It bugs the hell out of me when people start calling COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT as theft. I can download all the songs I want and I am not stealing. For that matter, I can photocopy all the books I want and redistribute them as my own and I'm still not stealing.
Well, then the drafters of the legal code of every major nation must really bug the hell out of you, as copyright infringement is illegal everywhere. Like it or not, it's a fact. Put whatever tag you want on it, it amounts to the same thing. At a minimum, it's theft of service, which is just as illegal as stealing a physical thing. Just because the right is abstract doesn't make it OK.
Finally, there is a reason that most downloaders do not feel guilty: They have already paid $1000's to record companies for music.
What, so if I buy enough Fords, I get to start stealing them? That doesn't make all that much sense.
On a side note, I agree with the view that industries need to adjust to their changing environment. If an artist can no longer make money doing the same old routine anymore, then do what everyone else does: find a new way. You'd think us in the IT industry would know that better than anyone.
Undoubtedly, but it is their right to remain a dinosaur as long as they like, it doesn't give us the right to start distributing something they have rights to.
No, you got it wrong, you and 10-20 million of your friends go to the police station each holding a CD with a single "illegal" song (you don't want fines to be too stiff, you'll understand in a minute) on it and say "Hey, we broke the law, please arrest us now." "All of us."
Fair point - that would indeed get the point across very well and is certainly in the spirit of C.D.
For what it's worth though, and this isn't an argument but a legit question, what is the main motivation in the fight vs. the RIAA? Is it "leave file sharing alone, I use it for Project Gutenberg (or whatever)"? or is it "I want my damned music for free!" ? Because I find the first more compelling. And our community of RIAA-haters would do well to get some distance from the real "pirates" out there for credibility.
Along those lines, and as an extension to your idea, I would love to see hundreds of people mail the RIAA a CD of some legitimate work they downloaded from a P2P network.
When the laws of a society are at odds with the moral views of the vast majority of people, that society has a large problem on its hands which is usually worse than the original problem that the law is attempting to solve (think Prohibition).
What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable? I don't like the RIAA any more than anyone else, mainly because they're a bunch of dinosaurs and because they go after people who do little more than establish search engines. This ain't one of those times however.
But calling theft moral simply because they're assholes? I don't think so. Getting even, maybe, and I can understand that. But don't have any illusions of moral high ground.
And this civil disobedience thing is tripe - if you want the moral high ground, go handcuff yourself to Hilary Rosen's car. Or download some Weird Al songs that you have no intention of actually listening to, if you want to screw them with P2P. And be sure to advertise your identity, as civil disobedience has no point without an audience.
However, mp3 d/l'ers don't do that. They mainly want something for nothing. Now, I know we all need a method of trying out songs, so I got nothing against people who buy the albums they like and delete the ones they don't. But calling this movement civil disobedience is a travesty to those, like Ghandi and MLK, who used it in the name of great causes.
Yah -- certainly it's possible to make an OS without GNU. The argument isn't that "Linux" distributions somehow must be based mostly on GNU, just that they are.
Which gets down to what I said originally - the linux-es we use also have a ton of BSD code in addition to GNU code. Hence, my argument that BSD deserves equal billing with GNU. So if you argue that Linux is based on GNU, I'd say the same for BSD. To say nothing of all the code developed by independent developers. To me, Stallman's position gives the impression that all these GNU-written utilities were sitting around waiting for a kernel, at which they became a fully functional OS - and I don't see that. The credits on the man pages for popular utilities show a lot of independently developed code, a lot of BSD code, and, indeed, a lot of GNU code. So to me, non-kernel portions of linux seem to be a hodgepodge of a lot of sources, which lies in stark constrast to Stallman's description in the article today.
So bottom line, even if one accepts a generous definition of an OS as "everything that comes with the distro," there still seem to be too many contributors to single out GNU as being *the* main contributor.
The only question you actually asked was, "shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux? " after wrongly asserting that parts of the Linux kernel are "BSD-licensed".
Not referring to the kernel. We're talking about the prospect that any part of what I call "Linux" should be prepended with "GNU." That would, by definition, be extra-kernel, as what is in the krnel certainly isn't GNU (though it is GPL). And my stipulation is that there is a lot of BSD-licensed stuff in the non-kernel portion of my linux distro to give it equal billing with GNU, assuming either of them should get even remotely equal billing with Linux, ie the kernel, in terms of what constitutes the OS.
GNU + Hurd has more functionality than most comercial operating systems do.
That's great, but kind of outside the scope of my point. I've never tried Hurd - don't really have any interest in it, but obviously one would certainly refer to that as GNU through and through.
GNU + Linux and other GPL'd software makes traditional comercial software unnecessary.
Again, well outside the point. Commercial software isn't the issue here - the question is whether the GNU portions of a linux distro constitute an OS. And I stipulate that they don't, in that they aren't responsible for the things that are characteristic of an OS, ie device handling and I/O. All of that is done by the linux kernel and possibly X, neither of which is a GNU product, though of course Linux is GPL'd and X even less restrictive. So this certainly isn't a "free vs. proprietary" thing.
My original point was that Linux is an OS in and of itself, and that the GNU contributions to *linux* (ie, not Hurd), while a damned great bunch of utilities, aren't an OS nor a portion thereof. I then asserted that if you considered the non-kernel GNU utilities part of the OS, that the non-kernel BSD daemons and utilities that ship with almost every linux distro are certainly part of the OS. Hence, BSD/GNU/Linux. Although I would consider plain ol' Linux to be perfectly correct.
I mean, reading his comments it seems clear that his purpose was not to defend Linux, but to try to draw a distinction (surprise) between the Linux kernel, the GNU system and the OS that is GNU/Linux.
Stallman talks like he had this fully functional operating system without a kernel. If by this he means he had some text editors and stuff, sure. But to call that an operating system is a bit rich. In other words, a car without an engine or a transmission isn't a car.
Furthermore, I hate to tell him, but not everything in a Linux distro is GNU. Just because someone GPL's some software doesn't make it GNU-made. Additionally, there's a lot of BSD-licensed code in the kernel. So if nothing else, shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux?
Don't get me wrong, GNU's written some great software (I love GRUB), but when his answer to any question starts with three paragraphs of the GNU/Linux thing, it's hard to take him seriously sometimes. Makes you wonder why he does what he does.
And no, this isn't a troll, just a serious question.
It really seems like they tried to do a pretty even evaluation. And again, if the benchmarks were so off then why was the performance on the G5 apps so good? And that was without G5 tuning most likely.
Not quite. Fair would have been testing both systems as they ship to customers, testing default configs only.
In one case, they turned on an option that wasn't default on the tested system but will be on the versions that ship. That's perfectly acceptable. However, one of the other options is something that is turned off by default. I don't think that's a good comparison, because there has to be some downside to that option or else it would be on by default.
Additionally, they made changes to the Dell machines from how they ship. They suggest this is so Dell will compare as favorably as possible, but why would they do that, when comparing the Dell machine as it would ship is quite acceptable? Additionally, Dell has claimed marks that are better than the "best case" stats Apple quoted - so somebody's lying (either Dell, that they got those stats at all, or Apple, claiming that they tested an optimized Dell system). So something needs to shake out here.
As for the compiler stuff, I dunno. On one hand it seems fair to try both with GCC. On the other, it seems fair that Intel be given the advantage of having developed the better compiler - hardware doesn't exist in a vacuum, and if the programs I run will be compiled using that better compiler, then this seems to matter. But that's certainly less than fraudulent.
Bottom line is, it would be nice to see both machines tested as they will ship, using the best compiler available to either machine. If Apple is correct and they really were giving the Dell the benefit of the doubt, then they deserve to claim the better numbers. If they were shafting Dell, they deserve to be exposed. If Dell lied about their original numbers, then they deserve to be flogged. I think it would be informative, or at least interesting, no matter who comes out on top.
Disclaimer: no, this is not an attempt to get mac fans to abandon their macs, nor is it a prediction of which machine is faster, or better. If you'll never use a PC, then this only affects your upgrade schedule, if that.
He's using Dell "advertised" spec numbers. That in itself fucks up the whole article. Rather he has no right to make an opinion until a) He does the tests himself or b) Finds someone todo the tests for him independantly.
Certainly we should hold Dell as accountable for potentially sketchy resuts as Apple.
And while I can't vouch for the veracity of Dell's results, I'm not encouraged by the *method* used by Apple. That in itself is interesting.
Read the rest of the article. He goes on to talk about the dual processor performance. Also, for many applications, even on dual processor machines, single processor performance is key. Very few applications (certainly very few desktop applications) are designed (or even can be designed) to take advantage of multiple processors.
That may be true, but I don't think the actual relative performances of the machines is relevant as much as the intent on Apple's part to deceive. Is the new mac faster than the fastest PC's? I don't know, and not being in the market for an expensive computer, don't care. Basically, I don't companies that would try to deceive consumers. I know that all companies spin their products, but it seems that what apple did was a bit excessive. Considering the totality of the memory tricks they did with the Mac and disabling hyperthreading and more efficient float processing...that's not cool.
However, speeds of processors asside, if you want the Mac, buy the Mac, if you want a Windows machine, buy a windows machine
That will certainly always be true. Mac people buy macs, windows people buy windows, etc. But there are subtler considerations - like a mac owner who's expecting the G5 to be a significant upgrade over his current machine, and maybe it's not as much as he would have expected. Also, there are people who are considering either windows or mac (there must be, if the switch ads are successful) - and these people might not be getting a clear picture.
Again, there are enough flames going around already, so I'm not comparing macs to pc's - I just think Apple could have done better for their customers. I'm sure the G5's are going to be great machines, which is why it's sad they resorted to this.
Oh, for God's sake - please read the post before replying. Sarcasm, I *thought*, was the common coin on/.
Well, your sarcasm is so good that you sound like every other machead who says those same things...only minus the sarcasm. See the other guy who responded to that post.
Your argument is the usual hogwash, not by a "vast PC conspiracy" but by the usual rantings of somone who cares not to think before writing - Your argument is MY argument: they're just computers. If a 166Mhz Pentium works for you, or an iMac or a G5 or a dual Xeon, hey, whatever rocks your socks.
What argument? I'm not attacking the computers per se, but false advertising. Three posts and you still don't see that? Damn, you are dumb.
But just READ before going off on people - nothing you wrote applies to me. Everything applies to you.
What the hell are you talking about?
I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y for you: they're just tools.
I really think you have me confused with someone else. I agree. They're just tools. I use macs too. I'm not upset, or pissed, or anything. If anything, I'm amused by the macheads coming out of the woodwork to flame people like me and the guy who posted the article. Note that you're the first one who started the agressive posting. Perhaps you mistook my emphasis for anger in the original post? I don't know. You seem to have me confused with someone who really loves intel and has a vested interest in their chips. I really don't. So go troll someone else, OK?
First, I'd like to point out that you are absolutely insane.
Oh, please. Methinks the Intel zealot doth protest too much. If you *really* didn't give a shit, you wouldn't be posting about the issue here on Slashdot, would you?
I talk about a lot of shit on slashdot. If that made me a zealot about every issue I discuss, I'd be in the padded cell with you. Note that your very argument concedes that you are a zealot, and that you very much give a shit. You assume that other people feel the way you do about your computer, but you're dead wrong. To me, my computer is a toy, something to work with, and occasionally an interesting problem (getting things to work in linux), but it's not a part of me the way yours clearly is you. And if I were you, I'd want to think about how healthy that is, when it drives you to start flaming people who rationally discuss your computer.
Be real. You obviously care. You have much time, money, and expertise bound to the intel compatible platform.
My computer is a $500 piece of shit. Additionally, I use macs at work. I actually like them. But that doesn't obligate me to swallow every line of shit passed down from on high at Apple corp.
Like everyone else with a brain, you know that Mac OS X is a superior OS to either Windows or the various other OSs that run on intel (some of which also run on the Mac anyway).
I assume you're trying to troll there - however, I completely agree! Yes, MacOS is the best OS I've ever seen, being a good marriage of unix with a useable window manager. So you're barking up the wrong tree there. Consider that - it actually is possible to criticize Apple and like macs simultaneously!
So it is a bit frightening to contemplate the possibility that you have spent all those many hours backing the wrong horse, i.e., the one that can run the dog OS, Windows, but can't run the sweet OS, Mac OS X.
Again, you've got some problems. However, I'm not backing any horse. If anything, I'm backing them all - at work, I use or have used Linux, FreeBSD, Windows 95,98,2000 and XP, Solaris, Irix, and Mac OS 9 and X. And as said, with some issues, Mac OS is probably my favorite overall. Note that this completely takes out your argument of my having so much time invested in intel, or any particular OS. I like learning new OS's. I like learning new hardware. I just won't pay $3000 for it.
So first, I will again beg for someone to actually debate the issues rather than shooting any messengers with bad news. Seriously, think mac heads (those who have responded with rants) - if you can't even rationally discuss any issue related to your beloved mac, doesn't that bode ill for your mental stability?
Might want to turn the mirror on that one there - you'll find that most people using Intel processors (like me) really don't give a shit. Kind of hard to be a zealot when you don't give a shit. It's you, a mac-head with the permanant chip on your shoulder, who is using exclamation points, and referring to the ever-powerful "get a life" argument. This coming from a guy that spends probably 5x more money on computers than I do. I mean, here you are screaming because someone had the audacity to say your favorite computer isn't the fastest on the planet, and you're telling *me* to get a life? Uh-huh.
I'm still waiting for one of you mac-heads to actually analyze the evidence as opposed to going nuts, saying it's all a conspiracy by the intel "zealots." Hasn't happened yet.
For what it's worth, I actually like macs, and would own one if I could afford a decent one. But I don't like being blatantly lied to. So if you have a rational argument for why Apple's benchmarking techniques are legitimate, I'm listening. If not, well, sounds like it's time for your meds anyway.
Sorry, wrong answer. Expect Wal-mart to go on about its business gladly ignoring the patent. Why should they care? It's not like netflix wants to waste years of their life and tons of money trying to enforce against *Walmart*.
Damn, you're a snide little shit. Actually, I wouldn't expect Walmart to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a business that can be shut down quickly with a court order. They may license the patent or they may fight it, but ignoring it isn't likely. Especially with the treble damages that would potentially exist for a patent of this profile, as claiming to have not seen the patent isn't an option.
For the exact reasons you claim, netflix is likely to cave, since they DONT want to fight walmart. But once Walmart has large amounts of cash invested in this, they can't walk away from a settlement without committing financial suicide, giving strong leverage to netflix. So expect any action to occur before walmart rolls their operation.
All right. Still requires acquiring the chip and cracking the case, so the effect is still the same - it isn't trivial for someone who's afraid of mucking their system.
You shouldn't believe everything you read. The guy in question has a history of anti-mac articles to his name.
I don't. However, his analysis is easily replicated and interpreted. Instead of discounting what he says because he frequently debunks Mac propaganda, why don't you attack him on the points that he made? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Additionally, being a mac user, why would it make sense for him to have it out for the mac?
Just because one guy posted an argument and used what facts he felt backed his claims, doesn't nearly support your statement. I think the only thing that EVER settles any of the damn benchmark arguments is real-world, side-by-side testing of applications people use every day.
Horseshit. First, I'm not talking about the results here, I'm talking about their skewing of them, which you can examine yourself. Turning off hyperthreading on a dual-processor system is FLAT CHEATING. Crippling Dell's floating-point is CHEATING. I don't care how it turned out, as that is irrelevant.
It's long been known almost all types of benchmarks can be skewed, and cross-platform benching is a completely subjective science. This fuss is ridiculous. Let's wait until someone gets their hands on a box, and lets us know what it really is like.
In other words, let's make it as subjective as possible so no conclusions can be drawn that might be embarassing to Apple, huh?
While it may be a BS patent, it's nice to see a large corporation get screwed by a patent for once.
Expect Wal-mart to fucking bend Netflix over. I get your "pull for the little man" thing. On the other hand, I'm glad a relatively large company (Netflix) finally pulled this patent crap against a company that's actually going to challenge the patent, as opposed to a mom-and-pop who can't fight back.
I think it's fair to say pretty much every single chip maker does whatever they possibly can to skew their results. It's what happens when we let the marketing droids control corporate policy and direction.
That's true, but for decades Apple has had the perception in some circles as a company that does things "differently." Hell, that's their whole reason for existence, right? So I think there are people who will be genuinely surprised to discover that Apple has so THOROUGHLY cheated. I mean, this makes nVidia look like saints.
No, I am not a Mac zealot who thinks that Intel or Gates, or whoever it is that day is the devil.
I think that's obvious from the fact you aren't threatening to kill the guy who wrote the article. Evidently unlike most of the people writing him email. Seriously, what's with these people coming so unglued?
I don't know a single person who only boots Linux. Most so-called Linux advocates want to be l33t and bash Microsoft, but it's not price that keeps them on x86, it's Windows. They want their security blanket, and they're afraid to give it up.
I don't give a shit about l33t you candyass AC, I'm just stating facts. And for what it's worth I haven't booted into the windows partition on my work computer for well over a year. So fuck off.
2) Apple has seen the light. The costs of embracing Unix underpinnings and âoeMostlyOpenSource,â are going to seriously pay off. Soon, there will be nothing cool that comes out for the Linux Desktop that doesn't soon run on the Mac.
As a linux geek who likes Mac OS, the big difference comes when I can make a decent linux box for between a half and a third of the cost for a decent Mac OS X box. You're right in that Mac users will always be Mac users, and I don't know that all that many people are going to flock to linux desktop, but for geeks it's not so likely to crossover to Mac for desktop use.
Consider also that linux gets most converts from people who decide to dual boot for a while, end up liking it, and tanks MS. The cost to try linux is as low as free - trying Mac OS X is a significant financial undertaking. So they're not going to get the casual switcher like linux can. Hey, that's how I switched.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then the drafters of the legal code of every major nation must really bug the hell out of you, as copyright infringement is illegal everywhere. Like it or not, it's a fact. Put whatever tag you want on it, it amounts to the same thing. At a minimum, it's theft of service, which is just as illegal as stealing a physical thing. Just because the right is abstract doesn't make it OK.
Finally, there is a reason that most downloaders do not feel guilty: They have already paid $1000's to record companies for music.
What, so if I buy enough Fords, I get to start stealing them? That doesn't make all that much sense.
On a side note, I agree with the view that industries need to adjust to their changing environment. If an artist can no longer make money doing the same old routine anymore, then do what everyone else does: find a new way. You'd think us in the IT industry would know that better than anyone.
Undoubtedly, but it is their right to remain a dinosaur as long as they like, it doesn't give us the right to start distributing something they have rights to.
Well, that's certainly true. Not putting you on the defensive, but I'd love to hear the rationale on that.
Fair point - that would indeed get the point across very well and is certainly in the spirit of C.D.
For what it's worth though, and this isn't an argument but a legit question, what is the main motivation in the fight vs. the RIAA? Is it "leave file sharing alone, I use it for Project Gutenberg (or whatever)"? or is it "I want my damned music for free!" ? Because I find the first more compelling. And our community of RIAA-haters would do well to get some distance from the real "pirates" out there for credibility.
Along those lines, and as an extension to your idea, I would love to see hundreds of people mail the RIAA a CD of some legitimate work they downloaded from a P2P network.
What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable? I don't like the RIAA any more than anyone else, mainly because they're a bunch of dinosaurs and because they go after people who do little more than establish search engines. This ain't one of those times however.
But calling theft moral simply because they're assholes? I don't think so. Getting even, maybe, and I can understand that. But don't have any illusions of moral high ground.
And this civil disobedience thing is tripe - if you want the moral high ground, go handcuff yourself to Hilary Rosen's car. Or download some Weird Al songs that you have no intention of actually listening to, if you want to screw them with P2P. And be sure to advertise your identity, as civil disobedience has no point without an audience.
However, mp3 d/l'ers don't do that. They mainly want something for nothing. Now, I know we all need a method of trying out songs, so I got nothing against people who buy the albums they like and delete the ones they don't. But calling this movement civil disobedience is a travesty to those, like Ghandi and MLK, who used it in the name of great causes.
Which gets down to what I said originally - the linux-es we use also have a ton of BSD code in addition to GNU code. Hence, my argument that BSD deserves equal billing with GNU. So if you argue that Linux is based on GNU, I'd say the same for BSD. To say nothing of all the code developed by independent developers. To me, Stallman's position gives the impression that all these GNU-written utilities were sitting around waiting for a kernel, at which they became a fully functional OS - and I don't see that. The credits on the man pages for popular utilities show a lot of independently developed code, a lot of BSD code, and, indeed, a lot of GNU code. So to me, non-kernel portions of linux seem to be a hodgepodge of a lot of sources, which lies in stark constrast to Stallman's description in the article today.
So bottom line, even if one accepts a generous definition of an OS as "everything that comes with the distro," there still seem to be too many contributors to single out GNU as being *the* main contributor.
The only question you actually asked was, "shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux? " after wrongly asserting that parts of the Linux kernel are "BSD-licensed".
Not referring to the kernel. We're talking about the prospect that any part of what I call "Linux" should be prepended with "GNU." That would, by definition, be extra-kernel, as what is in the krnel certainly isn't GNU (though it is GPL). And my stipulation is that there is a lot of BSD-licensed stuff in the non-kernel portion of my linux distro to give it equal billing with GNU, assuming either of them should get even remotely equal billing with Linux, ie the kernel, in terms of what constitutes the OS.
GNU + Hurd has more functionality than most comercial operating systems do.
That's great, but kind of outside the scope of my point. I've never tried Hurd - don't really have any interest in it, but obviously one would certainly refer to that as GNU through and through.
GNU + Linux and other GPL'd software makes traditional comercial software unnecessary.
Again, well outside the point. Commercial software isn't the issue here - the question is whether the GNU portions of a linux distro constitute an OS. And I stipulate that they don't, in that they aren't responsible for the things that are characteristic of an OS, ie device handling and I/O. All of that is done by the linux kernel and possibly X, neither of which is a GNU product, though of course Linux is GPL'd and X even less restrictive. So this certainly isn't a "free vs. proprietary" thing.
My original point was that Linux is an OS in and of itself, and that the GNU contributions to *linux* (ie, not Hurd), while a damned great bunch of utilities, aren't an OS nor a portion thereof. I then asserted that if you considered the non-kernel GNU utilities part of the OS, that the non-kernel BSD daemons and utilities that ship with almost every linux distro are certainly part of the OS. Hence, BSD/GNU/Linux. Although I would consider plain ol' Linux to be perfectly correct.
Come one, someone has to do it.
Stallman talks like he had this fully functional operating system without a kernel. If by this he means he had some text editors and stuff, sure. But to call that an operating system is a bit rich. In other words, a car without an engine or a transmission isn't a car.
Furthermore, I hate to tell him, but not everything in a Linux distro is GNU. Just because someone GPL's some software doesn't make it GNU-made. Additionally, there's a lot of BSD-licensed code in the kernel. So if nothing else, shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux?
Don't get me wrong, GNU's written some great software (I love GRUB), but when his answer to any question starts with three paragraphs of the GNU/Linux thing, it's hard to take him seriously sometimes. Makes you wonder why he does what he does.
And no, this isn't a troll, just a serious question.
Not quite. Fair would have been testing both systems as they ship to customers, testing default configs only.
In one case, they turned on an option that wasn't default on the tested system but will be on the versions that ship. That's perfectly acceptable. However, one of the other options is something that is turned off by default. I don't think that's a good comparison, because there has to be some downside to that option or else it would be on by default.
Additionally, they made changes to the Dell machines from how they ship. They suggest this is so Dell will compare as favorably as possible, but why would they do that, when comparing the Dell machine as it would ship is quite acceptable? Additionally, Dell has claimed marks that are better than the "best case" stats Apple quoted - so somebody's lying (either Dell, that they got those stats at all, or Apple, claiming that they tested an optimized Dell system). So something needs to shake out here.
As for the compiler stuff, I dunno. On one hand it seems fair to try both with GCC. On the other, it seems fair that Intel be given the advantage of having developed the better compiler - hardware doesn't exist in a vacuum, and if the programs I run will be compiled using that better compiler, then this seems to matter. But that's certainly less than fraudulent.
Bottom line is, it would be nice to see both machines tested as they will ship, using the best compiler available to either machine. If Apple is correct and they really were giving the Dell the benefit of the doubt, then they deserve to claim the better numbers. If they were shafting Dell, they deserve to be exposed. If Dell lied about their original numbers, then they deserve to be flogged. I think it would be informative, or at least interesting, no matter who comes out on top.
Disclaimer: no, this is not an attempt to get mac fans to abandon their macs, nor is it a prediction of which machine is faster, or better. If you'll never use a PC, then this only affects your upgrade schedule, if that.
At night, yeah. But for those who would like to bounce signals a long way during the day, satellites might be nice.
Certainly we should hold Dell as accountable for potentially sketchy resuts as Apple.
And while I can't vouch for the veracity of Dell's results, I'm not encouraged by the *method* used by Apple. That in itself is interesting.
That may be true, but I don't think the actual relative performances of the machines is relevant as much as the intent on Apple's part to deceive. Is the new mac faster than the fastest PC's? I don't know, and not being in the market for an expensive computer, don't care. Basically, I don't companies that would try to deceive consumers. I know that all companies spin their products, but it seems that what apple did was a bit excessive. Considering the totality of the memory tricks they did with the Mac and disabling hyperthreading and more efficient float processing...that's not cool.
However, speeds of processors asside, if you want the Mac, buy the Mac, if you want a Windows machine, buy a windows machine
That will certainly always be true. Mac people buy macs, windows people buy windows, etc. But there are subtler considerations - like a mac owner who's expecting the G5 to be a significant upgrade over his current machine, and maybe it's not as much as he would have expected. Also, there are people who are considering either windows or mac (there must be, if the switch ads are successful) - and these people might not be getting a clear picture.
Again, there are enough flames going around already, so I'm not comparing macs to pc's - I just think Apple could have done better for their customers. I'm sure the G5's are going to be great machines, which is why it's sad they resorted to this.
Yes, but they didn't get that way by not caring about money.
Dealing with some pissant like netflix any way they choose hardly means financial suicide
I meant it figuratively, but you're right, there's nothing netflix could do to hurt the collected walton family.
I personally hope WMT does to netflix what IBM will do to SCO.
That's pretty much what I'm thinking. ;)
Well, your sarcasm is so good that you sound like every other machead who says those same things...only minus the sarcasm. See the other guy who responded to that post.
Your argument is the usual hogwash, not by a "vast PC conspiracy" but by the usual rantings of somone who cares not to think before writing - Your argument is MY argument: they're just computers. If a 166Mhz Pentium works for you, or an iMac or a G5 or a dual Xeon, hey, whatever rocks your socks.
What argument? I'm not attacking the computers per se, but false advertising. Three posts and you still don't see that? Damn, you are dumb.
But just READ before going off on people - nothing you wrote applies to me. Everything applies to you.
What the hell are you talking about?
I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y for you: they're just tools.
I really think you have me confused with someone else. I agree. They're just tools. I use macs too. I'm not upset, or pissed, or anything. If anything, I'm amused by the macheads coming out of the woodwork to flame people like me and the guy who posted the article. Note that you're the first one who started the agressive posting. Perhaps you mistook my emphasis for anger in the original post? I don't know. You seem to have me confused with someone who really loves intel and has a vested interest in their chips. I really don't. So go troll someone else, OK?
First, I'd like to point out that you are absolutely insane.
Oh, please. Methinks the Intel zealot doth protest too much. If you *really* didn't give a shit, you wouldn't be posting about the issue here on Slashdot, would you?
I talk about a lot of shit on slashdot. If that made me a zealot about every issue I discuss, I'd be in the padded cell with you. Note that your very argument concedes that you are a zealot, and that you very much give a shit. You assume that other people feel the way you do about your computer, but you're dead wrong. To me, my computer is a toy, something to work with, and occasionally an interesting problem (getting things to work in linux), but it's not a part of me the way yours clearly is you. And if I were you, I'd want to think about how healthy that is, when it drives you to start flaming people who rationally discuss your computer.
Be real. You obviously care. You have much time, money, and expertise bound to the intel compatible platform.
My computer is a $500 piece of shit. Additionally, I use macs at work. I actually like them. But that doesn't obligate me to swallow every line of shit passed down from on high at Apple corp.
Like everyone else with a brain, you know that Mac OS X is a superior OS to either Windows or the various other OSs that run on intel (some of which also run on the Mac anyway).
I assume you're trying to troll there - however, I completely agree! Yes, MacOS is the best OS I've ever seen, being a good marriage of unix with a useable window manager. So you're barking up the wrong tree there. Consider that - it actually is possible to criticize Apple and like macs simultaneously!
So it is a bit frightening to contemplate the possibility that you have spent all those many hours backing the wrong horse, i.e., the one that can run the dog OS, Windows, but can't run the sweet OS, Mac OS X.
Again, you've got some problems. However, I'm not backing any horse. If anything, I'm backing them all - at work, I use or have used Linux, FreeBSD, Windows 95,98,2000 and XP, Solaris, Irix, and Mac OS 9 and X. And as said, with some issues, Mac OS is probably my favorite overall. Note that this completely takes out your argument of my having so much time invested in intel, or any particular OS. I like learning new OS's. I like learning new hardware. I just won't pay $3000 for it.
So first, I will again beg for someone to actually debate the issues rather than shooting any messengers with bad news. Seriously, think mac heads (those who have responded with rants) - if you can't even rationally discuss any issue related to your beloved mac, doesn't that bode ill for your mental stability?
Might want to turn the mirror on that one there - you'll find that most people using Intel processors (like me) really don't give a shit. Kind of hard to be a zealot when you don't give a shit. It's you, a mac-head with the permanant chip on your shoulder, who is using exclamation points, and referring to the ever-powerful "get a life" argument. This coming from a guy that spends probably 5x more money on computers than I do. I mean, here you are screaming because someone had the audacity to say your favorite computer isn't the fastest on the planet, and you're telling *me* to get a life? Uh-huh.
I'm still waiting for one of you mac-heads to actually analyze the evidence as opposed to going nuts, saying it's all a conspiracy by the intel "zealots." Hasn't happened yet.
For what it's worth, I actually like macs, and would own one if I could afford a decent one. But I don't like being blatantly lied to. So if you have a rational argument for why Apple's benchmarking techniques are legitimate, I'm listening. If not, well, sounds like it's time for your meds anyway.
Damn, you're a snide little shit. Actually, I wouldn't expect Walmart to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a business that can be shut down quickly with a court order. They may license the patent or they may fight it, but ignoring it isn't likely. Especially with the treble damages that would potentially exist for a patent of this profile, as claiming to have not seen the patent isn't an option.
For the exact reasons you claim, netflix is likely to cave, since they DONT want to fight walmart. But once Walmart has large amounts of cash invested in this, they can't walk away from a settlement without committing financial suicide, giving strong leverage to netflix. So expect any action to occur before walmart rolls their operation.
Get it?
All right. Still requires acquiring the chip and cracking the case, so the effect is still the same - it isn't trivial for someone who's afraid of mucking their system.
I don't. However, his analysis is easily replicated and interpreted. Instead of discounting what he says because he frequently debunks Mac propaganda, why don't you attack him on the points that he made? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Additionally, being a mac user, why would it make sense for him to have it out for the mac?
Horseshit. First, I'm not talking about the results here, I'm talking about their skewing of them, which you can examine yourself. Turning off hyperthreading on a dual-processor system is FLAT CHEATING. Crippling Dell's floating-point is CHEATING. I don't care how it turned out, as that is irrelevant.
It's long been known almost all types of benchmarks can be skewed, and cross-platform benching is a completely subjective science. This fuss is ridiculous. Let's wait until someone gets their hands on a box, and lets us know what it really is like.
In other words, let's make it as subjective as possible so no conclusions can be drawn that might be embarassing to Apple, huh?
Expect Wal-mart to fucking bend Netflix over. I get your "pull for the little man" thing. On the other hand, I'm glad a relatively large company (Netflix) finally pulled this patent crap against a company that's actually going to challenge the patent, as opposed to a mom-and-pop who can't fight back.
That's true, but for decades Apple has had the perception in some circles as a company that does things "differently." Hell, that's their whole reason for existence, right? So I think there are people who will be genuinely surprised to discover that Apple has so THOROUGHLY cheated. I mean, this makes nVidia look like saints.
No, I am not a Mac zealot who thinks that Intel or Gates, or whoever it is that day is the devil.
I think that's obvious from the fact you aren't threatening to kill the guy who wrote the article. Evidently unlike most of the people writing him email. Seriously, what's with these people coming so unglued?
Um...you DO realize they have to mod the box first, right? Your friends are all handy with a soldering iron, I take it?
I don't give a shit about l33t you candyass AC, I'm just stating facts. And for what it's worth I haven't booted into the windows partition on my work computer for well over a year. So fuck off.
As a linux geek who likes Mac OS, the big difference comes when I can make a decent linux box for between a half and a third of the cost for a decent Mac OS X box. You're right in that Mac users will always be Mac users, and I don't know that all that many people are going to flock to linux desktop, but for geeks it's not so likely to crossover to Mac for desktop use.
Consider also that linux gets most converts from people who decide to dual boot for a while, end up liking it, and tanks MS. The cost to try linux is as low as free - trying Mac OS X is a significant financial undertaking. So they're not going to get the casual switcher like linux can. Hey, that's how I switched.