours of gameplay, so your $/hr entertainment cost is about $1-2. ... So aside from a few clunkers, you are getting a good deal with video games compared to other forms of entertainment.
"Aside from a few clunkers"? Most video games are complete shit, like most movies.
The difference I've run into is the absolute refusal of the specialty game retailers to accept returns on video games. Big box retailers are relucant as well, but I've had them take back opened DVD movies and games with little protest. I've had to sue EB Games and Gamestop to get them to take back defective items, especially on used merchandise.
Capital punishment solves nothing, and just feeds the basest desire of humans for revenge.
What is the point of prison? This is a philosophical question and the answer to this determines whether or not you think the death penalty is a bad idea.
One view is that prisons are "banishment" as you describe. The purpose of prison is, in theory, to simply separate the criminal from the rest of society with the primary goal of protecting the society from the criminal. No attempt is made to change the criminal in any significant way. This is the European model.
Another view is that prison is punishment. Criminals are intended to suffer while in prison. Society is protected by deterrence, knowing the punishment that faces them criminals will be less likely to offend or re-offend. In such as system corporal punishment, especially execution, is preferred because it has a dramatic impact and it's cheaper.
The American system combines both aspects. Criminals are separated from society for very long periods in jails where they're tortured. We, as a society, have decided this is the way to go.
There are numerous other theories. Prisons were originally designed around the concept of penance. A prisoner would be confined with the Bible and required to take religious instruction. It's assumed the prisoner will eventually repent their sins and adopt a virtuous life whereupon they are released.
Now, if you don't believe that deterrence works on criminals (Either it works or it doesn't, you can't say that "fear of jail" works but "fear of death" doesn't) then you shouldn't support the death penalty because it won't deter criminals.
This is completely separate from questions on the application of the death penalty. Namely that only extremely poor mostly non-white men are executed in the USA. These judges DO NOT meet that criteria, which is why they can't get the death penalty. Even if they committed mass murders on national TV.
Mod OP up.
This is one of my big problems with the pack-in contracts, return policies, etc. You are in fact 100% right. Many of these contracts are flat-out void and illegal in many juristictions, but it's difficult for the consumer to know this and it's not like the reseller is going to tell them. In fact, I've had resellers vehemently deny they were breaking the law.
My ethics are my own. Not what someone forces upon me. Be it an unethical company nor "but everyone else is doing it" society.
Read this to understand.
Forward by Dr. Laura C. Schlessinger, professional liar.
Thanks, this is the funniest thing I've read in weeks.
You might not like it, however, we can't stay in business long if we're losing money on every transaction, so where are you going to buy your candy bar from then, your high horse?
It really doesn't matter whether he likes it or not. You signed a contract and you have to follow it. These aren't "pack in" or "implied" licenses. You specifically agreed to this when you agreed to accept credit cards as payment.
And these contracts WILL NOT be tossed or altered in any way by the courts. They are approved by the Congress and are effectively laws. Contracts with other heavily-regulated industries work much the same way.
So every study I've seen including those from independent reviewing companies says otherwise.
I've been doing this kind of IT and support for a long time and I'm not quite sure how you would engineer such a test. It strikes me that very small changes in methodology would have a dramatic effect on the results.
The problem with most of these tests is that the engineers hide their methodology because they aren't following one. Usually they just ask the vendor and write down whatever they say.
I've never read what I would consider to be a well-designed study to analyze support from major Windows vendors vs. Apple. The only one I've seen was some time ago from PC World and compared Dell, HP, Acer, and a few others based on some well-defined critera. While I think HP "won" the study, if you looked at the raw data it was basically a wash with Acer being slightly inferior.
Upon what are you basing your assessments of reliability?
Personal experience. I've worked in IT for about 15 years now. I've used Apple computers from the very beginning. I've personally used the first Apple computer, met and spent time with principles (the Steves, engineers at Apple, etc.) I've worked in the Apple test labs.
I've also worked in IBM's test labs (for the Thinkpad line) and I've been out to Sony where they do QA. I've worked for and with Microsoft. I've worked for NEC. I've been the head of IT for Samsung Semiconductor.
Consumer Reports usually covers about 10 brands in their big studies (with Alienware being included in Dell's numbers for a few years now).
Consumer Report's "studies" have bad methodology. Last time I talked to their evaluators they were morons and I had to baby them through several stages of testing. And while I can't prove it absolutely, I'm pretty sure Consumer Reports bases these results largely on how much money they can get out of the vendor. You do know they have to pay to participate in these tests don't you?
And according to the most recent survey:
"Laptop percentages ranged from 20% (Lenovo and Compaq) to 23% (Apple). Dell, HP, and Gateway came in at 22%, while Sony and Toshiba come in at 21%. On the desktop front, percentages ranged from 12% (Apple) to 20% (Gateway). Thus, Apple came in on the high end for laptops but at the low end for desktops."
In fact, Apple WAS the high end. In the last Consumer Reports survey Apple had the very worst record for laptop repair of the vendors they tested. This was despite the fact Apple doesn't have a super-cheap $500 budget laptop like most of the other vendors.
So if you consider Consumer Reports authoritative (I don't), Apple laptop hardware sucks.
This process will take about one/two months from now.
In 2 months when shipping hardware is in people's hands and you've tested it you'll be able to say:
runs ubuntu just normally
Until then you're talking out of your ass about vaporware.
It's perfect for me.
It DOES NOT EXIST. You merely have a DESCRIPTION that makes it appear that the product will work for your needs. What it the unit arrives DOA or some of the features aren't as described in the shipping product? It won't be "perfect" then, will it?
Stop being an evangelist and think for a minute.
You mean there's exactly ONE incredibly obscure development platform for a GUI on Debian ARM that hasn't been made since 1999? There's exactly one of these devices selling on eBay.
I stand by my statement.
Macs cost more than the average PC by about 15%, which is to say about the same amount as other "premium" vendors like Sony, but Apple manages to win on reliability and support every year by a significant margin.
The first part of this statement is a well-established fact (15% more), the second is highly-controversial(better reliability and support). On reliability, I'll just say "no". I've seen nothing to convince me Apple has significantly lower hardware failure rates than other boutique vendors. "Support" is highly subjective and it depends on what kind of support you need. My colleague had Alienware write a custom driver (at no additional cost) to solve a problem with his laptop. Does Apple do that? I suspect your studies specifically excluded other boutique vendors and compared Apple to Dell, Acer, or Sony. Their real competitors are Pugent, Falcon Northwest, Alienware, VoodooPC, etc. And Dell, etc. offer premium support for additional fees. Does Apple do onsite repair? Dell does. If you buy cheap hardware from Dell (or anyone) don't expect it to be as reliable as more expensive hardware from Apple (or anyone).
The real issue is support for Windows. There isn't much of an "escalation path" to get you from an OEM to Microsoft with an issue, you have to handle this ad hoc. And the OEM will tend to blame MS and MS will blame the OEM. Apple's main support advantage is that they don't get to make this argument as they're a single vendor. That, plus a relatively small application and peripheral pool (and the most popular apps are made by Apple) means that Apple has a lot "less" to support. So if someone calls Dell and says "X application is crashing on my laptop" Dell will probably tell them to contact the application vendor, if someone calls Apple and says "X application is crashing on my laptop" Apple will probably respond with "We know about that, the fix is X" because it's probably THEIR application.
This is the real advantage of Apple: Single-vendor support if you stay in the sandbox.
Now people need to get over it. Whether you are a fanboy or a hater, just give it up.
I'd agree with this wholeheartedly. The real issue here is the software, not the hardware.
I'd love to see manufacturers targeting specifically blind and visually-impaired people as part of their strategy.
Remember that these devices have the big screen largely to play video. Visually-impaired people are almost explicitly excluded by design. By the same token, MP3 players aren't very useful for deaf people (hard of hearing people complain they're not loud enough). Designing UI for smartphones is tough enough, especially when the same interface has to work in English and Chinese. Designing with handicaps in mind would really hurt time to market for negligible returns.
Stay away from Apple. It's very unlikely Apple will abandon the virtual keyboard model and with one "flagship" device at a time I seriously doubt they're going to fork the product line anytime soon.
With the relatively open platforms of Android and Windows Mobile third-parties can pick up the slack. I know there are "visually impaired" interfaces for Windows Mobile. Also, Windows Mobile has been around a lot longer has has more highly-specialized applications like this. YMMV.
The issue is complicated. Microsoft has every legal right to change their pricing structure whenever they want. What they did is stop selling the "site" discounted XP licenses to OEMs. Starting in 2007 that was passed to Vista. This means that in effect the OEMs with the big discount pay less for Vista than for XP. That's what these fees are about.
As far as I'm aware, netbook makers pay the same price for XP i.e. they're paying more. Possibly more than they ever have.
You might notice this has nothing to do with the consumer. If the OEM choose to resell the XP license for $5,000 I suppose they could do that. I have a feeling the $69 fee is intended to cover the extra cost of the XP license.
About the only legitimate complaint for the consumer is if they're stiffed on the Vista license. After a downgrade they should have a license for both XP and Vista.
There's also I believe a legitimate case to be made about the transferability of licenses. The dubious pack-in terms that you can't transfer an OEM Windows install are basically garbage. You bought a licese to the software, you should be able to install it wherever you want (as long as it's only 1 PC at a time).
As far as monopolies go I'd have more sympathy if people weren't obviously singling-out Microsoft. For example, we just gave $35 billion to the Big 3 auto cartel (and they ARE a cartel) virtually guaranteeing no significant innovation in the auto market. Telsa, for example, is folding because of the bailout. Yet nobody's talking seriously about breaking up GM, Chrysler, or Ford.
Debian ARM is for NAS devices only.
I have used Debian ARM on the NLSU2 and it has EXACTLY the limitations I described above. There IS no meaningful repository so you have to compile everything AND you have to modify the MAKE files and even then 90% of software for Debian doesn't work.
There is no way Debian ARM could come close to replacing a desktop system.
Yeah, that crazy EU government and their enforcing the laws... the same laws we enforced against MS for the same crime which they still haven't stopped committing.
Laws which are only enforced against Microsoft (not EU companies).
And you can't create laws which violate your treaty obligations. The conditions imposed on MS fairly obviously violate the Berne Convention. If I was MS I would take this to the WTO.
If they don't think the law is just, the right way to solve it is to change public opinion and get the law changed by the democratic process. Not just break the law because you can and then make huge campaign contributions and hope you can get away with it.
How is lobbying "changing the law by democratic process"? It's not "public opinion" that's the enemy in the EU. These "crimes" are the results of complaints by European and other companies that they're were losing money to MS. It's those companies (which I'm sure do their own lobbying), that are the problem here.
Since OEMs can't buy OS X, it is not considered part of the market. Apple bypasses the market and instead competes against OEMs in the computer system market.
This is both splitting hairs and wrong. Windows, at least in the home computer market, has been traditionally pitted against "bundled" systems like Macintosh and the Amiga. To argue that this competition doesn't count is to argue that Windows has NEVER had any competition except Linux and maybe OS/2. Neither of which factor in the lawsuits. By your reasoning Microsoft is clearly a "natural monopoly" because nobody has ever tried to compete with them (again, Linux doesn't count).
Remember, the monopoly determination is based on the behavior of Microsoft in the mid-90s and you have to look at it solely through that lens.
> Bundling an essential application with an operating system is not an unfair practice.
In this case it is.
Based on what OBJECTIVE criteria? The essence of your opinion is that "Microsoft is bad and must be continually punished because I don't like them."
They aren't being sued, they're being prosecuted for breaking the law.
No, they're being sued. First, the US case is basically done and Sun and Netscape basically lost. This was the case I knew the most about. I worked for Netscape and I worked closely with Sun and had many friends and colleagues that worked for Sun. Netscape ran itself into the ground. Had they actually made a better product than IE people would have paid for it And people DID. Netscape was doing just fine until Communicator, which users hated. Quality took a nose dive due to pure laziness/craziness on the part of developers. Sun was ultimately hurt mainly by Linux, not Microsoft. Sun's inability to capitalize on their own good ideas (Java) is not MS' fault.
I'm less familiar with the EU case, but based on my reading it's sour grapes. Large EU companies (many of which have government-enforced monopolies) aren't treated this way by the EU. This is the EU whining that they can't seem to make an operating system. "Linux" is not an operating system. SuSE is an operating system (American now, bought by Novell). AmigaOS is an operating system (dead). Mandriva Linux is an operating system (development has moved to Brazil). So they're saying to MS: "We're too stupid to write a real competitive operating system so we're ordering you to work with your competitors to make a Windows knockoff which will be the only thing sold in Europe." Shockingly, MS doesn't want to be driven out of business.
Various Microsoft programs insist on launching that damned thing despite OS set preferences for Firefox. Something it would not be able to do if I truly had the freedom of CHOICE rather than the freedom of adding extras.
I have a Blackberry by RIM through AT&T. I can't install the all the apps I want unless they're Java. I've installed Opera Mini because the built-in browser sucks, but I can't set it as the "default browser" so my other apps won't use it. And I can't uninstall RIM's browser either.
Yet I don't here people bitching about RIM's "monopoly". You can replace "RIM" with "Apple" or "Google" if you want.
In fact, most of the smartphone OS vendors lock down their phones to make it hard to run any app you want. Who doesn't lock down their phones? Microsoft. That's why there's more apps for Windows Mobile (and PalmOS, who also don't lockdown their phones) than other smartphone platforms.
runs ubuntu just normally
Has anybody actually seen this? I find this statement very difficult to believe. The issues with porting desktop Linux to ARM are massive. This isn't even the target, it's supposed to be an emulator box.
It's just a startup now, people did preorders (by preordering it means that you are trusting them ;) and it will be delivered about March or April.
AKA vaporware.
It's a perfect UMPC for me, a really "mobile" PC, smaller than my wallet, actually.
How can it be "perfect" for you? It doesn't exist.