If the music industry had its way, we'd have to pay every time we hear a song. E.g., on the radio, every time we hum a song, and every time we even think of a song to ourselves.
Heck, even DJs would be obligated to pay, as they shouldn't be allowed to hear the music for free.
And double heck, anyone listening to you humming would be obligated to pay too.
Do you own a car? You do realize that there are various patents and copyrights covering your car?
Do you own a microwave oven? Once again, there are patents and copyright limitations covering it too.
Do you own a TV? Same thing.
Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant? What's so special about software that requires it to be "free" (as in speech and beer)?
You're right about the difficulties of Linux. While it's certainly has gotten a lot better, there are still things that make the experience any thing but pleasurable.
The most pleasurable experience I ever had with an OS was BeOS 5 Professional. It installed quickly and set up all my hardware, even a TV card.
I was able to find all the software I needed at one place, was it www.beware.com?! I easily and quickly found replacements for the Windows software I used at the time. I was able to switch to BeOS without any difficulties and the experience was PLEASURABLE. The OS was simply fun to use. I even ended up quitting Windows completely and only gave up BeOS when they stopped development on it. I saw no reason sticking with a dead horse, no matter how pleasurable it might have been.
The last distro of Linux I tried was Suse 9.2 professional. And the installation was very simple, it set up all my hardware, and I was able to get started right away doing what I do. But, for some reason I just cannot put my finger on, the experience wasn't pleasurable. It wasn't fun. It was dull. I think Dvorak is on to something when he says the problem with Linux from a user's view is that it's created by Unix-heads who tend to have a different view of how things should operate.
BTW, I found a great resource for anyone trying to find analogous Windows software for Linux right here.
Basically, if there is anything you do in Windows, you'll be able to find an equivalent at that site.
First, I did point out that the evidence was "anecdotal."
However, you seem to validate it. You admit that "many" Linux users have bought Macs. And you further admit that they are using those Macs as their main machines while leaving their Linux boxes to perform mundane tasks.
You also say that its a "case of using the best tools for their specific needs" which seems to imply that the Mac is the best tool for a person's main machine.
Like I said, I think Dvorak may be right. Apple might kill any chance Linux has (or had) on the desktop.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about Linux/Unix users switching to Macs in droves. If that's true, I don't see how Apple switching to Intel based system will stop that switch. It will almost certainly make the switch even easier to make. Let's face it, with a Mac you get Unix AND a great GUI.
XFX PVT45GUDF3 Geforce 6800GT 256MB 353 x 2 = $706
Western Digital Caviar SE WD3000JB 300GB 7200 RPM 8MB 134 x 2 = $268
SONY Black IDE DVD Burner Model DW-D26A $47
CREATIVE Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS (7.1) $99
Microsoft Windows XP Professional With Service Pack 2 - OEM $147
All that for a grand total of $2153. I think even you'd admit that my Newegg system blows the Apple specs out of the water. 350 gigs more hard drive space. Twice the Ram. Twice the video cards in SLI. Heck, more than twice, even a single Geforce 6800GT would make butter out of that ancient Radeon 9650. My system wouldn't even bother to make that over-priced Apple his bitch, it wouldn't be worth his time.
But what about that precious software that comes with the Mac? Well, let's include an academic version of Microsoft Office Standard from Newegg for $125. And I found used copies of Adobe Audition 1.5 for $190 and Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 for $488 on Amazon.
That brings my system to a grand total of $2956. Still less than that over-priced Mac!!!
And I'm sure you'll say that I can't compare a homebuilt system to a manufactured one. Why the hell not? Apple gets MUCH better than wholesale prices, while I'm stuck paying retail. Apple should easily be able to beat my price, but it doesn't.
"Or is that the difference between Mac users and Mac-heads?"
Yeah, there is a difference. Adding the suffix "head" to a work usually denotes a certain amount of dogmatism and fanaticism. For example, even though I like the Grateful Dead, I'm not a Dead-head by any means.
Even still, I wasn't very clear in my posting. I was just surprised at how many users were upset, and to the degree to which they were.
I think we both agree that Apple's currently sell for more money. Most Apple-heads brag about the higher prices because they're allegedly worth it.
I went over to Apple.com and their high end was priced at $2,999.00.
While Dell's "Ultimate PC" Dimension XPS GEN 4 was only $1500. It had 150 gigs more hard drive space AND a better video card (not that there are many games for the Mac anyway.)
So, once again, if some guy is in Best Buy and sees s highend Apple for $3000 and a highend PC for $1500, I think he's going to go with the PC.
However, if Macs would sell for the same price, or even a little bit more, I think Apple could give Microsoft some serious competition.
But if they continue selling for a premium, I don't see a lot of people switching.
I don't think the move to the PPC was baffling. At the time the PPC seen by most people as the future of personal computing. Even Microsoft hedged it bet by creating a version of NT to run on the PPC.
But Motorola was more interested in selling phones than computers. And IBM was more concerned with selling high-end servers and service than with lowly desktop systems. Sure, after the fact it's quite easy to see how the PPC was a failure when only one party (Apple) was on board. But at the time, the PPC was revolutionary.
And you cannot criticize Apple for backpedaling. Would you rather have Jobs dogmatically trumping a dead and stagnate system versus changing course?! Like I've said before, I praise Job's ability to do what it takes to make the best, even when its admitting he was wrong.
Look at it another way. If the hardware is equal, how will Apple justify their higher prices?! The fact that the platforms were entirely different kept people from direct comparisons. But if someone is at Best Buy looking at two computers, and the hardware is identical, and the Apple costs a thousand (or even $500) more, why would anyone other than a Mac-head by the Mac?
I can only hope that Apple will avoid that by lowering their prices.
Oh, I agree. But Apple users cannot have it both ways. They cannot praise the superiority of their "insanely great" computers but still want bloated backwards compatibility.
Apple users have to make a choice: If they want insanely great, they'll have to put up with insanity. If they want backwards compatibility, they'll have to switch to Windows. I found some ancients apps (e.g., calendar.exe) included with Windows version 1.0, and they STILL work with Windows XP! Now that's some fucked up backwards compatibility!
But Apple (well, Jobs) has always placed "insanely great" ahead of backwards compatibility. I wish Microsoft would dump their baggage and create something new once and a while instead of simply adding more and more useless features to the same bloated code.
As the old saying goes, to make an omelet you have to first break some eggs. I applaud Apple for its willingness to take chances and for breaking so many eggs.
"On the good side, maybe John Dvorak's head will explode from his ego overswelling."
This proves the old adage, an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time will eventually create the works of Shakespeare. In other words, given enough time even an idiot can occasionally get it right.
Well, now that it's official I've noticed that the Apple-heads are PISSED.
It's like the world is ending. Or at least their world. Why is this change a problem for Apple users?! The change-over will not take place for several years, thus they'll be able to fully use their new systems for their natural lives.
It'll make the Mac platform more viable, which will only strengthen their paradigm.
And it should also make systems cheaper. Although, it's debatable whether Apple would want to go cheap.
It'll make PowerBooks MUCH more powerful! How is that bad?
It'll make Macs easier and cheaper to upgrade, I'm assuming that Mac users will be able to buy any AGP/PCI-E/PCI card they want and simply install it, rather than buying more expensive Mac specific cards.
The only genuine complaint I've found is that Macs will become louder, and that's so petty as to border on ridiculous.
Why are so many Mac-heads so devoted to the stagnate PPC platform? I thought the beauty of the Mac was in the sublime OS and stylish packaging. Those two factors will still be there even after the switch. It's not like Apple will suddenly start pumping out ugly beige boxes!
Gee, I thought the Mac was impervious to viruses, spyware, and worms due to the bullet-proof security of OSX. Now you're telling me that it was due entirely to the PPC platform?! Who would have guessed?!
Yeah, but Apple's version will be proprietary in some way. That small difference will lead the Wintel fanboys to snub the Mactel fanboys. And let's not forget the AMD fanboys, who are a very zealous group.
In other words, we'll still have asinine flame-wars.
Apple gets most of its profits from its hardware side of the business. So Apple's not going to throw that away and allow us to install OSX on our Intel/AMD systems.
Also, the article said that Apple was in talks with both AMD and Intel, but Intel won. Obviously since AMD lost, Apple's software will not run on AMD. That's another clue that the solution Apple is looking for will be proprietary in some way.
Certainly this will lead to cheaper Apple products, as we NEED the consumer competition. But it will NOT lead to Apple becoming solely a software business.
The thing that makes me cringe is giving up the keyboard and mouse. I'm not only talking about only FPS, I'm talking any game. There are simply more buttons on a keyboard/mouse combination. That means you're not learning a bunch of seemingly random controller moves to do what you have to do.
I'm not criticizing people who use controllers. I've tried to use them several times in my 40 years, but I just cannot get use to them as I'm just too god-darned old.
I totally agree. They'll be infected with patents so open source projects cannot use them. Or maybe it'll be the new
DRM they're working
on for office. Any cracking or hacking of that would violate the DMCA.
Microsoft loves being open in a draconian and monopolistic sort of way.
Slashdot Mirror
If the music industry had its way, we'd have to pay every time we hear a song. E.g., on the radio, every time we hum a song, and every time we even think of a song to ourselves.
Heck, even DJs would be obligated to pay, as they shouldn't be allowed to hear the music for free.
And double heck, anyone listening to you humming would be obligated to pay too.
Winmx can be found at www.winmx.com It's actually a pretty good P2P program its never been bundled with any ads, spyware, etc.
And as far as I know, it was one of the first to work without a central server.
And more importantly, it was one of the first to allow you to download the same song (or whatever) from several different people at the same time.
I never understood why it never gets any press. And now that I've learned its number one, I'm even more shocked.
But, when you've got a great product, you don't need a marketing team.
But what about that 5%? Is that the rule? Open sourcers demand 100% freedom from software but only 95% freedom from meat-space?
Btw, your sig is fucking hilarious!
Do you own a car? You do realize that there are various patents and copyrights covering your car?
Do you own a microwave oven? Once again, there are patents and copyright limitations covering it too.
Do you own a TV? Same thing.
Why is it that when it comes to software you demand complete freedom, but when it comes to everything else, such freedom is irrelevant? What's so special about software that requires it to be "free" (as in speech and beer)?
You're right about the difficulties of Linux. While it's certainly has gotten a lot better, there are still things that make the experience any thing but pleasurable.
The most pleasurable experience I ever had with an OS was BeOS 5 Professional. It installed quickly and set up all my hardware, even a TV card.
I was able to find all the software I needed at one place, was it www.beware.com?! I easily and quickly found replacements for the Windows software I used at the time. I was able to switch to BeOS without any difficulties and the experience was PLEASURABLE. The OS was simply fun to use. I even ended up quitting Windows completely and only gave up BeOS when they stopped development on it. I saw no reason sticking with a dead horse, no matter how pleasurable it might have been.
The last distro of Linux I tried was Suse 9.2 professional. And the installation was very simple, it set up all my hardware, and I was able to get started right away doing what I do. But, for some reason I just cannot put my finger on, the experience wasn't pleasurable. It wasn't fun. It was dull. I think Dvorak is on to something when he says the problem with Linux from a user's view is that it's created by Unix-heads who tend to have a different view of how things should operate.
BTW, I found a great resource for anyone trying to find analogous Windows software for Linux right here.
Basically, if there is anything you do in Windows, you'll be able to find an equivalent at that site.
First, I did point out that the evidence was "anecdotal."
However, you seem to validate it. You admit that "many" Linux users have bought Macs. And you further admit that they are using those Macs as their main machines while leaving their Linux boxes to perform mundane tasks.
You also say that its a "case of using the best tools for their specific needs" which seems to imply that the Mac is the best tool for a person's main machine.
Like I said, I think Dvorak may be right. Apple might kill any chance Linux has (or had) on the desktop.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about Linux/Unix users switching to Macs in droves. If that's true, I don't see how Apple switching to Intel based system will stop that switch. It will almost certainly make the switch even easier to make. Let's face it, with a Mac you get Unix AND a great GUI.
I'm sorry. If I learned anything it's that Dell's site is deceptive. I swear it said the system came with a 400 gig hard drive.
I won't make that mistake again. I buy all my systems from Newegg, so why should that change now?
Let's review the $3000 Apple system:
Dual 2.7GHz PowerPC G5
1.35GHz frontside
bus/processor
512K L2 cache/processor
512MB DDR400 SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA
16x SuperDrive (double-layer)
Three PCI-X Slots
ATI Radeon 9650 - 256MB DDR video memory
Now here's a system I made from Newegg. All prices include shipping and tax:
ABIT AN8-SLI Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard $168
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ ClawHammer/Hammer $474
Antec Lan Boy case $93
THERMALTAKE Silent Purepower W0014RU ATX 480W Power Supply - Retail $55
crucial 512MB 48 x 2 = $96
XFX PVT45GUDF3 Geforce 6800GT 256MB 353 x 2 = $706
Western Digital Caviar SE WD3000JB 300GB 7200 RPM 8MB 134 x 2 = $268
SONY Black IDE DVD Burner Model DW-D26A $47
CREATIVE Sound Blaster Audigy2 ZS (7.1) $99
Microsoft Windows XP Professional With Service Pack 2 - OEM $147
All that for a grand total of $2153. I think even you'd admit that my Newegg system blows the Apple specs out of the water. 350 gigs more hard drive space. Twice the Ram. Twice the video cards in SLI. Heck, more than twice, even a single Geforce 6800GT would make butter out of that ancient Radeon 9650. My system wouldn't even bother to make that over-priced Apple his bitch, it wouldn't be worth his time.
But what about that precious software that comes with the Mac? Well, let's include an academic version of Microsoft Office Standard from Newegg for $125. And I found used copies of Adobe Audition 1.5 for $190 and Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 for $488 on Amazon.
That brings my system to a grand total of $2956. Still less than that over-priced Mac!!!
And I'm sure you'll say that I can't compare a homebuilt system to a manufactured one. Why the hell not? Apple gets MUCH better than wholesale prices, while I'm stuck paying retail. Apple should easily be able to beat my price, but it doesn't.
"Or is that the difference between Mac users and Mac-heads?"
Yeah, there is a difference. Adding the suffix "head" to a work usually denotes a certain amount of dogmatism and fanaticism. For example, even though I like the Grateful Dead, I'm not a Dead-head by any means.
Even still, I wasn't very clear in my posting. I was just surprised at how many users were upset, and to the degree to which they were.
I think we both agree that Apple's currently sell for more money. Most Apple-heads brag about the higher prices because they're allegedly worth it.
I went over to Apple.com and their high end was priced at $2,999.00.
While Dell's "Ultimate PC" Dimension XPS GEN 4 was only $1500. It had 150 gigs more hard drive space AND a better video card (not that there are many games for the Mac anyway.)
So, once again, if some guy is in Best Buy and sees s highend Apple for $3000 and a highend PC for $1500, I think he's going to go with the PC.
However, if Macs would sell for the same price, or even a little bit more, I think Apple could give Microsoft some serious competition.
But if they continue selling for a premium, I don't see a lot of people switching.
I don't think the move to the PPC was baffling. At the time the PPC seen by most people as the future of personal computing. Even Microsoft hedged it bet by creating a version of NT to run on the PPC.
But Motorola was more interested in selling phones than computers. And IBM was more concerned with selling high-end servers and service than with lowly desktop systems. Sure, after the fact it's quite easy to see how the PPC was a failure when only one party (Apple) was on board. But at the time, the PPC was revolutionary.
And you cannot criticize Apple for backpedaling. Would you rather have Jobs dogmatically trumping a dead and stagnate system versus changing course?! Like I've said before, I praise Job's ability to do what it takes to make the best, even when its admitting he was wrong.
Look at it another way. If the hardware is equal, how will Apple justify their higher prices?! The fact that the platforms were entirely different kept people from direct comparisons. But if someone is at Best Buy looking at two computers, and the hardware is identical, and the Apple costs a thousand (or even $500) more, why would anyone other than a Mac-head by the Mac?
I can only hope that Apple will avoid that by lowering their prices.
Oh, I agree. But Apple users cannot have it both ways. They cannot praise the superiority of their "insanely great" computers but still want bloated backwards compatibility.
Apple users have to make a choice: If they want insanely great, they'll have to put up with insanity. If they want backwards compatibility, they'll have to switch to Windows. I found some ancients apps (e.g., calendar.exe) included with Windows version 1.0, and they STILL work with Windows XP! Now that's some fucked up backwards compatibility!
But Apple (well, Jobs) has always placed "insanely great" ahead of backwards compatibility. I wish Microsoft would dump their baggage and create something new once and a while instead of simply adding more and more useless features to the same bloated code.
As the old saying goes, to make an omelet you have to first break some eggs. I applaud Apple for its willingness to take chances and for breaking so many eggs.
"On the good side, maybe John Dvorak's head will explode from his ego overswelling."
This proves the old adage, an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time will eventually create the works of Shakespeare. In other words, given enough time even an idiot can occasionally get it right.
Well, now that it's official I've noticed that the Apple-heads are PISSED.
It's like the world is ending. Or at least their world. Why is this change a problem for Apple users?! The change-over will not take place for several years, thus they'll be able to fully use their new systems for their natural lives.
It'll make the Mac platform more viable, which will only strengthen their paradigm.
And it should also make systems cheaper. Although, it's debatable whether Apple would want to go cheap.
It'll make PowerBooks MUCH more powerful! How is that bad?
It'll make Macs easier and cheaper to upgrade, I'm assuming that Mac users will be able to buy any AGP/PCI-E/PCI card they want and simply install it, rather than buying more expensive Mac specific cards.
The only genuine complaint I've found is that Macs will become louder, and that's so petty as to border on ridiculous.
Why are so many Mac-heads so devoted to the stagnate PPC platform? I thought the beauty of the Mac was in the sublime OS and stylish packaging. Those two factors will still be there even after the switch. It's not like Apple will suddenly start pumping out ugly beige boxes!
Gee, I thought the Mac was impervious to viruses, spyware, and worms due to the bullet-proof security of OSX. Now you're telling me that it was due entirely to the PPC platform?! Who would have guessed?!
Yeah, but Apple's version will be proprietary in some way. That small difference will lead the Wintel fanboys to snub the Mactel fanboys. And let's not forget the AMD fanboys, who are a very zealous group.
In other words, we'll still have asinine flame-wars.
Apple gets most of its profits from its hardware side of the business. So Apple's not going to throw that away and allow us to install OSX on our Intel/AMD systems.
Also, the article said that Apple was in talks with both AMD and Intel, but Intel won. Obviously since AMD lost, Apple's software will not run on AMD. That's another clue that the solution Apple is looking for will be proprietary in some way.
Certainly this will lead to cheaper Apple products, as we NEED the consumer competition. But it will NOT lead to Apple becoming solely a software business.
The thing that makes me cringe is giving up the keyboard and mouse. I'm not only talking about only FPS, I'm talking any game. There are simply more buttons on a keyboard/mouse combination. That means you're not learning a bunch of seemingly random controller moves to do what you have to do.
I'm not criticizing people who use controllers. I've tried to use them several times in my 40 years, but I just cannot get use to them as I'm just too god-darned old.
Will I still be able to disable it with PrefBar?!
I totally agree. They'll be infected with patents so open source projects cannot use them. Or maybe it'll be the new DRM they're working on for office. Any cracking or hacking of that would violate the DMCA.
Microsoft loves being open in a draconian and monopolistic sort of way.
It's GPL, in other words, all your code base are belongs to us!
We're geeks. How can we be addicted to something we never get.
Obsessed? Yes. Addicted? No.
I'd hate to be C.