ISTM you need a moon in a non-geosynchronous orbit for tides like we have, so saying the moon is not responsible for the tides is like saying your mugger's muscles and not his fist are responsible for your black eye.:P
So the earth's mantle only flows because of the moon as well?
The United States' founding stands out as a rather large and violent example...
A more recent, and much more violent, example is China. Both mainland China and Taiwan were much more violent than what happened in all of the Americas. Up until the Chinese revolution there was no united China as there is today. Instead there were different independent nations. For instance Tibet, Tibet was an independent nation that had a defense agreement with the Chinese. As for Taiwan, when the Chinese Nationalist invaded the island of Formosa some 2 million Chinese subjugated 20 million Formosans. Formosans had their own Holocaust, 28 February 1947 wherein many thousands were massacred by Chiang's Kuomintang, KMT.
No, let's send the environmentalists to the far side of the moon,
You mean those environmentalists don't you? Some of us environmentalists believe having colonies and mining operations on the moon could help the environment here on earth.
Mass and volume energy density are important characteristics of fuel... and petrochemicals win that battle by quite a fair margin to all other fuels that are safe enough to be used in common vehicles.
This may be true now however research may lead to a breakthrough. A problem I see is between crops for fuel and crops for food, however using algae to produce hydrogen could alleviate this.
Whittington is by and large using this as an excuse to trot out hoary old libertarian-crank* nonsense about how environmentalists are all anti-technology luddites who won't be happy unless we return to the Dark Ages.
I was going to get into this statement about how environmentalists are luddites but rereading Whittington see where he says: "One can be forgiven for suspecting that the true motives of environmentalists, whether they oppose mining the Moon, drilling for oil in Alaska, or building wind farms off Nantucket, involve less a love for the environment and more a hostility for technology itself." I am an environmentalist and while I oppose drilling in ANWR, I support wind farms in Nantucket and could support mining the moon. If it were economically and scientifically feasible I'd actually say mining the moon could help the earth environmentally. Instead of destroying the Amazon or Congo mine the moon where there is no life. Also mining the moon would mean colonies would have to be established on the moon which could reduce the strain on the resources on earth. Not much at first but more and more as more people move into space.
The moon is responsible for the Earth's tides. The sloshing back and forth of the oceans not only keeps a variety of tidal pool environments operational, it is responsible for introducing a significant quantity of oxygen and minerals into the water. This helps keep the fish and plankton alive.
While the moon exerts an influence on the tides it IS NOT responsible for the tides. The earth's rotation responsible.
Ya, I gotta say that as much as I support the environment here on earth, I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't mine the moon....
Actually mining the moon would be better for the environment on earth. Instead of creating strip mines and polluting rivers on earth, mine the moon where there is no life.
As an example, the phrase "Space Tourism" always makes me wince, considering that we have no infrastructure to gather energy from space yet and we're running low on non-renewable energy on a global scale. I'd hate to see that sort of attitude govern how we handle using the Moon's resources.
What about renewable energy sources? Richard Branson of Virgin, Atlantic and Galactic, is backing research into using ethanol which is renewable as a fuel source for his jets.
I doubt that the ridiculous cost of space travel will ever fall enough to make it worthwhile, but in case that happens, the lunar environmentalists will be there to file EPA complaints against anyone trying to make the moon economically productive.
I disagree with the first statement, I believe space travel will fall in price. But I agree about "lunar environmentalists".
If you looked at the sky through a telescope and saw a tiny robot mining plant there, mining the moon for energy resources, would you be filled with a sense of wonder and pride about the ingenuity and courage of your fellow man, or with forbidding and dread that the moon was being raped?
I'd love to have a powerful enough telescope for this, and would also love to see buildings and civilization when I look through the 'scope.
did you ever consider the strict health screenings insurance companies insist upon when not joining group plans?
Yes I have, because of an injury I survived, a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I have been denied health insurance. However if there were real competition in health insurance coverage more policies would be offered allowing people to shop for the coverage they are willing to pay for. In my case I would have been able to get coverage for health issues that weren't related to my TBI.
It can be controlled easily with the most basic medication and basic biannual testing, but nobody will insure me for less than double or triple the cost of your average health plan.
Because there is no competition you are being asked to pay more. I wasn't even given that possibility. When I finally did get insurance it was only because the state I live in has health insurance coverage for those who are denied it from health insurance companies. The state requires all health insurance companies to pay into a fund which then is used as a basis for insurance. Those covered still have to pay but at least they can get health insurance.
There are millions of americans like this, and they will be outright out of luck in the current environment.
Yes millions are out of luck when it comes to health insurance. And that is because there is little competition for the coverage. Increase competition and more could get health insurance. Much like competition has driven down the costs of personal computers competition in health insurance will also drive down costs.
Oh, also drug costs also inflate health care costs. By reducing the patent terms, the length of patents, drug costs will also be lower as generic makers can bring to market generics sooner. And pharmaceutical companies can't say they need long patents to justify research into new drugs. These companies don't do or pay for all the drugs that are created and approved by the FDA. An excellent example of this is Taxol a drug used in cancer treatment. The National cancer Institute, NCI, part of the National Health Institutes and paid for by taxpayers, spent $183 million dollars to develop and test Taxol. Once tested the NCI sold all of the rights to all of the data needed for FDA approval to Bristol Myers Squibb, BMS. BMS paid the NCI all of $43 million dollars, $140 million less than the NCI spent. And how much has BMS made off of Taxol? BMS paid the NCI in 1989 and by 2000 it's estimated BMS had sales of Taxol of $1 Billion a year. The US taxpayer that needs Taxol to treat cancer? They will spend thousands of dollar per treatment. Yet it only cost BMS, the last I read, under a dollar for 1 treatment. This is an insane profit for a drug the US taxpayers paid to develop then gave away. All BMS did was lower the cost of manufacturing Taxol.
In today's world it is not realistically possible to access healthcare without health insurance, and in a capitalist system any purely private industry will always leave a certain percent unserved.
This is not acceptable when dealing with the preservation of human life, just like it's not acceptable with basic infrastructure such as water or sewage.
Government regulation or outright takeover of these types of sectors is the only way to assure everyone with a sound enough mind to desire such services are able to obtain them.
Prove it. And it's not enough to say many can't afford insurance now, there is NO freemarket, competition, in health insurance. I'm not saying I oppose healthcare for those who can't afford health insurance, what I am saying is that i
I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. MS's "crimes", such as they are, are addressed by the courts.
All the judge did was agree to the terms Microsoft and Bush's Justice Department came up with. But only after MS had appealed the original judge's decision to breakup the company. No jury nor the judge had anything to do with the agreement other than rubber stamping it. I fyounhave evidence or proof this is wrong, share it.
MS's punishments are meted out by the courts.
It was the Bush admin that decided what would be in the agreement, not a judge.
That's the same attitude that causes a criminal to never be able to get a job again, and I think it is a pathological attitude.
It depends on the criminal. With only 5% of the world population the US has 25% of the prison population. And about half of those are in prison for non violent drug offenses. But that's beside the point. I would give even someone convicted of homicide, murder, a second chance. However MS has had more than one change. MS was only convicted after breaking a prior agreement. MS has also been convicted of patent infringements as well as other things. In other words Microsoft is a repeat offender.
If you believe it is impossible to rehabilitate a criminal
See above.
...which meant that the user wasn't buying a machine that could run windows, which was stepping on MS's toes, locking them out. However, that's no longer the case. With the new Intel CPU based line, the new Macs can run windows just fine.
Perhaps you missed it but I included links to software that allowed Windows to run on Macs, Microsoft even bought one of them. I knew people, mostly but not only artists, who only used Macs however some ran Windows in a virtual machine. Legally.
It's not "might" see hardware sales drop, they already saw it.
No, it is might. Apple prices are very high; that's what allows clones to get a foot in the door.
Not might, Apple already tried Mac clones, And they saw their sales decline by more than the Mac OS license cost. As for high Mac prices, have you even checked Mac prices the past 2 or 3 years? I have and they are no higher than Windows OEM PCs. It's one thing if you haven't checked prices lately but otherwise it's FUD lies. If you haven't try this, to go Apple's online store and pick out some Macs. Then visit Dell, HP, and others and configure PCs from them where the specs are close to the Macs' specs are. I bet you've find that in some cases Macs are cheaper and in others PCs are cheaper. I've done this 3 or 4 tymes so far this year, and posted the comparisons in posts on/.
What you say may be the truth, but it is misleading.
Windows isn't a hardware label, nor does Microsoft sell PC hardware
Having said I bought PC from Gateway and HP, I think it's pretty clear I didn't say or mean MS made them.
Furthermore, Apple buys their hardware from the same vendors as the other guys. They get their CPUs from Intel, their video cards from Nvidia and ATI, their HDDs from Seagate, etc.
i didn't say otherwise.
People insist their hardware is superior, when often it is the EXACT same hardware I'm buying from Newegg, but the Mac version is more expensive.
Yes, some of Apple's hardware is priced higher, such as RAM. Apple branded RAM is almost twice as much as what can be bought off the street. I got my MacBook Pro with 2GB, the standard amount as adding 2GB more raised the price $600 and I can get 2GB for $300. And I'm sure in a few months if I find out I need 2GB more I'll be able to get it for less, unless there's a shortage or something. But the simple fact is is I bought used Macs which lasted for years but the new PCs I bought had hardware problems in the first year. Maybe because of better quality control.
Let me also add why I think it is we have not, and are not going to, see OS X for non-Apple hardware: Steve's got a vision of providing everything, staying 100% in control, and as long as Steve is running the show, it's going to be done Steve's way. And Steve is running the show. That's my gut feeling after watching him for decades now.
True, Jobs has to have his own way. He even overrode The Woz, the other Steve, when it came to the Mac. Steve Wozniak was working on the Apple Lisa when Jobs decided he wanted to make the Macintosh. BTW I think it's kind of weird the only way to program the first Macs was by programming on the Lisa. There were no tools on Macs for programming it.
So, lets say that MS's toes are stepped on. So what can they do? Stop making OS X Office?
Many people only use MS Office, even Mac users though more are trying out OO.org. Having to install X11 would put off some people. I knew a bit about what I was doing so I installed Neo Office when I got my MacBook Pro, but how many even knows it exists? And yes, MS can stop releasing MS Office for Macs. MS has already threatened to do so. Back in the late '90s, bu then someone there suggested that Macs be used as a test bed. The Mac version could have new stuff added but if it failed, because it had such a small market share MS wouldn't loose much if anything.
and Windows Office runs under both boot camp and Parallels anyway
Both Bootcamp and Parallels require a licensed Windows installation. And the Windows ULA requires the more expensive version of Windows to run on Macs, at least in Parallels. Another option is to run Office in either WINE or CrossOver Mac. But how many know of either one?
Stop allowing Windows to run on Apple machines?
Yes, MS is afterall a convicted monopolist.
And finally, don't you think that by producing a competing OS in the first place, they're *already* stepping firmly on MS's toes?
No, the Mac OS only runs directly on Macs. It's only been since Apple switched to Intels that OS X, Tiger, was able to run on generic PCs, but only after hacking. And no Mac OS prior to the switch could run at all on an Intel, or AMD, based PC. However since at least the early 1990s Windows could be run on Macs, there was SoftPC, and Virtual PC which MS eventually bought, as well as other possibilities. With the switch to Intels MS stopped Virtual PC for Macs.
I think they might see some hardware sales dropoff, I think they'd make more money overall, and I think that's the point of it all anyway.
It's not "might" see hardware sales drop, they already saw it. Back in the mid '90s Apple did license OEMs to make Mac clones. However when Apple got smart and brought Steve Jobs back he took a look at the numbers and saw Apple was loosing money on licensing so he ended it. While Apple may be able to make it work now if OS X were able to be installed on any PC, with the myriad different hardware combination possibilities OS X can become just as unstable as Windows. And yes, they'd also be stepping on MS's toes and MS IS A CONVICTED MONOPOLIST, eve if the Bush admin didn't even slap them on the wrist.
Apple wouldn't have made a sale though yet they'd have to maintain the OS.
I dare bet most slashdot readers have at one time installed an OS just to check out the OS. How many other computer users ever do this?
The average slashdotter isn't the average computer user. Seeing as how people visit and read/. on their own it stands to good reason that they are more willing to try something new. The average computer user though just wants to have the computer run out of the box. Some may install games or specific apps but they don't expect to have to install the OS. I contend this is why Linux has a small market share in home computers, most OEMs and even small neighborhood computer shoppes didn't sell PCs with Linux preinstalled. Though more are doing so now, however they don't make it easy to find. I just tried Dell. Starting on the front page then choosing different categories of laptops and desktops it wasn't until using Dell's search input to search for "Linux" that I found a PC with Linux preinstalled.
I don't buy the whole "we don't want customers to experience broken OSX, so we won't let it run on generic hardware" rationale.
Will you buy the rational that if Apple were to release OS X so it ran on beige box PCs, Apple would be stepping on Microsoft's toes, and MS has shown what it will do to competitors? Or that Apple would see a drop in hardware sales?
Microsoft sucks so hard my vacuum cleaner ran out in the street and threw itself under the wheels of a passing semi in despair.
I had to wipe off the screen on my laptop when reading this, I involuntarily spit some of my drink. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro I got less than 3 months ago. With it I switched from Windows because I don't like Microsoft treating me like a criminal and spying on me.
I'm not very fond of iWork. It looks too simple compared to OOo and Office.
I haven't and don't plan on trying iWork. Unless and until MS stops treating it's users like criminals I will avoid MS products if I can. As for OO.org I wouldn't use it either as it requires X11. While I've installed X11, the only reason was so I could install HTTrack, I'd prefer to run native apps. For this reason I installed Neo Office instead.
Only if the 3rd party doesn't compete with Apple. Apple went out of their way to makes sure that 3rd party DVD burners didn't work on OSX.
Same goes with non-Airport Wifi cards.
I haven't heard of this before, do you have a reference? Also with Airport built into Macs, at least laptops, why would Apple block WiFi cards and why would anyone want to pay extra for one? I can see adding one after N is approved but that's some ways off. I got a Belkins WiFi router more than a year ago, and when I got my MacBook Pro less than 3 months ago I was online after unpacking it. Without going through any setup or anything. This surprised me because I thought when I setup the router I turned WiFi off. At the tyme I used a cable to hook it to my PC so I didn't need WiFi.
What I haven't heard explained is why then I can't just purchase a box of OS X and install it on my PC
Does Apple sale hardware? Yes. Would many people buy Mac hardware if they could install OS X on any PC? No. Apple has everything to loose by selling a version of OSX that can be installed on any PC. Apple basically found that out the hard way, they used to allow OEMs to make and sale Mac clones. However when Steve Jobs was brought back to the company he stopped it because Apple was loosing more from lost hardware sales that Apple was making from licensing the Mac OS.
What I find strange, but have become used to, is that "Trusted Computing" is one of the things that Microsoft really gets a lot of crap whenever Ballmer so much as daydreams about implementing it. But Apple actually already has the hardware in place and ready to go, and no-one so much as mentions it here.
I first heard about TPM on Macs at least a couple of years ago, and some were complaining about it here on/..
4GB of 667mhz FB-DIMM ECC memory for $839? You can get 4GB (2x2GB) of 667mhz FB-DIMM ECC memory for ~$260 at newegg [newegg.com]. I couldn't find 4x1GB to exactly match the Mac Pro, but 2x2GB should be more expensive than 4x1GB, and yet the 2x2GB from newegg is over $500 cheaper than the 4x1GB from the Apple Store. Why is Apple memory so much more expensive?
This is BS, Apple charging so much for ram. However Apple doesn't stop you from buying ram somewhere else and installing it. I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on less than 3 months ago with 2GB. Concerned it may not have enough RAM at different stores I asked different employees about adding more RAM. Each one said it's easy to add more, that Apple includes instructions on adding more RAM. I asked about voiding the warranty and was told that even if third party RAM was added the warranty was still good. I then checked the warranty online and it says the same thing. There is nothing to stop a person from buying RAM somewhere else and installing it in a Mac, which I will do if I find out I don't have enough.
Slashdot Mirror
ISTM you need a moon in a non-geosynchronous orbit for tides like we have, so saying the moon is not responsible for the tides is like saying your mugger's muscles and not his fist are responsible for your black eye. :P
So the earth's mantle only flows because of the moon as well?
FalconThe United States' founding stands out as a rather large and violent example...
A more recent, and much more violent, example is China. Both mainland China and Taiwan were much more violent than what happened in all of the Americas. Up until the Chinese revolution there was no united China as there is today. Instead there were different independent nations. For instance Tibet, Tibet was an independent nation that had a defense agreement with the Chinese. As for Taiwan, when the Chinese Nationalist invaded the island of Formosa some 2 million Chinese subjugated 20 million Formosans. Formosans had their own Holocaust, 28 February 1947 wherein many thousands were massacred by Chiang's Kuomintang, KMT.
FalconNo, let's send the environmentalists to the far side of the moon,
You mean those environmentalists don't you? Some of us environmentalists believe having colonies and mining operations on the moon could help the environment here on earth.
FalconMass and volume energy density are important characteristics of fuel... and petrochemicals win that battle by quite a fair margin to all other fuels that are safe enough to be used in common vehicles.
This may be true now however research may lead to a breakthrough. A problem I see is between crops for fuel and crops for food, however using algae to produce hydrogen could alleviate this.
FalconI got a kick out of that. At the same tyme though I see the Bush admin doing just such a thing.
FalconWhittington is by and large using this as an excuse to trot out hoary old libertarian-crank* nonsense about how environmentalists are all anti-technology luddites who won't be happy unless we return to the Dark Ages.
I was going to get into this statement about how environmentalists are luddites but rereading Whittington see where he says: "One can be forgiven for suspecting that the true motives of environmentalists, whether they oppose mining the Moon, drilling for oil in Alaska, or building wind farms off Nantucket, involve less a love for the environment and more a hostility for technology itself." I am an environmentalist and while I oppose drilling in ANWR, I support wind farms in Nantucket and could support mining the moon. If it were economically and scientifically feasible I'd actually say mining the moon could help the earth environmentally. Instead of destroying the Amazon or Congo mine the moon where there is no life. Also mining the moon would mean colonies would have to be established on the moon which could reduce the strain on the resources on earth. Not much at first but more and more as more people move into space.
FalconThe moon is responsible for the Earth's tides. The sloshing back and forth of the oceans not only keeps a variety of tidal pool environments operational, it is responsible for introducing a significant quantity of oxygen and minerals into the water. This helps keep the fish and plankton alive.
While the moon exerts an influence on the tides it IS NOT responsible for the tides. The earth's rotation responsible.
FslconYa, I gotta say that as much as I support the environment here on earth, I can't think of a single reason why we shouldn't mine the moon....
Actually mining the moon would be better for the environment on earth. Instead of creating strip mines and polluting rivers on earth, mine the moon where there is no life.
FalconAs an example, the phrase "Space Tourism" always makes me wince, considering that we have no infrastructure to gather energy from space yet and we're running low on non-renewable energy on a global scale. I'd hate to see that sort of attitude govern how we handle using the Moon's resources.
What about renewable energy sources? Richard Branson of Virgin, Atlantic and Galactic, is backing research into using ethanol which is renewable as a fuel source for his jets.
FalconI would be more amazed at the resolving power of my telescope if I could see a tiny robot mining on the moon.
So would I. With a telescope powerful enough to see a robot on the moon some amazing photos could be taken.
FalconI doubt that the ridiculous cost of space travel will ever fall enough to make it worthwhile, but in case that happens, the lunar environmentalists will be there to file EPA complaints against anyone trying to make the moon economically productive.
I disagree with the first statement, I believe space travel will fall in price. But I agree about "lunar environmentalists".
If you looked at the sky through a telescope and saw a tiny robot mining plant there, mining the moon for energy resources, would you be filled with a sense of wonder and pride about the ingenuity and courage of your fellow man, or with forbidding and dread that the moon was being raped?
I'd love to have a powerful enough telescope for this, and would also love to see buildings and civilization when I look through the 'scope.
Falcondid you ever consider the strict health screenings insurance companies insist upon when not joining group plans?
Yes I have, because of an injury I survived, a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, I have been denied health insurance. However if there were real competition in health insurance coverage more policies would be offered allowing people to shop for the coverage they are willing to pay for. In my case I would have been able to get coverage for health issues that weren't related to my TBI.
It can be controlled easily with the most basic medication and basic biannual testing, but nobody will insure me for less than double or triple the cost of your average health plan.
Because there is no competition you are being asked to pay more. I wasn't even given that possibility. When I finally did get insurance it was only because the state I live in has health insurance coverage for those who are denied it from health insurance companies. The state requires all health insurance companies to pay into a fund which then is used as a basis for insurance. Those covered still have to pay but at least they can get health insurance.
There are millions of americans like this, and they will be outright out of luck in the current environment.
Yes millions are out of luck when it comes to health insurance. And that is because there is little competition for the coverage. Increase competition and more could get health insurance. Much like competition has driven down the costs of personal computers competition in health insurance will also drive down costs.
Oh, also drug costs also inflate health care costs. By reducing the patent terms, the length of patents, drug costs will also be lower as generic makers can bring to market generics sooner. And pharmaceutical companies can't say they need long patents to justify research into new drugs. These companies don't do or pay for all the drugs that are created and approved by the FDA. An excellent example of this is Taxol a drug used in cancer treatment. The National cancer Institute, NCI, part of the National Health Institutes and paid for by taxpayers, spent $183 million dollars to develop and test Taxol. Once tested the NCI sold all of the rights to all of the data needed for FDA approval to Bristol Myers Squibb, BMS. BMS paid the NCI all of $43 million dollars, $140 million less than the NCI spent. And how much has BMS made off of Taxol? BMS paid the NCI in 1989 and by 2000 it's estimated BMS had sales of Taxol of $1 Billion a year. The US taxpayer that needs Taxol to treat cancer? They will spend thousands of dollar per treatment. Yet it only cost BMS, the last I read, under a dollar for 1 treatment. This is an insane profit for a drug the US taxpayers paid to develop then gave away. All BMS did was lower the cost of manufacturing Taxol.
In today's world it is not realistically possible to access healthcare without health insurance, and in a capitalist system any purely private industry will always leave a certain percent unserved.
This is not acceptable when dealing with the preservation of human life, just like it's not acceptable with basic infrastructure such as water or sewage.
Government regulation or outright takeover of these types of sectors is the only way to assure everyone with a sound enough mind to desire such services are able to obtain them.
Prove it. And it's not enough to say many can't afford insurance now, there is NO freemarket, competition, in health insurance. I'm not saying I oppose healthcare for those who can't afford health insurance, what I am saying is that i
I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. MS's "crimes", such as they are, are addressed by the courts.
All the judge did was agree to the terms Microsoft and Bush's Justice Department came up with. But only after MS had appealed the original judge's decision to breakup the company. No jury nor the judge had anything to do with the agreement other than rubber stamping it. I fyounhave evidence or proof this is wrong, share it.
MS's punishments are meted out by the courts.
It was the Bush admin that decided what would be in the agreement, not a judge.
That's the same attitude that causes a criminal to never be able to get a job again, and I think it is a pathological attitude.
It depends on the criminal. With only 5% of the world population the US has 25% of the prison population. And about half of those are in prison for non violent drug offenses. But that's beside the point. I would give even someone convicted of homicide, murder, a second chance. However MS has had more than one change. MS was only convicted after breaking a prior agreement. MS has also been convicted of patent infringements as well as other things. In other words Microsoft is a repeat offender.
If you believe it is impossible to rehabilitate a criminal
See above.
...which meant that the user wasn't buying a machine that could run windows, which was stepping on MS's toes, locking them out. However, that's no longer the case. With the new Intel CPU based line, the new Macs can run windows just fine.
Perhaps you missed it but I included links to software that allowed Windows to run on Macs, Microsoft even bought one of them. I knew people, mostly but not only artists, who only used Macs however some ran Windows in a virtual machine. Legally.
It's not "might" see hardware sales drop, they already saw it.
No, it is might. Apple prices are very high; that's what allows clones to get a foot in the door.
Not might, Apple already tried Mac clones, And they saw their sales decline by more than the Mac OS license cost. As for high Mac prices, have you even checked Mac prices the past 2 or 3 years? I have and they are no higher than Windows OEM PCs. It's one thing if you haven't checked prices lately but otherwise it's FUD lies. If you haven't try this, to go Apple's online store and pick out some Macs. Then visit Dell, HP, and others and configure PCs from them where the specs are close to the Macs' specs are. I bet you've find that in some cases Macs are cheaper and in others PCs are cheaper. I've done this 3 or 4 tymes so far this year, and posted the comparisons in posts on /.
FalconI found this link (with tutorial video) on how to replace the memory on your MacBook Pro.
A booklet I got with the Mac that Apple includes shows how to add RAM, installing it then making sure the Mac recognizes the RAM.
FalconWhat you say may be the truth, but it is misleading.
Windows isn't a hardware label, nor does Microsoft sell PC hardware
Having said I bought PC from Gateway and HP, I think it's pretty clear I didn't say or mean MS made them.
Furthermore, Apple buys their hardware from the same vendors as the other guys. They get their CPUs from Intel, their video cards from Nvidia and ATI, their HDDs from Seagate, etc.
i didn't say otherwise.
People insist their hardware is superior, when often it is the EXACT same hardware I'm buying from Newegg, but the Mac version is more expensive.
Yes, some of Apple's hardware is priced higher, such as RAM. Apple branded RAM is almost twice as much as what can be bought off the street. I got my MacBook Pro with 2GB, the standard amount as adding 2GB more raised the price $600 and I can get 2GB for $300. And I'm sure in a few months if I find out I need 2GB more I'll be able to get it for less, unless there's a shortage or something. But the simple fact is is I bought used Macs which lasted for years but the new PCs I bought had hardware problems in the first year. Maybe because of better quality control.
FalconLet me also add why I think it is we have not, and are not going to, see OS X for non-Apple hardware: Steve's got a vision of providing everything, staying 100% in control, and as long as Steve is running the show, it's going to be done Steve's way. And Steve is running the show. That's my gut feeling after watching him for decades now.
True, Jobs has to have his own way. He even overrode The Woz, the other Steve, when it came to the Mac. Steve Wozniak was working on the Apple Lisa when Jobs decided he wanted to make the Macintosh. BTW I think it's kind of weird the only way to program the first Macs was by programming on the Lisa. There were no tools on Macs for programming it.
FalconSo, lets say that MS's toes are stepped on. So what can they do? Stop making OS X Office?
Many people only use MS Office, even Mac users though more are trying out OO.org. Having to install X11 would put off some people. I knew a bit about what I was doing so I installed Neo Office when I got my MacBook Pro, but how many even knows it exists? And yes, MS can stop releasing MS Office for Macs. MS has already threatened to do so. Back in the late '90s, bu then someone there suggested that Macs be used as a test bed. The Mac version could have new stuff added but if it failed, because it had such a small market share MS wouldn't loose much if anything.
and Windows Office runs under both boot camp and Parallels anyway
Both Bootcamp and Parallels require a licensed Windows installation. And the Windows ULA requires the more expensive version of Windows to run on Macs, at least in Parallels. Another option is to run Office in either WINE or CrossOver Mac. But how many know of either one?
Stop allowing Windows to run on Apple machines?
Yes, MS is afterall a convicted monopolist.
And finally, don't you think that by producing a competing OS in the first place, they're *already* stepping firmly on MS's toes?
No, the Mac OS only runs directly on Macs. It's only been since Apple switched to Intels that OS X, Tiger, was able to run on generic PCs, but only after hacking. And no Mac OS prior to the switch could run at all on an Intel, or AMD, based PC. However since at least the early 1990s Windows could be run on Macs, there was SoftPC, and Virtual PC which MS eventually bought, as well as other possibilities. With the switch to Intels MS stopped Virtual PC for Macs.
I think they might see some hardware sales dropoff, I think they'd make more money overall, and I think that's the point of it all anyway.
It's not "might" see hardware sales drop, they already saw it. Back in the mid '90s Apple did license OEMs to make Mac clones. However when Apple got smart and brought Steve Jobs back he took a look at the numbers and saw Apple was loosing money on licensing so he ended it. While Apple may be able to make it work now if OS X were able to be installed on any PC, with the myriad different hardware combination possibilities OS X can become just as unstable as Windows. And yes, they'd also be stepping on MS's toes and MS IS A CONVICTED MONOPOLIST, eve if the Bush admin didn't even slap them on the wrist.
FalconApple wouldn't have made a sale though yet they'd have to maintain the OS.
I dare bet most slashdot readers have at one time installed an OS just to check out the OS. How many other computer users ever do this?
The average slashdotter isn't the average computer user. Seeing as how people visit and read /. on their own it stands to good reason that they are more willing to try something new. The average computer user though just wants to have the computer run out of the box. Some may install games or specific apps but they don't expect to have to install the OS. I contend this is why Linux has a small market share in home computers, most OEMs and even small neighborhood computer shoppes didn't sell PCs with Linux preinstalled. Though more are doing so now, however they don't make it easy to find. I just tried Dell. Starting on the front page then choosing different categories of laptops and desktops it wasn't until using Dell's search input to search for "Linux" that I found a PC with Linux preinstalled.
FalconI don't buy the whole "we don't want customers to experience broken OSX, so we won't let it run on generic hardware" rationale.
Will you buy the rational that if Apple were to release OS X so it ran on beige box PCs, Apple would be stepping on Microsoft's toes, and MS has shown what it will do to competitors? Or that Apple would see a drop in hardware sales?
Microsoft sucks so hard my vacuum cleaner ran out in the street and threw itself under the wheels of a passing semi in despair.
I had to wipe off the screen on my laptop when reading this, I involuntarily spit some of my drink. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro I got less than 3 months ago. With it I switched from Windows because I don't like Microsoft treating me like a criminal and spying on me.
FalconI'm not very fond of iWork. It looks too simple compared to OOo and Office.
I haven't and don't plan on trying iWork. Unless and until MS stops treating it's users like criminals I will avoid MS products if I can. As for OO.org I wouldn't use it either as it requires X11. While I've installed X11, the only reason was so I could install HTTrack, I'd prefer to run native apps. For this reason I installed Neo Office instead.
FalconOnly if the 3rd party doesn't compete with Apple. Apple went out of their way to makes sure that 3rd party DVD burners didn't work on OSX.
Same goes with non-Airport Wifi cards.
I haven't heard of this before, do you have a reference? Also with Airport built into Macs, at least laptops, why would Apple block WiFi cards and why would anyone want to pay extra for one? I can see adding one after N is approved but that's some ways off. I got a Belkins WiFi router more than a year ago, and when I got my MacBook Pro less than 3 months ago I was online after unpacking it. Without going through any setup or anything. This surprised me because I thought when I setup the router I turned WiFi off. At the tyme I used a cable to hook it to my PC so I didn't need WiFi.
FalconWhat I haven't heard explained is why then I can't just purchase a box of OS X and install it on my PC
Does Apple sale hardware? Yes. Would many people buy Mac hardware if they could install OS X on any PC? No. Apple has everything to loose by selling a version of OSX that can be installed on any PC. Apple basically found that out the hard way, they used to allow OEMs to make and sale Mac clones. However when Steve Jobs was brought back to the company he stopped it because Apple was loosing more from lost hardware sales that Apple was making from licensing the Mac OS.
FalconWhat I find strange, but have become used to, is that "Trusted Computing" is one of the things that Microsoft really gets a lot of crap whenever Ballmer so much as daydreams about implementing it. But Apple actually already has the hardware in place and ready to go, and no-one so much as mentions it here.
I first heard about TPM on Macs at least a couple of years ago, and some were complaining about it here on /..
Fslcon4GB of 667mhz FB-DIMM ECC memory for $839? You can get 4GB (2x2GB) of 667mhz FB-DIMM ECC memory for ~$260 at newegg [newegg.com]. I couldn't find 4x1GB to exactly match the Mac Pro, but 2x2GB should be more expensive than 4x1GB, and yet the 2x2GB from newegg is over $500 cheaper than the 4x1GB from the Apple Store. Why is Apple memory so much more expensive?
This is BS, Apple charging so much for ram. However Apple doesn't stop you from buying ram somewhere else and installing it. I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on less than 3 months ago with 2GB. Concerned it may not have enough RAM at different stores I asked different employees about adding more RAM. Each one said it's easy to add more, that Apple includes instructions on adding more RAM. I asked about voiding the warranty and was told that even if third party RAM was added the warranty was still good. I then checked the warranty online and it says the same thing. There is nothing to stop a person from buying RAM somewhere else and installing it in a Mac, which I will do if I find out I don't have enough.
Falconmachine?
Because Apple sales both software AND hardware.
Falcon