...either that or they are simply selecting their Mac OS X partition during the Windows install process. (I'm sure there will be plenty of people that do this in err and pretend they didn't later so they can give the blame to someone else.)
While I agree with your comment to some point. What you are saying is like: "If you leave your machine off.. and never use it, then you won't ever need to reinstall windows."
The reality is a lot of machines are compromised, and often remain to be without intervention. (something which has turned into a business practice, covered on/. a few times this year already.)
In the time which I used Windows I found that I hadn't needed to reinstall as regularly as others have had to (usually a new version or new computer was enough for the grand-reload.) It is incredibly easy to get a Windows machine bogged down with malware since much of it requires that a user only be on the internet, not even using internet explorer. Also there have been cases of at least one financial institution which has been compromised and passes on malware to it's users. Also other cases where malware has been accidently distributed on CD to customers. (All of these stories have been covered in/. I'm just too lazy to do the search.)
Now if Windows had adequetly held the helm of security throughout time then much of the entry points into a windows box wouldn't exist. (Something that wasn't planned in the original inception of windows as networking wasn't a huge thing back in the hey-day, and malware got around on floppy discs.)
Which is something Windows users get quite familiar with too I hear.
It basically goes like this Oh no the system is destroyed and displaying random DLL error messages when I try to load task manager, regedt32, control panel, windows defender or my virus scanning software because the latest virus/worm/etc managed to get through the most recent patches and up-to-date virus checker and circumvent the system at the knees because there is insufficient permission protection of system files.
Since I wasn't willing to have sacrificed half my HDD space and first born for the windows system backup to chew up my resources in the background as it methodically dissolves my free space one Gbyte at a time. I am left to reinstall windows or dodge various install options (press f8 to agree to the terms, press L to select this volume... what an awesome textual installer!) to reach the examine-repair mode.
I'm finding this a remarkable piece of poorly thought out PR.
Let's take a realistic point of view. We have a computer user who seems to be well experienced. They even have a nicely designed blog online where you can write in your favourite Windows-only applications. Yet they claim that they have never been a windows user before (Making me wonder where they have been for the past 10+ years where windows has been the ubiquitous consumer & business software platform.)
Now let us pretend for a moment that this actually is some computer user who has already mastered implementing RSS+Atom into their blog, yet simultaneously never even noticed that Windows has existed alongside the Mac OS, nor ever even dabbled in it until the release of boot camp last week(I can hardly imagine them rushing out to a store and purchasing a copy of MS Windows for their not-even year old Intel Mac) So why would they be interested in beta software like MS Max? (Which is really only ever going to be as good as last years version of Apple's iLife?) And why is it that their top 10 Mac apps seem to resemble the top rated list from macupdate.com.
Now lets come back to the real world: If you haven't dabbled in windows ever then you're either a recent jail escapee or very good at digging one's own head deeply into sand. This story doesn't add up, and is coinciding with a new wave of windows advertising. Which is fairly interesting as it's before a major release is due. I think our friends in Redmond are just trying to peddle off some Windows sales. Now excuse me I have to drink coffee with a pretty lady from getty-images.
I agree with most of what you have to say. Despite me not being a fan of Microsoft's business practices. (And seemingly just finding ways around settlements/agreements to continue this behaviour.) I don't believe Microsoft should have their 360 console removes from market and recalled due to a patent infringement. At most MS should have to pay a whopping fine (and license fee) if the patent infringement is proven true. Patents should not be a tool used to disembowel a company, similarly patents should have legitimate consequences and not simply be a game where the person with the biggest financial backing wins. Also with that in mind the idea of patenting something that is trivial (for example the double-click) is simply abuse.
While I'd definitely clarify your post as flame-bait. I'd just like to clarify that my system is neither broken nor unpatched. These errors have been tested across numerous systems, in fact the US army had to ship powerbooks to the middle east for this exact problem that I'm detailing, for example read this wired article http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,57961,00.html
Now as you would realise Apple's hardware is not magical, in fact it's mostly standard components that everyone can purchase. Instead it's the operating system that is different.
I'm not so sure that wiping an entire computer is standard industry practice. Like they do expect users to have some local files that they want to keep.
Besides this, the intel macs are pretty easy to spot and the set up procedure is definite reminder that there is another OS on the system. I don't think it's incredibly likely that we're going to see many wiped OS X installs from this. Afterall at the end of the day, you don't buy a Mac to run Windows. As another commenter noted: You get the stability of Windows versus Apple's cost of hardware. (I.e a LOSE-LOSE situation.)
Virus scanning software for the mac is so that windows viruses are not safe-harboured on the mac platform. Then re-released onto a local network/internet/client/etc when they are given to a PC user. The method outlined above disregards this particular safeguard. However it looks like a novel solution for employees that really want to use the mac at home and really can't afford two computers and really need to easily access their mail on both.
The flip side is that I would not give up Mail.app for any of the other currently available solutions (although thunderbird is getting quite good!), which despite their own internal thoughts, have significant UI issues they need to overcome. I'm no dummy, I just don't believe in taking 4 steps for something than can be done in 2 or 1 step.
I also use them side by side, everyday and demand -real world- performance out of both and I can reassure you that you mustn't be doing much more than dragging and dropping files around on your desktop to not realise the difference.
My particular favourite is when explorer takes 30 seconds to re-read a network directory that I use in excess of 100 times a day. (each time rereading the h&w of the images in the folder, despite having turned this off about 10 times already).
Or another favourite which is that large CMYK images will instantly crash explorer when it tries to either preview them in the window or obtain it's px dimensions.
It gets incredibly frustrating. Naturally when it crashes it loses all of the few settings that actually stick when you choose them.(How many times have I selected no preview, just for it to forget this setting.)
This is just the tip of the ice burg. I won't even start on recycle bin or what happens when the explorer window is scrolled down to a section of files and you dare want to add or remove one.
I think the idea here is that you'd want to keep your OSX partition protected from Windows. Also in my experience HFS+ drivers end up trashing the volume, particularly with regards to things such as journaling.
This test has already been done, not only did the macbook pro run windows faster than other core duo laptops, but intel native apps for OSX ran faster than their windows counter parts (note this doesn't include Photoshop etc as it's not intel-native on OSX yet)
I doubt this, they recognise that the iPod may one day not be the hot ticket item. (After all a new ipod doesn't play your music much better than an old ipod). Also selling music is only a ploy to sell more ipods, and barely breaks even.
Additionally Apple have always made more money out of computers than ipods. Apple computer sales have grown from around 3.5M units in 2004 to between 4 and 5 M units in 2005. A significant gain which outpaced the industry (i.e market share gain.) Apple spend more time on their hardware and software for the apple computer than media development.
Also businesses look to grow, not shrink. No matter how well the iPod does, Apple will always make computers, that business unit would simply not be as big as the iPod business unit. It's not like they are limited in staff. It's like suggesting that the MS xbox is doing well.. so we'll stop making MS Office.
It's a mixture of a few aspects, but in short I'd probably say no.
First if you run OSX & XP side by side, OSX highlights windows short comings, like people b i t c h about finder, but they've never really had to use explorer in a pressured environment.
Also when booting to XP, a magnitude of features aren't supported, IR remote, backlit keyboards, usb modems, bluetooth mice+keyboard, etc heck the brightness keys will stop responding if you just change keyboards.
Finally in OSX you can as a minimum read your windows files(can't write to NTFS, but can write to FAT), in Windows you can't see any of your mac files. This becomes tiresome quickly.
The idea is that people who really need to run that occassional windows app are able to, which fills a nice void as Virtual PC doesn't run under Intel macs at the moment.
I suppose the best target market are laptop users who hate the s h i t PC laptops out there but still have to use windows at work. They can buy their mac, enjoy their photos, music and web stuff by night aka front row and the iLife suite. Then their bozo IT manager at work in the day can work with the machine like it's just another windows box.
It's sorta like batman, all boring in the day at work. Then at night he's off in the cool car, with the toys/gadgets saving lives.
Also I might add to this that brief information they have given here is enough to ascertain that they are able to create just about any game they like on this hardware. What they won't be able to do is lazily program a game which has excessive use of polygons(even for background objects) and use excessive detail in pointless textures (no one really looks at grass and tree bark that much.)
This may sound a little bit zealotly but I back up nintendo's formal commentary that we've(as consumers) have sufficient hardware for quite a while to produce stunning looking, great playing games.
After all when something gets too detailed, you can just pre-render the object onto a more primitive figure (3d users are already familiar with this technique called amongst other titles "surface sampling"). Additionally there are newer 3d engines that use depth based calculations to determine how heavy a polygon should be I.e close up models are polygon rich, further models are not.
With the algorithm advancements we've had in the 3D sector, it's no surprise that the raw performance of the nintendo console hasn't increased significantly.
One final point to make is that nintendo games are usually highly stylised. So for the majority of their bread & butter titles programmers+designers are not seeking photo realism.
While I agree that by introducing restrictions the studios create more business opportunities to leech from the consumer.
What the studios do need to recognise is that entertainment is an optional business. No one -needs- to purchase a DRM movie or audio disc.
Herein lies their problem, they want to somehow grow profits, but punish their bread+butter customers in the process, because they can't think of any better way to restrict content to traditional use.
I think they should just go back to the old method of ensuring sales. Which was bundling, CD's that come with lyrics and great album art. Movies that come with the figurines/posters/etc. Collectors edition crap, etc.
This will actually entice a consumer to buy the real-deal instead of just obtaining a pirated copy from somewhere.
Another quick point to make, people that buy pirated-anything are usually the kind of people that weren't going to part with their money for a sh!t-sequel anyway. Good movies always have always led to good DVD sales(such as the Lord of the Rings series which sold very well as DVDs), bad movies, i.e 90% of what a studio produces in a year simply don't have good DVD sales.
It's a bit hard to speculate. Since Apple were well aware of what they were doing post the 26M settlement, all music sales occur under "iTunes" instead of "Apple".
It's deliberate that the word "Apple" is not associated with any music selling.
The case is being brought on the merit that Apple Computer is ultimately selling music. Should settlement occur, it won't be a giant blow-out curtosy of the steps Apple have already taken. (This is why no one is particularly worried.)
I've held this same theory for a while. The eye-candy in OSX is there for a dual purpose, in almost all cases it either decreases eye stress, or provides a new way of providing 'soft-borders' instead of the hard ones most are accustomed to.
Particular offenders of the eye-candy explosion would be Vista and Novells XGL implementation, which both simply have effects for 'fun' and very little functional value, and in Vista's case very-little cosmetic improvement too. (E.g. a white-blended & blurred window border provides an exceptionally bad bedding for the program's title text. So bad that they give it a white-glow to counter it. However this eye-candy further deteriorates the legibility as it interrupts the "white space" around the text, which is how we read words instead of letter-by-letter.
I think the real reason why MS have seemingly spent all their time updating the look of windows is because it implies a perceived change to the average user. With all the features they have dropped out of it since it's original plans back in "Longhorn" days, it's now merely XP with a few bells+whistles and a different GUI. I personally feel that the MS team should take what they already have and make it better, instead of re-inventing their GUI-elements every few years. Afterall, between 95, 2000, XP and Vista(coming in 200x). The only major user interface differences are what images/effects are behind buttons/start bar/etc. Since 95, the start bar (and most dialogues) has remained pretty much the same, still over-abbreviating program titles, but now SHINY and over-abbreviating program titles. The tray is completely useless now, as every program wants a tray icon, so they aren't that quick to access anymore.
I could go on all day about this. What I'm particularly surprised about is that Microsoft spend a lot of money on user interface R&D, however they don't seem to get anywhere with their designs, and they come out of the company excessively flawed (from a design perspective and a users perspective.) It seems they are still the understand why using a "grid" is a good idea. (not the math grid, the design grid.)
If this article flames you up, go right ahead and abuse me:) I'm not a particular mac-fan boy, I just like any company that chooses progress for the consumer over just making a heap of cash.
Sounds obvious, but document burning is the preferred method of extincting those naughty pieces of paper that you never want to see again.
The article sought out what we already knew about credit card companies. To a credit card company, sending out obviously fradulent cards is good business, in the long run it'll earn them more income, a higher reported market share and more active card holders (all measures of a successful credit company.)
Much fraud goes unnoticed by card holders, particularly those that don't read their bills. (Even those that do read their bills find it difficult decoding excessively abbreviated store titles, active store names and the reality that many smaller stores put their credit card processing through days after the actual transaction.) The industry is prone to fraud on numerous levels.
Here is the thing: you don't need to photoshop anything to get images of windows on an "Intel" iMac
The iMac G5 with built-in iSight camera is visually identical to the new Intel based iMacs.
Virtual PC 7 runs on the iMac G5 without a hitch (and allows full screen mode.)
You then need only take photos of your iMac G5 running windows-xp under virtual PC in full screen mode.
Better proof is images of this method on a MacBook Pro, because intel-based macs are unable to run virtual PC.
Additionally, faking images of a MacBook Pro running XP is also trivial, as you can simply get screen shots (from virtual pc on a G4 or G5 system.. or even off the web.) and display them full screen on your new Intel Mac.
In fact I can fake pictures of my powerbook running vista via a similar method, I can fake images of my powerbook running nintendo DS games with the same method.
The truth of this will come out once the method is tested to work or not work. Only then will the prize money be rewarded.
An interesting side point is that you can already remove the DRM from purchased iTMS songs(burn them to CD). However if you at-your-option decide to re-encode these to other formats a minimal loss in quality occurs.
So Apple could argue that they already allow their music's DRM to be removed, as converting it to other formats will always be a lossy experience regardless if the middle ground is a burnt-cd/disc image.
Will the law stipulate that a prestine conversion be required? (Something which isn't technically possible.)
I've noticed a significant rise in anti-macosx articles recently. To the point where I'm beginning to believe that it is staged. Each article usually has 3 points to make: Mac OSX is not *nix, Max OSX is insecure and "easy" to hack (and not a target due to small install base.) and that Apple are slow with patches to security faults.
So far each article has been based on unique situations that lack credibility to begin with, give little detail, and take focus away from the fact that it's basically a machine running a collective of industry proven software (such as apache and openssh.)
Also of note is that Mac OSX currently has an a user base of over 10 million machines. So the argument that it's too small a target is ridiculous. In fact it's a bigger target as it's untouched territory with a bonus of headline making news.
With exception to allofmp3.com which I'm certain won't be around for too much longer. The problems you're pointing out are the same for all other online music stores. As the previous author points out, at least with iTunes you get the option to convert your music into a non-DRM format, which is different from most of the other stores where it's locked into a proprietry format.
In other news, with the way that the current music era goes: chances are you're not going to want today's music by the time that Apple cease (if they ever do) supporting AAC? (I don't see any reasons why they can't support it forever.)
Slashdot Mirror
At this point Schiller added that "I think there are a lot of PCs that should be recycled"
I think why /. hates apple fanboys so much is because despite only being around 3% of the computing world... they have apple fangirls too!
...either that or they are simply selecting their Mac OS X partition during the Windows install process. (I'm sure there will be plenty of people that do this in err and pretend they didn't later so they can give the blame to someone else.)
The reality is a lot of machines are compromised, and often remain to be without intervention. (something which has turned into a business practice, covered on /. a few times this year already.)
In the time which I used Windows I found that I hadn't needed to reinstall as regularly as others have had to (usually a new version or new computer was enough for the grand-reload.) It is incredibly easy to get a Windows machine bogged down with malware since much of it requires that a user only be on the internet, not even using internet explorer. Also there have been cases of at least one financial institution which has been compromised and passes on malware to it's users. Also other cases where malware has been accidently distributed on CD to customers. (All of these stories have been covered in /. I'm just too lazy to do the search.)
Now if Windows had adequetly held the helm of security throughout time then much of the entry points into a windows box wouldn't exist. (Something that wasn't planned in the original inception of windows as networking wasn't a huge thing back in the hey-day, and malware got around on floppy discs.)
Which is something Windows users get quite familiar with too I hear.
It basically goes like this
Oh no the system is destroyed and displaying random DLL error messages when I try to load task manager, regedt32, control panel, windows defender or my virus scanning software because the latest virus/worm/etc managed to get through the most recent patches and up-to-date virus checker and circumvent the system at the knees because there is insufficient permission protection of system files.
Since I wasn't willing to have sacrificed half my HDD space and first born for the windows system backup to chew up my resources in the background as it methodically dissolves my free space one Gbyte at a time. I am left to reinstall windows or dodge various install options (press f8 to agree to the terms, press L to select this volume... what an awesome textual installer!) to reach the examine-repair mode.
Let's take a realistic point of view. We have a computer user who seems to be well experienced. They even have a nicely designed blog online where you can write in your favourite Windows-only applications. Yet they claim that they have never been a windows user before (Making me wonder where they have been for the past 10+ years where windows has been the ubiquitous consumer & business software platform.)
Now let us pretend for a moment that this actually is some computer user who has already mastered implementing RSS+Atom into their blog, yet simultaneously never even noticed that Windows has existed alongside the Mac OS, nor ever even dabbled in it until the release of boot camp last week(I can hardly imagine them rushing out to a store and purchasing a copy of MS Windows for their not-even year old Intel Mac) So why would they be interested in beta software like MS Max? (Which is really only ever going to be as good as last years version of Apple's iLife?) And why is it that their top 10 Mac apps seem to resemble the top rated list from macupdate.com.
Now lets come back to the real world: If you haven't dabbled in windows ever then you're either a recent jail escapee or very good at digging one's own head deeply into sand. This story doesn't add up, and is coinciding with a new wave of windows advertising. Which is fairly interesting as it's before a major release is due. I think our friends in Redmond are just trying to peddle off some Windows sales. Now excuse me I have to drink coffee with a pretty lady from getty-images.
I agree with most of what you have to say. Despite me not being a fan of Microsoft's business practices. (And seemingly just finding ways around settlements/agreements to continue this behaviour.) I don't believe Microsoft should have their 360 console removes from market and recalled due to a patent infringement. At most MS should have to pay a whopping fine (and license fee) if the patent infringement is proven true. Patents should not be a tool used to disembowel a company, similarly patents should have legitimate consequences and not simply be a game where the person with the biggest financial backing wins. Also with that in mind the idea of patenting something that is trivial (for example the double-click) is simply abuse.
Now as you would realise Apple's hardware is not magical, in fact it's mostly standard components that everyone can purchase. Instead it's the operating system that is different.
Besides this, the intel macs are pretty easy to spot and the set up procedure is definite reminder that there is another OS on the system. I don't think it's incredibly likely that we're going to see many wiped OS X installs from this. Afterall at the end of the day, you don't buy a Mac to run Windows. As another commenter noted: You get the stability of Windows versus Apple's cost of hardware. (I.e a LOSE-LOSE situation.)
The flip side is that I would not give up Mail.app for any of the other currently available solutions (although thunderbird is getting quite good!), which despite their own internal thoughts, have significant UI issues they need to overcome. I'm no dummy, I just don't believe in taking 4 steps for something than can be done in 2 or 1 step.
My particular favourite is when explorer takes 30 seconds to re-read a network directory that I use in excess of 100 times a day. (each time rereading the h&w of the images in the folder, despite having turned this off about 10 times already).
Or another favourite which is that large CMYK images will instantly crash explorer when it tries to either preview them in the window or obtain it's px dimensions.
It gets incredibly frustrating. Naturally when it crashes it loses all of the few settings that actually stick when you choose them.(How many times have I selected no preview, just for it to forget this setting.)
This is just the tip of the ice burg. I won't even start on recycle bin or what happens when the explorer window is scrolled down to a section of files and you dare want to add or remove one.
I think the idea here is that you'd want to keep your OSX partition protected from Windows. Also in my experience HFS+ drivers end up trashing the volume, particularly with regards to things such as journaling.
This test has already been done, not only did the macbook pro run windows faster than other core duo laptops, but intel native apps for OSX ran faster than their windows counter parts (note this doesn't include Photoshop etc as it's not intel-native on OSX yet)
Additionally Apple have always made more money out of computers than ipods. Apple computer sales have grown from around 3.5M units in 2004 to between 4 and 5 M units in 2005. A significant gain which outpaced the industry (i.e market share gain.) Apple spend more time on their hardware and software for the apple computer than media development.
Also businesses look to grow, not shrink. No matter how well the iPod does, Apple will always make computers, that business unit would simply not be as big as the iPod business unit. It's not like they are limited in staff. It's like suggesting that the MS xbox is doing well.. so we'll stop making MS Office.
Finally, I bet that all of your bets are wrong.
First if you run OSX & XP side by side, OSX highlights windows short comings, like people b i t c h about finder, but they've never really had to use explorer in a pressured environment.
Also when booting to XP, a magnitude of features aren't supported, IR remote, backlit keyboards, usb modems, bluetooth mice+keyboard, etc heck the brightness keys will stop responding if you just change keyboards.
Finally in OSX you can as a minimum read your windows files(can't write to NTFS, but can write to FAT), in Windows you can't see any of your mac files. This becomes tiresome quickly.
The idea is that people who really need to run that occassional windows app are able to, which fills a nice void as Virtual PC doesn't run under Intel macs at the moment.
I suppose the best target market are laptop users who hate the s h i t PC laptops out there but still have to use windows at work. They can buy their mac, enjoy their photos, music and web stuff by night aka front row and the iLife suite. Then their bozo IT manager at work in the day can work with the machine like it's just another windows box.
It's sorta like batman, all boring in the day at work. Then at night he's off in the cool car, with the toys/gadgets saving lives.
Would you like help in:
Plotting your own death?
Choosing a weapon of choice?
Open the suicide letter template gallery.
This may sound a little bit zealotly but I back up nintendo's formal commentary that we've(as consumers) have sufficient hardware for quite a while to produce stunning looking, great playing games.
After all when something gets too detailed, you can just pre-render the object onto a more primitive figure (3d users are already familiar with this technique called amongst other titles "surface sampling"). Additionally there are newer 3d engines that use depth based calculations to determine how heavy a polygon should be I.e close up models are polygon rich, further models are not.
With the algorithm advancements we've had in the 3D sector, it's no surprise that the raw performance of the nintendo console hasn't increased significantly.
One final point to make is that nintendo games are usually highly stylised. So for the majority of their bread & butter titles programmers+designers are not seeking photo realism.
What the studios do need to recognise is that entertainment is an optional business. No one -needs- to purchase a DRM movie or audio disc.
Herein lies their problem, they want to somehow grow profits, but punish their bread+butter customers in the process, because they can't think of any better way to restrict content to traditional use.
I think they should just go back to the old method of ensuring sales. Which was bundling, CD's that come with lyrics and great album art. Movies that come with the figurines/posters/etc. Collectors edition crap, etc.
This will actually entice a consumer to buy the real-deal instead of just obtaining a pirated copy from somewhere.
Another quick point to make, people that buy pirated-anything are usually the kind of people that weren't going to part with their money for a sh!t-sequel anyway. Good movies always have always led to good DVD sales(such as the Lord of the Rings series which sold very well as DVDs), bad movies, i.e 90% of what a studio produces in a year simply don't have good DVD sales.
It's deliberate that the word "Apple" is not associated with any music selling.
The case is being brought on the merit that Apple Computer is ultimately selling music. Should settlement occur, it won't be a giant blow-out curtosy of the steps Apple have already taken. (This is why no one is particularly worried.)
Particular offenders of the eye-candy explosion would be Vista and Novells XGL implementation, which both simply have effects for 'fun' and very little functional value, and in Vista's case very-little cosmetic improvement too. (E.g. a white-blended & blurred window border provides an exceptionally bad bedding for the program's title text. So bad that they give it a white-glow to counter it. However this eye-candy further deteriorates the legibility as it interrupts the "white space" around the text, which is how we read words instead of letter-by-letter.
I think the real reason why MS have seemingly spent all their time updating the look of windows is because it implies a perceived change to the average user. With all the features they have dropped out of it since it's original plans back in "Longhorn" days, it's now merely XP with a few bells+whistles and a different GUI. I personally feel that the MS team should take what they already have and make it better, instead of re-inventing their GUI-elements every few years. Afterall, between 95, 2000, XP and Vista(coming in 200x). The only major user interface differences are what images/effects are behind buttons/start bar/etc. Since 95, the start bar (and most dialogues) has remained pretty much the same, still over-abbreviating program titles, but now SHINY and over-abbreviating program titles. The tray is completely useless now, as every program wants a tray icon, so they aren't that quick to access anymore.
I could go on all day about this. What I'm particularly surprised about is that Microsoft spend a lot of money on user interface R&D, however they don't seem to get anywhere with their designs, and they come out of the company excessively flawed (from a design perspective and a users perspective.) It seems they are still the understand why using a "grid" is a good idea. (not the math grid, the design grid.)
If this article flames you up, go right ahead and abuse me :) I'm not a particular mac-fan boy, I just like any company that chooses progress for the consumer over just making a heap of cash.
The article sought out what we already knew about credit card companies. To a credit card company, sending out obviously fradulent cards is good business, in the long run it'll earn them more income, a higher reported market share and more active card holders (all measures of a successful credit company.)
Much fraud goes unnoticed by card holders, particularly those that don't read their bills. (Even those that do read their bills find it difficult decoding excessively abbreviated store titles, active store names and the reality that many smaller stores put their credit card processing through days after the actual transaction.) The industry is prone to fraud on numerous levels.
The iMac G5 with built-in iSight camera is visually identical to the new Intel based iMacs.
Virtual PC 7 runs on the iMac G5 without a hitch (and allows full screen mode.)
You then need only take photos of your iMac G5 running windows-xp under virtual PC in full screen mode.
Better proof is images of this method on a MacBook Pro, because intel-based macs are unable to run virtual PC.
Additionally, faking images of a MacBook Pro running XP is also trivial, as you can simply get screen shots (from virtual pc on a G4 or G5 system.. or even off the web.) and display them full screen on your new Intel Mac.
In fact I can fake pictures of my powerbook running vista via a similar method, I can fake images of my powerbook running nintendo DS games with the same method.
The truth of this will come out once the method is tested to work or not work. Only then will the prize money be rewarded.
So Apple could argue that they already allow their music's DRM to be removed, as converting it to other formats will always be a lossy experience regardless if the middle ground is a burnt-cd/disc image.
Will the law stipulate that a prestine conversion be required? (Something which isn't technically possible.)
So far each article has been based on unique situations that lack credibility to begin with, give little detail, and take focus away from the fact that it's basically a machine running a collective of industry proven software (such as apache and openssh.)
Also of note is that Mac OSX currently has an a user base of over 10 million machines. So the argument that it's too small a target is ridiculous. In fact it's a bigger target as it's untouched territory with a bonus of headline making news.
In other news, with the way that the current music era goes: chances are you're not going to want today's music by the time that Apple cease (if they ever do) supporting AAC? (I don't see any reasons why they can't support it forever.)