That list is getting shorter... and with MS "inside" the new players, even more rare, I'll bet.
That's why I spend my $20 and buy a Cyberhome DVD player. Remove region-coding, macrovision, and whatnot. Then, if they insist on making me watch ads, rip the DVD and watch the movie only.
Fair use is fair use. No matter how much they want to kill it.
Indeed. I think they want to keep that trend going upwards, and IBM couldn't deliver.
In regards to the greater idea of Trusted Computing, why would anyone think that Apple needs Intel for this? They build their own hardware. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were intent on making some sort of "big media" friendly boxes, they'd already have done so, before the PC crowd? (As they often do... like USB-only) Apple doesn't need a chip vendor for Trusted Computing.
Jobs has already said there can be no technological solution to a moral problem. He's not interested in doing any more than the absolute minimum required to keep media companies from dragging Apple to court every time they release a product, because the RIAA/MPAA are afraid of change (like the VCR.) It's a godawful shame that movie and album conglomerates can claim their horseshit product is somehow vital to the world and is constanly in jeopardy from evil bastard consumers. Who friggin' cares? They'd rather sue everyone into oblivion. Hope they like oblivion. Keep alienating their customers and they're likely to be there sooner than later.
Nah, who am I kidding? Make a shiny, new movie retread of something done last week and people flock to it like it's a cure for cancer.
EVERY computer company is becoming a "media" company instead of just selling PCs. They are just expanding their business beyond simply laptops and desktops. Selling computers alone these days is not necessarily a growth business.
Ever get a Dell catalog in the mail? (I haven't bought one since 1997, and I still get catalogs.) Dell sells TELEVISIONS. No company can be pinned down today simply a "computer maker" anymore. Even though Dell isn't even in the same league as Apple, I use them as an example of how companies across the board are no longer only about the grey boxes.
IBM farmed out their home computers. Sony has a computer division, but is much more of a "media company" than Apple will ever be. HP sells printers too. So the "clone" builders are more like your vision of Apple than even Apple. (Sony's got their own online music store too...)
Apple never wanted to compete in the "clone" sector. They tried, and nearly went under. Nowadays, their computers aren't priced to the lowest common denominator Wal-Mart shoppers, but are made for a different audience. ("fanatics" you might say...)
Apple's business is still computers, but it encompasses what a computer has become more than a transition AWAY from them. Don't kid yourself, EVERY commercial hardware vendor is going to make their equipment "play nice" wit the media companies. Not just Apple. It's the fault of bought politcians, judges, and everyone who continues to feed the fat fucking bastards known as "commercial media companies." The entire industrialized world has put a higher importance upon entertainment above everything else. Apple, Sony, IBM, Dell, HP, Gateway, Toshiba, etc. are just reflecting and perpetuating that idiotic notion.
Not to feed the AC, but a Mac Mini has a 4200 rpm laptop drive... it's not MEANT to be blazingly fast. Pop a faster rpm drive in there and see how fast a mini will go.
I've used a mini in stores, and it doesn't seem all that sluggish... now if you're digitizing video or something, I'm sure you'll notice the lack of speed, but then again, the Mini's not meant for that anyway.
You get what you pay for. Pay more, you get faster response. Same for the Windoze world.
My G4 is almost 5 years old and runs like a scalded cat. And my G5 is also damn fast. (And it compresses DVDs in no time...)
Seriously though, I've had little issue with sluggishness in OS X since 10.0.4 (my first version of OS X).....some people are just addicted to speed, I guess. heh.
And truthfully, the PR spin by the media conglomerates makes it seem that they've won a decisive victory against all those "evil bastard pirates." They won nothing, but they're not telling.:)
It is news because it now applies the "accessory", "contributory", and "accomplice" sort of legality to things on the internet.
That hadn't happened before. It sets a precedent. Now people cannot simply claim "common carrier" or "there's no way to know" status every time someone sues them for their service becoming a bed of "infringement"...
It wasn't as simple as the bank robbery recruiting activity. There are legitimate uses for P2P. The court could've labeled P2P as being promoted for "infringement", and then all items that can be classified as P2P would be considered criminal, even though they may not have been intended for such a purpose. Thankfully, they limited their scope to Grokster and Morpheus (iirc), and thereby not effectively "outlawing" P2P.
BitTorrent has tons of infringing activities (you can google them for yourself.) The key isn't whether it CAUSES mass piracy, but that if it is DESIGNED and PROMOTED to cause piracy. Big difference. Read the ruling.
This sort of misinformation is what is causing so much confusion about the ruling. Seriously, people. Read a little bit and don't rely on the evening news to give you the summary. EVERY news outlet got it WRONG in their broadcasts.
If more users demanded support for the cards in the OS they choose (other than Windows...) Perhaps it would be a moot point and drivers would be fine for both windows and XP. And such support won't affect die-hard windows users, because they don't even have to open the linux folder on the driver CD. If people ask, and ask some more, everyone wins. But silence breeds complacent companies and their ineffective, half-hearted, and windows-centric attitudes. Why should Linux be unsupported because it's free?
To be blunt, usability sometimes is a function of the users getting fed up with half-assed attempts and vendor lock-in. There is no excuse for not supporting Linux these days... there's enough of a userbase to make it worth companies' while.
Even Mac users have to raise hell about banking support and the like. Seems that supporting Windows is "good enough" these days... and the solution is of course to hold the companies' collective feet to the fire until they realize that Windows is not the only game in town. Supporting only one OS when there are more viable alternatives is just lazy....:)
In a town of less than 30,000 people, we support 2 cable companies. The 2nd, municipally-owned cable service is precisely why Comcast even offered broadband. And it's quite competitive locally. Comcast sat on their fat asses claiming "need more equipment" for almost 5 years after buying up our town's cable service from a tiny provider out of Georgia, and the within a week after the vote to allow municipally owned cable internet service passed, Comcast offered it citywide. Sure was quick of them to get the equipment. Yeah... equipment my ass.
Simply put, just about everywhere can support more than one provider, but the competitor can't get the entrenched carrier customers to change, because there's not all THAT much you can compete with on cable besides more channels and cheaper prices. (that I can think of...)
So in effect, a generally FA approved cable service in a given town is a de-facto monopoly by the very result that people are unwilling to change for $5 discounts and free box rentals. (Most of the time, I mean.) Though the Dish is pissing off Comcast a bit... they advertise heavily about "ditching the dish", so I think it's working to get them to provide some level of service and support to lure customers.
Usually, in the case of the competitor actually doing well in a market (I remember my hometown in Florida having 2 providers, and almost 3 depending on the county), the leader simply buys up the other companies and becomes a sole provider in the community. Service went down, prices went up, and quality was sporadic for quite some time after that. Don't know how well it works now, but I can safely say that back in the early 90's... it wasn't so hot.
Just because it's not granted exclusivity by the FA, doesn't mean it doesn't attain most of the features of one that is. The semantics here is whether or not the FA specifically says exclusivity. (And some smaller communities actually does grant that... though not many.) But without competition, it's the phone companies all over again. Here's to hoping more communities can scare comcast with their own cable service.:)
I actually have a few other players. The iPod just works better for me. I didn't think it would, basically because of the price. I got a 2nd-gen 10GB model (no dock connector), and haven't had a problem since. I replaced the battery ($39) a few months ago, and it's running better than ever.
The other models of MP3 players I tried were some Rio model that I took back to the store after the knob broke off on the side in only a week. And the Nomad Jukebox... a power-hungry mess that had issues with my G4 (until they updated the firmware 2 more times.) Before the firmware update, I could only transfer 2 songs at a time from iTunes (which recognized it fine) without it locking up.
Eh... nice concept... BIG, but not cool.
My friend recently got a Zen Micro (white IIRC), and was very happy to show it to me, since it's been a while since I bought an MP3 player. So he's showing me all the ins and outs, and the thing locks up on him twice. The second time, he can't reboot it to fix it. *shrug* I'll keep my iPod. They've not made anything remotely as good to replace it yet.
When they do, and it's cheap, I will still probably buy an iPod.;) It's like a family car that is reliable. Why change when what you have works so well?
Its not about marketing, or I'd have not tried the others first.... or been open to trying a Creative Zen Micro...
I think that compatibility is a losing strategy for anyone competing in the same arena (price for price) as Office. However, since this is free software, open source projects like OpenOffice don't have to worry about luring customers within a certain time frame. (before the funding runs out, or something like that.)
Maybe that can be the advantage another non-free suite would not have in the market. With MS going to XML document formats, perhaps compatibility can become more reliable and less like the hell it is now between Office versions. (I won't hold my breath, though... heheheh)
Microsoft frequently breaks backwards compatibility with its suite, so in competing with itself (versions) Office never is 100% either.
I've always thought that Office 97 was the right mix of features and reliability, and things brought out after it were becoming just fat and bloated. Maybe that can be the feature set to shoot for. *shrug*
In the realm of "as good as office"... there are plenty of small organizations, as well as individuals, that never use the "high" end functions of Office.. (more importantly, those that give the Open Source Office suites fits when trying to import the documents.) Those groups would benefit from the alternatives more than an entrenched, giant organization that relies on certain aspects of the Office format (revision histories and that sort of thing.) I think in that group, it is better. It's cheaper for one, and it does what most casual users of office suites need it to do.
And in those offices or homes, as long as its able to save in a format others might be able to open, I think they couldn't care less what icon they pushed to get there.:) Thus we all benefit. Microsoft is kept on its toes making Office better because there is something that can take away their market share, and users can choose between competing suites to find one that best suits their style.
I also think the reason this works now on the Apple platform more than it ever has is due to the demographic of Apple users expanding from the non-techie base. OS X has made it more "geek friendly" and by the same token, made it more of a platform that can benefit from choices offered by the Open Source Community. Sure there are those who will always choose MS Office over any alternative. But that doesn't represent everyone, and with the expanding, diversifying base of Apple users, it won't have to.
But I do agree with your point that there are users who won't care. Just that I think there are more and more users who will (and do) care, all thanks to the Unix underpinnings of OS X.
THIS is the only case I'm talking about. NOT anything else. NOTHING ELSE ABOUT APPLE'S PATENTS CONCERN THIS CASE. Not their use of dead babies to secure patents, their use of Santa Ria to silence rivals, or their use of little green men to enforce licenses. NOTHING of the sort has to do with THIS PATENT.
You want to turn this into an indictment of Apple's patent stance. It's NOT about that. I am looking at THIS PATENT claim.
You hate Apple. We get that. That fact has NOTHING TO DO with THIS particular issue.
Get over the hatred of Apple. I don't see you villifying Microsoft for the SAME behavior. I don't like Apple's stance on patents... as I have stated already. THIS is NOT one of the times APPLE is doing something wrong, IMO, and it does reflect a prime example of why patents need to be reformed... nothing more to see here. If you want to argue Apple's stance on patents, I don't care.
Do you actually read these posts? Are you missing the point? Obviously.
End of thread. You are not listening. I am tired of feeding the troll.
Explain to me how this is original? Like the threads have said ad nauseum, this has been seen in numerous prior systems dating as far back as the Commodore 64. Albeit more primitive, of course, but the idea's not new.
His idea is tied to working with player pianos anyway, if I read that correctly.
Why would I boycott anything? I never advocated boycotting anyone for this. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Coke, Pepsi, and everyone else on the planet that has patents abuse them at some point or another.
Do you boycott Microsoft because they tried to enforce their "brand" recognition with Lindows?
When Apple abused the patent system in this fashion against Microsoft, they were soundly defeated. I hope this happens to this fellow, because it is no different. You seem to have a bias against Apple that clouds the issue. Apple isn't guilty of abusing their patents NOW, this guy is. What Apple did in the past with patents has no bearing on what is being done to them in this particular case.
That is not to say I won't be angry with Apple if they abuse a patent or the process. But because I am defending what is right in this case, you seem to assume I'm an Apple apologist.
I realize there are Apple fans who would defend Jobs' use of dead babies as heat sinks on G5's, but for the most part, even if this was Microsoft, I'd have to say this suit is just another in a long line of money grabs...
In the case of Apple, it would be stifling competition (Or Microsoft, Sun, IBM, HP, AOL, whatever...) This guy's looking to cash in on the success of another company. It's parasitic, childish, and it clogs the court system that is already full of garbage as it is...
That said... when someone uses the patent system as their personal checkbook, I get upset. It's a broken system, and no matter how you use/abuse it, the Patent system needs fixing.
And this guy needs to get over his delusion and take a lesson from TigerDirect on matters such as this.
Nope. They haven't spent millions getting exclusive contracts that short out other competitors... they haven't leveraged their market share to silence any alternative outlets for music (like Microsoft did with OEM deals not allowing any other OS to show up on a PC)...
Sorry, but it's NOT a monopoly.
Hate to break it to you... read up on Microsoft's dealings and what they were convicted of.
They do NOT lock you into a player for music. They only allow music purchased at their store to be used on the iPod.
I can't buy music at Rhapsody, Napster, MSN Music, or any OTHER store. I am locked out.... does that make them monopolies?
I won't bother going into detail about the list you made, because you're nitpicking. I could make an equally long list of XP annoyances. Nothing's perfect for everyone. (Some of the things on the list just require a little more reading of the help files to solve, but you have made up your mind.) That's fine. Whatever makes you happy.
Like the rest of this thread said. Go back to Windows. You prefer it anyway. However, if you overlook the flaws in XP's UI and not OS X, you're nothing but a hypocrite and Windows Fanboy.
And before you fire off a wonderfully articulate "Mac Fanboy"... let me say again: OS X isn't perfect. I like it better than XP by a mile. And one more time for the cheap seats: YMMV.
Then don't listen to them. Try it for yourself. (if you haven't already...) I despise most Mac zealots, but I own a Mac. It's not their preaching that made me try the platform. And their elitism is not why I decided OS X was superior to Windows for my purposes.
I just went to the store and tried OS X. I liked it. I got myself a "previous generation" Powermac and it's been fun ever since.
But I don't listen to Mac Zealots, Linux Zealots, or Windows Zealots.
I don't mind the architecture switch. I can understand the position they were in. I support the decision. I don't care what's inside. It's the OS that I want....
I thought so myself, until I spent 1 month with a Mac (OS X) and didn't "fall back" to Windows. (I had to wait a month, because when I bought my Mac, it still was OS 9 only with a coupon for OS X 10.0.4.) I forget the version, but it was very early on in the OS X life cycle. It was weird at first, and I spent a fair amount of time in OS 9 (Apps were coming, but slowly...), but I loved OS X (and still do.)
I prefer Mac's UI now to anything Microsoft can pump out. Simple as it is, with its flaws (far fewer than XP, I might add), OS X is a better UI. To top it off, it's based on a Unix core, which beats the bloody pants off that so-called "command prompt" that XP has.
I can't speak for anyone else, and as always YMMV. The only thing that MS has put into their desktop is crust.
I recommend abandoning XP for 1 - 3 months and only use OS X. That way you can keep the 'old' habits at bay long enough to appreciate the differences between OS X and XP.
OR it could just be that retards can't keep from clicking on stuff and giving everyone in their address book a virus.
They don't usually block.mac.... that's where I send my personal email...
And per most company policies (unless you work for some barbarian horde), as long as it doesn't interfere with regular business work, a little personal stuff now and again is okay.:)
My guess is the Intel-developed EFI (or whatever it's called) that looks a lot like OpenFirmware......but I've been so wrong about all this in the last few days, I don't even believe myself anymore:) heheheh.
Slashdot Mirror
That list is getting shorter... and with MS "inside" the new players, even more rare, I'll bet.
That's why I spend my $20 and buy a Cyberhome DVD player. Remove region-coding, macrovision, and whatnot. Then, if they insist on making me watch ads, rip the DVD and watch the movie only.
Fair use is fair use. No matter how much they want to kill it.
Wow. Way to be a complete prick. +10 asshole moderation.
Who died and left you in charge?
Or better yet... (from Van Wilder:)
"If you're here... who's running hell?"
Indeed. I think they want to keep that trend going upwards, and IBM couldn't deliver.
In regards to the greater idea of Trusted Computing, why would anyone think that Apple needs Intel for this? They build their own hardware. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were intent on making some sort of "big media" friendly boxes, they'd already have done so, before the PC crowd? (As they often do... like USB-only) Apple doesn't need a chip vendor for Trusted Computing.
Jobs has already said there can be no technological solution to a moral problem. He's not interested in doing any more than the absolute minimum required to keep media companies from dragging Apple to court every time they release a product, because the RIAA/MPAA are afraid of change (like the VCR.) It's a godawful shame that movie and album conglomerates can claim their horseshit product is somehow vital to the world and is constanly in jeopardy from evil bastard consumers. Who friggin' cares? They'd rather sue everyone into oblivion. Hope they like oblivion. Keep alienating their customers and they're likely to be there sooner than later.
Nah, who am I kidding? Make a shiny, new movie retread of something done last week and people flock to it like it's a cure for cancer.
EVERY computer company is becoming a "media" company instead of just selling PCs. They are just expanding their business beyond simply laptops and desktops. Selling computers alone these days is not necessarily a growth business.
Ever get a Dell catalog in the mail? (I haven't bought one since 1997, and I still get catalogs.) Dell sells TELEVISIONS. No company can be pinned down today simply a "computer maker" anymore. Even though Dell isn't even in the same league as Apple, I use them as an example of how companies across the board are no longer only about the grey boxes.
IBM farmed out their home computers. Sony has a computer division, but is much more of a "media company" than Apple will ever be. HP sells printers too. So the "clone" builders are more like your vision of Apple than even Apple. (Sony's got their own online music store too...)
Apple never wanted to compete in the "clone" sector. They tried, and nearly went under. Nowadays, their computers aren't priced to the lowest common denominator Wal-Mart shoppers, but are made for a different audience. ("fanatics" you might say...)
Apple's business is still computers, but it encompasses what a computer has become more than a transition AWAY from them. Don't kid yourself, EVERY commercial hardware vendor is going to make their equipment "play nice" wit the media companies. Not just Apple. It's the fault of bought politcians, judges, and everyone who continues to feed the fat fucking bastards known as "commercial media companies." The entire industrialized world has put a higher importance upon entertainment above everything else. Apple, Sony, IBM, Dell, HP, Gateway, Toshiba, etc. are just reflecting and perpetuating that idiotic notion.
Not to feed the AC, but a Mac Mini has a 4200 rpm laptop drive... it's not MEANT to be blazingly fast. Pop a faster rpm drive in there and see how fast a mini will go.
I've used a mini in stores, and it doesn't seem all that sluggish... now if you're digitizing video or something, I'm sure you'll notice the lack of speed, but then again, the Mini's not meant for that anyway.
You get what you pay for. Pay more, you get faster response. Same for the Windoze world.
My G4 is almost 5 years old and runs like a scalded cat. And my G5 is also damn fast. (And it compresses DVDs in no time...)
Seriously though, I've had little issue with sluggishness in OS X since 10.0.4 (my first version of OS X).
They don't. They have shrewd, soulless greedy capitalists in management. Being shrewd and cutthroat doesn't make one smart.
BIG difference.
That's why you write a big "CANCEL" on the renewal bill and you're done.
They have to honor that.
Problem solved.
Fox News getting it right is painful, indeed.
:)
And truthfully, the PR spin by the media conglomerates makes it seem that they've won a decisive victory against all those "evil bastard pirates." They won nothing, but they're not telling.
It is news because it now applies the "accessory", "contributory", and "accomplice" sort of legality to things on the internet.
That hadn't happened before. It sets a precedent. Now people cannot simply claim "common carrier" or "there's no way to know" status every time someone sues them for their service becoming a bed of "infringement"...
It wasn't as simple as the bank robbery recruiting activity. There are legitimate uses for P2P. The court could've labeled P2P as being promoted for "infringement", and then all items that can be classified as P2P would be considered criminal, even though they may not have been intended for such a purpose. Thankfully, they limited their scope to Grokster and Morpheus (iirc), and thereby not effectively "outlawing" P2P.
BitTorrent has tons of infringing activities (you can google them for yourself.) The key isn't whether it CAUSES mass piracy, but that if it is DESIGNED and PROMOTED to cause piracy. Big difference. Read the ruling.
This sort of misinformation is what is causing so much confusion about the ruling. Seriously, people. Read a little bit and don't rely on the evening news to give you the summary. EVERY news outlet got it WRONG in their broadcasts.
If more users demanded support for the cards in the OS they choose (other than Windows...) Perhaps it would be a moot point and drivers would be fine for both windows and XP. And such support won't affect die-hard windows users, because they don't even have to open the linux folder on the driver CD. If people ask, and ask some more, everyone wins. But silence breeds complacent companies and their ineffective, half-hearted, and windows-centric attitudes. Why should Linux be unsupported because it's free?
:)
To be blunt, usability sometimes is a function of the users getting fed up with half-assed attempts and vendor lock-in. There is no excuse for not supporting Linux these days... there's enough of a userbase to make it worth companies' while.
Even Mac users have to raise hell about banking support and the like. Seems that supporting Windows is "good enough" these days... and the solution is of course to hold the companies' collective feet to the fire until they realize that Windows is not the only game in town. Supporting only one OS when there are more viable alternatives is just lazy....
In a town of less than 30,000 people, we support 2 cable companies. The 2nd, municipally-owned cable service is precisely why Comcast even offered broadband. And it's quite competitive locally. Comcast sat on their fat asses claiming "need more equipment" for almost 5 years after buying up our town's cable service from a tiny provider out of Georgia, and the within a week after the vote to allow municipally owned cable internet service passed, Comcast offered it citywide. Sure was quick of them to get the equipment. Yeah... equipment my ass.
:)
Simply put, just about everywhere can support more than one provider, but the competitor can't get the entrenched carrier customers to change, because there's not all THAT much you can compete with on cable besides more channels and cheaper prices. (that I can think of...)
So in effect, a generally FA approved cable service in a given town is a de-facto monopoly by the very result that people are unwilling to change for $5 discounts and free box rentals. (Most of the time, I mean.) Though the Dish is pissing off Comcast a bit... they advertise heavily about "ditching the dish", so I think it's working to get them to provide some level of service and support to lure customers.
Usually, in the case of the competitor actually doing well in a market (I remember my hometown in Florida having 2 providers, and almost 3 depending on the county), the leader simply buys up the other companies and becomes a sole provider in the community. Service went down, prices went up, and quality was sporadic for quite some time after that. Don't know how well it works now, but I can safely say that back in the early 90's... it wasn't so hot.
Just because it's not granted exclusivity by the FA, doesn't mean it doesn't attain most of the features of one that is. The semantics here is whether or not the FA specifically says exclusivity. (And some smaller communities actually does grant that... though not many.) But without competition, it's the phone companies all over again. Here's to hoping more communities can scare comcast with their own cable service.
I actually have a few other players. The iPod just works better for me. I didn't think it would, basically because of the price. I got a 2nd-gen 10GB model (no dock connector), and haven't had a problem since. I replaced the battery ($39) a few months ago, and it's running better than ever.
;) It's like a family car that is reliable. Why change when what you have works so well?
The other models of MP3 players I tried were some Rio model that I took back to the store after the knob broke off on the side in only a week. And the Nomad Jukebox... a power-hungry mess that had issues with my G4 (until they updated the firmware 2 more times.) Before the firmware update, I could only transfer 2 songs at a time from iTunes (which recognized it fine) without it locking up.
Eh... nice concept... BIG, but not cool.
My friend recently got a Zen Micro (white IIRC), and was very happy to show it to me, since it's been a while since I bought an MP3 player. So he's showing me all the ins and outs, and the thing locks up on him twice. The second time, he can't reboot it to fix it. *shrug* I'll keep my iPod. They've not made anything remotely as good to replace it yet.
When they do, and it's cheap, I will still probably buy an iPod.
Its not about marketing, or I'd have not tried the others first.... or been open to trying a Creative Zen Micro...
I think that compatibility is a losing strategy for anyone competing in the same arena (price for price) as Office. However, since this is free software, open source projects like OpenOffice don't have to worry about luring customers within a certain time frame. (before the funding runs out, or something like that.)
Maybe that can be the advantage another non-free suite would not have in the market. With MS going to XML document formats, perhaps compatibility can become more reliable and less like the hell it is now between Office versions. (I won't hold my breath, though... heheheh)
Microsoft frequently breaks backwards compatibility with its suite, so in competing with itself (versions) Office never is 100% either.
I've always thought that Office 97 was the right mix of features and reliability, and things brought out after it were becoming just fat and bloated. Maybe that can be the feature set to shoot for. *shrug*
In the realm of "as good as office"... there are plenty of small organizations, as well as individuals, that never use the "high" end functions of Office.. (more importantly, those that give the Open Source Office suites fits when trying to import the documents.) Those groups would benefit from the alternatives more than an entrenched, giant organization that relies on certain aspects of the Office format (revision histories and that sort of thing.) I think in that group, it is better. It's cheaper for one, and it does what most casual users of office suites need it to do.
:) Thus we all benefit. Microsoft is kept on its toes making Office better because there is something that can take away their market share, and users can choose between competing suites to find one that best suits their style.
:)
And in those offices or homes, as long as its able to save in a format others might be able to open, I think they couldn't care less what icon they pushed to get there.
I also think the reason this works now on the Apple platform more than it ever has is due to the demographic of Apple users expanding from the non-techie base. OS X has made it more "geek friendly" and by the same token, made it more of a platform that can benefit from choices offered by the Open Source Community. Sure there are those who will always choose MS Office over any alternative. But that doesn't represent everyone, and with the expanding, diversifying base of Apple users, it won't have to.
But I do agree with your point that there are users who won't care. Just that I think there are more and more users who will (and do) care, all thanks to the Unix underpinnings of OS X.
Heck, it's made me a switcher.
Let me clarify:
THIS case is not about Apple abusing its patents.
Do I have to draw you a DIAGRAM?
THIS is the only case I'm talking about. NOT anything else. NOTHING ELSE ABOUT APPLE'S PATENTS CONCERN THIS CASE. Not their use of dead babies to secure patents, their use of Santa Ria to silence rivals, or their use of little green men to enforce licenses. NOTHING of the sort has to do with THIS PATENT.
You want to turn this into an indictment of Apple's patent stance. It's NOT about that. I am looking at THIS PATENT claim.
You hate Apple. We get that. That fact has NOTHING TO DO with THIS particular issue.
Get over the hatred of Apple. I don't see you villifying Microsoft for the SAME behavior. I don't like Apple's stance on patents... as I have stated already. THIS is NOT one of the times APPLE is doing something wrong, IMO, and it does reflect a prime example of why patents need to be reformed... nothing more to see here. If you want to argue Apple's stance on patents, I don't care.
Do you actually read these posts? Are you missing the point? Obviously.
End of thread. You are not listening. I am tired of feeding the troll.
Explain to me how this is original? Like the threads have said ad nauseum, this has been seen in numerous prior systems dating as far back as the Commodore 64. Albeit more primitive, of course, but the idea's not new.
His idea is tied to working with player pianos anyway, if I read that correctly.
Why would I boycott anything? I never advocated boycotting anyone for this. Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Coke, Pepsi, and everyone else on the planet that has patents abuse them at some point or another.
Do you boycott Microsoft because they tried to enforce their "brand" recognition with Lindows?
When Apple abused the patent system in this fashion against Microsoft, they were soundly defeated. I hope this happens to this fellow, because it is no different. You seem to have a bias against Apple that clouds the issue. Apple isn't guilty of abusing their patents NOW, this guy is. What Apple did in the past with patents has no bearing on what is being done to them in this particular case.
That is not to say I won't be angry with Apple if they abuse a patent or the process. But because I am defending what is right in this case, you seem to assume I'm an Apple apologist.
Quite a leap.
I realize there are Apple fans who would defend Jobs' use of dead babies as heat sinks on G5's, but for the most part, even if this was Microsoft, I'd have to say this suit is just another in a long line of money grabs...
In the case of Apple, it would be stifling competition (Or Microsoft, Sun, IBM, HP, AOL, whatever...) This guy's looking to cash in on the success of another company. It's parasitic, childish, and it clogs the court system that is already full of garbage as it is...
That said... when someone uses the patent system as their personal checkbook, I get upset. It's a broken system, and no matter how you use/abuse it, the Patent system needs fixing.
And this guy needs to get over his delusion and take a lesson from TigerDirect on matters such as this.
Nope. They haven't spent millions getting exclusive contracts that short out other competitors... they haven't leveraged their market share to silence any alternative outlets for music (like Microsoft did with OEM deals not allowing any other OS to show up on a PC)...
Sorry, but it's NOT a monopoly.
Hate to break it to you... read up on Microsoft's dealings and what they were convicted of.
They do NOT lock you into a player for music. They only allow music purchased at their store to be used on the iPod.
I can't buy music at Rhapsody, Napster, MSN Music, or any OTHER store. I am locked out.... does that make them monopolies?
Get a grip.
Easy. None of those things bother me.
Remember: YMMV.
What's good for me might not be good for you.
I won't bother going into detail about the list you made, because you're nitpicking. I could make an equally long list of XP annoyances. Nothing's perfect for everyone. (Some of the things on the list just require a little more reading of the help files to solve, but you have made up your mind.) That's fine. Whatever makes you happy.
Like the rest of this thread said. Go back to Windows. You prefer it anyway. However, if you overlook the flaws in XP's UI and not OS X, you're nothing but a hypocrite and Windows Fanboy.
And before you fire off a wonderfully articulate "Mac Fanboy"... let me say again: OS X isn't perfect. I like it better than XP by a mile. And one more time for the cheap seats: YMMV.
Then don't listen to them. Try it for yourself. (if you haven't already...) I despise most Mac zealots, but I own a Mac. It's not their preaching that made me try the platform. And their elitism is not why I decided OS X was superior to Windows for my purposes.
I just went to the store and tried OS X. I liked it. I got myself a "previous generation" Powermac and it's been fun ever since.
But I don't listen to Mac Zealots, Linux Zealots, or Windows Zealots.
I don't mind the architecture switch. I can understand the position they were in. I support the decision. I don't care what's inside. It's the OS that I want....
I thought so myself, until I spent 1 month with a Mac (OS X) and didn't "fall back" to Windows. (I had to wait a month, because when I bought my Mac, it still was OS 9 only with a coupon for OS X 10.0.4.) I forget the version, but it was very early on in the OS X life cycle. It was weird at first, and I spent a fair amount of time in OS 9 (Apps were coming, but slowly...), but I loved OS X (and still do.)
I prefer Mac's UI now to anything Microsoft can pump out. Simple as it is, with its flaws (far fewer than XP, I might add), OS X is a better UI. To top it off, it's based on a Unix core, which beats the bloody pants off that so-called "command prompt" that XP has.
I can't speak for anyone else, and as always YMMV. The only thing that MS has put into their desktop is crust.
I recommend abandoning XP for 1 - 3 months and only use OS X. That way you can keep the 'old' habits at bay long enough to appreciate the differences between OS X and XP.
Easy.
Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic practices. Apple has not.
OR it could just be that retards can't keep from clicking on stuff and giving everyone in their address book a virus.
.mac.... that's where I send my personal email...
:)
They don't usually block
And per most company policies (unless you work for some barbarian horde), as long as it doesn't interfere with regular business work, a little personal stuff now and again is okay.
My guess is the Intel-developed EFI (or whatever it's called) that looks a lot like OpenFirmware... ...but I've been so wrong about all this in the last few days, I don't even believe myself anymore :) heheheh.