Remeber the days when software vendors attempted "strong" copy protection with key disks and dongles and bizarre installation gymnastics? Consumers rejected these schemes, and they disappeared.
I see this example trotted out from time to time, but never has anybody using it seemed to consider that the consumers of computer software at the time were far more sophisticated and knowledgeable. They knew how to get around copy protection and make it a losing proposition for software vendors. They didn't boycott protected titles, they hacked them.
That wouldn't happen today. Most consumers aren't talented enough to break it themselves and aren't aware of tools to obtain hacked copies. It's no guarantee that today's market will reject these new protections, and if a significant number of people accept these systems, it will become harder for the rest of us.
I can't comment on any technical issues, having never really realized any of the crap I planned when I bought my camcorder.
However, it occurs to me that you need people to put in front of the camera and stories for them to tell. Check out your city's local theatre community and you'll probably find people to collaborate with.
Cheaper display technologies will surely shake up how we interact with our information, but I think that everyone is missing something very important.
Prognosticators have been chasing this dream of a paperless office for decades now, with very little realization. Indeed, some researchers have indicated that we like paper because it lends itself to spatial organization of information -- you're likely to remember where you left a paper document even long after you've last used it.
With cheap displays, we can make small, portable displays -- sort of like Microsoft's failed eBooks, but you get to view whatever information you want, whether from your own library or on the net.
And get this -- these would be cheap enough that you could have a small collection and sit down at your desk and leverage your brain's built-in spatial organization strengths. And when you don't need that information anymore, just call something else up.
Many people use multiple monitors. This would be like multiple monitors that you can stack, reorganize or just toss into your outbox.
I don't know if the designers of Star Trek:TNG had this sort of thing in mind, but in that series and every one since then, you'll see characters sitting at a desk surrounded by a mess of these little things.
Interface design, speech and handwriting recognition, sure. But just being able to move data around in real space is going to be very comfortable for us.
Some users, however, would welcome a PC version of OS X. That would enable Windows emulation software, such as VirtualPC by Connectix, to run much faster. "The ability to switch back and forth easily between OS X and Windows would be a major coup," says Sasaki. Ian Crooks, operations engineer at Pennsylvania-American Water Co., declares: "I for one would switch tomorrow if they would release a [Pentium] machine."
This is exactly why Apple should never port OS X to an Intel architecture.
Virtual PC would run much faster if it didn't have to emulate the microprocessor, true. So much faster that it would discourage companies from coding for OS X itself, because you could run their Windows products on VPC.
Not only that, but eventually somebody -- not Apple, certainly -- would release a project similar to WINE that would allow Windows programs to co-exist with OS X programs. It won't be completely compatible, of course -- especially as Microsoft changes the APIs -- but it would give companies another excuse not to develop for OS X.
A third factor is the cost of porting existing Macintosh OS X software to this new architecture. Facing that cost, why not port to Windows and let the Mac run your program through these emulation options?
As time goes by, Macintosh users would have to depend more and more on Windows software. Sure, they'd prefer software designed specifically for their platform, but developers won't be selling it, because it's easier and cheaper to code for Windows. Eventually, the users would just switch to Windows because Windows programs will run better on Windows computers.
Upon reading this article, it's fairly obvious to me that she's using Mac OS 9 for some reason, rather than OS X. All of Apple's marketing is actually referring to OS X, although it doesn't say so.
All Macintoshes have been shipping with OS X as the default system for quite some time. She (or whoever set up her system) switched her into Mac OS 9, where she's suffering.
I almost never use the button on my track pad. I either tap the track pad to click or I'm using an external mouse.
What I'd like to see is a way to map the track pad button to a right-click so I don't have to use a finger to hold the control key down when I'm not using my external (two-button, natch) mouse.
Given that, I've read all of these articles floating around and in principle I have no problem with a system of authorized applications.
However, the one thing I haven't seen is any indication that I myself will be able to authorize programs on my own computer. In my opinion, this would allow geeks to play with their own programming, download open source projects, etc. while still enjoying the knowledge that unless a program has been authorized by a signature authority or by themselves, it's not going to get a toehold in their machine.
If I'm beholden to the authorities to approve what I want to use, then I'm never upgrading. If however I'm allowed to authorize anything I might write or download then I don't have an objection to the principle.
"The downloads contain watermarks that are designed to stay with any digital copies made of the song, enabling authorities to identify the original buyer."
I don't think it's any more deceptive than any of the marketing proclaiming the stability of Windows over the years. They may have finally gotten it right, but they made assertions in the past that weren't backed up in reality.
As for OS X, my Titanium PowerBook G4 has functioned without needing a reboot for over five weeks at a time as a shuttle it to and from work, from my wireless network at home to my LAN at work. I put it to sleep with impunity -- something the people at my office using Dell laptops won't trust, because suspend always causes them troubles.
No, it's not infallible. I don't think any consumer operating system really is, because there's software out there that won't follow the rules. (For instance, the only thing that crashes my computer is having Diablo II as the foreground app when I put it to sleep. I've forgotton twice in the past couple of months.)
By the way, Google returns 80,200 hits on "Windows XP Crash".
Well, for me, the answer is "yes," although I only have anecdotes to support my opinion.
Just today, a co-worker called me to her office. She couldn't change her default printer in Windows. Rather, she repeatedly changed the default, but the program she wanted to print from didn't recognize the change.
I'm a Mac guy -- I figured something was wrong, so I walked her through the procedure one more time. It still didn't work. Maybe we have to restart the program? Nope, still defaulted to the wrong printer.
We eventually had to change the printer in "Print Setup" before the program would "default" to the printer she wanted.
On a Mac, you'd change your default printer and all of the program would automatically print using that printer. No restarting programs, no restarting the computer, no trying to figure out some obtuse reasoning to accomplish a very, very simple task.
My office is in the middle of consolidating from one floor of our office building to one, necessitating a great deal of shifting about for almost everyone.
One of my co-workers was annoyed that she'd be without music while she was re-assembling her office, so I loaned her my iPod for a couple of hours with a pair of speakers that was lying around.
I was simply amazed at how ecstatic she was over this little device. She had no trouble figuring out how to use it.
She was so smitten that she is now planning to purchase an iBook, Microsoft Office, more RAM, 3 years worth of AppleCare (due to one of Apple's promotions, buying the AppleCare and MS Office at the Apple Store with the iBook is actually $11 less than without AppleCare) and, of course, the iPod.
She wouldn't hear of waiting for someone to finish a program to interface the iPod with a PC. She was already contemplating a new laptop, and she's very excited with the features of the iBook.
I was never sure that I truly believed the stories of people buying Macs just to use an iPod, but that's exactly what she's planning!
OS X doesn't include AppleWorks, although Apple does bundle that with some of its equipment.
And, yes, there are features on Microsoft's Macintosh software that haven't yet made it to the Windows version. Not just in Office, but also in Internet Explorer. I can't list them off the top of my head, because I don't use the Windows version. I also can't hazard a guess as to which features exist on the Windows versions that haven't made it to the Macintosh.
Many people believe that Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit is one of the more innovative units at the company.
Oh, I forgot to mention the network effect -- if someone does write a virus specific to OS X, it has to somehow find another OS X machine to propagate.
This might be possible where actual media is exchanged at an office, student lab, trade show, etc. but I hardly exchange physical media any more. Any email leaving my machine is more likely to find a Windows computer, which wouldn't host the virus.
The network effect ensures that any Macintosh virus has the deck stacked against it.
There you have it: less damage to be done, no virus writing tools, difficult to propagate.
Once upon a time, I read some article saying that risk assessment was accomplished by examining the possible threats, the consequences of each threat and the likelihood of that threat actually happening.
All of the threats discussed in the article are real, but the actual risk at this time is quite small.
You also have to look at the malware tools available for Windows and Microsoft products that can automate virus creation, etc. giving the clueless the tools to cause a little havock. To my knowledge, there isn't anything analogous for the Macintosh, either OS 9 or OS X.
Yes, the virus writers will go for the platform where they can do the most damage. But they'll also go for the platform that is easiest to write viruses for -- Windows!
The blackout of the DVD has nothing to do with the graphics card -- DVDs are blacked out to prevent people from infringing copyrighted material.
The DVD window isn't actually black -- it's a dark shade of ugly green and the system uses something to replace that with the DVD footage. In OS9, you could set your desktop graphic to this color and play DVDs on your desktop.:)
To confirm that you can take screen shots of graphics that are accelerated in the graphics card, I took a screen shot of iTunes showing a psychedelic animation inside a window. The screen shot shows the openGL graphics as well as the desktop and other windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Remeber the days when software vendors attempted "strong" copy protection with key disks and dongles and bizarre installation gymnastics? Consumers rejected these schemes, and they disappeared.
I see this example trotted out from time to time, but never has anybody using it seemed to consider that the consumers of computer software at the time were far more sophisticated and knowledgeable. They knew how to get around copy protection and make it a losing proposition for software vendors. They didn't boycott protected titles, they hacked them.
That wouldn't happen today. Most consumers aren't talented enough to break it themselves and aren't aware of tools to obtain hacked copies. It's no guarantee that today's market will reject these new protections, and if a significant number of people accept these systems, it will become harder for the rest of us.
I can't comment on any technical issues, having never really realized any of the crap I planned when I bought my camcorder.
However, it occurs to me that you need people to put in front of the camera and stories for them to tell. Check out your city's local theatre community and you'll probably find people to collaborate with.
Cheaper display technologies will surely shake up how we interact with our information, but I think that everyone is missing something very important.
Prognosticators have been chasing this dream of a paperless office for decades now, with very little realization. Indeed, some researchers have indicated that we like paper because it lends itself to spatial organization of information -- you're likely to remember where you left a paper document even long after you've last used it.
With cheap displays, we can make small, portable displays -- sort of like Microsoft's failed eBooks, but you get to view whatever information you want, whether from your own library or on the net.
And get this -- these would be cheap enough that you could have a small collection and sit down at your desk and leverage your brain's built-in spatial organization strengths. And when you don't need that information anymore, just call something else up.
Many people use multiple monitors. This would be like multiple monitors that you can stack, reorganize or just toss into your outbox.
I don't know if the designers of Star Trek:TNG had this sort of thing in mind, but in that series and every one since then, you'll see characters sitting at a desk surrounded by a mess of these little things.
Interface design, speech and handwriting recognition, sure. But just being able to move data around in real space is going to be very comfortable for us.
Some users, however, would welcome a PC version of OS X. That would enable Windows emulation software, such as VirtualPC by Connectix, to run much faster. "The ability to switch back and forth easily between OS X and Windows would be a major coup," says Sasaki. Ian Crooks, operations engineer at Pennsylvania-American Water Co., declares: "I for one would switch tomorrow if they would release a [Pentium] machine."
This is exactly why Apple should never port OS X to an Intel architecture.
Virtual PC would run much faster if it didn't have to emulate the microprocessor, true. So much faster that it would discourage companies from coding for OS X itself, because you could run their Windows products on VPC.
Not only that, but eventually somebody -- not Apple, certainly -- would release a project similar to WINE that would allow Windows programs to co-exist with OS X programs. It won't be completely compatible, of course -- especially as Microsoft changes the APIs -- but it would give companies another excuse not to develop for OS X.
A third factor is the cost of porting existing Macintosh OS X software to this new architecture. Facing that cost, why not port to Windows and let the Mac run your program through these emulation options?
As time goes by, Macintosh users would have to depend more and more on Windows software. Sure, they'd prefer software designed specifically for their platform, but developers won't be selling it, because it's easier and cheaper to code for Windows. Eventually, the users would just switch to Windows because Windows programs will run better on Windows computers.
Upon reading this article, it's fairly obvious to me that she's using Mac OS 9 for some reason, rather than OS X. All of Apple's marketing is actually referring to OS X, although it doesn't say so.
All Macintoshes have been shipping with OS X as the default system for quite some time. She (or whoever set up her system) switched her into Mac OS 9, where she's suffering.
I almost never use the button on my track pad. I either tap the track pad to click or I'm using an external mouse.
What I'd like to see is a way to map the track pad button to a right-click so I don't have to use a finger to hold the control key down when I'm not using my external (two-button, natch) mouse.
First of all, I don't trust Microsoft at all.
Given that, I've read all of these articles floating around and in principle I have no problem with a system of authorized applications.
However, the one thing I haven't seen is any indication that I myself will be able to authorize programs on my own computer. In my opinion, this would allow geeks to play with their own programming, download open source projects, etc. while still enjoying the knowledge that unless a program has been authorized by a signature authority or by themselves, it's not going to get a toehold in their machine.
If I'm beholden to the authorities to approve what I want to use, then I'm never upgrading. If however I'm allowed to authorize anything I might write or download then I don't have an objection to the principle.
The devil is always in the details, however.
You're right. From the article:
"The downloads contain watermarks that are designed to stay with any digital copies made of the song, enabling authorities to identify the original buyer."
It's not bullshit, at least the way I'm reading it. It seems to be a joke, and an amusing one at that. :)
It perfectly captures the situation with my co-worker, and you can be sure I'll share it with her!
"Linux is a very reliable operating system. Put quite simply, it doesn't crash."
Google hit +1 :P
I don't think it's any more deceptive than any of the marketing proclaiming the stability of Windows over the years. They may have finally gotten it right, but they made assertions in the past that weren't backed up in reality.
As for OS X, my Titanium PowerBook G4 has functioned without needing a reboot for over five weeks at a time as a shuttle it to and from work, from my wireless network at home to my LAN at work. I put it to sleep with impunity -- something the people at my office using Dell laptops won't trust, because suspend always causes them troubles.
No, it's not infallible. I don't think any consumer operating system really is, because there's software out there that won't follow the rules. (For instance, the only thing that crashes my computer is having Diablo II as the foreground app when I put it to sleep. I've forgotton twice in the past couple of months.)
By the way, Google returns 80,200 hits on "Windows XP Crash".
Well, for me, the answer is "yes," although I only have anecdotes to support my opinion.
Just today, a co-worker called me to her office. She couldn't change her default printer in Windows. Rather, she repeatedly changed the default, but the program she wanted to print from didn't recognize the change.
I'm a Mac guy -- I figured something was wrong, so I walked her through the procedure one more time. It still didn't work. Maybe we have to restart the program? Nope, still defaulted to the wrong printer.
We eventually had to change the printer in "Print Setup" before the program would "default" to the printer she wanted.
On a Mac, you'd change your default printer and all of the program would automatically print using that printer. No restarting programs, no restarting the computer, no trying to figure out some obtuse reasoning to accomplish a very, very simple task.
Does the Mac work better? I think so.
My office is in the middle of consolidating from one floor of our office building to one, necessitating a great deal of shifting about for almost everyone.
One of my co-workers was annoyed that she'd be without music while she was re-assembling her office, so I loaned her my iPod for a couple of hours with a pair of speakers that was lying around.
I was simply amazed at how ecstatic she was over this little device. She had no trouble figuring out how to use it.
She was so smitten that she is now planning to purchase an iBook, Microsoft Office, more RAM, 3 years worth of AppleCare (due to one of Apple's promotions, buying the AppleCare and MS Office at the Apple Store with the iBook is actually $11 less than without AppleCare) and, of course, the iPod.
She wouldn't hear of waiting for someone to finish a program to interface the iPod with a PC. She was already contemplating a new laptop, and she's very excited with the features of the iBook.
I was never sure that I truly believed the stories of people buying Macs just to use an iPod, but that's exactly what she's planning!
I took a 5 MB MP3 file encoded at 160k and exported it to MP4, which uses AAC for the audio encoding.
The file sounds the same to me and has been reduced to 3.1 MB.
OS X doesn't include AppleWorks, although Apple does bundle that with some of its equipment.
And, yes, there are features on Microsoft's Macintosh software that haven't yet made it to the Windows version. Not just in Office, but also in Internet Explorer. I can't list them off the top of my head, because I don't use the Windows version. I also can't hazard a guess as to which features exist on the Windows versions that haven't made it to the Macintosh.
Many people believe that Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit is one of the more innovative units at the company.
Oh, I forgot to mention the network effect -- if someone does write a virus specific to OS X, it has to somehow find another OS X machine to propagate.
This might be possible where actual media is exchanged at an office, student lab, trade show, etc. but I hardly exchange physical media any more. Any email leaving my machine is more likely to find a Windows computer, which wouldn't host the virus.
The network effect ensures that any Macintosh virus has the deck stacked against it.
There you have it: less damage to be done, no virus writing tools, difficult to propagate.
Begone! You have no power here!
Once upon a time, I read some article saying that risk assessment was accomplished by examining the possible threats, the consequences of each threat and the likelihood of that threat actually happening. All of the threats discussed in the article are real, but the actual risk at this time is quite small. You also have to look at the malware tools available for Windows and Microsoft products that can automate virus creation, etc. giving the clueless the tools to cause a little havock. To my knowledge, there isn't anything analogous for the Macintosh, either OS 9 or OS X. Yes, the virus writers will go for the platform where they can do the most damage. But they'll also go for the platform that is easiest to write viruses for -- Windows!
Snapz Pro can only grab shots from DVD if you're using an Nvidia card.
The blackout of the DVD has nothing to do with the graphics card -- DVDs are blacked out to prevent people from infringing copyrighted material.
:)
The DVD window isn't actually black -- it's a dark shade of ugly green and the system uses something to replace that with the DVD footage. In OS9, you could set your desktop graphic to this color and play DVDs on your desktop.
To confirm that you can take screen shots of graphics that are accelerated in the graphics card, I took a screen shot of iTunes showing a psychedelic animation inside a window. The screen shot shows the openGL graphics as well as the desktop and other windows.