why does everyone have a problem with this? if you're running an illegal copy of windows, then you don't legally deserve to have a say in the matter! you knew very well microsoft's software strategy when you installed windows XP (because you must have gotten around activation) and you will just have to deal with it. SP2 is very nice, it patches holes, makes wireless work much better, makes a lot of things more user-friendly... but maybe you enjoy running an unpatched, 4 year old version of windows. if that's the case, why don't you downgrade to windows 2000, which won't lock you out? i mean, you wouldn't pay for that either, right? and if you havent tested the programs yourself under SP2 that you claim it will break, then for the sake of public opinion, don't spout your mouth about it. all of the programs listed that i own had no problem with SP2 on the 4 XP machines under me, and all my friends' computers. and after all... this is for windows update and automatic update... if you do these, then what is the problem? honestly?!
"microsoft, i would like to download individual patches to my illegal copy of your operating system, using up your bandwidth, and your developer time making these patches, but i won't let you install SP2. no way."
there is no other mail client that looks like that. black background windows logo in the top right, the windows fade bar on top, the word formatting toolbar right above the text box... it's outlook. but who cares.
by people like you saying that, you've just helped MPAA's cause against exeem. good job. next time, why don't you make a billboard in downtown new york?
a very-locked-down linux box > a very-locked-down windows box > a standard or slightly-locked-down linux box > a standard windows box.
i would trust a locked down, security-minded-owned windows box on a secure network over a standard linux box that someone put out on the internet. problem being that it's extremely hard to lock down both windows and linux to the point that it's fully functional and practical.
at Florida State, they had a "night of the panther" deal when it first came out, if you bought it between 8 pm and midnight that night (i think it was like october 24th 2003 or something) then you could get the full, boxed, non-upgrade version for $39. and there aren't any limitations of the academic version, either. quite a deal.
the difference is that rarely are microsoft's products "firsts". they might be a slightly different take on an existing product (sometimes created by apple) but they usually aren't "firsts". the firsts they do have, they usually don't leak information of.
however apple is all about pushing the limits of innovation, seeing what they can invent. sure, the ipod shuffle wasn't that unique -- there are similar players out there. but things like iMovie HD... has microsoft made Windows Movie Maker HD yet? no. things like the iPod... an entirely new way of thinking about mp3 players, that others have now copied (dell, gateway, etc).
not saying that apple is the end-all and be-all of innovation. but the products they do prosecute for are usually first of their kind. and after all, look at the ipod shuffle... its nothing too special. really. i saw equivalent mp3 players that had shuffle function in my campus bookstore the day before keynote. but because of their marketing, its a success. if everyone knew about it before it came out, the hype would be too great, then people would be disappointed. not to be cynical, but thats how it works.
yeah, but do all you really think they would have an awards ceremony for geek gamers? if they did, it would be at 3 AM on public service television. face the facts, geeks hide in the shadows of society. they aren't going to be the prime target of things like the SpikeTV game awards last night, which like it or not, IS all about marketing. the intro was about Def Jam's game. and who buys games like that? not geeks. hell, half the geeks have modded systems and download their game ISO's with bittorrent, or play illegally copied PC games -- why spend marketing money on them?
although the screenshots show that the UI is getting better, the UI of KDE and GNOME is still severely not user-friendly.
my message to KDE and GNOME developers: put more emphasis on usability if you don't want linux to fall in a few years.
i know linux inside and out. i am extremely comfortable with the OS, have been using it for years... but i don't use it on any of my computers at home. why? because using KDE or GNOME or any other WM for linux makes me want to dig out my eyeballs with a spork. so i use mac os x... i've tried yellowdog many times, but it just doesnt work. KDE and GNOME are ugly, hard to use, and don't come close to the user-friendliness of windows or mac os x. i usually am a linux apologist (especially to those who knock it) but there's no use BSing a crowd of linux users. the UI sucks. and i'm sure a bunch of 13 year olds who just installed red hat 7 on their parents old PII-350 are going to rebut saying i don't know what i'm talking about... but from a CS student's perspective, the UI needs a LOT of help.
people still use P2P programs? wow. i don't know a single person who does, mainly because of the RIAA danger, and you can't find what you want anymore... it used to be "Search, click, download" and you're instantly getting what you want, its impossible nowadays on P2P networks (except bittorrent, but i hate the sudden criminalization of it) to get a single song you want in less than half an hour, and if you do, you might have the RIAA sending a legal notice to your door. i think people are shying away from p2p and moving to more legal methods. look at how many people are using rhapsody, napster, and itunes music store. i haven't used a p2p app to download anything copyrighted in over a year, and neither has anyone i know. my friends and i used to trade MP3's, but now we make trips to the local CD store together. maybe because i'm a musician, i realized after the whole P2P hayday with RIAA that its not worth it. but to say that P2P is more widely used now than ever, and growing? i find that hard to believe.
exactly why i vote republican. republicans aren't racist, for the larger majority of them. this is a common misconception among democrats and others. after all, it was the republican party (not the dixiecrats) that has stood up for african americans and other races all along, but i'm focusing on african americans here. somewhere in the 70's this switched, despite the republican party standing up for their civil rights in the 60's. and because the republican budget isn't going to give handouts to the non-working (white, black, hispanic, doesnt matter), everyone looks at them as racist. it doesn't make sense. but regardless, that's why i don't support affirmative action, because it is the definition of reverse discrimination. even my african american roommate thinks that affirmative action is racist.
$500 is a small price to pay for a software product that works as well as it does. if you haven't used remote desktop, it might seem like a steep price to pay. but if i had a number of machines to manage, $500 would save a lot of money in IT costs by controlling all of them from one computer. Remote Desktop isn't JUST VNC. also, this isn't aimed for consumers, it's aimed for businesses and education.
i am just like you.
but i recommend for you to not look at it like you are entering the beginning of the rest of your life. thats a crock of **** that they feed you in high school. who you define yourself as in high school has more of an impact in who you are later on, because in high school, for the most part, you're still growing.
college is fun, its free (as in freedom), its exciting... but not something extraspectacular that should be revered. and plus, the whole idea of college is that the "bright" people go on to further their education, while the not-so-bright ones get jobs. so you're going to be around people who are MUCH BRIGHTER THAN YOU. so my advice is don't think about it. be who you are already, act as you already do, and if you dont do good in something, try something else. who cares.
i've tried the whole linux-on-a-mac thing many times, and on the older machines, its hardcore. mac os 9, IMO, sucks really hard, so running Debian on a PowerMac 7500 (i think that was the model) was really cool, and brought extended functionality to that aged old-world machine. but gentoo/debian/yellowdog instead of mac os x on a desktop? i don't think its worth it. maybe for cluster computing, or servers, or whatnot to avoid licensing issues. but i think those that honestly think linux is better and/or more functional than mac os x on the same machine are smoking something that, if not already, should be made illegal (or government sanctioned).
user interface? osx wins
hardware compatibility? osx wins, it was made for the hardware after all
multimedia? osx wins
software availability and ease of use? osx wins again
the only area where i could think that you would want to use linux over os x is if you are a linux developer and NEED full compatibility with hardware-related procedures, or if you are a 13 year old kid who got a mac, dont feel like learning OS X (which takes the better part of a measely hour), and think you're gonna be l33t by running a "free" os rather than mac os. if thats the case, go for it. but IMHO you're wasting your time. especially with a fully-functional GCC, xcode, X11, terminal, and BSD base.
Re:i welcome our new ... uh ... wait ...
on
Fix a Troubled Mac
·
· Score: 1
and then the left would find some word that looks like "God" in it when you blur your vision and not only allow the banning, but disallow it from being in any Courthouse:-)
aye, but microsoft office is (IMO) infinitely easier to use, easier to look at, and more familiar to me, considering my windows background. you do get what you pay for.
but what bothers me is people supporting openoffice.org on the mac. i have used the X11 version, and won't use it again until there is a native cocoa version.
i believe the topic at hand is fragmentation, not how well it works as a filesystem. in that regard, FAT32 and NTFS do have horrible problems with fragmentation, while HFS+ defragments on the fly.
i don't feel like searching through the million comments on this topic, but people like you fail to understand that Mac OS X does not *need* "right-clicking". I know, its a foreign concept to you. But on windows, say you want to change your wallpaper. you can either right-click the desktop and go to properties, or you can go start/settings/control panel/desktop, which is more of a PITA. but on mac os x, control-clicking the desktop and choosing "change wallpaper" is about as fast as clicking system preferences in the dock and clicking "Desktop". you aren't saving yourself time, you aren't gaining anything from control-clicking. only on a few instances (i.e. saving images from web pages) do you need to control-click, and that doesnt justify a multibutton mouse (and saving images can be done by dragging the image from the website into a folder, not requiring a control-click at all). if you're running linux on your mac, yes, you might find a multibutton mouse useful. and games? yes. but 99% of apple consumers do not *need* a multibutton mouse like you would think. get past your train of thought that multibutton mice are the norm -- in fact, they are a cheap cop out for good user-interface ease-of-use design.
1. GarageBand isn't open source, and I have rarely seen Apple products on Freshmeat.
2. You must be a new/.er to not realize that updates to Apple applications make the Apple section quite frequently, and yes, we do care about the updates.
right now i think it is just personal preference. i still use apache 1.3 on my macs because its what comes with OS X 10.3, and i don't feel like upgrading. and i'm doing all my development in PHP 5 and MySQL 5 now (due to the fact that by the time i'm done with what i'm writing, they will be stable) and PHP 5 works beautifully with 1.3. so no, i don't feel the need to upgrade. on linux, i toy around with 2.0, but i'm just so familiar with 1.3, it makes it easier. and multithreading and support for BeOS and OS/2 isn't reason enough to make me upgrade.
for any of you that have tried to compile mod_mono 0.9 with the apple GCC and apache 1.3 stock installs, you may notice that it fails on "sudo make install" because it compiles it to a dylib instead of a so. here's a workaround:
cd mod_mono-0.9/src; apxs -c -o libmod_mono.so -DAPACHE13 -I../include/ -I/usr/include/httpd/ mod_mono.c; apxs -i -a -n mono libmod_mono.so
i really dont understand what everyone's problem with metadata stuff is in the first place. (i'm not talking to the parent poster here...) if you're using illegally downloaded songs, you deserve to have to go through and fix the metadata. most of my music is legal, and when you import it from CD, or if you imported it with atleast a semi-decent program, it reads the metadata for you from the ID3 tags and fixes it itself. its REALLY not that big of a deal. unless, of course, you're a leech to society and steal music online and have a database of thousands of badly-formatted ID3 MP3 files...
BTW, parent, what OS are you talking about? MacOS or Windows? i can see your argument either way i guess
Slashdot Mirror
why does everyone have a problem with this? if you're running an illegal copy of windows, then you don't legally deserve to have a say in the matter! you knew very well microsoft's software strategy when you installed windows XP (because you must have gotten around activation) and you will just have to deal with it. SP2 is very nice, it patches holes, makes wireless work much better, makes a lot of things more user-friendly... but maybe you enjoy running an unpatched, 4 year old version of windows. if that's the case, why don't you downgrade to windows 2000, which won't lock you out? i mean, you wouldn't pay for that either, right? and if you havent tested the programs yourself under SP2 that you claim it will break, then for the sake of public opinion, don't spout your mouth about it. all of the programs listed that i own had no problem with SP2 on the 4 XP machines under me, and all my friends' computers. and after all... this is for windows update and automatic update... if you do these, then what is the problem? honestly?!
"microsoft, i would like to download individual patches to my illegal copy of your operating system, using up your bandwidth, and your developer time making these patches, but i won't let you install SP2. no way."
there is no other mail client that looks like that. black background windows logo in the top right, the windows fade bar on top, the word formatting toolbar right above the text box... it's outlook. but who cares.
by people like you saying that, you've just helped MPAA's cause against exeem. good job. next time, why don't you make a billboard in downtown new york?
a very-locked-down linux box > a very-locked-down windows box > a standard or slightly-locked-down linux box > a standard windows box. i would trust a locked down, security-minded-owned windows box on a secure network over a standard linux box that someone put out on the internet. problem being that it's extremely hard to lock down both windows and linux to the point that it's fully functional and practical.
at Florida State, they had a "night of the panther" deal when it first came out, if you bought it between 8 pm and midnight that night (i think it was like october 24th 2003 or something) then you could get the full, boxed, non-upgrade version for $39. and there aren't any limitations of the academic version, either. quite a deal.
the difference is that rarely are microsoft's products "firsts". they might be a slightly different take on an existing product (sometimes created by apple) but they usually aren't "firsts". the firsts they do have, they usually don't leak information of. however apple is all about pushing the limits of innovation, seeing what they can invent. sure, the ipod shuffle wasn't that unique -- there are similar players out there. but things like iMovie HD... has microsoft made Windows Movie Maker HD yet? no. things like the iPod... an entirely new way of thinking about mp3 players, that others have now copied (dell, gateway, etc). not saying that apple is the end-all and be-all of innovation. but the products they do prosecute for are usually first of their kind. and after all, look at the ipod shuffle... its nothing too special. really. i saw equivalent mp3 players that had shuffle function in my campus bookstore the day before keynote. but because of their marketing, its a success. if everyone knew about it before it came out, the hype would be too great, then people would be disappointed. not to be cynical, but thats how it works.
yeah, but do all you really think they would have an awards ceremony for geek gamers? if they did, it would be at 3 AM on public service television. face the facts, geeks hide in the shadows of society. they aren't going to be the prime target of things like the SpikeTV game awards last night, which like it or not, IS all about marketing. the intro was about Def Jam's game. and who buys games like that? not geeks. hell, half the geeks have modded systems and download their game ISO's with bittorrent, or play illegally copied PC games -- why spend marketing money on them?
um, you're far from the first post my friend, and its already been said above you. nice try!
although the screenshots show that the UI is getting better, the UI of KDE and GNOME is still severely not user-friendly.
my message to KDE and GNOME developers:
put more emphasis on usability if you don't want linux to fall in a few years.
i know linux inside and out. i am extremely comfortable with the OS, have been using it for years... but i don't use it on any of my computers at home. why? because using KDE or GNOME or any other WM for linux makes me want to dig out my eyeballs with a spork. so i use mac os x... i've tried yellowdog many times, but it just doesnt work. KDE and GNOME are ugly, hard to use, and don't come close to the user-friendliness of windows or mac os x. i usually am a linux apologist (especially to those who knock it) but there's no use BSing a crowd of linux users. the UI sucks. and i'm sure a bunch of 13 year olds who just installed red hat 7 on their parents old PII-350 are going to rebut saying i don't know what i'm talking about... but from a CS student's perspective, the UI needs a LOT of help.
people still use P2P programs? wow. i don't know a single person who does, mainly because of the RIAA danger, and you can't find what you want anymore... it used to be "Search, click, download" and you're instantly getting what you want, its impossible nowadays on P2P networks (except bittorrent, but i hate the sudden criminalization of it) to get a single song you want in less than half an hour, and if you do, you might have the RIAA sending a legal notice to your door. i think people are shying away from p2p and moving to more legal methods. look at how many people are using rhapsody, napster, and itunes music store. i haven't used a p2p app to download anything copyrighted in over a year, and neither has anyone i know. my friends and i used to trade MP3's, but now we make trips to the local CD store together. maybe because i'm a musician, i realized after the whole P2P hayday with RIAA that its not worth it. but to say that P2P is more widely used now than ever, and growing? i find that hard to believe.
exactly why i vote republican. republicans aren't racist, for the larger majority of them. this is a common misconception among democrats and others. after all, it was the republican party (not the dixiecrats) that has stood up for african americans and other races all along, but i'm focusing on african americans here. somewhere in the 70's this switched, despite the republican party standing up for their civil rights in the 60's. and because the republican budget isn't going to give handouts to the non-working (white, black, hispanic, doesnt matter), everyone looks at them as racist. it doesn't make sense. but regardless, that's why i don't support affirmative action, because it is the definition of reverse discrimination. even my african american roommate thinks that affirmative action is racist.
/. looks A LOT nicer on safari. camino, firefox, mozilla, etc. needs GOOD font smoothing on OS X.
$500 is a small price to pay for a software product that works as well as it does. if you haven't used remote desktop, it might seem like a steep price to pay. but if i had a number of machines to manage, $500 would save a lot of money in IT costs by controlling all of them from one computer. Remote Desktop isn't JUST VNC. also, this isn't aimed for consumers, it's aimed for businesses and education.
i am just like you. but i recommend for you to not look at it like you are entering the beginning of the rest of your life. thats a crock of **** that they feed you in high school. who you define yourself as in high school has more of an impact in who you are later on, because in high school, for the most part, you're still growing. college is fun, its free (as in freedom), its exciting... but not something extraspectacular that should be revered. and plus, the whole idea of college is that the "bright" people go on to further their education, while the not-so-bright ones get jobs. so you're going to be around people who are MUCH BRIGHTER THAN YOU. so my advice is don't think about it. be who you are already, act as you already do, and if you dont do good in something, try something else. who cares.
why would you rather be playing video games than seeing your girlfriend? man, i would much rather enjoy the presence of a woman than that.
/.er, but i'm not blind.
i mean, i'm a
i've tried the whole linux-on-a-mac thing many times, and on the older machines, its hardcore. mac os 9, IMO, sucks really hard, so running Debian on a PowerMac 7500 (i think that was the model) was really cool, and brought extended functionality to that aged old-world machine. but gentoo/debian/yellowdog instead of mac os x on a desktop? i don't think its worth it. maybe for cluster computing, or servers, or whatnot to avoid licensing issues. but i think those that honestly think linux is better and/or more functional than mac os x on the same machine are smoking something that, if not already, should be made illegal (or government sanctioned). user interface? osx wins hardware compatibility? osx wins, it was made for the hardware after all multimedia? osx wins software availability and ease of use? osx wins again the only area where i could think that you would want to use linux over os x is if you are a linux developer and NEED full compatibility with hardware-related procedures, or if you are a 13 year old kid who got a mac, dont feel like learning OS X (which takes the better part of a measely hour), and think you're gonna be l33t by running a "free" os rather than mac os. if thats the case, go for it. but IMHO you're wasting your time. especially with a fully-functional GCC, xcode, X11, terminal, and BSD base.
and then the left would find some word that looks like "God" in it when you blur your vision and not only allow the banning, but disallow it from being in any Courthouse :-)
add in the cost of a few-terabyte SAN storage system, and recalculate. they aren't going to be dividing 1.7GB pictures onto 700MB CD-Rs.
aye, but microsoft office is (IMO) infinitely easier to use, easier to look at, and more familiar to me, considering my windows background. you do get what you pay for. but what bothers me is people supporting openoffice.org on the mac. i have used the X11 version, and won't use it again until there is a native cocoa version.
i believe the topic at hand is fragmentation, not how well it works as a filesystem. in that regard, FAT32 and NTFS do have horrible problems with fragmentation, while HFS+ defragments on the fly.
i don't feel like searching through the million comments on this topic, but people like you fail to understand that Mac OS X does not *need* "right-clicking". I know, its a foreign concept to you. But on windows, say you want to change your wallpaper. you can either right-click the desktop and go to properties, or you can go start/settings/control panel/desktop, which is more of a PITA. but on mac os x, control-clicking the desktop and choosing "change wallpaper" is about as fast as clicking system preferences in the dock and clicking "Desktop". you aren't saving yourself time, you aren't gaining anything from control-clicking. only on a few instances (i.e. saving images from web pages) do you need to control-click, and that doesnt justify a multibutton mouse (and saving images can be done by dragging the image from the website into a folder, not requiring a control-click at all). if you're running linux on your mac, yes, you might find a multibutton mouse useful. and games? yes. but 99% of apple consumers do not *need* a multibutton mouse like you would think. get past your train of thought that multibutton mice are the norm -- in fact, they are a cheap cop out for good user-interface ease-of-use design.
1. GarageBand isn't open source, and I have rarely seen Apple products on Freshmeat. 2. You must be a new /.er to not realize that updates to Apple applications make the Apple section quite frequently, and yes, we do care about the updates.
right now i think it is just personal preference. i still use apache 1.3 on my macs because its what comes with OS X 10.3, and i don't feel like upgrading. and i'm doing all my development in PHP 5 and MySQL 5 now (due to the fact that by the time i'm done with what i'm writing, they will be stable) and PHP 5 works beautifully with 1.3. so no, i don't feel the need to upgrade. on linux, i toy around with 2.0, but i'm just so familiar with 1.3, it makes it easier. and multithreading and support for BeOS and OS/2 isn't reason enough to make me upgrade.
for any of you that have tried to compile mod_mono 0.9 with the apple GCC and apache 1.3 stock installs, you may notice that it fails on "sudo make install" because it compiles it to a dylib instead of a so. here's a workaround: cd mod_mono-0.9/src; apxs -c -o libmod_mono.so -DAPACHE13 -I../include/ -I/usr/include/httpd/ mod_mono.c; apxs -i -a -n mono libmod_mono.so
i really dont understand what everyone's problem with metadata stuff is in the first place. (i'm not talking to the parent poster here...) if you're using illegally downloaded songs, you deserve to have to go through and fix the metadata. most of my music is legal, and when you import it from CD, or if you imported it with atleast a semi-decent program, it reads the metadata for you from the ID3 tags and fixes it itself. its REALLY not that big of a deal. unless, of course, you're a leech to society and steal music online and have a database of thousands of badly-formatted ID3 MP3 files... BTW, parent, what OS are you talking about? MacOS or Windows? i can see your argument either way i guess