But since the system requirements says you need a mac for the software what will you say when the EULA inform you that was the case? It's like buying a Xbox360 game and complain that it doesn't run on my DS, they better fix that!
And in the case of OS X even if you can use vanilla kernel on some systems they are all modified so then you have modified/crack the software to run on something else, which isn't legal is it?
... and it is ok to earn money. If you don't want the product or think it's worth the price don't buy it. Or in the case you can steal/pirate/... it just do that and live with it, but don't pretend you have the RIGHT to do it or tell something else their prices are wrong / force them to change it.
It's not like you go to your local supermarket and say "omg wtf these apples are way to expensive, I'll only pay half that" and just leave them with that amount of money and leave? It doesn't work that way. If you don't like the price don't buy them and live without them, or in the case someone else sell similair apples for a better price buy theirs.
But I have to say that sometimes it's rather convenient when I get things like new firmwares for my battery1!!, EFI, new graphics drivers and so on thru their software update. It's not like Windows (last time I checked, Linux and Solaris even less) yells and tell me: There are a new BIOS update for your motherboard, and a new firmware for your DVD-player and let me install them, and if there was the suggestions may be of worse versions when the ones you already had. With Apple soft- and hardware this can and is done and even thought I haven't noticed any difference and on a normal PC maybe it wouldn't had mattered it was done and I didn't had to do anything to find the updates or try to find out if there was any.
And people in millions are buying OS X beliving it would work on their PCs and complain how they got fooled into beliving that? Especially when the system requirements says that it's for a mac? If you don't have a mac you shouldn't had bought it. If you didn't read big fucking sign over the apple tree plants informing you that you wheren't allowed to eat their fruit you shouldn't had bought them either. Atleast if you wanted the fruit...
I guess you could have a case if people thought OS X was for any machine and then found out in the EULA it wouldn't work on theirs. But it's not like it's a hidden secret that it's for macs only.. The box and their webpage says so.
Or to strike over the part where I should give you 10.000 $ in a contract and replace it with similair text where you should give me 10.000 $, then sign it and pretend it's all good and legal? (I guess it is if both partners put their name on it later, but in this case Apple doesn't approve your changed license, so it's just like you change it after I've already put my name there.)
See the hardware as a license to use it, and the box as an updated software for using with that license. The box doesn't give you the license to use it (on it's own atleast), but just offer a newer version. The price are 129 because for everyone with a mac it's just an update of the OS and everyone have already paid extra for a mac and for the OS once. If it didn't worked like this the OS would probably retail for much more. Like $500. And then Apple would have to support more hardware and issues and not being able to sell their more expensive hardware (which are their choice, it's their hardware and software you know... If you don't like it don't buy it, it's up to you, but you can't just say that you have the RIGHT to their property.)
To fix your analogy it's more like throwing up a pair of cables on the power grid and say you don't want to pay a fee for grid access and installation because you did it yourself, so now you only want to pay for the electricity. Even thought everyone else are there already paying for the power grid to exist at all.
If OS X was sold at a uhm "self cost price" I would agree with you, but now I really doubt the number of retail sales of OS X multiplied with the cost / box really covers the development cost of the software. Even less with any profit. (And still, even if it did it's not for us to decide what it should sell for or how it should be sold. I guess Microsoft earns quite a lot on Windows sales aswell...)
According to my pirate reasoning that doesn't matter since it doesn't cost more for Apple to put the software on more machines, so it makes no sense to remove it/not give it to you. You will still be paying for it thought, but it's probably not many dollars. I guess bundling is like pirating, only in reverse. Instead of limiting the information flow and have people "stealing" the product and make less money of it you have unlimited information flow but everyone have to pay and you make more money;D
Anyway, do I use garageband, iDVD or iPhoto? No. I'd probably use iPhoto if I couldn't pirate better apps thought;D
I'd argue it's a huge difference of generic pos hardware in a huge case and a special designed pos hardware in a much smaller case. For most buyers, girls especially, if offered the mac mini vs the random case for a similair price or small price difference there would be no chance they would take the random case.
I don't know how they do it nowadays since I own a genuine mac and don't have to run a hack but the latest "OS X86" DVDs mention that you can run a vanilla kernel on atleast some machines, I have no idea which ones and why. Anyway you are even supposed to be able to run a software update and it will still just works(TM.) I guess that you atleast needs a SSE3 Intel CPU for that, if there are any special chipset requirements or such I have no idea.
I see dust and spots yes, but probably only because it's sharp and clear from the begining. I doubt id prefer to not see it because the screen was so "dirty"/noisy/unclear on it's own.
I have none of these problems, I wonder if it's because I live in the dark (..;D) or because they are different good. My screen "zoom in" my face reflection, do they all do that? Or maybe some screen dont/zoom out and I guess that they will pick upp more ambient light sources then, but in narrower areas.
Uhm, what does TN have to do with ClearType? Won't cleartype work similair with all TFT-technologies? Or do they arrange the pixels differently? I guess cleartype are made for LCD and not CRT atleast?
Anyway I'm on a mac, and I like the sub pixel rendering, I just wish screens had 200 dpi or more. Or that this MBP 15.4" came with atleast 1680x1050 and preferably 1920x1200, but no no, Apple have to force me to buy 1440x900. Apple should become a software company, or one of both. And no, I don't buy this "omg it works so good because they have control over both hardware and software"-bullshit, the hacks works rather good aswell, and would work better if Apple didn't tried to not make them work... And they could have a limited amount of supported hardware for others to choose from.
So then it doesn't filter shit but just that matte throws out light all over the place raising black levels/noise so to speak and limiting contrast? Yeah that seems great! Both of the have their flaws, and both work better under more optimum lightning conditions, but I guess in a room without any disturbing light glossy will win because it doesn't spread it's own light atleast.
Yeah, when I wake up and have my macbook pro on the bed and turn it on I have to pull the brightness down to like the lowest setting aswell because it's so hard to look at it if I don't:)
You will see mirror or focused bright spots on a glossy display, and you will have large "shades" (highlights? strobes?) of bright light corrupting a bigger area of the display on a matte one instead because it spreads the light. Your choice. Neither will look good thought, a reflective screen would look better.
And on desktops aswell people don't have a fucking clue so everyone and their dog buy shitty TN-panels all the fucking time so it's not like some glare will bother them. A matte or glossy TN-panel won't matter at all since THEY BOTH SUCK.
I don't mind glossy, my macbook pro works nice. I do mind TN thought. I want a IPS panel which aren't to expensive, glossy or not doesn't matter. Should have bought the Nec WGX2Pro when it was cheaper, but I had the Dell WXP2007 at home but the anti-glare coating of that one was like staring at a grease dustfilled window. I'd so much rather have a glossy one than that piece of shit.
All laptops except whatever Thinkpad it was only offer TN-panels so viewing angles will suck on all of them. I doubt this have shit to do with the screen having an anti-glare coating or not.
Any source for this? AFAIK matte distributes glare over a bigger surface and in more directions which makes it less of a mirror but also disturbs more of the surface, it also spread lightning from the pixels in whatever directions. Sure glossy will make it more like a mirror but atleast the glare and concentrated to a few spots, and the light will travel more straight forward against you (doesn't it? Maybe that affect viewing angles, but I doubt it since specs seems to be similair, TN-panels sucks major ass anyway, no matter what if they are glossy or mate, Nec 20WGX2Pro are glossy IPS and it probably still have 178 degree viewing angle...)
Anyway I have a Macbook Pro glossy and it doesn't bother me, but then I haven't seen or compared it with a matte one since noone sells macs here.
And in Bulgaria, at least in major cities, there are tons of ISPs that are selling Ethernet connectivity. I'm paying 20 EUR/30 USD per month for 20 Mbit to everywhere and 40 Mbit to in country sites ( traffic is not limited, neither is bittorrent use ) As it should be then:)
I don't have stadnat, I still have Bredbandsbolaget.
100 mbps down / 10 mbps up for 320 sek / month.
Was 10/10 since feb 2000 or was that 2002? for 200 sek. But then they raised it to 320 sek and offered 100/100 as an alternative for 895 sek or whatever it was with a cap at 300 GB or something and additional payments for each additional 100 GB. Now they don't offer 100/100 longer but 100 down and 10 up for everyone instead. But personally I think 320 sek are quite expensive, especially since I don't download much stuff and IRC are dead nowadays which was why I needed it anyway.
But then again with cable you only get 256 kbps for 99 sek, so that suck. I hate the guy/team/company/university/whatever which invented xDSL, and especially ADSL. Crappy Internet onnections to everyone!! Hurray!
They should have got fiber to everyone, kill the old copper telephone network, not built any new air broadcasting antennas for digital TV and just run it all over fiber to everyone. DVB looks like shit to begin with, sure it's "sharp", but there are artifacts all over the place.
And now someone will complain that the Internet aren't good for broadcasting, well, then fix that!
Fiber to everyone in Sweden was affordable at around 50 billion sek, stupid politicans which didn't took the plunge.
I have no idea where you live, maybe you could have had fiber in all homes in the USA instead of war in Iraq?;D
Slashdot Mirror
But since the system requirements says you need a mac for the software what will you say when the EULA inform you that was the case? It's like buying a Xbox360 game and complain that it doesn't run on my DS, they better fix that!
And in the case of OS X even if you can use vanilla kernel on some systems they are all modified so then you have modified/crack the software to run on something else, which isn't legal is it?
... and it is ok to earn money. If you don't want the product or think it's worth the price don't buy it. Or in the case you can steal/pirate/... it just do that and live with it, but don't pretend you have the RIGHT to do it or tell something else their prices are wrong / force them to change it.
It's not like you go to your local supermarket and say "omg wtf these apples are way to expensive, I'll only pay half that" and just leave them with that amount of money and leave? It doesn't work that way. If you don't like the price don't buy them and live without them, or in the case someone else sell similair apples for a better price buy theirs.
But I have to say that sometimes it's rather convenient when I get things like new firmwares for my battery1!!, EFI, new graphics drivers and so on thru their software update. It's not like Windows (last time I checked, Linux and Solaris even less) yells and tell me: There are a new BIOS update for your motherboard, and a new firmware for your DVD-player and let me install them, and if there was the suggestions may be of worse versions when the ones you already had. With Apple soft- and hardware this can and is done and even thought I haven't noticed any difference and on a normal PC maybe it wouldn't had mattered it was done and I didn't had to do anything to find the updates or try to find out if there was any.
And people in millions are buying OS X beliving it would work on their PCs and complain how they got fooled into beliving that? Especially when the system requirements says that it's for a mac? If you don't have a mac you shouldn't had bought it. If you didn't read big fucking sign over the apple tree plants informing you that you wheren't allowed to eat their fruit you shouldn't had bought them either. Atleast if you wanted the fruit ...
I guess you could have a case if people thought OS X was for any machine and then found out in the EULA it wouldn't work on theirs. But it's not like it's a hidden secret that it's for macs only.. The box and their webpage says so.
CPU, 120$
mobo, what? 60$?
2GB DDR2, 53$
ugly lowend case, 50$
DVD-burner, 35$
--
318 $
Estimates on some items and without shipping.
Or to strike over the part where I should give you 10.000 $ in a contract and replace it with similair text where you should give me 10.000 $, then sign it and pretend it's all good and legal? (I guess it is if both partners put their name on it later, but in this case Apple doesn't approve your changed license, so it's just like you change it after I've already put my name there.)
Good luck with that.
See the hardware as a license to use it, and the box as an updated software for using with that license. The box doesn't give you the license to use it (on it's own atleast), but just offer a newer version. The price are 129 because for everyone with a mac it's just an update of the OS and everyone have already paid extra for a mac and for the OS once. If it didn't worked like this the OS would probably retail for much more. Like $500. And then Apple would have to support more hardware and issues and not being able to sell their more expensive hardware (which are their choice, it's their hardware and software you know ... If you don't like it don't buy it, it's up to you, but you can't just say that you have the RIGHT to their property.)
...)
To fix your analogy it's more like throwing up a pair of cables on the power grid and say you don't want to pay a fee for grid access and installation because you did it yourself, so now you only want to pay for the electricity. Even thought everyone else are there already paying for the power grid to exist at all.
If OS X was sold at a uhm "self cost price" I would agree with you, but now I really doubt the number of retail sales of OS X multiplied with the cost / box really covers the development cost of the software. Even less with any profit. (And still, even if it did it's not for us to decide what it should sell for or how it should be sold. I guess Microsoft earns quite a lot on Windows sales aswell
According to my pirate reasoning that doesn't matter since it doesn't cost more for Apple to put the software on more machines, so it makes no sense to remove it/not give it to you. You will still be paying for it thought, but it's probably not many dollars. I guess bundling is like pirating, only in reverse. Instead of limiting the information flow and have people "stealing" the product and make less money of it you have unlimited information flow but everyone have to pay and you make more money ;D
;D
Anyway, do I use garageband, iDVD or iPhoto? No. I'd probably use iPhoto if I couldn't pirate better apps thought
iTunes and iMovie I actually use.
I'd argue it's a huge difference of generic pos hardware in a huge case and a special designed pos hardware in a much smaller case. For most buyers, girls especially, if offered the mac mini vs the random case for a similair price or small price difference there would be no chance they would take the random case.
I don't have one, not retarded enough to buy an iPod. I do however have a Macbook Pro.
Nah, only unmodified genuine branded expensive as hell POS hardware will work.
Afaik macs have serial numbers
About this mac, more info, machine hardware or whatever it may be called in english list a serial number. So uhm, probably not.
May be software only, and easily "hacked"/switched.
I don't know how they do it nowadays since I own a genuine mac and don't have to run a hack but the latest "OS X86" DVDs mention that you can run a vanilla kernel on atleast some machines, I have no idea which ones and why. Anyway you are even supposed to be able to run a software update and it will still just works(TM.) I guess that you atleast needs a SSE3 Intel CPU for that, if there are any special chipset requirements or such I have no idea.
Yeah, this surprised me to, so I searched for JAVA and look what I found!
Anyway.
JAVA short for JAva Video & Audio.
I see dust and spots yes, but probably only because it's sharp and clear from the begining. I doubt id prefer to not see it because the screen was so "dirty"/noisy/unclear on it's own.
;D) or because they are different good. My screen "zoom in" my face reflection, do they all do that? Or maybe some screen dont/zoom out and I guess that they will pick upp more ambient light sources then, but in narrower areas.
I have none of these problems, I wonder if it's because I live in the dark (..
Uhm, what does TN have to do with ClearType? Won't cleartype work similair with all TFT-technologies? Or do they arrange the pixels differently? I guess cleartype are made for LCD and not CRT atleast?
... And they could have a limited amount of supported hardware for others to choose from.
Anyway I'm on a mac, and I like the sub pixel rendering, I just wish screens had 200 dpi or more. Or that this MBP 15.4" came with atleast 1680x1050 and preferably 1920x1200, but no no, Apple have to force me to buy 1440x900. Apple should become a software company, or one of both. And no, I don't buy this "omg it works so good because they have control over both hardware and software"-bullshit, the hacks works rather good aswell, and would work better if Apple didn't tried to not make them work
Windows subpixelrendering are broken thought =P
So then it doesn't filter shit but just that matte throws out light all over the place raising black levels/noise so to speak and limiting contrast? Yeah that seems great! Both of the have their flaws, and both work better under more optimum lightning conditions, but I guess in a room without any disturbing light glossy will win because it doesn't spread it's own light atleast.
:)
Yeah, when I wake up and have my macbook pro on the bed and turn it on I have to pull the brightness down to like the lowest setting aswell because it's so hard to look at it if I don't
You will see mirror or focused bright spots on a glossy display, and you will have large "shades" (highlights? strobes?) of bright light corrupting a bigger area of the display on a matte one instead because it spreads the light. Your choice. Neither will look good thought, a reflective screen would look better.
And on desktops aswell people don't have a fucking clue so everyone and their dog buy shitty TN-panels all the fucking time so it's not like some glare will bother them. A matte or glossy TN-panel won't matter at all since THEY BOTH SUCK.
I don't mind glossy, my macbook pro works nice. I do mind TN thought. I want a IPS panel which aren't to expensive, glossy or not doesn't matter. Should have bought the Nec WGX2Pro when it was cheaper, but I had the Dell WXP2007 at home but the anti-glare coating of that one was like staring at a grease dustfilled window. I'd so much rather have a glossy one than that piece of shit.
No I had an Amiga ;)
All laptops except whatever Thinkpad it was only offer TN-panels so viewing angles will suck on all of them. I doubt this have shit to do with the screen having an anti-glare coating or not.
Any source for this? AFAIK matte distributes glare over a bigger surface and in more directions which makes it less of a mirror but also disturbs more of the surface, it also spread lightning from the pixels in whatever directions. Sure glossy will make it more like a mirror but atleast the glare and concentrated to a few spots, and the light will travel more straight forward against you (doesn't it? Maybe that affect viewing angles, but I doubt it since specs seems to be similair, TN-panels sucks major ass anyway, no matter what if they are glossy or mate, Nec 20WGX2Pro are glossy IPS and it probably still have 178 degree viewing angle ...)
Anyway I have a Macbook Pro glossy and it doesn't bother me, but then I haven't seen or compared it with a matte one since noone sells macs here.
1024 250mW cores consumes 256 W! ;D
I don't have stadnat, I still have Bredbandsbolaget.
;D
100 mbps down / 10 mbps up for 320 sek / month.
Was 10/10 since feb 2000 or was that 2002? for 200 sek. But then they raised it to 320 sek and offered 100/100 as an alternative for 895 sek or whatever it was with a cap at 300 GB or something and additional payments for each additional 100 GB. Now they don't offer 100/100 longer but 100 down and 10 up for everyone instead.
But personally I think 320 sek are quite expensive, especially since I don't download much stuff and IRC are dead nowadays which was why I needed it anyway.
But then again with cable you only get 256 kbps for 99 sek, so that suck. I hate the guy/team/company/university/whatever which invented xDSL, and especially ADSL. Crappy Internet onnections to everyone!! Hurray!
They should have got fiber to everyone, kill the old copper telephone network, not built any new air broadcasting antennas for digital TV and just run it all over fiber to everyone. DVB looks like shit to begin with, sure it's "sharp", but there are artifacts all over the place.
And now someone will complain that the Internet aren't good for broadcasting, well, then fix that!
Fiber to everyone in Sweden was affordable at around 50 billion sek, stupid politicans which didn't took the plunge.
I have no idea where you live, maybe you could have had fiber in all homes in the USA instead of war in Iraq?