Yep; thanks for providing some insight that I hadn't- but probably should have- thought of. One thing:
You may think of 56k as "slow," but compared to previous technologies it was quite usable for downloading things like mp3s. You could download a 4-minute song in 15 minutes, provided the "server" had a decent connection. That's perfectly true; however, for filesharing, I'd argue that that broadband's "always on" nature is at least as significant an advantage as the speed increase. File sharing always worked best running in the background- even nowadays, downloads often happen in a delayed stop/start manner. That's not a big problem if you don't have to worry about the connection, but it's a PITA if you're operating over a shared voice line and other people want to use the phone. Or if your "unlimited" Internet access cuts off after four hours, or whatever... you can't just go away and leave it.
Inappropriate? Inappropriate is when my boss caught me photoshopping my buddy's head onto a screen cap of the Pamela and Tommy video (It was for his bachelor party, I swear it). Would have less inappropriate if it hadn't been *Pamela's* body you chose to paste his head onto...
What constitutes a "technically different name"? Wow. Seriously, the only concrete meaning I can think of for that expression is a name that contains *any* differences whatsoever, regardless of how minor. Otherwise, the word "technically" really means nothing in this context...
Speaking of Lost-in-(non)-Translation, I assume that the "$40,000 pay cut" that is referred to in the article is about 40,000 *Australian* dollars- about 3,000 U.S. dollars or £7.50 in the UK.:-)
(More truthfully, it's about US $34,170, or UK £16,950.)
Just like "Windows XP Tablet PC Edition" is a variant of Windows XP that is also not mentioned on the iPhone system requirements. Indeed.
I just realised that what I said above was incorrect, BTW. What I meant to say was
This is a pedant's argument, reliant on some literal interpretation of the structure of MS's website. The name they chose suggests that the "x64 Edition" is a variant of XP Professional. So I wouldn't say that Apple were claiming compatibility with the Tablet PC Edition anyway, if only because its name doesn't imply a relationship to any specific version of XP on sale, just the "Windows XP" family. If Apple had claimed generic "Windows XP" compatibility, this would be different, but they didn't.
Almost all the CDs sold in the last 20 years had no form of DRM. And they weren't scared then. What all of a sudden makes them want to sell everything. Because up until the mid-to-late 1990s, the hardware and infrastructure wasn't there to make digital piracy and/or distribution an issue.
Recordable CDs were prohibitively expensive until the late 1990s.
MP3- which only appeared in the early 90s as part of the MPEG-1 standard- didn't really take off on its own until the mid-90s. Plus (I believe) in the early days, MP3 playback used up most of a computer's processing time- not that personal computers then were as cheap and widespread as they are today anyway. And you can't have Internet access without a computer.
I'd invoke the Broadband demon- nice and convenient for filesharing- except that Napster kicked off when everyone was still on dial-up, so it's probably not the most significant factor.
"Oh well, we were going to give you this big check and this mansion we rented for you Rest assured, the band *will* be paying for that themselves (whether they know it or not), and probably at a "rate" they'd balk at if they knew how the record company was exploiting their contract.
Pathetic strawman. Despicable tinman. Okay... were you trying to be funny, or did you genuinely not know straw man is? Let me explain; you attempted to distort what I'd said just so you could argue "against" it.
Learn your lesson already: Buyer beware. Read the product requirements carefully and don't expect one product listed to mean that products with similar but technically different names are implied. What constitutes a "technically different name"?
Especially if, as you say, it's written elsewhere that it's not supported. Duh. Then that implies that the original list of requirements was incomplete (since it's mentioned in the other one). But Apple didn't say that it was an incomplete list.
Why would Apple list incompatible operating systems under a list of compatible operating systems? Your wishes notwithstanding, What wishes? I'm not planning on buying an iPhone, never was, and don't run a 64-bit version of Windows. I couldn't care less if Apple do or don't release 64-bit drivers for the iPhone.
the product requirements listing is complete. No, it's not. The name chosen, "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" implies that it is a variant of Windows XP Professional. Regardless of what the underpinnings are, that's how it's marketed, and so it's a version of Windows XP Professional, whatever that means.
If Apple don't mention exclusions, then it's not complete.
Oh, and Apple *did* specifically state that 64-bit versions weren't compatible elsewhere. Why would they do that if it's as cut-and-dried as you suggest?
Since you continue to believe otherwise, I suggest a refresher course in reading comprehension. Tarting up a substance-free cheap insult as a snotty intellectual put down doesn't change what it is. Just call me a moron, or insult my parentage or sexuality, or whatever- it's the level your "wit" operates at, regardless of what you'd like to think.
Or maybe a call to Microsoft's corporate offices to tell them to use completely different names for different operating systems. Wasn't a problem for me, but if you want to call them, be my guest.
That is, you might get more traction if these were not the names Microsoft came up with on its own to call its various operating systems. Yep. MS chose a name for the x64 edition that basically states that it's a variant of the standard "Windows XP Professional". That was my point. Yours was...?
This is a pedant's argument, reliant on some literal interpretation of the structure of MS's website. The name they chose suggests that the "x64 Edition" is a variant of XP. That was my point; actually, that's the only point I ever made, in spite of attempts by some to make out otherwise.
See also here.
Yes, it IS disingenuous to blame Apple for Microsoft's convoluted OS marketing schemes. Shame on you. Pathetic strawman. I didn't "blame" Apple for Microsoft's "convoluted" (your words) marketing scheme. It's not that complicated and if it were, all Apple had to do was to say "not compatible with 64-bit versions of Windows".
Which they did elsewhere, just not in the document in question.
*What* exactly do you expect me to "prove"? Your point. You know, like I did. Your point seemed to be that MS sold "XP Professional" and "XP Professional x64 edition" as separate SKUs. No-one was denying that, so it's irrelevant.
But I think your question shows you can't. My point was that the name of the "x64 edition" would sound (to most people) like a variant of "Windows XP Professional". There is no way to "prove" that in the manner you suggest without some sort of formal survey.
One is called "Windows XP Professional". The other is called "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition". Good. You know they are different. Of course the products are different- I never said otherwise. But your argument is nonsensical because the names suggest the exact opposite.
And yet, as you acknowledge, I didn't.
Microsoft did choose different names for its operating systems. In particular, Microsoft chose different names for the 32-bit and 64-bit editions of its operating systems. No. Most normal people would read it as a variant, just like they'd (correctly) assume "Diet Coke with Lime" was a variant of "Diet Coke".
You seem very concerned that people might become confused by the names Microsoft has given its operating systems. Not at all. If you actually read what I said, you'd see that the problem was that Apple didn't make the compatibility requirements clear.
Admit what? At this point, the correct answer is probably that you are trolling. You want me to admit that Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Professional x64 edition are different products? Of course they are. There's nothing to "admit", because I was discussing how they were being marketed, not what they were under the surface.
And on the contrary, I've given reasonable answers to all your questions.
I am not sure why you won't provide documentation to support your claim. *What* exactly do you expect me to "prove"?
That they are different products under the skin? Well, duh. But not the point under discussion; we were discussing MS's marketing.
I just did in response to another of your comments. Prove what? That MS sells them separately? That was never questioned, and wasn't the point.
These are the names Microsoft has given its products. Different products, different names. One is called "Windows XP Professional". The other is called "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition".
Saying these are "different names" is a ludicrous argument.
No one is being pedantic, btw. And pedantic.
Regardless of the actual nature of the OSs, the marketing names chosen by MS suggest that they are closely related and under the same umbrella.
How do you expect me to "prove" that the names sound alike anyway?
If you have a problem with the names Microsoft has given to its products, you should take it up with Microsoft. Do you mind if I don't? I couldn't give a toss about that.
You also should admit it. Admit what?
A *lot* of devices and apps aren't supported in XP 64-bit. Apple's not the only one. That wasn't the issue; the issue was that Apple didn't mention it in the page that was originally linked to.
It's never reasonable to assume Bollocks. There are plenty of cases where it's reasonable to assume; it's reasonable to assume that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's reasonable to assume that Apple didn't place a small thermonuclear device at the heart of the iPhone.
(especially on a $500-$600 purchase) Maybe they should check the specs? Oh, hang on, that's exactly what they did. I'll say it again (since you cut it); it's reasonable to assume that unless stated otherwise, the "requirements" are both necessary and sufficient.
because it makes an ass(of)u(and)me. Secondhand use of clever wordplay might help us remember stuff, but as Voltaire said, "a witty saying proves nothing".
Apple explicitly lists which versions of Windows (almost comically thanks to how many versions MS insists on creating) the iPhone is compatible with. The fact that it doesn't list the 64-bit versions is an indication of an incompatibility. They listed "Windows XP Professional". The 64-bit version is marketed as "Windows XP Professional x64 edition", implying a variant.
Should they have made an even greater effort to indicate a problem with Windows x64 versions? Possibly, but I would lay most of the problem on MS for having such a confusing (arbitrarily so?) product family, Sheesh, all they had to say was "not compatible with special 64-bit edition" via footnotes where relevant. Which is exactly what they did on another requirements list.
It is a variant. But its a platform variant not a feature variant. What else should they call it? It *IS* windows XP profressional after all. If MS had released an Itanium edition, or a G5 edition you wouldn't automatically assume it would work, right? Same thing here. If there were notable versions of Windows for other platforms, it would be reasonable to point out which one something ran on. I wouldn't assume that it would work, but I *would* hope that manufacturers would point it out.
Look, we can argue semantics all day. Significant enough that little (and not so little) incompatibilities in drivers and userspace apps exist. This is known to those who've used x64 for a minimal amount of time. Arguably so, but Apple should still have mentioned the incompatibility. And, as I mentioned in another post, Apple felt moved to point out the x64 incompatibility on a different requirements list, so obviously they do consider it worthy of mention.
Ultimately it's Apples responsibility to try to support x64. But by listing "Windows XP Professional" as supported does not infer that the 64 bit edition is supported. I don't have a problem with them not supporting the 64-bit Windows. But I still disagree that "Windows XP Professional" somehow doesn't include "variants", or at least products marketed as such.
Give it up. Never!:-)
If you're against Apple I'm not, I just think they should have mentioned the x64 incompatibility.
you'll be modded Troll into oblivion, and getting anyone to agree with you is downright impossible. Oddly, I've only had one negative mod, and it was the weasel downmod, "overrated".
Vista x64 and XP x64 are DIFFERENT products than Vista and XP. they are ALWAYS listed differently, with x64 being EXPLICITLY mentioned. They've got the same name with a "special edition"-type bit tacked on. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're variants of their 32-bit siblings, and most people would agree that they're being sold as such. Regardless of what the underlying product is.
why is that so hard for the haters to admit ? because hatin' is so fun huh ? Yeah, it's all about haters.... Grow up- not everyone here shares your adolescent mentality.
Just go to their website and you will see that when 64-bit is not specified, the version of Windows being discussed is a 32-bit one. No, you provide a link to that page, thank you.
And as I've said at least 4 times now, the name "Windows XP Professional 64-bit edition" (or whatever) implies that it's being sold as a version of "Windows XP Professional". Regardless of some convoluted argument based on something squirelled away on MS's website.
The fact that Apple acknowledge the 64-bit incompatibility elsewhere (why bother if it was as cut-and-dried as you imply?) shows that even they acknowledge the potential for confusion.
x64 isn't like the difference between Home, Pro, and MCE. Or between Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, etc. x64 isn't a feature set its an architecture. That as may be- and I acknowledged this, whilst making clear that this wasn't my point. It's sold as "Windows XP Professional x64 edition". That strongly implies that it's a subset/variant of "Windows XP Professional", which *is* listed.
Suppose I released a Microsoft Office plug in, and just listed 'any edition of Microsoft Office 2003 or later' as the requirement. Would you really expect it to work with "Microsoft Office 2004: Mac" without a specific mention of the Mac platform? Of course not. I probably wouldn't, but I think a lot of people would, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
Nope, I don't think "public embarrassment" will work. It will if you go round to their house, and tell their Mom that you have something important for them- then when they haul their overweight ass up from the basement and stick their pasty, Cheetoh/Wotsit/whatever-stained face round the door, photograph them and show the world what a loser this person really is.
wouldn't the next step to be switching games back to a boot system. Think how great it would be to not have worry about all the OS cycles being used. Booting into a game would allow the game ULTIMATE control over what software is run. If anything it could be used for tournaments. That wouldn't work with anything other than a very fixed set of hardware. Even Amiga games frequently stopped working when newer machines came out with minor hardware updates (e.g. A500 to A500 Plus, not a major difference, but it still caused problems). They bypassed the OS back then simply because the speed advantage it gave easily outweighed the extra hassle and compatibility issues.
But technology has moved on. For one, hardware is far more complex these days. The idea of having to hit modern hardware from scratch sounds nightmarishly complicated.
For another, the PC philosophy is that you can use many different types of sound/video/etc hardware because they're supplied with drivers. If there was no OS, the game writers would have to write their own drivers for *every damn card that they expected it to run on*. And that's assuming that the makers were willing to release the specs to their cards anyway, which very often isn't the case.
In short, you'd have to duplicate the functionality of large parts of Windows XP, the sound and video drivers, DirectX, networking, blah blah blah.... all from scratch. You can see why this isn't going to happen just to stop a few kiddies cheating, especially since it would likely get cracked quite soon anyway.
Anything designed by a man can also be broken by a man? I guess that means all strong crypto schemes were invented by females? I was thinking along those lines too; not a good argument. He'd have been better off pointing out that the main problem with inventing "secure" peripherals is the same one that bedevils all "secure" devices- the owner still has to have the encryption/decryption key or technology in their possession.
At its crudest, what's stopping someone from wiring up the keyboard to.... anything they like?
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of Lost-in-(non)-Translation, I assume that the "$40,000 pay cut" that is referred to in the article is about 40,000 *Australian* dollars- about 3,000 U.S. dollars or £7.50 in the UK. :-)
(More truthfully, it's about US $34,170, or UK £16,950.)
I just realised that what I said above was incorrect, BTW. What I meant to say was This is a pedant's argument, reliant on some literal interpretation of the structure of MS's website. The name they chose suggests that the "x64 Edition" is a variant of XP Professional. So I wouldn't say that Apple were claiming compatibility with the Tablet PC Edition anyway, if only because its name doesn't imply a relationship to any specific version of XP on sale, just the "Windows XP" family. If Apple had claimed generic "Windows XP" compatibility, this would be different, but they didn't.
Recordable CDs were prohibitively expensive until the late 1990s.
MP3- which only appeared in the early 90s as part of the MPEG-1 standard- didn't really take off on its own until the mid-90s. Plus (I believe) in the early days, MP3 playback used up most of a computer's processing time- not that personal computers then were as cheap and widespread as they are today anyway. And you can't have Internet access without a computer.
I'd invoke the Broadband demon- nice and convenient for filesharing- except that Napster kicked off when everyone was still on dial-up, so it's probably not the most significant factor.
If Apple don't mention exclusions, then it's not complete.
Oh, and Apple *did* specifically state that 64-bit versions weren't compatible elsewhere. Why would they do that if it's as cut-and-dried as you suggest? Since you continue to believe otherwise, I suggest a refresher course in reading comprehension. Tarting up a substance-free cheap insult as a snotty intellectual put down doesn't change what it is. Just call me a moron, or insult my parentage or sexuality, or whatever- it's the level your "wit" operates at, regardless of what you'd like to think. Or maybe a call to Microsoft's corporate offices to tell them to use completely different names for different operating systems. Wasn't a problem for me, but if you want to call them, be my guest. That is, you might get more traction if these were not the names Microsoft came up with on its own to call its various operating systems. Yep. MS chose a name for the x64 edition that basically states that it's a variant of the standard "Windows XP Professional". That was my point. Yours was...?
This is a pedant's argument, reliant on some literal interpretation of the structure of MS's website. The name they chose suggests that the "x64 Edition" is a variant of XP. That was my point; actually, that's the only point I ever made, in spite of attempts by some to make out otherwise. See also here.
Which they did elsewhere, just not in the document in question.
And on the contrary, I've given reasonable answers to all your questions.
That they are different products under the skin? Well, duh. But not the point under discussion; we were discussing MS's marketing. I just did in response to another of your comments. Prove what? That MS sells them separately? That was never questioned, and wasn't the point. These are the names Microsoft has given its products. Different products, different names. One is called "Windows XP Professional". The other is called "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition".
Saying these are "different names" is a ludicrous argument. No one is being pedantic, btw. And pedantic.
Regardless of the actual nature of the OSs, the marketing names chosen by MS suggest that they are closely related and under the same umbrella.
How do you expect me to "prove" that the names sound alike anyway? If you have a problem with the names Microsoft has given to its products, you should take it up with Microsoft. Do you mind if I don't? I couldn't give a toss about that. You also should admit it. Admit what?
And as I've said at least 4 times now, the name "Windows XP Professional 64-bit edition" (or whatever) implies that it's being sold as a version of "Windows XP Professional". Regardless of some convoluted argument based on something squirelled away on MS's website.
The fact that Apple acknowledge the 64-bit incompatibility elsewhere (why bother if it was as cut-and-dried as you imply?) shows that even they acknowledge the potential for confusion.
I don't think they'd like that at all.
But technology has moved on. For one, hardware is far more complex these days. The idea of having to hit modern hardware from scratch sounds nightmarishly complicated.
For another, the PC philosophy is that you can use many different types of sound/video/etc hardware because they're supplied with drivers. If there was no OS, the game writers would have to write their own drivers for *every damn card that they expected it to run on*. And that's assuming that the makers were willing to release the specs to their cards anyway, which very often isn't the case.
In short, you'd have to duplicate the functionality of large parts of Windows XP, the sound and video drivers, DirectX, networking, blah blah blah.... all from scratch. You can see why this isn't going to happen just to stop a few kiddies cheating, especially since it would likely get cracked quite soon anyway.
At its crudest, what's stopping someone from wiring up the keyboard to.... anything they like?