Um... actually, the Quake III test did come out first on the Mac, back in April of '99, then on Linux and Windows. id wanted the initial release of the test version to be on the platform with the fewest/most controlled variations in configurations. Windows users got to try the test a couple weeks after Mac users did.
They didn't stick with it; there were only 4 seasons of Futurama produced, and the only reason it's run for 5 years is because Fox preempted the show so often that even without rerunning episodes, they still had spill over into a fifth season. In other words, it was on less than half the time a given show would normally be on over the course of five years.
How can you be sure the "cough, cough" sound is fake? You might be able to tell with 90% certainty, but you still can't guarantee it's not a real reaction. Moreover, if someone says something rude, which is what a fake cough would essentially be, you can respond by saying something in return, or do nothing; you don't have to physically attack them with your smoke (yes, I know it's not as damaging to most as a fist in the face, but it still crosses the line into something that can be considered assault), aside from which it's exceedingly boorish at the very least.
The only app I know ported to Windows is Quicktime.
Just a heads-up: WebObjects also runs on Windows, and there's even a Windows version of AppleWorks, as well. They used to distribute it at retail, though hardly anyone noticed, given MS Office's domination of that market. Evidently Apple decided it just wasn't worth competing in that arena (apparently since software publishers actually have to pay distributors in at least some distribution channels to carry their products); with version 6, they stopped offering AppleWorks at retail altogether, although they still make it available for the education market - copies sold to edu customers are Mac/Windows hybrids.
Aside from these, there's the iPod, of course, which supports Windows.
Some are even more expensive than that - I've seen individual tracks listed there for anything from 79 cents to $1.99; not only are the overwhelming majority 99 cents, the same as at the iTMS, but there appear to be a lot more for over that price than under it (though admittedly, I haven't combed the entire BM catalog to verify this;).
I've seen Apple acknowledge glitches many times, even on occasions when they haven't become known by others yet. Have you contacted Apple yet with your image loading problem? If so, is there any indication they're working on it?
Yes, the iTMS has many partial albums; if it bothers you, just think of them as songs, not albums. At any rate, when you see partials there, it's not Apple's doing, but the licensors (the labels). For whatever reason, they haven't authorized certain songs for release on the iTMS. From what I've seen of the iTMS and BuyMusic, there are a number of albums that are missing the same songs at both outlets, which seems to indicate the labels just don't want to sell certain tracks this way. Neither Apple nor Buy can force the labels to give them specific tracks. Also, FWIW, I've seen albums at the iTMS that had stuff added piecemeal - so that the debut week, for example, there were only three tracks from a particular album available, but a few weeks later, the complete album tracklist was there. I don't know why an album might be added a few tracks at a time, but it's happened; perhaps the later tracks weren't initially planned for availability, but were added in response to user requests, or something...
Better yet, why not just have the scanner report all the potential troubling ethical data known, and let the user decide based on that? Let's say Bob doesn't give a flying handshake about animal rights, but corporate accounting scandals and the like concern him deeply; if he goes and scans the products he considers buying, and the scanner provides him with info about companies' animal rights records and financial doings, he can choose to just ignore the animal stuff entirely and concentrate on what he wants. That way there's little/no risk of having an inadequate filter setting inadvertently withholding data Bob would like to have.
I don't think Apple's claiming anything. Apparently what happened here is that when he reinstalled his system, iTunes thought it was part of a "new" computer that needed to be authorized to play his files, and unfortunately comps in Canada can't be authorized for iTMS music, since it's legally supposed to be sold only in the US. It's not about rescinding rights at all; iTunes simply didn't realize the files were already legal for that machine. From the followup info, Apple's either already helped the guy get his music back, or it's still working on it now, so it's clear they're not trying to revoke his rights to the music.
I don't think Apple is preventing you from exporting it. I think what happened to this guy is the unfortunate result of a collision of a couple of factors:
Music bought from the iTMS can be played on up to three computers. To prevent people from putting it on unlimited machines, putting it up on Kazaa, etc., Apple has the buyer/listener "authorize" each computer he/she wants to play the tunes on. Of course, computers don't come out of the box preloaded with user information; the user authorizes the machine. This unfortunate fellow had some technical problem that required him to reinstall his OS, essentially resetting the machine to its initial fresh-out-of-the-box state (save for having his files and apps on it, of course). Apparently iTunes essentially viewed the machine as a "new" one he needed to (re)authorize; unfortunately, his new location data precluded him from authorizing it, since comps in Canada can't buy stuff from the iTMS.
From the follow-up, Apple helped or is helping him get his music back, so clearly they don't intend to revoke listening rights if you buy music in the US and then move. They just don't want you buying from outside the US in the first place.
Of course you can buy CDs in one country, take them with you to another, and continue to play them. You can also do this with the files Apple sells you - the issue here appears to be that when a tech problem forced this guy to reinstall and start his system from scratch, it essentially became a "new computer" he had to authorize (someone who buys files from the iTMS can authorize up to three computers to play them on; apparently the authorizations have to conform to the same sales conditions as the original purchase), and since he was now in Canada, he couldn't authorize his system. Apparently someone at Apple is helping him out, though, so they don't intend to revoke your right to listen to music once you've bought it; the way things are set up just happened to do so in this case, but it's being sorted out.
The thing behind this isn't anything about people not being allowed to take music they buy in one country to another, but not being allowed to buy some music in some countries in the first place. The iTMS is only authorized to sell to people in the US, though once you've bought from them you can take your music wherever you go. The proper point of comparison is that different CDs (DVDs, books, videogames, whatever) are only published and sold in certain countries. The current requirement that one be in the US to use the iTMS is just an extension of this, and comes from the music industry, not Apple.
When I first posted the above post I said "I don't have any problem with people prefering Buy.com's service," but after thinking about all the restrictions I have to say I've changed my mind. Honestly, I hope other people don't support BM, at least with its present limitations; I'd hate to see the kinds of restrictive usage rights become widely accepted. It would probably make things worse for all of us, even those of us who don't use the service.
It's in the best interest of everyone, even those who can't or won't use either of these services, that BM not be as successful with its limitations as the iTMS is.
Better yet, look at the BuyMusic site. Rights vary by file; some can be put on portable devices an unlimited number of times. Others can be put on portable players a finite number of times (some 3 times, some 5, some 10; there may be other numbers as well); reportedly, still others can't be put on portables at all. Ugh.
Leaving alone the actual restrictions, just keeping track of the variability in the rights ("I can do this with this, but not this with that, and I can burn that only x number of times," etc.) is itself enough of a PITA to keep me from ever wanting to use it, given the iTMS alternative (the usage rights are not only more generous, they're also consistent - you can do the exact same things with every single file there. Score one for the famed Steve Jobs RDF and the uniform licensing he got from the labels.
How about we hope for MS to win, but only after a seriously long, expensive legal battle that leaves their resources seriously depleted and loosens their grip on the industry? Is there any way a legal battle like this might force MS to put up far, far more money for lawyers than InterTrust in order to defend itself, so that the thing can seriously hurt MS before InterTrust goes bankrupt or something fighting the case? If so, that's what I'd like to see. Of course, IANAL (hmm, but my brother is - maybe I should ask him...).
You'd rather have DRM restricted non-standard audio files with a service that works on 5% of computers (AAC+iTunes+Macs) than DRM restricted non-standard audio files with a service that works on 94% of computers (WMA+WMP9+IE5)?
Well, actually, yeah, for a few reasons:
- I'd rather have AAC files than WMA ones.
- The DRM in iTMS downloads is (relatively) minimal, and it's consistent - all iTMS downloads have the same DRM; the DRM in BuyMusic.com files varies from track to track, but is generally harsher than the iTMS's.
- The iTMS is just a nicer, more elegant experience - you browse the store, purchase and download the files, and play them (and/or burn them to CD, d/l them to your iPod, etc.) all with a single, well-designed application.
Having said all that, I still think it's a Good Thing there'll be more services like this. I don't personally intend to use this one specifically, but the more options people have for getting their music, the better. I don't have any problem with people prefering Buy.com's service (do you have a problem with people preferring Apple's?).
The last sentence of that section I quoted says "Processor - 233 megahertz (MHz) processor, such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor," so there you go.
Downloading Music from BuyMusic.com to Your Computer
See Manufacturer Contact Information for support information.
Pentium Class PC computer. Our music downloads are not compatible with any Mac OS. Pentium class is required for individualization settings to enable music licenses.
Internet browser - Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 or newer. Note: If you browse the site with Netscape you cannot purchase and download music.
Windows Media Player 9.0 or newer. Note: Windows Media Player version 9.0 or newer is compatible with the DRM encrypted music files BuyMusic.com sells. Other players might not be compatible and might not play, transfer, or burn your music files satisfactorily. Media Player is a free download. (See Manufacturer Contact Information for free download.)
Operating System - Microsoft Windows® 98 Second Edition, Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows XP Home Edition, or Windows XP Professional. BuyMusic downloads are not compatible with any Mac OS.
Processor - 233 megahertz (MHz) processor, such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor
I went there a little while ago just to look around and it loaded right up in Safari, no tinkering required. Where does it say it's accessible via IE-only?
I'm not that I'm the slightest bit surprised they would do that; it's just I hadn't seen anything about that anywhere else, and I have no problem going to the site. Or does the "IE-only" in this case mean one needs IE to actually download the tunes?
If it's the cost of software keeping you back, I have to ask... why? If you play by the rules, you'll (generally, according to most licenses I've seen, anyway) have to buy separate copies of your existing apps for the laptop anyway; if you don't play by the rules, and duplicate the ones from your desktop to use on the laptop, you could just warez the Mac versions as well. Either way you'll probably wind up paying about the same for your laptop's apps regardless of platform. Just a thought...
(I do of course realize, though, this doesn't apply if you play by the rules and also get those essential apps bundled with the machine on one platform but not the other, and it also doesn't apply if the apps you want/need aren't made for the Mac and there are no equivalents that can open & save the same files.)
Somehow I think much (or most, or all) of the point of going to a Mac would be to avoid having to deal with Windows (and by extension, Microsoft in general) at all.
Perhaps that poster is indeed afraid of risk, but I assure you he/she has lived in a world with it, as has every single human being that ever lived - perhaps less risk or more risk than you face, but definitely something more than none at all.
Note also that the poster didn't express concern simply for himself/herself, but for others who sign up to be soldiers, and for society generally (even if you don't agree that Bush's actions are wrong/dangerous/whatever, this person is at least expressing concern for the welfare of something larger than himself/herself). You, on the other hand, expressed a desire for that person's risk to be increased simply to see it increased (as opposed to wanting the draft out of concerns for national security or whatever - you just want to see a total stranger placed in mortal danger as an instrument of policies he/she doesn't even believe in), which illustrates you to be a mean-spirited, apparently evil person who derives pleasure from others' suffering.
If you think about the "alphabet" fighters in the movies, they're all Rebel ships; one might surmise it's part of a Rebel Alliance naming convention (that matches ships with letters when there's a convenient similarity, as with the A-, X-, and Y-Wing fighters, but that also assigns letters when there's not a particularly strong visual connection, as with the B-Wing fighter).
Imperial fighters are all named as some sort of "TIE" something; TIE stands for twin ion engine. Like the Alliance, the Empire appears to have adopted a given naming convention and applied it across its entire fighter family even when it's not actually correct, sacrificing accuracy for consistency (not all "TIE" craft actually have just two engines; some have more).
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt these guys will be getting much sympathy from anyone, actually.
Um... actually, the Quake III test did come out first on the Mac, back in April of '99, then on Linux and Windows. id wanted the initial release of the test version to be on the platform with the fewest/most controlled variations in configurations. Windows users got to try the test a couple weeks after Mac users did.
They didn't stick with it; there were only 4 seasons of Futurama produced, and the only reason it's run for 5 years is because Fox preempted the show so often that even without rerunning episodes, they still had spill over into a fifth season. In other words, it was on less than half the time a given show would normally be on over the course of five years.
In what era didn't (or doesn't) that kind of thing happen?
How can you be sure the "cough, cough" sound is fake? You might be able to tell with 90% certainty, but you still can't guarantee it's not a real reaction. Moreover, if someone says something rude, which is what a fake cough would essentially be, you can respond by saying something in return, or do nothing; you don't have to physically attack them with your smoke (yes, I know it's not as damaging to most as a fist in the face, but it still crosses the line into something that can be considered assault), aside from which it's exceedingly boorish at the very least.
Just a heads-up: WebObjects also runs on Windows, and there's even a Windows version of AppleWorks, as well. They used to distribute it at retail, though hardly anyone noticed, given MS Office's domination of that market. Evidently Apple decided it just wasn't worth competing in that arena (apparently since software publishers actually have to pay distributors in at least some distribution channels to carry their products); with version 6, they stopped offering AppleWorks at retail altogether, although they still make it available for the education market - copies sold to edu customers are Mac/Windows hybrids.
Aside from these, there's the iPod, of course, which supports Windows.
Some are even more expensive than that - I've seen individual tracks listed there for anything from 79 cents to $1.99; not only are the overwhelming majority 99 cents, the same as at the iTMS, but there appear to be a lot more for over that price than under it (though admittedly, I haven't combed the entire BM catalog to verify this ;).
Yes, the iTMS has many partial albums; if it bothers you, just think of them as songs, not albums. At any rate, when you see partials there, it's not Apple's doing, but the licensors (the labels). For whatever reason, they haven't authorized certain songs for release on the iTMS. From what I've seen of the iTMS and BuyMusic, there are a number of albums that are missing the same songs at both outlets, which seems to indicate the labels just don't want to sell certain tracks this way. Neither Apple nor Buy can force the labels to give them specific tracks. Also, FWIW, I've seen albums at the iTMS that had stuff added piecemeal - so that the debut week, for example, there were only three tracks from a particular album available, but a few weeks later, the complete album tracklist was there. I don't know why an album might be added a few tracks at a time, but it's happened; perhaps the later tracks weren't initially planned for availability, but were added in response to user requests, or something...
Better yet, why not just have the scanner report all the potential troubling ethical data known, and let the user decide based on that? Let's say Bob doesn't give a flying handshake about animal rights, but corporate accounting scandals and the like concern him deeply; if he goes and scans the products he considers buying, and the scanner provides him with info about companies' animal rights records and financial doings, he can choose to just ignore the animal stuff entirely and concentrate on what he wants. That way there's little/no risk of having an inadequate filter setting inadvertently withholding data Bob would like to have.
I don't think Apple's claiming anything. Apparently what happened here is that when he reinstalled his system, iTunes thought it was part of a "new" computer that needed to be authorized to play his files, and unfortunately comps in Canada can't be authorized for iTMS music, since it's legally supposed to be sold only in the US. It's not about rescinding rights at all; iTunes simply didn't realize the files were already legal for that machine. From the followup info, Apple's either already helped the guy get his music back, or it's still working on it now, so it's clear they're not trying to revoke his rights to the music.
Music bought from the iTMS can be played on up to three computers. To prevent people from putting it on unlimited machines, putting it up on Kazaa, etc., Apple has the buyer/listener "authorize" each computer he/she wants to play the tunes on. Of course, computers don't come out of the box preloaded with user information; the user authorizes the machine. This unfortunate fellow had some technical problem that required him to reinstall his OS, essentially resetting the machine to its initial fresh-out-of-the-box state (save for having his files and apps on it, of course). Apparently iTunes essentially viewed the machine as a "new" one he needed to (re)authorize; unfortunately, his new location data precluded him from authorizing it, since comps in Canada can't buy stuff from the iTMS.
From the follow-up, Apple helped or is helping him get his music back, so clearly they don't intend to revoke listening rights if you buy music in the US and then move. They just don't want you buying from outside the US in the first place.
The thing behind this isn't anything about people not being allowed to take music they buy in one country to another, but not being allowed to buy some music in some countries in the first place. The iTMS is only authorized to sell to people in the US, though once you've bought from them you can take your music wherever you go. The proper point of comparison is that different CDs (DVDs, books, videogames, whatever) are only published and sold in certain countries. The current requirement that one be in the US to use the iTMS is just an extension of this, and comes from the music industry, not Apple.
It's in the best interest of everyone, even those who can't or won't use either of these services, that BM not be as successful with its limitations as the iTMS is.
Leaving alone the actual restrictions, just keeping track of the variability in the rights ("I can do this with this, but not this with that, and I can burn that only x number of times," etc.) is itself enough of a PITA to keep me from ever wanting to use it, given the iTMS alternative (the usage rights are not only more generous, they're also consistent - you can do the exact same things with every single file there. Score one for the famed Steve Jobs RDF and the uniform licensing he got from the labels.
How about we hope for MS to win, but only after a seriously long, expensive legal battle that leaves their resources seriously depleted and loosens their grip on the industry? Is there any way a legal battle like this might force MS to put up far, far more money for lawyers than InterTrust in order to defend itself, so that the thing can seriously hurt MS before InterTrust goes bankrupt or something fighting the case? If so, that's what I'd like to see. Of course, IANAL (hmm, but my brother is - maybe I should ask him...).
Well, actually, yeah, for a few reasons:
- I'd rather have AAC files than WMA ones.
- The DRM in iTMS downloads is (relatively) minimal, and it's consistent - all iTMS downloads have the same DRM; the DRM in BuyMusic.com files varies from track to track, but is generally harsher than the iTMS's.
- The iTMS is just a nicer, more elegant experience - you browse the store, purchase and download the files, and play them (and/or burn them to CD, d/l them to your iPod, etc.) all with a single, well-designed application.
Having said all that, I still think it's a Good Thing there'll be more services like this. I don't personally intend to use this one specifically, but the more options people have for getting their music, the better. I don't have any problem with people prefering Buy.com's service (do you have a problem with people preferring Apple's?).
The last sentence of that section I quoted says "Processor - 233 megahertz (MHz) processor, such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor," so there you go.
I like how Steve put it at the rollout, when discussing the USB 2 compatibility for Windows:
;)
Minimum System Requirements
Downloading Music from BuyMusic.com to Your Computer
See Manufacturer Contact Information for support information.
Pentium Class PC computer. Our music downloads are not compatible with any Mac OS. Pentium class is required for individualization settings to enable music licenses. Internet browser - Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 or newer. Note: If you browse the site with Netscape you cannot purchase and download music. Windows Media Player 9.0 or newer. Note: Windows Media Player version 9.0 or newer is compatible with the DRM encrypted music files BuyMusic.com sells. Other players might not be compatible and might not play, transfer, or burn your music files satisfactorily. Media Player is a free download. (See Manufacturer Contact Information for free download.) Operating System - Microsoft Windows® 98 Second Edition, Windows 2000, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows XP Home Edition, or Windows XP Professional. BuyMusic downloads are not compatible with any Mac OS. Processor - 233 megahertz (MHz) processor, such as an Intel Pentium II or Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) processor
I'm not that I'm the slightest bit surprised they would do that; it's just I hadn't seen anything about that anywhere else, and I have no problem going to the site. Or does the "IE-only" in this case mean one needs IE to actually download the tunes?
(I do of course realize, though, this doesn't apply if you play by the rules and also get those essential apps bundled with the machine on one platform but not the other, and it also doesn't apply if the apps you want/need aren't made for the Mac and there are no equivalents that can open & save the same files.)
Somehow I think much (or most, or all) of the point of going to a Mac would be to avoid having to deal with Windows (and by extension, Microsoft in general) at all.
Note also that the poster didn't express concern simply for himself/herself, but for others who sign up to be soldiers, and for society generally (even if you don't agree that Bush's actions are wrong/dangerous/whatever, this person is at least expressing concern for the welfare of something larger than himself/herself). You, on the other hand, expressed a desire for that person's risk to be increased simply to see it increased (as opposed to wanting the draft out of concerns for national security or whatever - you just want to see a total stranger placed in mortal danger as an instrument of policies he/she doesn't even believe in), which illustrates you to be a mean-spirited, apparently evil person who derives pleasure from others' suffering.
Imperial fighters are all named as some sort of "TIE" something; TIE stands for twin ion engine. Like the Alliance, the Empire appears to have adopted a given naming convention and applied it across its entire fighter family even when it's not actually correct, sacrificing accuracy for consistency (not all "TIE" craft actually have just two engines; some have more).