Apple really don't seem to care about minor piracy of Mac OS, so I wouldn't be surprised if what you says works. I actually think that would be in their best interest. People with old computers are probably less likely to buy a new OS than people with more recent systems.
Same here. I'll continue anyway, but in relation to (not yours specifically) comments that SL is a "service pack" and W7 isn't.
Anyway if DirectX 11 is given to Vista users, then that's one less new feature for Windows 7! Quicktime X and OpenCL are new features for Mac OS SL though - a strong argument in favour of SL actually being at least as much a new OS as W7.
SL has a lot of UI changes - new Finder, Dock with better Expose support for application, etc. No new theme that was rumoured though.
It's hard to compare the iLife applications with the free Windows ones, Picasa notwithstanding. There is a large quality and usability difference. On the other hand, I only use iPhoto, and not regularly, I don't need no iWeb. iWork is actually a very nice consumer office package that should come with new Macs for free as it doesn't really cost Apple much to add that value to their systems, and might make the higher cost look more reasonable.
I think my main point is that SL is as much a new OS as W7 is, in my opinion, and there are many reasons for that. The cheap upgrade price means that Apple can drag most Leopard users onto SL and that's better for software developers who can use the new features sooner rather than later. If SL was $129 then it would be different.
Also think: Apple gets 50m upgrades at $29, for $1.5b revenue (50m new active Mac OS users since Leopard launch making 75m in total). For Leopard they had (guess) 10m upgrades at $129, for $1.29b revenue, and the downside of a fragmented platform.
I didn't know that elves drank that much! I thought they distanced themselves from the behaviours of dwarves...
And yes, don't these filesystems have catchy user-friendly names, like "Linux Logging Filesystem" and "Linux Object Filesystem" and "Linux Drunken Spew Over Storage Filesystem"?
Well, consider Windows Mobile - tap with stylus, select, untap. tap, hold... ah, Cut. tap. tap, hold, wait, ah, Paste. Unless you weren't on a smart enough phone - then the function wasn't available.
It's very easy to get it wrong, and then introduce a mechanism that can't be easily changed as other applications use it. Then it takes up valuable UI actions.
However, I do actually agree that Apple took their sweet time over introducing the feature (I was a bit grumpy yesterday I think!) and it really should have been in version 2.
Any idea how the new iPhone can be "oil resistant"?
I really have to ask why you are using such code, voluntarily, when C#/.NET has LINQ, as well as actual, decent, SQL libraries. You appear to know that it isn't secure, so you should stand up for yourself and get your codebase migrated off of it.
Sounds like the guy needed some more help than he got to get to grips with his personal situation. Anyway...
The flaws include SQL injection vulnerabilities and flaws that create a way for hackers to gain file access to files hosted on a vulnerable system.
There is no excuse for SQL Injection vulnerabilities these days. The problem is well known and publicised, the solutions are well documented. This is a problem that is solved by altering how you code, that results in neater code with less errors. If you can't use prepared/parameterised statements and insist on building SQL command strings out of user supplied data, then... well, err, I can't say "you deserve to hang" in this case can I?
You can buy it stand-alone, you always have been able to. Sure, you need a Mac to install it on, but if you had a 10.3 Mac you could drop $129 and get Tiger or Leopard.
As I pointed out (Slashdot has no edit function) Tiger users this time around appear to have to buy the $169 Snow Leopard + iWork + iLife bundle to bring their entire computer up to date.
Yeah. The 13" MacBook (Pro) certainly looks a lot better deal today than it did yesterday. £899 as well, that's only a £50 premium over the US price when VAT is included, it's almost not insulting! Also the screen is meant to be higher quality with 60% more colour gamut.
$999 Macbook White... +$200 => Better case, better screen, Firewire 800, SD Slot, Backlit keyboard, and probably more
What about the $100 upgrade price that Windows 7 Home Premium will have? That's a lot for a service pack.
Or maybe you can accept that sometimes there are enough tweaks and enhancements and new features to warrant a new version. There's an overload of information on the Apple website about Snow Leopard's features, so you can educate yourself.
I'm seeing a company that is providing a free new OS to people who bought iPhones two years ago, an OS with masses of new features and enhancements. I don't see many other phone companies that do that, although Android and webOS look like they will do it - they came after the iPhone however.
Apple never said it was unnecessary. They said it was on the list of things to do, they wanted to get it right (in the context of the multitouch interface you deride), and that they couldn't do everything at once. You could have had a half-arsed C+P implementation that could have held the platform back. It was annoying if you needed it. Sales figures suggest that most people didn't care.
I fail to see how Windows 7 isn't Vista but fixed, in the same way that Snow Leopard is Leopard, but fixed.
What is new in Windows 7 - the screenshots all look the same to me as Vista... apparently it's leaner and runs faster. Oh wait, look, Snow Leopard is the same. Windows 7 has DirectX 11 you say? But Snow Leopard has QuicktimeX. Windows 7 has DirectX Compute? But Snow Leopard has OpenCL. Vista came out in 2007. Leopard came out in 2007. These new versions are both coming out very close to each other. Why, in your mind, is Snow Leopard comparable to a service pack whilst Windows 7 is not?
I do actually agree that Apple should just get everyone on Intel systems up to Snow Leopard by having an upgrade option... oh, they do, it just includes iLife and iWork so that the other major Apple applications are also brought up to date.
From the post you replied to: "One cause is likely that many of these iPhone customers were never smartphone customers before. These people had no idea just how much money smartphones cost MSRP."
A smartphone isn't a flash chip and USB controller, so why compare to that? Indeed the 16GB of extra space on the iPhone 3GS is only $100, you can see that in the pricing - 16GB $199, 32GB $299.
Your example doesn't make sense because 2/3rds of the cost of the iPhone is hidden in the contract that runs for 2 years.
When you buy a MBP you aren't buying a contract (unless you get it as part of a 3G Data deal from a service provider, in which case the computer is usually a bit cheap, e.g., half price netbooks can be bought when you sign up for a year of 3G data) so this doesn't apply.
Once your contract runs out, or earlier even, you become elegible for an upgrade at the reduced price! So you aren't even being denied the upgrade.
If you don't understand this, then you are mentally deficient.
I guess you *could* - no guarantees that AT&T won't just say "no".
But... really? for $85? FUCK THAT.
Personally I'd wait and see what the iPhone OS 3 update provided to me on my existing iPhone (if I had one), and then decide. I don't need the latest and greatest phone hardware every year if what I have works just fine.
Indeed it's not as if you don't know what you're getting into when you sign a TWO YEAR CONTRACT that includes a subsidised phone.
There's probably $20 (or thereabouts) you are paying each month for your phone hardware (paying off the subsidy) so over 2 years that's $480 for AT&T, who probably buy the phone for list price + $400 from Apple.
If you want an upgrade, it's obvious that AT&T would like you to pay off the unpaid subsidy left remaining on your contract. What is the point of this story - whiny people who can't commit to their phone contract and want something for nothing.
It does seem like millions of people are happy paying $95 a month. I personally think that's silly, but it's their choice.
Wow, troll for making a valid point that this upgrade price is going to look seriously good in comparison to the price of Windows 7? The vast majority of Mac users are running Leopard (25m active Mac users in 2007, 75m in 2009, therefore at least 2/3rds use Leopard) so will experience this cheap upgrade price and 4/5ths will probably bite.
I also got the new price wrong - it's $169 but includes iWork and iLife 2009, i.e., it brings Tiger users bang up to date across the board. A good decision by Apple, and it's not a bad price.
I still fail to see where the troll is, seriously.
Oh, get over yourself, all three of you bitching about the word "investment" instead of the fact that we're talking about a 2-year cost reduction of 6.5% over what he paid 4 months ago, i.e., it's not half the price. That was the point, it was fucking clear, I forgot I was writing in a forum full of autistics.
SOOOOO SORRRRRRRY (Father Jack Voice) that I used that word.
Intel GMA950 is more than enough for Compiz, and takes load off of the CPU. It's actually sensible to use it over non-Compiz on low-end devices, in my opinion. I did find how to move it off the top of the screen, using the context menu on the window titlebar.
Yeah, you can buy the 13.3" MacBook Pro they announced, which adds Firewire 800 and an SD card slot to the MacBook configuration they've dropped. Sadly you will have to pay an extra -$100 for this configuration.
Kills off flash videos on sites that want to cater to mobile users - and once they've done that, they might as well provide the html5 video capability to other users. In the long term, Adobe should worry for the viability of Flash for video delivery.
Lol, it's like a broken record. Not only do those still within contract now get these features (one day you might write software and understand that creating a whole new platform takes time), but now that it is done, the past doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Most software development is akin to building a model of the bridge out of straws and pipecleaners sadly. Especially in-house applications.
Apple really don't seem to care about minor piracy of Mac OS, so I wouldn't be surprised if what you says works. I actually think that would be in their best interest. People with old computers are probably less likely to buy a new OS than people with more recent systems.
Same here. I'll continue anyway, but in relation to (not yours specifically) comments that SL is a "service pack" and W7 isn't.
Anyway if DirectX 11 is given to Vista users, then that's one less new feature for Windows 7! Quicktime X and OpenCL are new features for Mac OS SL though - a strong argument in favour of SL actually being at least as much a new OS as W7.
SL has a lot of UI changes - new Finder, Dock with better Expose support for application, etc. No new theme that was rumoured though.
It's hard to compare the iLife applications with the free Windows ones, Picasa notwithstanding. There is a large quality and usability difference. On the other hand, I only use iPhoto, and not regularly, I don't need no iWeb. iWork is actually a very nice consumer office package that should come with new Macs for free as it doesn't really cost Apple much to add that value to their systems, and might make the higher cost look more reasonable.
I think my main point is that SL is as much a new OS as W7 is, in my opinion, and there are many reasons for that. The cheap upgrade price means that Apple can drag most Leopard users onto SL and that's better for software developers who can use the new features sooner rather than later. If SL was $129 then it would be different.
Also think: Apple gets 50m upgrades at $29, for $1.5b revenue (50m new active Mac OS users since Leopard launch making 75m in total). For Leopard they had (guess) 10m upgrades at $129, for $1.29b revenue, and the downside of a fragmented platform.
I didn't know that elves drank that much! I thought they distanced themselves from the behaviours of dwarves...
And yes, don't these filesystems have catchy user-friendly names, like "Linux Logging Filesystem" and "Linux Object Filesystem" and "Linux Drunken Spew Over Storage Filesystem"?
Well, consider Windows Mobile - tap with stylus, select, untap. tap, hold ... ah, Cut. tap. tap, hold, wait, ah, Paste. Unless you weren't on a smart enough phone - then the function wasn't available.
It's very easy to get it wrong, and then introduce a mechanism that can't be easily changed as other applications use it. Then it takes up valuable UI actions.
However, I do actually agree that Apple took their sweet time over introducing the feature (I was a bit grumpy yesterday I think!) and it really should have been in version 2.
Any idea how the new iPhone can be "oil resistant"?
I really have to ask why you are using such code, voluntarily, when C#/.NET has LINQ, as well as actual, decent, SQL libraries. You appear to know that it isn't secure, so you should stand up for yourself and get your codebase migrated off of it.
Sounds like the guy needed some more help than he got to get to grips with his personal situation. Anyway ...
The flaws include SQL injection vulnerabilities and flaws that create a way for hackers to gain file access to files hosted on a vulnerable system.
There is no excuse for SQL Injection vulnerabilities these days. The problem is well known and publicised, the solutions are well documented. This is a problem that is solved by altering how you code, that results in neater code with less errors. If you can't use prepared/parameterised statements and insist on building SQL command strings out of user supplied data, then ... well, err, I can't say "you deserve to hang" in this case can I?
You can buy it stand-alone, you always have been able to. Sure, you need a Mac to install it on, but if you had a 10.3 Mac you could drop $129 and get Tiger or Leopard.
As I pointed out (Slashdot has no edit function) Tiger users this time around appear to have to buy the $169 Snow Leopard + iWork + iLife bundle to bring their entire computer up to date.
Yeah. The 13" MacBook (Pro) certainly looks a lot better deal today than it did yesterday. £899 as well, that's only a £50 premium over the US price when VAT is included, it's almost not insulting! Also the screen is meant to be higher quality with 60% more colour gamut.
$999 Macbook White ...
+$200 => Better case, better screen, Firewire 800, SD Slot, Backlit keyboard, and probably more
What about the $100 upgrade price that Windows 7 Home Premium will have? That's a lot for a service pack.
Or maybe you can accept that sometimes there are enough tweaks and enhancements and new features to warrant a new version. There's an overload of information on the Apple website about Snow Leopard's features, so you can educate yourself.
I'm seeing a company that is providing a free new OS to people who bought iPhones two years ago, an OS with masses of new features and enhancements. I don't see many other phone companies that do that, although Android and webOS look like they will do it - they came after the iPhone however.
Apple never said it was unnecessary. They said it was on the list of things to do, they wanted to get it right (in the context of the multitouch interface you deride), and that they couldn't do everything at once. You could have had a half-arsed C+P implementation that could have held the platform back. It was annoying if you needed it. Sales figures suggest that most people didn't care.
I fail to see how Windows 7 isn't Vista but fixed, in the same way that Snow Leopard is Leopard, but fixed.
What is new in Windows 7 - the screenshots all look the same to me as Vista... apparently it's leaner and runs faster. Oh wait, look, Snow Leopard is the same. Windows 7 has DirectX 11 you say? But Snow Leopard has QuicktimeX. Windows 7 has DirectX Compute? But Snow Leopard has OpenCL. Vista came out in 2007. Leopard came out in 2007. These new versions are both coming out very close to each other. Why, in your mind, is Snow Leopard comparable to a service pack whilst Windows 7 is not?
I do actually agree that Apple should just get everyone on Intel systems up to Snow Leopard by having an upgrade option ... oh, they do, it just includes iLife and iWork so that the other major Apple applications are also brought up to date.
From the post you replied to: "One cause is likely that many of these iPhone customers were never smartphone customers before. These people had no idea just how much money smartphones cost MSRP."
A smartphone isn't a flash chip and USB controller, so why compare to that? Indeed the 16GB of extra space on the iPhone 3GS is only $100, you can see that in the pricing - 16GB $199, 32GB $299.
Your example doesn't make sense because 2/3rds of the cost of the iPhone is hidden in the contract that runs for 2 years.
When you buy a MBP you aren't buying a contract (unless you get it as part of a 3G Data deal from a service provider, in which case the computer is usually a bit cheap, e.g., half price netbooks can be bought when you sign up for a year of 3G data) so this doesn't apply.
Once your contract runs out, or earlier even, you become elegible for an upgrade at the reduced price! So you aren't even being denied the upgrade.
If you don't understand this, then you are mentally deficient.
I guess you *could* - no guarantees that AT&T won't just say "no".
But ... really? for $85? FUCK THAT.
Personally I'd wait and see what the iPhone OS 3 update provided to me on my existing iPhone (if I had one), and then decide. I don't need the latest and greatest phone hardware every year if what I have works just fine.
Indeed it's not as if you don't know what you're getting into when you sign a TWO YEAR CONTRACT that includes a subsidised phone.
There's probably $20 (or thereabouts) you are paying each month for your phone hardware (paying off the subsidy) so over 2 years that's $480 for AT&T, who probably buy the phone for list price + $400 from Apple.
If you want an upgrade, it's obvious that AT&T would like you to pay off the unpaid subsidy left remaining on your contract. What is the point of this story - whiny people who can't commit to their phone contract and want something for nothing.
It does seem like millions of people are happy paying $95 a month. I personally think that's silly, but it's their choice.
Wow, troll for making a valid point that this upgrade price is going to look seriously good in comparison to the price of Windows 7? The vast majority of Mac users are running Leopard (25m active Mac users in 2007, 75m in 2009, therefore at least 2/3rds use Leopard) so will experience this cheap upgrade price and 4/5ths will probably bite.
I also got the new price wrong - it's $169 but includes iWork and iLife 2009, i.e., it brings Tiger users bang up to date across the board. A good decision by Apple, and it's not a bad price.
I still fail to see where the troll is, seriously.
Please see my reply above.
Oh, get over yourself, all three of you bitching about the word "investment" instead of the fact that we're talking about a 2-year cost reduction of 6.5% over what he paid 4 months ago, i.e., it's not half the price. That was the point, it was fucking clear, I forgot I was writing in a forum full of autistics.
SOOOOO SORRRRRRRY (Father Jack Voice) that I used that word.
Well my post was a joke, but kudos for working it out.
Intel GMA950 is more than enough for Compiz, and takes load off of the CPU. It's actually sensible to use it over non-Compiz on low-end devices, in my opinion. I did find how to move it off the top of the screen, using the context menu on the window titlebar.
Yeah, you can buy the 13.3" MacBook Pro they announced, which adds Firewire 800 and an SD card slot to the MacBook configuration they've dropped. Sadly you will have to pay an extra -$100 for this configuration.
Kills off flash videos on sites that want to cater to mobile users - and once they've done that, they might as well provide the html5 video capability to other users. In the long term, Adobe should worry for the viability of Flash for video delivery.
Lol, it's like a broken record. Not only do those still within contract now get these features (one day you might write software and understand that creating a whole new platform takes time), but now that it is done, the past doesn't matter.
Well, OpenGL ES 2.0 was explicitly mentioned as a feature of the 3GS in the keynote. I.e., it has PowerVR SGX graphics instead of MBX.