Ah, but there's certain things you're neglecting that make all the difference with the Zire (at the risk of sounding like a salesperson).
First: the Zire uses a lithium-ion battery, not alkaline batteries like the m105, m125 or Sony's Clie SL10. Those latter batteries are going to need replacing often - maybe not at an insane frequency, but enough that the "average" person may not see the cost as being worthwhile. The li-ion battery is supposed to let the Zire go for weeks without a recharge, and a recharge only takes 2 hours.
The Zire, I understand, also has a plastic screen, not glass - and there's a carrying case included. Very handy when you're selling the Zire to people who aren't necessarily going to treat a PDA delicately.
I believe there's been statistics shown (check a site like palminfocenter.com as they may refer to them in their Zire review) that indicate that $99 is the "magic number" when it comes to sales, too. Many people are supposed to buy something at $99 that they wouldn't otherwise, even when they could have obtained it before (or obtained something better) for $30-50 more. I guess you could call it the "Wal-Mart factor..." people see the price, and react more strongly to that than the feature set.
I see the same criticisms repeated over and over: only the two buttons (not including scrolling), slower, less memory... but I think a lot of people are missing the point.
The Zire isn't a PDA in the "small computer with a stylus" sense. You aren't supposed to turn this into a game box or use it as a tiny replacement for an office computer. It's intended as an organizer - the fact that it has extra memory for one or two other apps (assuming you can get them to the Zire) and can sync with your computer is just a nice perk.
And the fact that Palm is marketing the Zire in a different way is also crucial. This is the PDA for people who might otherwise think of PDAs as expensive toys. It's the PDA you give to your mother as a Christmas gift, not something for the "mobile professional."
The only practical problem with it is a lack of backlighting. The monochrome screen is supposed to have a nice contrast, so this probably won't be trouble on the level of the Gameboy Advance, but you'd better hope you don't need to check your memos when you're on a nighttime bus.
The costs aren't necessarily that bad
on
Flirting With Mac OS X
·
· Score: 5, Informative
You'd be surprised. The 12.1" iBook is a pretty good bargain for a small laptop. I'll use Canadian prices for comparison, since that's what I have to deal with myself.
Most Windows-based slim laptops are actually quite expensive. The closest I've really found to the iBook is Sony's Superslim Pro, which is a full $300 more than the iBook 700 - and it's debatable whether the Sony is faster. CPU arguments aside, the iBook has dedicated video (a Mobility Radeon); the Sony has a chipset with shared video memory, and I can tell you from personal experience that nothing kills video performance like needing to use system memory.
What's more amusing is that the Toshiba Portegé 2000 is actually a popular laptop, but it's $900 more than the same iBook 700... and it's not only slower, it doesn't even come with a docking station. You're paying for chic alone, and really the iBook does a better job of that.
I won't deny that Apple is expensive, but they can make a convincing case in the portable world. I'm looking to replace my clunky Toshiba with an iBook, but heck - if I weren't in university, I'd probably be considering a Powerbook!
There's nothing definite, but there are quite a few rumours passing around. The most common suggests that there will be an update in the 3rd week of October that brings the Powerbook lineup to 800 MHz and 1 GHz, with a Mobility Radeon 9000 video chipset and possibly DDR memory or a Superdrive option.
Personally, I'm eager to see what happens with the new iBooks. There's a rumoured design change that would bring them up to 13" (possibly within the same space as the 12.1" model is now)... even the far-out rumour of a 14" widescreen iBook!
I think the main reason they don't port to x86 Linux/Unix is because of priorities. Like any company competing in a field where Microsoft is involved, Apple knows that they have to fight Microsoft first and foremost; they may be thinking it smarter to polish the Windows product as much as possible rather than risk spreading themselves too thin. I'm not saying it's the best of decisions, but they may see it as necessary to their survival.
As it stands, Apple is much more a model of the "friendly" corporation than Microsoft is, so I would support them for that reason alone.
Besides, it may only be a question of Apple being able to discard legacy development for Quicktime before they have the intention and resources to develop for Unix. They're starting to limit iApp updates to OSX (iTunes, iPhoto, etc.), but even now the crucial apps like Quicktime 6 still have to run in OS9. When Apple can pull the plug on even that, Unix ports will probably be more viable.
Actually, I understand that cable modems really are modems (DSL is definitely not a modem); they have to modulate and demodulate the signals so that the cable TV network understands how to send it. The main differences between cable and phone-line modems, apart from the obvious differences, are that the cable modem has much more available room for its data and much less inherent latency.
One technical note here: Road Runner technically isn't owned by AOL Time Warner (there are people on Insight Cable in Ohio who get Road Runner, and even some people in Newfoundland), so they aren't DIRECTLY controlled. That means that Road Runner could theoretically disagree with AOL Time Warner and protect the network from the RIAA's actions - which wouldn't be entirely unthinkable, as they still their own security obligations. AOL Time Warner would probably also know that they can't just toss out Road Runner, even if it contradicts them: no one would stand for it if they were suddenly forced to use AOL High-Speed.
Of course, let's not kid ourselves too much. Road Runner may well feel pressure on their side of the equation. We just have to remember that they're not completely beholden to the cable provider they're most commonly affiliated with.
At the University of Ottawa (a few hours' drive North of Waterloo, for you Americans), we seem to be safe. Most of the terminals at the library are Sun workstations, and even on the Windows-based PCs the browser you use is Netscape (version 4, even). A number of the special services on the university servers require a telnet into a Unix server.
Microsoft couldn't make a substantial investment here without also volunteering to overhaul the entire network and convert the database. 5 years later, we might have a complete network again... if it doesn't break somewhere along the way.:)
Anything that streamlines a function of Linux to make it more accessible - so long as there's an alternative to it (such as another distro) in one form another - is worth having. The number one obstacle to broader Linux acceptance is the option of user-friendliness throughout the entire OS, so addressing that by itself will probably bring many more people to the fold.
You do make a point, but keep in mind that there are a lot of additional factors that may make a Mac a better purchase in the long run.
I don't have the link to it available in front of me, but a recent study showed that Macs tended to have a lower total cost of ownership than PCs in the home (nothing dramatic, but it was there). Part of this is just due to the nature of the Mac OS and its integration with the computer: the Mac OS is generally much more stable than Windows 95/98/ME, and sometimes more stable than 2000 and XP. The interface is easier to come to grips with, and problems with drivers or resource conflicts tend not to creep up (as the drivers are often already there and installed with your copy of the OS). That means that a Mac user is less likely to be calling tech support for help, whether it's Apple, a local technician, or their ISP... and often some of those will cost money, especially if hardware has to be replaced.
Also, most hacks and viruses are geared at Windows users (especially Outlook or Outlook Express). At my tech support job, I can't tell you how many times I've heard "yeah, I need my e-mail settings, since I had to restore my system [probably through a $30 call to tech support] after getting a virus." Why? Many people aren't familiar with antivirus software - and even if they are, some viruses (such as Klez) can deliberately disable said software and get through. Mac users are largely safe if for no other reason than their being in the minority.
Even if cost isn't a factor... you wouldn't believe the difference between the aggravation levels of the Mac and Windows users I deal with. Mac calls are rare (certainly rare in relation to the percentage of Mac users out there), and when they call it's either something beyond their Mac or a quick two-minute fix. I've spent well over an hour with some Windows users, and often just because Windows refuses to recognize a driver or to install it properly.
So, while Mac users aren't necessarily on a higher plane of existence, they may just have recognized that paying more at first (which is of course helped out by a higher income) may be better than buying a cheap computer which needs constant support.
If you want music that helps 'ease' you into electronic styles, the best choices are usually the fusions between new music and old. If you're not totally against jazz, try the Cinematic Orchestra or St. Germain and you'll get a warm sound that still takes advantage of the electronic medium.
Of course, if you're like me and you want full energy in your music, a couple of key trance artists are Max Graham, everyone's favourite Canadian DJ, and the legendary Paul van Dyk from Germany. Speaking of which, if you happen to be in Germany right now, I believe the Love Parade is on - you can probably check out van Dyk there, if it isn't already too late!
The issue isn't quite as clear-cut as the people at graphicpower.com or thinksecret.com might suggest. True, it's not entirely fair to deny access simply on the basis of what MIGHT happen, but Apple knows that these sites have definitely been apt to post very real (and hence very secret) information before a MW expo. Last year we saw a genuine (if somewhat muddy) photo of the Quicksilver PowerMac case, and of course there have been multiple other instances of information being exposed days in advance. Denying press-level passes may prevent the rumour sites from getting information at the show that would be under NDA for the press (but would likely be leaked at some point by a rumour site).
I've heard though that a press pass isn't always ideal. Supposedly, Apple employees fasten their lips about some things when they see a press badge, but will sometimes give important info off-the-record to someone who only has a badge to visit the exhibits. I'm sure Apple wouldn't like that either... but it's easier to deny (or ignore) a few names and clock speeds than a photo!
Who knows, this may even be a very sneaky (if not entirely smooth) PR stunt. Remember how MW San Francisco had that "way beyond the rumour sites" hype leading up to it? Denying press passes may be a way for Apple to suggest that there's something particularly juicy being shown at the expo, whether at the keynote or behind closed doors.
One thing I do know: graphicpower.com acted very immaturely with their response. Beyond the colourful language and shutting down the site, the vow to 'use the existing computers forever' is a joke. You can be sure that the person or people from the site will probably either scream for mercy at the prospect of buying a Windows (or even Linux) system, or will be getting another Mac within two years.
Microsoft exhibiting at a Linux expo just begs for someone to pull a prank with their booth. Nothing illegal, but something that could really cause a headache.
I wonder if someone will pull a "Zaltair.":) That was the name of the non-existent computer that Steve Jobs (believe it or not, I don't think it was actually Woz who did this) made a fake brochure for and planted at the MITS booth, MITS being the makers of the real Altair.
From what I've read, it was hilarious - the poor MITS people were inundated with questions about a product they didn't even know existed (which wasn't their fault, since it didn't)! The real kicker is that Jobs even managed to arrange the brochure so that the hidden "clue" pointed to a different company, Processor Technologies. The only reason we even know this is because of the confession a few years later.
I can just imagine it now - someone will plant a professionally-made brochure for "Microsoft Linux" or a proprietary Windows emulator for Linux, and the Microsoft reps will be bombarded... or at least, teased mercilessly.
Thanks for the brief - I'd thought that BNetD had been turned down by Blizzard regarding the key-checking algorithm, but it's nice to hear a more definitive verficiation of that.
Your points are well-made, and I can't say that I wholeheartedly approve of Blizzard's activity. However - and here's the key - Blizzard's overall track record suggests that they aren't in the habit of using "seek and destroy" tactics or otherwise trying to bully their way into dominance (and unlike Microsoft, Blizzard really DOES succeed based on the quality of their software). It'd be hard to see a company full of some very obviously dedicated and often generous (witness the large-scale closed and open betas of the past) gamers as being mean-spirited. That's probably the main reason why I won't boycott Blizzard.
Before I conclude, I do want to thank you again for the intelligence demonstrated in the post; it's much better than what I've seen in most of the responses (some of which make vague insinuations that I'm a corporate schill or a troll, simply for disagreeing with them).
If alternate theories about Battle.net are going to exist, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's because they intend to charge all their users (World of Warcraft will be pay-for-play, but it's also customary for MMORPGs to do so). I would argue rather that they just want to ensure that all players get whatever cheat protection and other services that Blizzard themselves would offer.
I wouldn't expect it to be that common, but if a rookie was lured on to a malicious 3rd-party server (not necessarily BNetD, but anything that provided a similar service) they could have an experience that makes the official servers seem pleasant by comparison. You could have a server where the stats of certain players are artificially boosted, or where bans would be completely arbitrary rather than for violating specific rules.
The whole advantage of Blizzard's Battle.net service is supposed to be a sense of permanent progression with your character or your victory record. Blizzard can be trusted to keep that progression intact, since it's their game and people wouldn't stand for anything less. You can't say the same for someone running a server off their workplace's T1 in their spare time.
Regardless of whether or not you think reverse-engineering should or shouldn't be legal, the fact is that most EULAs strictly prohibit it - that means that the developer WILL NOT allow you to reverse-engineer their code without explicit consent, so your analogy is by-and-large invalid. Remember: with most software, you don't technically own it, you own a license to use it (that includes open-source software, though the license is different)!
Oh, and by the way... "insightful" doesn't necessarily mean that a post has all the right answers, simply that it provides an angle (whether different or not) that can help provide a clearer view of the issue as a whole. I'm sorry to hear that you think that only one point of view must always be the right one.
Re:Some questions about the "evil" of Blizzard
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And they probably didn't give out the information because, being in a program they couldn't control (without resorting to legal action like this), that would make their CD key checks potentially very accessible.
I referred to this earlier, but let me explain it this way: you can't ask Blizzard to make an anti-piracy solution available to an open-source project (thereby giving a strong potential for that solution to be cracked), be told no, and then promptly continue on with something that ENSURES that piracy is possible.
Imagine going into a store, demanding a 50% discount that the store can't afford, and then shoplifting (which the store really can't afford) when you're told "no." Would you do that in the physical world? Of course not - you understand that the store has a bottom-line to maintain and employees to pay. Why does that suddenly change in the software world? Blizzard doesn't want to knowingly risk piracy (i.e. their bottom line and paying employees) simply because someone would like to host their own servers.
Some questions about the "evil" of Blizzard
on
Warcraft III Gone Gold
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A number of people are (in my opinion) being foolish and treating Blizzard, or Havas, like some horrible megacorporation that kicks puppies for fun and pursues legal action only out of sheer greed. To determine whether or not Blizzard is actually doing something wrong, I'd like some answers based on tangible facts. So, if you'd please:
1. Could BNetD have even technically included CD key-checking and otherwise verifying that the users had legit copies?
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," did the BNetD developer(s) actively take steps to make those checks that WOULDN'T potentially allow for cracks that would bypass those checks on BNetD servers (by exposing how the key checks are made)?
3. People here are talking about how it's Blizzard's fault for this happening, since they hadn't encrypted their Battle.net code in such a way as to make it impossible to reverse-engineer (or to do so legally). Is this not hypocrisy for open-source fans (presumably) to demand a company to close off their code yet further, in order to prevent open-source people from accessing their code without permission?
Honestly - with #3 it's like a thief suing the victims of his robbery for not making the house secure enough. If you want Blizzard to open-source parts of their code, then say as much. Don't accuse them of being hostile to the community and then promptly suggest that the solution is to shut off access to the community. Either ask for greater access, or admit that Blizzard isn't really being hostile (or as hostile as you thought)!
Stallman makes much noise about freedom, but he always seems to forget what the term implies. Freedom isn't just about a name or getting public credit for your work. If the former was valid, we'd all consider China, Congo and North Korea democracies simply because their leaders slapped the word "democratic" on the official country names. Likewise, the latter would make someone like Richard Gere eminently more important than almost all activists - simply because his efforts are more recognized in the media.
Freedom is greater than any one person or title, but Stallman doesn't seem to recognize that. Read that article closely; he effectively argues that if you don't do what he says and give him credit at all times, you're surrendering your freedom. It sounds remarkably like the "if you don't agree to everything we say, the terrorists win" rhetoric from the US government - or a Microsoft-like FUD approach.
Yes, care should be taken to avoid dependence on commercial software for the development of Linux (and I don't feel the need to use "GNU/" part, Mr. Stallman, I'm old enough to know something without it being explicitly stated). However, there's a big difference between voicing your opinion and - from what I've seen of Stallman here and in the past - trying to exert influence on people against their wishes. If everyone's favourite GNU creator is truly interested in getting the message out rather than boosting his self-esteem, why doesn't he speak to groups like SIGLINUX and persuade the users independently of the group operators?
Actually, I try to really work with the customer as best I can - though at my level (where we can only really deal with software issues, aside from power-cycling the cable modem) you do have to make sure you know where your personal involvement ends. You just can't do everything, even when you'd like to - the physical nature of where you are (I being hundreds of miles away) combined with the need for equal support (you don't want to have unrealistic expectations just because one tech went too far) can do this.
I would love to be paid more, but you should hear the vitriol that comes from customers' mouths about how much they pay, and it's been even worse with just a $5 rate increase. I don't think too many of these people would be willing to pay even $50 a month if it meant having more dedicated (and/or just a greater number of) technicians.
I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't help to have an extra level of tech support that gets paid by the customer on a per-issue basis (or just get a dramatically higher wage). Instead of just running on basic knowledge, you have people who are at the skill level of network admins or otherwise have a serious background to this kind of work. When they take a call, they take as much time as they need - no pressure on the clock - and, assuming they'd be local, can beat on the servers or come out to the house.
There's the risk that this would create a hierarchy of "elite" customers (though that already exists with commercial-level accounts), but there are already many ISP users out there who think that they're entitled to a 'special' level of service because of their job, their certifications (the notorious "I have a [largely useless] MCSE!" people), or simply the fact that they pay money to someone. Why not oblige them, but remind them of what it costs to pay a true professional?
Seeing as how I'm a tech support rep, I'm the line of fire of this one... and I actually think that the overriding problem with providing truly effective tech support is manpower (or womanpower, of course).
Quite simply, many ISPs and other tech companies have a hard time recruiting enough people to keep in line with increasing volumes of customers. That prevents them from choosing people simply based on technical prowess and forces them to treat it more like a regular job. That in turn means that support resources are based more on what the support rep has been taught in training, and any resources they have handy, than a deep-down understanding of how the technology works.
When the demand for Internet access (particularly broadband) finally tapers off, we'll be in the mostlikely position for when tech support will truly leap up in quality. Up until then, what another poster said was right: the best tech support is your own knowledge and that of your tech-savvy friends. If they can't help you, they're either not used to that particular tech or it's something on the company's end.
I'm not sure if you could argue that Ad-Aware is necessarily guilty of the same hidden-in-the-EULA offenses that something like Radlight would be. Simply by downloading and installing Ad-Aware, you know full well that you're getting a program that can deep-scan your system and remove files from it. Also, don't forget that Ad-Aware always lists the location of the content you're about to remove - and that may point out that it's part of KaZaA, revealing to the user that they've been duped.
If you're really serious about pruning out spyware from your system, you probably shouldn't be running KaZaA (or at least the regular version) in the first place, I think. That's like having a security specialist who insists on running a firewall, but leaves the settings at "low" all the time so that he can run a particular game. You can't claim to be actively concerned when you knowingly compromise your system.
Speaking of spyware, as I work tech support I can't believe how many people manage to 'infect' their systems with programs like Bonzi Buddy, Gator, and GoHip. Part of it is simply apathy; occasionally programs like Gator come as options with other apps, and from experience the casual user is terrified of ACTUALLY HAVING TO MAKE A CHOICE with their computer and accepts the default install options. Then there's the people who don't seem to realize that, when an installer for a program they don't need mysteriously pops up when they visit a site, they shouldn't install it. This is how viruses are spread... "but it was from someone I knew!"
The real kicker is that, at least once, I've actually had people blame these apps on the ISP I work for! Mind you, in the incident I'm thinking of (which only occurred last week) the customer assumed that paying for an ISP meant guaranteed technician visits for ANYTHING wrong with his service (even a five-minute "change your e-mail settings" problem) and had cancelled 3 prior ISPs to that effect, so I think it was more a question of his mental instability than any kind of major trend, but you get the idea of what kind of flak we can get at work...
As I work ISP tech support, I have to say that I agree with most ISPs only providing one general software package and supporting just what's included in it (whether it includes IE, Netscape, and/or any custom software).
The simple fact is that, as others have illustrated, the majority of ISP users are "casual" users - they literally panic at the thought of having to setup anything manually (even something so relatively simple as adding a mail account in Outlook Express). Most of these users won't even contemplate going out to download something that wasn't included in the default installation... I can't tell you how many times I've had a technical support chat where the browser showed up as "IE 5.0" even though it's now a few years old!
The people who really are technically skilled just don't need the support to begin with. They know how to get Netscape, Opera, Eudora, and so on - and probably won't even need to check a website for instructions to set it up. As such, it's really just better to support what comes with the ISP (or the OS); give the support to the people who really need it!
I would just note, of course, that this doesn't mean that I'm endorsing Microsoft's old "IE or the highway" strategy with Windows - I just think that it would be quite a burden to expect an ISP to support every modern browser/e-mail app that happens to be available for download. If an ISP includes more than one company's program (or one besides IE), all the more power to them.
There are PPC variants of Linux (Yellow Dog is common; you can also get Debian or SuSE in PPC variants), so you could baseline your system and go with one of those if you'd like.
It's not too likely that multi-button mice will come with the Mac too soon, but don't worry about compatibility with 3rd-party mice; I understand most USB mice will just plug in and work, supporting at least a few extra buttons as well as the mousewheel. Of course, any Mac users should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Basically, if you're really interested in running a Mac with that kind of setup, it can happen (and without much more cash than it takes to buy a cheap USB mouse). Personally I'd give OSX a serious try before insisting on Linux or BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but there's certain things you're neglecting that make all the difference with the Zire (at the risk of sounding like a salesperson).
First: the Zire uses a lithium-ion battery, not alkaline batteries like the m105, m125 or Sony's Clie SL10. Those latter batteries are going to need replacing often - maybe not at an insane frequency, but enough that the "average" person may not see the cost as being worthwhile. The li-ion battery is supposed to let the Zire go for weeks without a recharge, and a recharge only takes 2 hours.
The Zire, I understand, also has a plastic screen, not glass - and there's a carrying case included. Very handy when you're selling the Zire to people who aren't necessarily going to treat a PDA delicately.
I believe there's been statistics shown (check a site like palminfocenter.com as they may refer to them in their Zire review) that indicate that $99 is the "magic number" when it comes to sales, too. Many people are supposed to buy something at $99 that they wouldn't otherwise, even when they could have obtained it before (or obtained something better) for $30-50 more. I guess you could call it the "Wal-Mart factor..." people see the price, and react more strongly to that than the feature set.
I see the same criticisms repeated over and over: only the two buttons (not including scrolling), slower, less memory... but I think a lot of people are missing the point.
The Zire isn't a PDA in the "small computer with a stylus" sense. You aren't supposed to turn this into a game box or use it as a tiny replacement for an office computer. It's intended as an organizer - the fact that it has extra memory for one or two other apps (assuming you can get them to the Zire) and can sync with your computer is just a nice perk.
And the fact that Palm is marketing the Zire in a different way is also crucial. This is the PDA for people who might otherwise think of PDAs as expensive toys. It's the PDA you give to your mother as a Christmas gift, not something for the "mobile professional."
The only practical problem with it is a lack of backlighting. The monochrome screen is supposed to have a nice contrast, so this probably won't be trouble on the level of the Gameboy Advance, but you'd better hope you don't need to check your memos when you're on a nighttime bus.
You'd be surprised. The 12.1" iBook is a pretty good bargain for a small laptop. I'll use Canadian prices for comparison, since that's what I have to deal with myself.
Most Windows-based slim laptops are actually quite expensive. The closest I've really found to the iBook is Sony's Superslim Pro, which is a full $300 more than the iBook 700 - and it's debatable whether the Sony is faster. CPU arguments aside, the iBook has dedicated video (a Mobility Radeon); the Sony has a chipset with shared video memory, and I can tell you from personal experience that nothing kills video performance like needing to use system memory.
What's more amusing is that the Toshiba Portegé 2000 is actually a popular laptop, but it's $900 more than the same iBook 700... and it's not only slower, it doesn't even come with a docking station. You're paying for chic alone, and really the iBook does a better job of that.
I won't deny that Apple is expensive, but they can make a convincing case in the portable world. I'm looking to replace my clunky Toshiba with an iBook, but heck - if I weren't in university, I'd probably be considering a Powerbook!
There's nothing definite, but there are quite a few rumours passing around. The most common suggests that there will be an update in the 3rd week of October that brings the Powerbook lineup to 800 MHz and 1 GHz, with a Mobility Radeon 9000 video chipset and possibly DDR memory or a Superdrive option.
Personally, I'm eager to see what happens with the new iBooks. There's a rumoured design change that would bring them up to 13" (possibly within the same space as the 12.1" model is now)... even the far-out rumour of a 14" widescreen iBook!
I think the main reason they don't port to x86 Linux/Unix is because of priorities. Like any company competing in a field where Microsoft is involved, Apple knows that they have to fight Microsoft first and foremost; they may be thinking it smarter to polish the Windows product as much as possible rather than risk spreading themselves too thin. I'm not saying it's the best of decisions, but they may see it as necessary to their survival.
As it stands, Apple is much more a model of the "friendly" corporation than Microsoft is, so I would support them for that reason alone.
Besides, it may only be a question of Apple being able to discard legacy development for Quicktime before they have the intention and resources to develop for Unix. They're starting to limit iApp updates to OSX (iTunes, iPhoto, etc.), but even now the crucial apps like Quicktime 6 still have to run in OS9. When Apple can pull the plug on even that, Unix ports will probably be more viable.
Actually, I understand that cable modems really are modems (DSL is definitely not a modem); they have to modulate and demodulate the signals so that the cable TV network understands how to send it. The main differences between cable and phone-line modems, apart from the obvious differences, are that the cable modem has much more available room for its data and much less inherent latency.
And I suppose that getting your Internet access from the local cable or phone monopoly is just THAT much better?
And by the way, Enron is pretty much dead in the water, so they won't be providing anyone power - let alone Internet access!
One technical note here: Road Runner technically isn't owned by AOL Time Warner (there are people on Insight Cable in Ohio who get Road Runner, and even some people in Newfoundland), so they aren't DIRECTLY controlled. That means that Road Runner could theoretically disagree with AOL Time Warner and protect the network from the RIAA's actions - which wouldn't be entirely unthinkable, as they still their own security obligations. AOL Time Warner would probably also know that they can't just toss out Road Runner, even if it contradicts them: no one would stand for it if they were suddenly forced to use AOL High-Speed.
Of course, let's not kid ourselves too much. Road Runner may well feel pressure on their side of the equation. We just have to remember that they're not completely beholden to the cable provider they're most commonly affiliated with.
At the University of Ottawa (a few hours' drive North of Waterloo, for you Americans), we seem to be safe. Most of the terminals at the library are Sun workstations, and even on the Windows-based PCs the browser you use is Netscape (version 4, even). A number of the special services on the university servers require a telnet into a Unix server.
:)
Microsoft couldn't make a substantial investment here without also volunteering to overhaul the entire network and convert the database. 5 years later, we might have a complete network again... if it doesn't break somewhere along the way.
Anything that streamlines a function of Linux to make it more accessible - so long as there's an alternative to it (such as another distro) in one form another - is worth having. The number one obstacle to broader Linux acceptance is the option of user-friendliness throughout the entire OS, so addressing that by itself will probably bring many more people to the fold.
You do make a point, but keep in mind that there are a lot of additional factors that may make a Mac a better purchase in the long run.
I don't have the link to it available in front of me, but a recent study showed that Macs tended to have a lower total cost of ownership than PCs in the home (nothing dramatic, but it was there). Part of this is just due to the nature of the Mac OS and its integration with the computer: the Mac OS is generally much more stable than Windows 95/98/ME, and sometimes more stable than 2000 and XP. The interface is easier to come to grips with, and problems with drivers or resource conflicts tend not to creep up (as the drivers are often already there and installed with your copy of the OS). That means that a Mac user is less likely to be calling tech support for help, whether it's Apple, a local technician, or their ISP... and often some of those will cost money, especially if hardware has to be replaced.
Also, most hacks and viruses are geared at Windows users (especially Outlook or Outlook Express). At my tech support job, I can't tell you how many times I've heard "yeah, I need my e-mail settings, since I had to restore my system [probably through a $30 call to tech support] after getting a virus." Why? Many people aren't familiar with antivirus software - and even if they are, some viruses (such as Klez) can deliberately disable said software and get through. Mac users are largely safe if for no other reason than their being in the minority.
Even if cost isn't a factor... you wouldn't believe the difference between the aggravation levels of the Mac and Windows users I deal with. Mac calls are rare (certainly rare in relation to the percentage of Mac users out there), and when they call it's either something beyond their Mac or a quick two-minute fix. I've spent well over an hour with some Windows users, and often just because Windows refuses to recognize a driver or to install it properly.
So, while Mac users aren't necessarily on a higher plane of existence, they may just have recognized that paying more at first (which is of course helped out by a higher income) may be better than buying a cheap computer which needs constant support.
If you want music that helps 'ease' you into electronic styles, the best choices are usually the fusions between new music and old. If you're not totally against jazz, try the Cinematic Orchestra or St. Germain and you'll get a warm sound that still takes advantage of the electronic medium.
Of course, if you're like me and you want full energy in your music, a couple of key trance artists are Max Graham, everyone's favourite Canadian DJ, and the legendary Paul van Dyk from Germany. Speaking of which, if you happen to be in Germany right now, I believe the Love Parade is on - you can probably check out van Dyk there, if it isn't already too late!
Hope this helps.
The issue isn't quite as clear-cut as the people at graphicpower.com or thinksecret.com might suggest. True, it's not entirely fair to deny access simply on the basis of what MIGHT happen, but Apple knows that these sites have definitely been apt to post very real (and hence very secret) information before a MW expo. Last year we saw a genuine (if somewhat muddy) photo of the Quicksilver PowerMac case, and of course there have been multiple other instances of information being exposed days in advance. Denying press-level passes may prevent the rumour sites from getting information at the show that would be under NDA for the press (but would likely be leaked at some point by a rumour site).
I've heard though that a press pass isn't always ideal. Supposedly, Apple employees fasten their lips about some things when they see a press badge, but will sometimes give important info off-the-record to someone who only has a badge to visit the exhibits. I'm sure Apple wouldn't like that either... but it's easier to deny (or ignore) a few names and clock speeds than a photo!
Who knows, this may even be a very sneaky (if not entirely smooth) PR stunt. Remember how MW San Francisco had that "way beyond the rumour sites" hype leading up to it? Denying press passes may be a way for Apple to suggest that there's something particularly juicy being shown at the expo, whether at the keynote or behind closed doors.
One thing I do know: graphicpower.com acted very immaturely with their response. Beyond the colourful language and shutting down the site, the vow to 'use the existing computers forever' is a joke. You can be sure that the person or people from the site will probably either scream for mercy at the prospect of buying a Windows (or even Linux) system, or will be getting another Mac within two years.
Microsoft exhibiting at a Linux expo just begs for someone to pull a prank with their booth. Nothing illegal, but something that could really cause a headache.
:) That was the name of the non-existent computer that Steve Jobs (believe it or not, I don't think it was actually Woz who did this) made a fake brochure for and planted at the MITS booth, MITS being the makers of the real Altair.
I wonder if someone will pull a "Zaltair."
From what I've read, it was hilarious - the poor MITS people were inundated with questions about a product they didn't even know existed (which wasn't their fault, since it didn't)! The real kicker is that Jobs even managed to arrange the brochure so that the hidden "clue" pointed to a different company, Processor Technologies. The only reason we even know this is because of the confession a few years later.
I can just imagine it now - someone will plant a professionally-made brochure for "Microsoft Linux" or a proprietary Windows emulator for Linux, and the Microsoft reps will be bombarded... or at least, teased mercilessly.
Thanks for the brief - I'd thought that BNetD had been turned down by Blizzard regarding the key-checking algorithm, but it's nice to hear a more definitive verficiation of that.
Your points are well-made, and I can't say that I wholeheartedly approve of Blizzard's activity. However - and here's the key - Blizzard's overall track record suggests that they aren't in the habit of using "seek and destroy" tactics or otherwise trying to bully their way into dominance (and unlike Microsoft, Blizzard really DOES succeed based on the quality of their software). It'd be hard to see a company full of some very obviously dedicated and often generous (witness the large-scale closed and open betas of the past) gamers as being mean-spirited. That's probably the main reason why I won't boycott Blizzard.
Before I conclude, I do want to thank you again for the intelligence demonstrated in the post; it's much better than what I've seen in most of the responses (some of which make vague insinuations that I'm a corporate schill or a troll, simply for disagreeing with them).
If alternate theories about Battle.net are going to exist, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's because they intend to charge all their users (World of Warcraft will be pay-for-play, but it's also customary for MMORPGs to do so). I would argue rather that they just want to ensure that all players get whatever cheat protection and other services that Blizzard themselves would offer.
I wouldn't expect it to be that common, but if a rookie was lured on to a malicious 3rd-party server (not necessarily BNetD, but anything that provided a similar service) they could have an experience that makes the official servers seem pleasant by comparison. You could have a server where the stats of certain players are artificially boosted, or where bans would be completely arbitrary rather than for violating specific rules.
The whole advantage of Blizzard's Battle.net service is supposed to be a sense of permanent progression with your character or your victory record. Blizzard can be trusted to keep that progression intact, since it's their game and people wouldn't stand for anything less. You can't say the same for someone running a server off their workplace's T1 in their spare time.
Regardless of whether or not you think reverse-engineering should or shouldn't be legal, the fact is that most EULAs strictly prohibit it - that means that the developer WILL NOT allow you to reverse-engineer their code without explicit consent, so your analogy is by-and-large invalid. Remember: with most software, you don't technically own it, you own a license to use it (that includes open-source software, though the license is different)! Oh, and by the way... "insightful" doesn't necessarily mean that a post has all the right answers, simply that it provides an angle (whether different or not) that can help provide a clearer view of the issue as a whole. I'm sorry to hear that you think that only one point of view must always be the right one.
And they probably didn't give out the information because, being in a program they couldn't control (without resorting to legal action like this), that would make their CD key checks potentially very accessible. I referred to this earlier, but let me explain it this way: you can't ask Blizzard to make an anti-piracy solution available to an open-source project (thereby giving a strong potential for that solution to be cracked), be told no, and then promptly continue on with something that ENSURES that piracy is possible. Imagine going into a store, demanding a 50% discount that the store can't afford, and then shoplifting (which the store really can't afford) when you're told "no." Would you do that in the physical world? Of course not - you understand that the store has a bottom-line to maintain and employees to pay. Why does that suddenly change in the software world? Blizzard doesn't want to knowingly risk piracy (i.e. their bottom line and paying employees) simply because someone would like to host their own servers.
A number of people are (in my opinion) being foolish and treating Blizzard, or Havas, like some horrible megacorporation that kicks puppies for fun and pursues legal action only out of sheer greed. To determine whether or not Blizzard is actually doing something wrong, I'd like some answers based on tangible facts. So, if you'd please:
1. Could BNetD have even technically included CD key-checking and otherwise verifying that the users had legit copies?
2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," did the BNetD developer(s) actively take steps to make those checks that WOULDN'T potentially allow for cracks that would bypass those checks on BNetD servers (by exposing how the key checks are made)?
3. People here are talking about how it's Blizzard's fault for this happening, since they hadn't encrypted their Battle.net code in such a way as to make it impossible to reverse-engineer (or to do so legally). Is this not hypocrisy for open-source fans (presumably) to demand a company to close off their code yet further, in order to prevent open-source people from accessing their code without permission?
Honestly - with #3 it's like a thief suing the victims of his robbery for not making the house secure enough. If you want Blizzard to open-source parts of their code, then say as much. Don't accuse them of being hostile to the community and then promptly suggest that the solution is to shut off access to the community. Either ask for greater access, or admit that Blizzard isn't really being hostile (or as hostile as you thought)!
Stallman makes much noise about freedom, but he always seems to forget what the term implies. Freedom isn't just about a name or getting public credit for your work. If the former was valid, we'd all consider China, Congo and North Korea democracies simply because their leaders slapped the word "democratic" on the official country names. Likewise, the latter would make someone like Richard Gere eminently more important than almost all activists - simply because his efforts are more recognized in the media.
Freedom is greater than any one person or title, but Stallman doesn't seem to recognize that. Read that article closely; he effectively argues that if you don't do what he says and give him credit at all times, you're surrendering your freedom. It sounds remarkably like the "if you don't agree to everything we say, the terrorists win" rhetoric from the US government - or a Microsoft-like FUD approach.
Yes, care should be taken to avoid dependence on commercial software for the development of Linux (and I don't feel the need to use "GNU/" part, Mr. Stallman, I'm old enough to know something without it being explicitly stated). However, there's a big difference between voicing your opinion and - from what I've seen of Stallman here and in the past - trying to exert influence on people against their wishes. If everyone's favourite GNU creator is truly interested in getting the message out rather than boosting his self-esteem, why doesn't he speak to groups like SIGLINUX and persuade the users independently of the group operators?
Actually, I try to really work with the customer as best I can - though at my level (where we can only really deal with software issues, aside from power-cycling the cable modem) you do have to make sure you know where your personal involvement ends. You just can't do everything, even when you'd like to - the physical nature of where you are (I being hundreds of miles away) combined with the need for equal support (you don't want to have unrealistic expectations just because one tech went too far) can do this.
I would love to be paid more, but you should hear the vitriol that comes from customers' mouths about how much they pay, and it's been even worse with just a $5 rate increase. I don't think too many of these people would be willing to pay even $50 a month if it meant having more dedicated (and/or just a greater number of) technicians.
I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't help to have an extra level of tech support that gets paid by the customer on a per-issue basis (or just get a dramatically higher wage). Instead of just running on basic knowledge, you have people who are at the skill level of network admins or otherwise have a serious background to this kind of work. When they take a call, they take as much time as they need - no pressure on the clock - and, assuming they'd be local, can beat on the servers or come out to the house.
There's the risk that this would create a hierarchy of "elite" customers (though that already exists with commercial-level accounts), but there are already many ISP users out there who think that they're entitled to a 'special' level of service because of their job, their certifications (the notorious "I have a [largely useless] MCSE!" people), or simply the fact that they pay money to someone. Why not oblige them, but remind them of what it costs to pay a true professional?
Seeing as how I'm a tech support rep, I'm the line of fire of this one... and I actually think that the overriding problem with providing truly effective tech support is manpower (or womanpower, of course).
Quite simply, many ISPs and other tech companies have a hard time recruiting enough people to keep in line with increasing volumes of customers. That prevents them from choosing people simply based on technical prowess and forces them to treat it more like a regular job. That in turn means that support resources are based more on what the support rep has been taught in training, and any resources they have handy, than a deep-down understanding of how the technology works.
When the demand for Internet access (particularly broadband) finally tapers off, we'll be in the mostlikely position for when tech support will truly leap up in quality. Up until then, what another poster said was right: the best tech support is your own knowledge and that of your tech-savvy friends. If they can't help you, they're either not used to that particular tech or it's something on the company's end.
I'm not sure if you could argue that Ad-Aware is necessarily guilty of the same hidden-in-the-EULA offenses that something like Radlight would be. Simply by downloading and installing Ad-Aware, you know full well that you're getting a program that can deep-scan your system and remove files from it. Also, don't forget that Ad-Aware always lists the location of the content you're about to remove - and that may point out that it's part of KaZaA, revealing to the user that they've been duped.
If you're really serious about pruning out spyware from your system, you probably shouldn't be running KaZaA (or at least the regular version) in the first place, I think. That's like having a security specialist who insists on running a firewall, but leaves the settings at "low" all the time so that he can run a particular game. You can't claim to be actively concerned when you knowingly compromise your system.
Speaking of spyware, as I work tech support I can't believe how many people manage to 'infect' their systems with programs like Bonzi Buddy, Gator, and GoHip. Part of it is simply apathy; occasionally programs like Gator come as options with other apps, and from experience the casual user is terrified of ACTUALLY HAVING TO MAKE A CHOICE with their computer and accepts the default install options. Then there's the people who don't seem to realize that, when an installer for a program they don't need mysteriously pops up when they visit a site, they shouldn't install it. This is how viruses are spread... "but it was from someone I knew!"
The real kicker is that, at least once, I've actually had people blame these apps on the ISP I work for! Mind you, in the incident I'm thinking of (which only occurred last week) the customer assumed that paying for an ISP meant guaranteed technician visits for ANYTHING wrong with his service (even a five-minute "change your e-mail settings" problem) and had cancelled 3 prior ISPs to that effect, so I think it was more a question of his mental instability than any kind of major trend, but you get the idea of what kind of flak we can get at work...
As I work ISP tech support, I have to say that I agree with most ISPs only providing one general software package and supporting just what's included in it (whether it includes IE, Netscape, and/or any custom software).
The simple fact is that, as others have illustrated, the majority of ISP users are "casual" users - they literally panic at the thought of having to setup anything manually (even something so relatively simple as adding a mail account in Outlook Express). Most of these users won't even contemplate going out to download something that wasn't included in the default installation... I can't tell you how many times I've had a technical support chat where the browser showed up as "IE 5.0" even though it's now a few years old!
The people who really are technically skilled just don't need the support to begin with. They know how to get Netscape, Opera, Eudora, and so on - and probably won't even need to check a website for instructions to set it up. As such, it's really just better to support what comes with the ISP (or the OS); give the support to the people who really need it!
I would just note, of course, that this doesn't mean that I'm endorsing Microsoft's old "IE or the highway" strategy with Windows - I just think that it would be quite a burden to expect an ISP to support every modern browser/e-mail app that happens to be available for download. If an ISP includes more than one company's program (or one besides IE), all the more power to them.
Well, consider this:
There are PPC variants of Linux (Yellow Dog is common; you can also get Debian or SuSE in PPC variants), so you could baseline your system and go with one of those if you'd like.
It's not too likely that multi-button mice will come with the Mac too soon, but don't worry about compatibility with 3rd-party mice; I understand most USB mice will just plug in and work, supporting at least a few extra buttons as well as the mousewheel. Of course, any Mac users should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Basically, if you're really interested in running a Mac with that kind of setup, it can happen (and without much more cash than it takes to buy a cheap USB mouse). Personally I'd give OSX a serious try before insisting on Linux or BSD.