No. Microsoft has stated that this is for developing countries and limited hardware computers like netbooks. This is not a logical "and." Expect to see the Starter Edition on Amazon and in Walmart.
I completely agree. If you have a concept for an application or an OS, whether a copy, evolutionary, or revolutionary, I encourage you to go ahead and try to make it a reality. All the nay-sayers are just people who grew up with a monoculture and want to replace one with another. Screw 'em. Follow your heart.
These same people undoubtedly listen only to Top 40 stations. The world needs variety.
Since this article is somehow supposed to be about "slimming OSes," I'd like to point out that Debian Lenny now has the option to install a full set of drivers or only drivers for your specific hardware. That will cut a few MBs off of your install.
OK. I took your advice. I looked at Apple, Dell, and HOP because they were the first ones that came to mind for on-line ordering. I've never done this before or bought any of the brands I looked at, so I'm not a fanboi. The results:
Apple iMac 24"
Cost: $2199
CPU: 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
RAM: 2GB memory
HD: 500GB hard drive
DVD: 8x double-layer SuperDrive
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB memory
HP IQ800t -- This is 26", not 24".
Cost: $1939
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T8400 [2.26GHz, 3MB] -- This is slower than the Mac, but it's the highest offered.
RAM: 4GB DDR2-800MHz system memory [2x2048] -- More memory
HD: 500GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive -- same HD
GPU: 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GS HD -- Better GPU
DVD: Slot-load SuperMulti DVD Burner -- Probably the same, but who knows?
Dell XPS One 24 24" -- same as Mac
Cost: $1899
CPU: Intel® Coreâ 2 Quad Q8200 processor -- Quad core, newer chip, same FSB but 2.33GHz. Cores vs. GHz.
RAM: 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800Mhz - 2 DIMMs -- More RAM
The results are questionable because I don't see nearly as many specs listed for the iMac as for the other all-in-ones. Both the HP and Dell include stuff like remotes, wireless keyboards, and bluetooth. I assume the Mac has all these. Both Vista-based ones come with MS Works and varios other productivity software, while the Mac comes with iLife. I call it about even.
The bottom line, though, is that I can get a better CPU (I prefer cores over raw GHz), more RAM, a newer GPU, and a larger hard drive in the Dell for $300 less, or I can get a remarkably similar machine overall (slower CPU but better GPU and RAM) with a slightly bigger screen from HP for $260 less. Either way, unless you want/need OS X specifically, Macs seem to lose.
No, this isn't a comprehensive run-down. No, I couldn't get everything exactly the same. I only chose one model and looked at it. I chose one of the higher-end Macs because I've heard that's here Apple is competitive. Interestingly, the Dell includes some nice extras like in-home warranty service and remote access / on-line backup (which I guess equate to Apple's pay services).
I doubt this post will sway you, but there are the raw numbers. Oh, and I'd like to add that I don't plan to buy any of them.
That said. Apple has a limited line and there are a lot of gaps for what people want in a computer, So the Apple may not be the best value for them. But as for its price their prices are competitive.
I'm reminded of one of the first scenes in Fargo about the TrueCote treatment. "We don't want that." "Well, you see, it comes from the factory that way."
You refuse to grasp that these are two different things. Requiring certain hardware doesn't make it an "upgrade" no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself or others. Don't delude yourself. Stop using a talking point you read somewhere and think for a moment.
If it were an upgrade, Apple would still be marketing it as an upgrade the way they did with Tiger. They are not. They could quickly and easily (and without any court battle) eliminate Psystar and all other would-be cloners by clearly labeling Leopard as an upgrade, as I recommended back in July. That they aren't doing that should tell you something. (Hint -- It should tell you that it's not an upgrade.) Why they refuse to go that route, I don't understand, but they must have a reason.
You and I completely agree. There is no law which requires them to sell boxed sets, yet they do, and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice. If they don't want the repercussions, they can stop selling the boxes or clearly label them as upgrades (which I recommended that they do when Psystar first appeared). Apple does neither, nor do they implement the system you recommend, which would also work.
Instead, they seek to restrict the hardware the boxed, full version will run on through an EULA. This case is testing that clause and nothing more. Therefore, "this is a case about whether a software house has the right to restrict what hardware you can use the software on."
Article 4 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (passed in 1948) declares such servitude as illegal.
Basically, the civilized world has concluded that indentured servitude, child labor, and slavery are different forms of the same thing and made them all illegal.
Oh, and in the spirit of your full-disclosure request -- I don't own Apple, but I'm not an Apple hater. I use Linux exclusively (generally Debian), and recent iPod versions aren't compatible with my OS of choice.
I wouldn't mind having a Mac, but I'm in Korea, and having one offers me no more compatibility with the local computers than Debian does. I don't spend a lot of time trying to make stuff work, so "just works" also offers me little.
In short, I'm pretty neutral about Apple, but Apple apologists get to me just as much as the equivalent MS astroturfers or Linux zealots do.
First, your McGinty's analogy would only be correct if Spritz were sold through Amazon. Once McGinty's put Spritz up for general sale, the business could no longer claim the brand value of the restaurant tied to the exclusivity of Spritz. They sold it. The purchaser can resell it anywhere they like.
In either case, though, the suit would fail because of property rights.
Now, if Psystar were claiming to be Apple or that the machine was an Apple-branded machine, they would be in trouble, but their product page states clearly that:
Open with Mac OS X
Our Open Computer features the latest technology in Intel processors to give our customers an affordable, reliable computer capable of running the OS X operating system. We preinstall OS X on our Open Computers so that you can begin to use your machine right out of the box.
There is no question of confusion for the consumer.
So the question becomes "Why don't they mark it as an upgrade like they used to for Tiger?" The got rid of the "Upgrade" version for Leopard, and that seems to go against your whole argument.
I'm not cleaqr on exactly what's changed, and since you seem to be, I want to ask you:
Is Psystar modifying the parts that are open source, like the Darwin kernel? If they are, then how would modifying the Darwin source and using the resulting binary to replace part of the system be copyright infringement?
Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu 9.04 Alpha4 destroys Windows 7 in benchmarks.
No. Microsoft has stated that this is for developing countries and limited hardware computers like netbooks. This is not a logical "and." Expect to see the Starter Edition on Amazon and in Walmart.
I completely agree. If you have a concept for an application or an OS, whether a copy, evolutionary, or revolutionary, I encourage you to go ahead and try to make it a reality. All the nay-sayers are just people who grew up with a monoculture and want to replace one with another. Screw 'em. Follow your heart.
These same people undoubtedly listen only to Top 40 stations. The world needs variety.
Since this article is somehow supposed to be about "slimming OSes," I'd like to point out that Debian Lenny now has the option to install a full set of drivers or only drivers for your specific hardware. That will cut a few MBs off of your install.
OK. I took your advice. I looked at Apple, Dell, and HOP because they were the first ones that came to mind for on-line ordering. I've never done this before or bought any of the brands I looked at, so I'm not a fanboi. The results:
Apple iMac 24"
HP IQ800t -- This is 26", not 24".
Dell XPS One 24 24" -- same as Mac
The results are questionable because I don't see nearly as many specs listed for the iMac as for the other all-in-ones. Both the HP and Dell include stuff like remotes, wireless keyboards, and bluetooth. I assume the Mac has all these. Both Vista-based ones come with MS Works and varios other productivity software, while the Mac comes with iLife. I call it about even.
The bottom line, though, is that I can get a better CPU (I prefer cores over raw GHz), more RAM, a newer GPU, and a larger hard drive in the Dell for $300 less, or I can get a remarkably similar machine overall (slower CPU but better GPU and RAM) with a slightly bigger screen from HP for $260 less. Either way, unless you want/need OS X specifically, Macs seem to lose.
No, this isn't a comprehensive run-down. No, I couldn't get everything exactly the same. I only chose one model and looked at it. I chose one of the higher-end Macs because I've heard that's here Apple is competitive. Interestingly, the Dell includes some nice extras like in-home warranty service and remote access / on-line backup (which I guess equate to Apple's pay services).
I doubt this post will sway you, but there are the raw numbers. Oh, and I'd like to add that I don't plan to buy any of them.
That said. Apple has a limited line and there are a lot of gaps for what people want in a computer, So the Apple may not be the best value for them. But as for its price their prices are competitive.
I'm reminded of one of the first scenes in Fargo about the TrueCote treatment. "We don't want that." "Well, you see, it comes from the factory that way."
What if the hook is in Darwin?
You refuse to grasp that these are two different things. Requiring certain hardware doesn't make it an "upgrade" no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself or others. Don't delude yourself. Stop using a talking point you read somewhere and think for a moment.
If it were an upgrade, Apple would still be marketing it as an upgrade the way they did with Tiger. They are not. They could quickly and easily (and without any court battle) eliminate Psystar and all other would-be cloners by clearly labeling Leopard as an upgrade, as I recommended back in July. That they aren't doing that should tell you something. (Hint -- It should tell you that it's not an upgrade.) Why they refuse to go that route, I don't understand, but they must have a reason.
You and I completely agree. There is no law which requires them to sell boxed sets, yet they do, and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice. If they don't want the repercussions, they can stop selling the boxes or clearly label them as upgrades (which I recommended that they do when Psystar first appeared). Apple does neither, nor do they implement the system you recommend, which would also work.
Instead, they seek to restrict the hardware the boxed, full version will run on through an EULA. This case is testing that clause and nothing more. Therefore, "this is a case about whether a software house has the right to restrict what hardware you can use the software on."
Apple has had two obvious recourses from the very beginning:
They have not done either. I wonder why that is. Either would be quite easy to implement and would immediately kill the clone business.
"I mean, my other problem is that Macs make people with more money than tech sense tell me"
I think you misunderstand. He said that some people who aren't tech-savvy get Macs then try to tell him stuff they know nothing about.
You mean I can by[sic] an iPod, take out the system and install it on a Zune, and then sell it as a "myPod" device?
Except for the "myPod" part, which is an obvious trademark violation, yeah, basically.
The Darwin kernel is also open source, FWIW. Have you checked whether Psystar is complying with that?
"You will work for me for X years for room and board" is not slavery even if it is pretty close in practice and should be enforceable.
This is called indentured servitude. To quote from the referenced article:
Article 4 of the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (passed in 1948) declares such servitude as illegal.
Basically, the civilized world has concluded that indentured servitude, child labor, and slavery are different forms of the same thing and made them all illegal.
Oh, and in the spirit of your full-disclosure request -- I don't own Apple, but I'm not an Apple hater. I use Linux exclusively (generally Debian), and recent iPod versions aren't compatible with my OS of choice.
I wouldn't mind having a Mac, but I'm in Korea, and having one offers me no more compatibility with the local computers than Debian does. I don't spend a lot of time trying to make stuff work, so "just works" also offers me little.
In short, I'm pretty neutral about Apple, but Apple apologists get to me just as much as the equivalent MS astroturfers or Linux zealots do.
First, your McGinty's analogy would only be correct if Spritz were sold through Amazon. Once McGinty's put Spritz up for general sale, the business could no longer claim the brand value of the restaurant tied to the exclusivity of Spritz. They sold it. The purchaser can resell it anywhere they like.
In either case, though, the suit would fail because of property rights.
Now, if Psystar were claiming to be Apple or that the machine was an Apple-branded machine, they would be in trouble, but their product page states clearly that:
Open with Mac OS X
Our Open Computer features the latest technology in Intel processors to give our customers an affordable, reliable computer capable of running the OS X operating system. We preinstall OS X on our Open Computers so that you can begin to use your machine right out of the box.
There is no question of confusion for the consumer.
So the question becomes "Why don't they mark it as an upgrade like they used to for Tiger?" The got rid of the "Upgrade" version for Leopard, and that seems to go against your whole argument.
I thought it was determined that Psystar didn't modify anything, but instead provided software shims to make everything work. Psystar's page states:
The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels.
What specific modifications do they make?
I'm not cleaqr on exactly what's changed, and since you seem to be, I want to ask you:
Is Psystar modifying the parts that are open source, like the Darwin kernel? If they are, then how would modifying the Darwin source and using the resulting binary to replace part of the system be copyright infringement?
You are not licensed to use either without an already existing OS license
Show me where it says this. Oh, wait, you knew that it doesn't say this in any way, roundabout or not. It only requires Apple hardware.
How does it check for hardware? EFI is an open standard. The disk will boot and install on any EFI-capable board.
Your argument is flawed on every level. Stop the talking points already!
Troll. Neither the box nor the EULA mentions the software being an upgrade version.
This is more akin to (but not exactly the same as) an OEM license being tied to the specific hardware it's sold on.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you .... Oh, maybe it does, after all.
Google Apps aren't beta for paying customers. Stop spreading FUD.
Quit using the "OS X upgrade" talking point unless you can show me where:
Your "It's an upgrade because of ... {long logical argument}" doesn't make it one.
You're right, though. This is a case about whether a software house has the right to restrict what hardware you can use the software on. Nothing else.